9 ms·

Australia bans reporting of multi-nation corruption case

420 points by abritishguy 12y ago

danieltillett 12y ago
I wish wikileaks would leak Gillian Bird's affidavit - this must be pretty juicy.
- malbs 12y ago
  I hope they don't, the whole point of the ban is to ensure an untainted jury. The details will be released once the case has been heard.
  - danieltillett 12y ago
    Nobody reading wikileaks is ever going to serve on a jury.
    - baddox 12y ago
      What makes you think that?
      - danieltillett 12y ago
        If you have ever had the “pleasure” of being called up for jury duty then you will quickly see that anyone thought to have more than half a brain still functioning is excluded. I have been called up several times and been thrown off as soon as my title was noted (not that having a Ph.D means you have half a functioning brain).
        chaqke 12y ago
        Addendum to the why: - If you lean towards one side, the other side is incentivized to dismiss you. - If you're in a case with lawyers, both sides actually want jurors that they can influence, rather than jurors that will come to their own, unexpected, uncontrollable conclusions. That would be a dangerous wildcard.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - beedogs 12y ago
      [citation needed]
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - sitkack 12y ago
      I have been a registered voter for 20 years and only called to jury duty once, and that one I missed because I didn't open the envelope. My only hope is that I could keep my goddamn mouth shut long enough to actually get on one.
      - danieltillett 12y ago
        You are lucky. The whole process is incredible inefficient and wasteful of the potential jurors time - call in 100 people and make them sit around all day in the court house just so you can dismiss them all because the defence lawyer wants to play games. Shakespeare was on to something I think.
        thret 12y ago
        That was my experience the one time I got called in for jury duty. I was very curious about the process and disappointed when I missed the final cut. I did got into the court room, and had a look at the defendant, heard the charges... I was hoping for an experience like '12 Angry Men'. Maybe next time.
      - dwd 12y ago
        Change your registered address: Seems like every time I move I get a letter. Still haven't served and it was only the first time when I had just turned 18 that I walked past the dock for selection.
  - dmix 12y ago
    This is nonsense, jury selections happen every single day around the world on cases that were thoroughly covered by the media. The selection processes is extremely strict in countries like Australia and makes sure the members are untainted.
  - avz 12y ago
    Suppose you were right and it really was about jury impartiality. Why invoke national security? Quote from the article: > The super-injunction invokes “national security” grounds to prevent reporting about the case, by anyone, in order to “prevent damage to Australia's international relations”
  - _delirium 12y ago
    The leaked order doesn't mention fair-trial concerns, and explicitly claims a rather different motivation: 5. The purpose of these orders is to prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specified individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings. (Off-the-cuff speculation: an Australian may be charged with either taking bribes from, or offering bribes to, someone high-up in another government. In which case, Australia wants to prosecute the Australian in question, but doesn't want to call out the important foreign official on the other side of the transaction.)
  - nl 12y ago
    the whole point of the ban is to ensure an untainted jury Not at all. It's done to "protect Australia's international reputation": The purpose of these orders is to prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specific individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings The order doesn't even mention jury selection.
  - DigitalSea 12y ago
    You should re-read the gag order, nowhere does it mention anything about tainting a jury or case of any kind. This is purely a political power move to prevent causing issues with trade partners/international relations and you should be concerned like the rest of us something like this is taking place. Really makes you wonder what else is being hidden behind the Abbott government curtain? This definitely won't help LNP's already diminishing support and further plunge Tony Abbott's dismal approval rating down even further (if that is even possible).
robzyb 12y ago
> Subject to further order, order 1 does not prevent provision of material by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to Note Printing Australia Pty Ltd and its legal representatives, provided any such material is provided together with a copy of these orders. Unsurprising given: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_Printing_Australia#2007_corruption_allegations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_Printing_Australia#2007_co...
- hadoukenio 12y ago
  As an Australian, the suppression order forbids me from amending the above Wikipedia article to include a note to the suppression order (how meta): "4.The prohibition on publication in order 1 applies throughout Australia." If someone outside of Australia were to do this however... Edit: 1 hour after I made this comment, nobody from outside of Australia seems to have updated the page :(
