
Australia May Be the World’s Most Secretive Democracy - rfreytag
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/world/australia/journalist-raids.html
======
NamTaf
These raids have been highly condemned amongst the public here, and (at least
my echo-chamber of) people seem to be pretty wholly against it.

Of course, we're also an apathetic people because we've had it so good for so
long that no one will force any change, and it'll just keep getting worse.

It's also seen in our elections. There's no big visions. No bold statements
from politicians about producing changes to make a better society. It's all
attack ads and pandering to key demographics just to win votes and stay in
government.

It's depressing and dire, because I don't see it changing in much of my
lifetime and it's the exact reason why our leaders are completely dismissive
of action even when we stare down the barrel towards issues like climate
change. Hell, our current PM literally brought a lump of coal into parliament
as a prop to taunt the opposition by saying "this is coal, don't be afraid".

edit: Another great example of the apathy I'm talking about is the collective
shrug that most Aussies gave as incredibly intrusive anti-encryption and data-
logging laws were introduced last year. Simply, no one cares unless it
immediately and directly interrupts their middle-class suburban lifestyle.

~~~
iliketosleep
I am curious about why you think climate change is an important issue in
Australia. It's a relatively small country, without much of a manufacturing
industry.

~~~
sjy
Australia is a globally influential country with high per capita wealth and
emissions. Australia has the capacity to show leadership to other similarly-
sized countries, by incrementally addressing (potentially at economic cost to
itself, a wealthy country) a global challenge for which everyone is
responsible, regardless of the size of the country they live in.

~~~
iliketosleep
Perhaps if Australia pulled it off successfully without too much economic
damage, this could be true. But from what I've heard, the states that adopted
green policies suffered power shortages and soaring energy prices. Hopefully
in the future this will change.

~~~
spacehunt
If you are talking about the blackout event in South Australia back in 2016,
it was due to misconfigured wind farms:

[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-28/wind-farm-settings-
to...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-28/wind-farm-settings-to-blame-for-
sa-blackout-aemo-says/8389920)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout)

Soaring energy prices are because of privatisation, not because of green
policies.

------
vermilingua
“You’ve got a mature liberal democracy that pursues and hunts down whistle-
blowers and tries to kill the messenger.”

Have we considered the possibility that this _is_ what a mature liberal
democracy looks like? Peak democracy was WWII, we seem to have been sliding
towards authoritarianism since then.

~~~
Angostura
Really sliding to authoritarianism since then?

Until 1968, every new play in Britain required a licence from the Lord
Chamberlain's Office before it could be publicly performed. There was no
legislation attached to this, so the Lord Chamberlain could censor as he
chose.

Can you imagine introducing such a rule today? How about applying for a
license before launching a website?

~~~
SomeOldThrow
Aside from the absurdity of having a lord make any decisions, I think much of
the population—maybe not a majority, but a significant part of the
population—would be fine with that if presented as opposing or “preventing”
terrorism (as if that’s even possible).

------
degenerate
Australia is a member of the "Five Eyes":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement)

From what I understand, Australia, Canada, NZ, UK, and USA intelligence
agencies can all spy on each others' citizens legally and share the
information with each other. That's not the intent of the agreement, but
allows a loophole where the countries can spy on their own citizens by proxy.
Correct?

~~~
JoeSmithson
Five Eyes nations basically agree to _not_ spy on each other's citizens and
instead (potentially) agree to accept targets suggested by each other, and
then feed back the resulting intelligence.

The text of the original agreement was released to the public recently but
annoyingly you have to pay for it. This article[0] has an overview though;

> The two nations – linked by common bonds of history, culture and language –
> agreed not to collect intelligence against each other

Consider also the quote at the end of this article[1]:

> France wouldn't be welcome in the "Five Eyes" alliance in any case, a former
> top US official told SPIEGEL ONLINE: "Germany joining would be a
> possibility, but not France -- France itself spies on the US far too
> aggressively for that."

i.e. it is a prerequisite of joining the agreement that you stop any spying on
other members' citizens.

Basically, if you are American, then only the FBI (or DEA or whatever) can
intercept your phone calls, and they can only do this with a warrant from an
American court, they may however, get this warrant based on intelligence
supplied by ASIS, (in a way) at Australia's "request".

The main point is, Five Eyes is _not_ a mechanism for those countries to side
step their own internal legal requirements for surveillance - it is
essentially the opposite.

[0]
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/25/intelligence-d...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/25/intelligence-
deal-uk-us-released)

[1] [https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/germany-
impedes-...](https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/germany-impedes-eu-
privacy-efforts-despite-outrage-at-nsa-spying-a-930488.html)

~~~
frickinLasers
This is an interpretation I haven't seen before, so thanks for broadening my
understanding. But the intent of the agreement doesn't appear to agree with
some of the ways we know it's been used, especially since 2007 and between the
UK and US.

