   A new Bill would require telecommunications service providers to store
   so-called ‘metadat

   A new Bill would require telecommunications service providers to store
   so-called ‘metadata’ for two years. Source: Supplied

   A HIGH-powered federal government team has been doing the rounds of media
   organisations in the past few days in an attempt to allay concerns about
   the impact of new surveillance legislation on press freedom. It failed.

   The roadshow featured the Prime Minister’s national security adviser,
   Andrew Shearer, Justin Bassi, who advises Attorney-General George Brandis
   on crime and security matters, and Australian Federal Police Commissioner
   Andrew Colvin. Staffers from the office of Communications Minister Malcolm
   Turnbull also took part.

   They held meetings with executives from News Corporation and Fairfax,
   representatives of the TV networks, the ABC top brass and a group from the
   media union and the Walkley journalism foundation. I was involved as a
   member of the Walkley board.

   The initiative, from Tony Abbott’s office, is evidence that the Government
   has been alarmed by the strength of criticism from media of the Data
   Retention Bill it wants passed before Parliament rises in a fortnight.
   Bosses, journalists, even the Press Council, are up in arms, not only over
   this measure, but also over aspects of two earlier pieces of national
   security legislation that interfere with the ability of the media to hold
   government to account.

   The Bill would require telecommunications service providers to store
   so-called “metadata” — the who, where, when and how of a communication,
   but not its content — for two years so security and law enforcement
   agencies can access it without warrant. Few would argue against the use of
   such material to catch criminals or terrorists. But, as Parliament’s Joint
   Committee on Intelligence and Security has pointed out, it would also be
   used “for the purpose of determining the identity of a journalist’s
   sources”.

   And that should ring warning bells for anyone genuinely concerned with the
   health of our democracy. Without the ability to protect the identity of
   sources, journalists would be greatly handicapped in exposing corruption,
   dishonesty, waste, incompetence and misbehaviour by public officials.

   The Press Council is concerned the laws would crush investigative
   journalism.

   “These legitimate concerns cannot be addressed effectively short of
   exempting journalists and media organisations,” says president David
   Weisbrot.

   The media union is adamant journalists’ metadata must be exempted from the
   law. That’s what media bosses want, too, though they have a fallback
   position based on new safeguards being implemented in Britain.

   That would prevent access to the metadata of journalists or media
   organisations without a judicial warrant. There would be a code including
   — according to the explanatory notes of the British Bill — “provision to
   protect the public interest in the confidentiality of journalistic
   sources”.

   In their meetings this week, the government team boasted of concessions in
   the new Data Retention Bill. The number of agencies able to access
   metadata will be reduced by excluding such organisations as the RSPCA and
   local councils. And whenever an authorisation is issued for access to
   information about a journalist’s sources, the Ombudsman (or, where ASIO is
   involved, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security) will receive
   a copy.

   That does nothing to solve the problem. The Government has effectively
   admitted as much by agreeing that the parliamentary committee should
   conduct a separate review of how to deal with the issue of journalists’
   sources.

   But another inquiry would be a waste of time — the committee has already
   received and considered dozens of submissions on the subject. The bottom
   line is that the Government does not deny that the legislation is flawed,
   but is demanding it be passed anyway with the possibility left open of a
   repair job down the track. That is a ridiculous approach.

   Claims that immediate action is imperative do not stand up. These are
   measures that won’t come into full effect for two years. Anyway, amending
   the Bill to either exempt journalists or adopt the UK model could be done
   quickly, without any risk to national security.

   AS Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said in a letter to Abbott last month:
   “Press freedom concerns about mandatory data retention would ideally be
   addressed in this Bill to avoid the need for future additional amendments
   or procedures to be put in place in the future.”

   The Data Retention Bill will be debated in the House of Representatives
   this week. Then, on Friday, CEOs from leading media organisations will
   front the parliamentary committee to air their concerns before the
   legislation goes to the Senate.

   Those CEOs should make it clear they are just as angry about this as they
   were about Stephen Conroy’s attempt to impinge on press freedom through
   media regulation under the previous Labor government.

   Memories of the grief Conroy brought down on his head would undoubtedly
   make Abbott sit up and take notice.

   LAURIE OAKES IS THE NINE NETWORK POLITICAL EDITOR