  - jacques_chester 12y ago
    It appears to have been made under Victorian jurisdiction, which happens a lot because of their suppression laws. Strictly speaking, they can't prevent publication in other states, but they can punish anyone or anything in Victoria. That's why an order made in Victoria will stop the major media.
    - hadoukenio 12y ago
      Even though it's a state issue, I still wouldn't advise an Australian resident to post anything, even if you're not in Victoria. Still, 2 hours after my comment and a non-Australian has yet to take the hint to edit the Wikipedia page :(
      - hadoukenio 12y ago
        Thank you, anonymous non-Australian for updating the Wikipedia page!
    - sjy 12y ago
Estragon 12y ago
...unprecedented suppression order by the Australian Supreme Court in Melbourne, Victoria... Minor nit: It sounds like strictly speaking, this order is from the Victorian Supreme Court (state level), not the Australian Supreme Court, which is the High Court in Canberra. http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/ http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia
- danieltillett 12y ago
  It really should be “an” not “the”. I would expect that most people outside of Australia (and unfortunately most within) are unlikely to know the correct terminology for the Australian court system.
  - vacri 12y ago
    I love how we have nine (state and territory) 'Supreme' courts, all of which are outranked by the one (national) 'High' court. Someone didn't get their semantics right, back in the day.
    - danieltillett 12y ago
      It is due to the fact that all the Australia states were once sovereign nations and each state’s “supreme” courts existed before Australian federation. The same exists in the USA with the state supreme courts.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > The same exists in the USA with the state supreme courts. OTOH, a real violation of expected semantics occurs in the New York State court system where the ultimate appellate court is the "Court of Appeals", the trial court of general jurisdiction is the "Supreme Court", and the intermediate appellate court between the two is the "Supreme Court, Appellate Division".
tootie 12y ago
Isn't this pretty normal? In the US a judge can bar the press from covering a trial in progress if they believe it could prejudice the jury or create a circus. They will still be allowed to report everything once there's a verdict.
- bradleybuda 12y ago
  This is not true. A judge can bar the media from their courtroom, but they cannot ban coverage entirely.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > In the US a judge can bar the press from covering a trial in progress if they believe it could prejudice the jury or create a circus. No, they can't. In the US, a judge can bar media from proceedings and order people involved in a case (parties, witnesses, etc.) not to comment on it, and can thereby prohibit most ways in which the media would get information about it, but cannot generally order the media not to report on it (rules allowing that have in the past been adopted, and generally been struck down as unconstitutional.) The media are generally free to report material leaked in violation of such gag orders, although the leaker may be subject to sanctions.
  - tootie 12y ago
    You're right and that's an important distinction, but it looks that's actually what's in this order as well. They are not making it illegal to report, just to divulge the information. If It leaks, it's fair game.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  Australian judges typically have more powers to issue suppression orders (especially in Victoria).
hadoukenio 12y ago
And with that, I just made my first WikiLeaks donation.
- godgod 12y ago
  You Terrorist you!
jamhan 12y ago
Typical "smear by association" (without any link whatsoever) from the left: "It is ironic that it took Tony Abbott to bring the worst of 'Asian Values' to Australia."
- imaginenore 12y ago
  A smear? Tony Abbott is the idiot who A) dissolved the Climate Commission, because he thinks climate change is a hoax B) is destroying the Great Barrier Reef by removing the carbon tax C) appointed a climate change denier Dick Warburton to review the alternative energy funding D) directly cutting $435m from renewable energy agency, while removing the mining taxes E) asked UNESCO to remove 74,000 hectares of Tasmanian forest from its World Heritage List The guy is the classic right wing moron who only cares about a short term profit ala drill-drill-drill and doesn't give a shit if the environment or the whole plant goes to shit because of it.
  - jamhan 12y ago
    Your points have NO relevance to this attempted association to high-level international corruption. Can you provide any relevant information/arguments?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - nness 12y ago
    Uh, B. isn't correct. The risk to the Great Barrier Reef is to do with a new nearby port for coal exports. The dredging of the area is expected to unsettle seabed which could impact the nearby reef. Despite all that, these are all unrelated to the original post.
    - ScottBurson 12y ago
      I think what (B) is referring to is ocean acidification caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolving. This also threatens coral reefs.
fblp 12y ago