US offers the UK information on its own citizens:
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-
secret-d...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-deal-
surveillance-personal-data)

Pre-2007: [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/10/nsa-
offers-...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/10/nsa-offers-
intelligence-british-counterparts-blunkett)

UK taps undersea cable to listen to US-UK communications (not sure whose
laws/sovereignty are _not_ being violated here):
[http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/uk-usa-security-
bri...](http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/uk-usa-security-britain-
idUKBRE95K10620130621)

Edit: On topic with the OP, though, Australia happily spies and divulges
information on its own innocent citizens:
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/revealed-
austr...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/revealed-australian-
spy-agency-offered-to-share-data-about-ordinary-citizens)

~~~
JoeSmithson
I don't think anything you've linked to provides evidence of either UK or USA
using each other to skirt domestic law...?

------
sammorrowdrums
I really feel the loss of moral authority is much bigger risk than it seems.

It creates the perfect propaganda for enemies when you criticize what they do
and it's hard to see it perpetuating anything but a race to the bottom.

~~~
rchaud
The usual targets of the Australian government's finger-wagging are far past
the point of caring. Maybe that's a sign that Australia can implement more of
a "show, not tell" model when they talk up their implementation of democracy.

The country's mining and minerals sector is heavily dependent on exports to
China, while its real estate sector would wouldn't be nearly as rich as it is
without foreign capital from Asia's 1%, many of whom are involved in political
parties the Australian government routinely excoriates.

This has been the case for a long time; it's only now that it's all out in the
open.

------
robkop
I hate what is happening here but I'm not sure what can be done about it. It
seems that security/ whistleblowers etc will always have a lower importance
than the major campaign issues of the day.

And because of this it seems like no party should ever be bothered to push for
what's in the voters best interests on these topics. Instead it only makes
sense for politicians to push for what is personally best for them in these
cases.

I'm not sure what the solution to this is or even if I fully understand the
problem but this appears fundamentally wrong to me.

~~~
marcus_holmes
Because the last election was won "miraculously" by the party deliberately
having a policy of not having a policy on anything, I think the next couple of
decades will see more of the same. All the parties will stop publishing any
kind of policy details, and it'll be fought on personalities and "how good is
security?".

We're basically waiting for the boomers to die off at this point, before being
able to fix the shit they left behind.

~~~
twanvl
> We're basically waiting for the boomers to die off at this point, before
> being able to fix the shit they left behind.

Where does idea that all problems in modern society are the fault of the baby
boomers come from? We are talking about a very diverse group of people, with
very diverse sets of ideas, as are the generations after them.

~~~
maxxxxx
I think the baby boomer generation did a lot of damage by eroding social
systems and piling up deficits. But the question is whether whoever follows
will do any better.

------
dontbenebby
Sadly it's not surprising to me that a culture that prides itself on cutting
down "tall poppies" pushes back against whistleblowers.

I am more and more convinced each day that the true stuggle of our order is
that of freedom versus order, not any particular ideology.

Those who favor order inevitably feel it's reasonable to cut back on freedoms
to increase order, and don't seem to be able to acknowledge that a truly free
society cannot be risk free.

------
chris_wot
Now hold on a moment. They are saying that _The Daily Telegraph_ lost a
defamation suit because they can be easily sued... that is not exactly true.
The issue here is that a News Limited publication - one with a reputation for
smearing people, inaccuracy, bias and essentially a political mouthpiece of
the conservative LNP - was not able to substantiate the claims made in their
story.

Everything else is pretty spot on, unfortunately.

~~~
sjy
Regardless of whether you agree with the outcome in that case, Australia's
defamation laws are more plaintiff-friendly than those of countries like the
US and UK, and have been subject to criticism for years [1], independent of
the more recent debate over national security laws.

[1] [https://theconversation.com/social-media-and-defamation-
law-...](https://theconversation.com/social-media-and-defamation-law-pose-
threats-to-free-speech-and-its-time-for-reform-64864)

[2] [https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-s-defamation-
laws-...](https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-s-defamation-laws-are-
ripe-for-overhaul-20181207-p50kwk.html)

------
marsRoverDev
I have seen rusted on voters from both sides of the aisle condemning this. The
government's mistake was raiding a News Corp journo - they have absolutely no-
one on side on this issue now.