From the article: - The court made this order to: "- prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specified individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings. These orders are made on the grounds that they are: - necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by other reasonably available means; and - necessary to prevent prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth in relation to national security. " The court would be very careful about making such orders and Australia has one of the strongest separations between the courts and the government. This means that the decision is likely to be made for fair administration of justice rather than for political reasons.
- avz 12y ago
  Yes. Because secret court orders and censorship strengthen trust in the proper administration of justice.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Proper administration and trust in same are not the same thing. A 5-year moratorium on reporting of (possibly false) allegations could definitely be the proper approach.
    - steven2012 12y ago
      Why not a 5 year moratorium on any details on any crime, since there could be significant defamation resulting from the trial? Why do these politicians have so much more protection that regular people? If international trade is so important, then why publish any details on any trading partner?
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        Some jurisdictions keep rape trials in camera for precisely this reason pending a guilty verdict. A great deal depends on the degree and credibility of the allegations made about the foreign counterparty, which I think the court is more qualified to assess than the public. As for why yu treat some politicians and public officials with kid gloves, the short answer is because they run countries (to varying degrees) and a domestic legal issue, while important, may not be so important that it justifies the risk of destabilizing another country, since Australia will still need to deal with the country in question after the individuals in question have left the stage. Ultimately, the value of diplomatic relations may exceed that of short-term legal transparency, depending on the circumstances.
yen223 12y ago
Yet another reason for my home country of Malaysia to be in the news, and not in a positive way. Malaysia, what happened to you?
- chaostheory 12y ago
  Nothing happened since nothing has really changed. It is South East Asia after all.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
eng_monkey 12y ago
I have no doubt that Australia has significant higher levels of fraud and corruption than what is usually perceived by society. The problem is that the press here reports virtually nothing, probably as a consequence of the strange defamation and libel laws that we have. As an example, I have witness of two significant cases of fraud in the last 5 years. In the first, a lawyer stole more than $2 million from trust accounts. The second was a professor from a major university who misused close to $100K from grants. In both cases, the matters were dealt with internally (returning money, compensating victims, etc.) and no single piece of information about this went to the press.
- Istof 12y ago
  you were directly involved in both cases?
  - cma 12y ago
    He said he witnessed both. If you see a mugging, are you directly involved?
    - Chronic29 12y ago
      You don't know. That is why you ask.
- sjy 12y ago
  Those sound like pretty serious crimes. Are you saying that the police and media were informed and nothing was done about it?
  - eng_monkey 12y ago
    The Australian Federal Police was informed of the lawyer fraud and showed a complete lack of interest. Actually, it was quite shocking. This matter was never resolved criminally, just professionally. The Law Society simply disbarred the lawyer and put the law firm in administration. The Fidelity Fund (responsible for dealing with trust account fraud, which apparently is something quite normal in spite of public perception) returned lost money to clients.
jpatokal 12y ago
This appears to be about the Reserve Bank of Australia/Securency corruption scandal, which has already been all over the Australia media since 2009? Given the recent dates, though, apparently there's some juicy info in the affadavit (which was not released) that hasn't been leaked to the press yet. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-30/rba-officials-face-parliament/4400664 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-30/rba-officials-face-par...
zmmmmm 12y ago
It's interesting how transparently self contradictory the document is. Clause 5 simply says: > The purpose of these orders is to prevent damage to > Australia's international relation... In other words, the entire purpose is political. However this was obviously insufficient grounds, so the next clause says: > These orders are made on the grounds that they are: > > necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to > the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by > other reasonably available means; and necessary to prevent > prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth in relation to > national security. So suddenly it is about "justice" and "national security". So the suppression order to suppress corruption is corrupt itself, and doesn't really even try to hide it, safe in the knowledge that it, itself, is supressed.
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  The law is a mechanism, not a policy. Her Honour made the order according to law in her best judgement. You might not agree with the Commonwealth seeking the order, you might not agree with her reasoning. But it is very silly to seriously propose that you've found a Hollywood-villain judge who is being deliberately evil. If you don't like the decisions judges make, you need to talk to your MP about getting the law changed. Then the judges will make different decisions in accordance with the updated laws. That is how our system works.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >But it is very silly to seriously propose that you've found a Hollywood-villain judge who is being deliberately evil. "Hollywood-villain judge who is being deliberately evil"? There are tons of corrupt judges in most countries, including a huge percentage of judgdes that function in favor of this or that political party. It's utterly naive to think that a judge that rules in favor of a multinational / government etc because of interests (from being appointed by said government to direct bribery), is so uncommon as to be a "Hollywood-villain judge". For tons of openly blatant cases (some proven in court, and some bringing down whole governments), study the history of places like Southern Europe, Latin America, Africa, etc. (It's not that it's uncommon in the west -- they just do it with more finesse and hide it better. Or, sometimes not, eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal ).
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
majika 12y ago
Can I publish a link to this page on my website? Or is this link now illegal in Australia? What about a link to this HN submission? This is ridiculous. Unfortunately, authoritarianism is the norm in Australia; we are the quintessential nanny state.
- vacri 12y ago
  This kind of censorship has nothing to do with being a nanny state. Despite things like this, RSF still rates the US as being less free than Australia when it comes to the press, and the US doesn't have much of a socialist, 'nanny' slant. Neither does authoritarianism have anything to do with 'nanny'-ism. Is China a nanny state? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Eritrea? What about the continent-spreading empires of the last century that were run by mustachioed gentlemen, were they 'nanny' states? As for whether it's a good thing or not to be a 'nanny' state, perhaps have a look at the quality of life in the 'nanny' versus non-'nanny' states.
  - majika 12y ago
    > This kind of censorship has nothing to do with being a nanny state. ... Is China a nanny state? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Eritrea? What about the continent-spreading empires of the last century that were run by mustachioed gentlemen, were they 'nanny' states? It is related, because censorship is authoritarian, and nanny-statism is authoritarian. If the government of a democratic society thinks it should tell its people what they can and can't say, then it's likely that that government (i.e. society) also thinks it should intrude into people's lives and protect them from themselves, because personal responsibility is dangerous. This correlation certainly holds for Australia, which is why I mentioned it. Those countries you mentioned - China, Saudi Arabia, etc - aren't democratic, so I don't think their authoritarianism reflects the societal will. Thus, the authoritarianism doesn't transfer to, e.g., the government telling people they can't ride a bicycle without a helmet. Authoritarian and democratic countries are nanny-states, almost by definition: e.g., the UK, Australia, Singapore. > RSF still rates the US as being less free than Australia when it comes to the press I love the Reporters Without Borders, but I don't think their Press Freedom Index has much merit. Not only is its methodology flawed and subjective, but the calculation of the index is highly opaque, and so I suspect it's somewhat politicized. We don't know (1) the number of respondents from each country, (2) the kinds of respondents from each country, or (3) the distribution of answers to the questionnaire for each country. Without those things, we can't talk empirically about press freedom. As it stands, we can only speculate on what the simplified "index" means. You mentioned the US as a comparison for press freedom: I'd like to point out that the US is home to a number of organizations that publish very controversial opinions, like Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, Cryptome, The Intercept, etc. I find it very, very difficult to imagine these organizations existing in Australia (or many of the countries at the top of the RSF's index) -- don't you? I mean, it's illegal to publish "racist" opinion here, and the majority of Australian society seems fine with that - any American I mention that to laughs in my face, and rightly so. Furthermore, the US also has a number of excellent (at times) news organizations, like The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC, and PBS. Sure, these organizations are influenced by the US government, but influence isn't quantitative. To say that the ABC, or the Sydney Morning Herald, or Nine are influenced by the Australian government less is mere speculation. All news organizations are influenced by the society to which they serve, and the government to which they report on. You should always try to vary who and where you get your news from, and always be aware of bias. > As for whether it's a good thing or not to be a 'nanny' state, perhaps have a look at the quality of life in the 'nanny' versus non-'nanny' states. As an Australian, I don't think banning psychoactive drugs, nor banning "racist" speech, nor mandatory bike helmets, nor bar lockouts at 12pm, nor homeschooling restrictions do anything to improve the quality of life here. In fact, I think those policies harm the quality of life significantly. Australia's economic success (and thus "quality of life") is thanks to its (small-l) liberal economic policies of the 80s and 90s, and the resources boom of the 00s -- not because I can't buy a joint at a cafe here. FWIW, if you're basing your judgment of "quality of life" on the UN Human Development Index, know that that is another highly simplified and flawed index. I'll let you look into that on your own. The HDI certainly isn't a ranking of quality of life - but a well-traveled person like yourself would know that, right?