------
hirundo
> Democracies from the United States to the Philippines are increasingly
> targeting journalists to ferret out leaks, silence critics and punish
> information sharing — with President Trump leading the verbal charge by
> calling journalists “the enemy of the people.”

It's interesting that they felt the need to qualify this as Trump leading the
_verbal_ charge. But there's quite a distance between insulting and
prosecuting journalists.

Trump's worse sin in this area isn't throwing around charges of fake news, but
advocating for lower standards of proof in slander and libel cases. Hopefully
Congress will never send him such a bill to sign. In my opinion another such
demerit comes from this administration's continuing of the last's pursuit of
Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning.

What other suppression of journalism by this administration am I missing?

The Obama administration had some worse black marks in this area with his use
of the Espionage Act to prosecute Thomas Drake, Shamai Leibowitz, Stephen Kim,
Chelsea Manning, Donald Sachtleben, Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou and Edward
Snowden.

I think Rand Paul would have been more pro free-speech on this issue, but who
in the current crop of candidates could be relied upon to keep their mitts off
the press?

------
satori99

        "But even among its peers, Australia stands out. 
        No other developed democracy holds as tight to its
        secrets, experts say"
    

Except when a government employee sells used government furniture to a 2nd
hand dealer -- including filing cabinets full of cabinet-level documents
pertaining to national security deliberations by the highest members of
government.

[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-01/asio-takes-custody-
of...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-01/asio-takes-custody-of-cabinet-
documents/9386328)

------
dontbenebby
The article says it's illegal for a government official to share info without
a supervisor's permission... but is there a law saying _publishing_ classified
info is illegal?

In the states, we make that distinction.

~~~
yitchelle
What would be difference between sharing and publishing, from a legal
perspective?

~~~
dontbenebby
I think usually the idea is you prosecute the person who steals the
information, but if they pass it to another person who publishes, that person
can't be prosecuted.

If the same person stole and published I'd expect they could still be
prosecuted.

But others resharing it, (eg if someone posted a pastebin and others shared)
would not.

------
MaxBarraclough
> No other developed democracy holds as tight to its secrets, experts say

 _Some_ , perhaps, but it's clearly not universal. These guys [0] rank
Australia equal to the UK, right between the ratings of the USA and Canada.

[0]
[http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/opengov/](http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/opengov/)

(I'm not sure if it count as ironic that they don't support HTTPS.)

------
senectus1
Democracy, like security, is a process not a state.

We'll sort these bastards out.. it'll just take time.

------
thewileyone
You can detained and held for days without any charge and then released with
the stipulation of that if you talk about your detainment, you'll be arrested
for violating state secrets.

Watch "Secret City" ... it's fucking nuts!

------
soraminazuki
This article mentions Australia as a "mature liberal democracy," but
everything else written here seems to flat-out contradict that statement. Did
Australia use to be more liberal and democratic in the past?

------
surge
I didn't realize Secret City was mostly social/political commentary.

~~~
ianhowson
Like House of Cards, it was intended as fiction but rapidly became difficult
to differentiate from reality.

See also: Pine Gap

------
ptah
quite interesting: [https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-
freedoms/...](https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/how-
are-human-rights-protected-australian-law)

------
NedIsakoff
I've always said that freedom (liberalism) and democracy is actually
unnatural. People do not want freedom and democracy, they want
authoritarianism that favor their point of view or agenda. The problem is that
we have different points of view or agendas.

Example: Look at New Zealand after the mass mosque shooting. People support
the actions taking which include banning owning or reading the guy's
manifesto. Owning it means up to 10 years in jail and/or up to $50,000 in
fines.

~~~
i386
The big difference between those point of views is that one is about letting
people live safely within secular society and the other is the violent murder
of the other.

They are not morally equivalent positions. Stop treating them that way.

~~~
homonculus1
I don't think your parent was making any such moral equivocation.
Authoritarianism aligned with $my_ideology is a terrible thing, but it does
seem like a fair number people would actually be most comfortable with that
and liberal democracy is just a token, socially acceptable icon. They may not
even realize that if they had their way on every issue it would amount to an
authoritarian regime.

To put it differently, how many people are actually championing individual
rights for every issue?

~~~
NedIsakoff
"Authoritarianism aligned with $my_ideology is a terrible thing, but it does
seem like a fair number people would actually be most comfortable with that
and liberal democracy is just a token, socially acceptable icon." \-- This is
expressing my ideas better then what I wrote. Although from their point of
view it may not be terrible.