pithcheroo 12y ago
Interesting tidbit on the drama in vietnam. http://m.canberratimes.com.au/national/envoys-link-with-viet-spy-revealed-20120812-2433b.html http://m.canberratimes.com.au/national/envoys-link-with-viet...
sjy 12y ago
Arguably, the Wikileaks summary goes too far in claiming that the order "forbids any discloures (sic), by publication or otherwise, of any information relating to the court case by anyone." The order is limited to disclosure that "reveals, implies, suggests or alleges" that various specified politicians received, attempted to receive, or were intended to receive a bribe. It is not really clear that the orders themselves (sans the Bird affidavit) "suggest" that bribes were attempted or intended. It's also unclear whether the explicit inclusion of "the terms of these orders" is supposed to resolve this question or merely state that disclosure of the orders themselves could be an offence. Perhaps this explains why the affidavit itself wasn't leaked.
- hadoukenio 12y ago
  The ABC has a writeup today about WikiLeaks publishing the suppression order, but gives zero information about what was in. I think that gives a good indication as to what the ABC's legal team thought about publishing the contents of the suppression order: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-30/wikileaks-publish-details-of-suppression/5634800 It's going to be interesting to see what the papers say tomorrow. But even more importantly, it's going to be really interesting to see what MediaWatch has to say about this.
locusm 12y ago
Is this around the RBA bank note printing scandal? Check out the Four Corners doco on it. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/09/30/3857148.htm http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/09/30/3857148.ht...
- nness 12y ago
  Good link, cheers for sharing!
  - locusm 12y ago
    np, I find the Four Corners stuff to be of super high quality.
- retrogradeorbit 12y ago
  I was going to bring this case up. Thanks for beating me to it. Interesting in this case of bribing officials in foreign countries and funding groups linked with terror cells by Note Printing Australia was that the AFP was asked to investigate and they simply refused.
femto 12y ago
The Australian media is dutifully reporting on an organisation that I will leave nameless. http://www.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-publishes-unprecedented-secret-australian-court-suppression-order-20140730-zyc6m.html http://www.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-publishes-unprecede...
tomjen3 12y ago
Since HN is not in Australia, what exactly is it that we are not allowed to know?
camino020 12y ago
Australia's head of state is the queen of England ruling them through her Governor General. What other things don't they don't know? Oh, and by the way same goes for Canada.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- nly 12y ago
  Not the Queen of England per se, since technically the Australian sovereign is the 'Queen of Australia' and the Canadian head-of-state the 'Queen of Canada'. They happen to both be Queen Elizabeth II, but legally they're distinct and these roles have little to do with the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Canada
igonvalue 12y ago
Don't forget to click the "Read the full press release here" link for more context from WikiLeaks. For some reason, I thought that would just take me to the original document located further down the same page (so I didn't find the page until I got to it indirectly via search engine). I wonder if anyone else made the same mistake? https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/press.html https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/press.html
femto 12y ago
Followup: With the leaked court order, the Australian government has been forced to make a media release to the effect that people (such as the President of Indonesia) mentioned in the order are not accused of any crime [1]. We have the amazing situation where Australian's are expected to swallow a media release, without being allowed to know what it is about. The mind boggles. Mind you, this is the same system that is directing doctors not to report hundreds of cases of self harm among child refugees [2], so the culture of censorship is endemic. [1] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/indonesia-demands-explanation-from-australia-over-wikileakspublished-court-order-20140731-zz75y.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/indone... [2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-31/detention-centre-inquiry-hears-claims-of-immigration-cover-up/5637654 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-31/detention-centre-inqui...

420 points by abritishguy 12y ago

danieltillett 12y ago

I wish wikileaks would leak Gillian Bird's affidavit - this must be pretty juicy.

malbs 12y ago
I hope they don't, the whole point of the ban is to ensure an untainted jury. The details will be released once the case has been heard.
- danieltillett 12y ago
  Nobody reading wikileaks is ever going to serve on a jury.
  - baddox 12y ago
    What makes you think that?
    - danieltillett 12y ago
      If you have ever had the “pleasure” of being called up for jury duty then you will quickly see that anyone thought to have more than half a brain still functioning is excluded. I have been called up several times and been thrown off as soon as my title was noted (not that having a Ph.D means you have half a functioning brain).
      - chaqke 12y ago
        Addendum to the why: - If you lean towards one side, the other side is incentivized to dismiss you. - If you're in a case with lawyers, both sides actually want jurors that they can influence, rather than jurors that will come to their own, unexpected, uncontrollable conclusions. That would be a dangerous wildcard.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - beedogs 12y ago
    [citation needed]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - sitkack 12y ago
    I have been a registered voter for 20 years and only called to jury duty once, and that one I missed because I didn't open the envelope. My only hope is that I could keep my goddamn mouth shut long enough to actually get on one.
    - danieltillett 12y ago
      You are lucky. The whole process is incredible inefficient and wasteful of the potential jurors time - call in 100 people and make them sit around all day in the court house just so you can dismiss them all because the defence lawyer wants to play games. Shakespeare was on to something I think.
      - thret 12y ago
        That was my experience the one time I got called in for jury duty. I was very curious about the process and disappointed when I missed the final cut. I did got into the court room, and had a look at the defendant, heard the charges... I was hoping for an experience like '12 Angry Men'. Maybe next time.
    - dwd 12y ago
      Change your registered address: Seems like every time I move I get a letter. Still haven't served and it was only the first time when I had just turned 18 that I walked past the dock for selection.
- dmix 12y ago
  This is nonsense, jury selections happen every single day around the world on cases that were thoroughly covered by the media. The selection processes is extremely strict in countries like Australia and makes sure the members are untainted.
- avz 12y ago
  Suppose you were right and it really was about jury impartiality. Why invoke national security? Quote from the article: > The super-injunction invokes “national security” grounds to prevent reporting about the case, by anyone, in order to “prevent damage to Australia's international relations”
- _delirium 12y ago
  The leaked order doesn't mention fair-trial concerns, and explicitly claims a rather different motivation: 5. The purpose of these orders is to prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specified individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings. (Off-the-cuff speculation: an Australian may be charged with either taking bribes from, or offering bribes to, someone high-up in another government. In which case, Australia wants to prosecute the Australian in question, but doesn't want to call out the important foreign official on the other side of the transaction.)
- nl 12y ago
  the whole point of the ban is to ensure an untainted jury Not at all. It's done to "protect Australia's international reputation": The purpose of these orders is to prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specific individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings The order doesn't even mention jury selection.
- DigitalSea 12y ago
  You should re-read the gag order, nowhere does it mention anything about tainting a jury or case of any kind. This is purely a political power move to prevent causing issues with trade partners/international relations and you should be concerned like the rest of us something like this is taking place. Really makes you wonder what else is being hidden behind the Abbott government curtain? This definitely won't help LNP's already diminishing support and further plunge Tony Abbott's dismal approval rating down even further (if that is even possible).

robzyb 12y ago

> Subject to further order, order 1 does not prevent provision of material by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to Note Printing Australia Pty Ltd and its legal representatives, provided any such material is provided together with a copy of these orders. Unsurprising given: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_Printing_Australia#2007_corruption_allegations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_Printing_Australia#2007_co...

hadoukenio 12y ago
As an Australian, the suppression order forbids me from amending the above Wikipedia article to include a note to the suppression order (how meta): "4.The prohibition on publication in order 1 applies throughout Australia." If someone outside of Australia were to do this however... Edit: 1 hour after I made this comment, nobody from outside of Australia seems to have updated the page :(
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  It appears to have been made under Victorian jurisdiction, which happens a lot because of their suppression laws. Strictly speaking, they can't prevent publication in other states, but they can punish anyone or anything in Victoria. That's why an order made in Victoria will stop the major media.
  - hadoukenio 12y ago
    Even though it's a state issue, I still wouldn't advise an Australian resident to post anything, even if you're not in Victoria. Still, 2 hours after my comment and a non-Australian has yet to take the hint to edit the Wikipedia page :(
    - hadoukenio 12y ago
      Thank you, anonymous non-Australian for updating the Wikipedia page!
  - sjy 12y ago

Estragon 12y ago

...unprecedented suppression order by the Australian Supreme Court in Melbourne, Victoria... Minor nit: It sounds like strictly speaking, this order is from the Victorian Supreme Court (state level), not the Australian Supreme Court, which is the High Court in Canberra. http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/ http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia

danieltillett 12y ago
It really should be “an” not “the”. I would expect that most people outside of Australia (and unfortunately most within) are unlikely to know the correct terminology for the Australian court system.
- vacri 12y ago
  I love how we have nine (state and territory) 'Supreme' courts, all of which are outranked by the one (national) 'High' court. Someone didn't get their semantics right, back in the day.
  - danieltillett 12y ago
    It is due to the fact that all the Australia states were once sovereign nations and each state’s “supreme” courts existed before Australian federation. The same exists in the USA with the state supreme courts.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > The same exists in the USA with the state supreme courts. OTOH, a real violation of expected semantics occurs in the New York State court system where the ultimate appellate court is the "Court of Appeals", the trial court of general jurisdiction is the "Supreme Court", and the intermediate appellate court between the two is the "Supreme Court, Appellate Division".

tootie 12y ago

Isn't this pretty normal? In the US a judge can bar the press from covering a trial in progress if they believe it could prejudice the jury or create a circus. They will still be allowed to report everything once there's a verdict.

bradleybuda 12y ago
This is not true. A judge can bar the media from their courtroom, but they cannot ban coverage entirely.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> In the US a judge can bar the press from covering a trial in progress if they believe it could prejudice the jury or create a circus. No, they can't. In the US, a judge can bar media from proceedings and order people involved in a case (parties, witnesses, etc.) not to comment on it, and can thereby prohibit most ways in which the media would get information about it, but cannot generally order the media not to report on it (rules allowing that have in the past been adopted, and generally been struck down as unconstitutional.) The media are generally free to report material leaked in violation of such gag orders, although the leaker may be subject to sanctions.
- tootie 12y ago
  You're right and that's an important distinction, but it looks that's actually what's in this order as well. They are not making it illegal to report, just to divulge the information. If It leaks, it's fair game.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jacques_chester 12y ago
Australian judges typically have more powers to issue suppression orders (especially in Victoria).

hadoukenio 12y ago

And with that, I just made my first WikiLeaks donation.

godgod 12y ago
You Terrorist you!

jamhan 12y ago

Typical "smear by association" (without any link whatsoever) from the left: "It is ironic that it took Tony Abbott to bring the worst of 'Asian Values' to Australia."

imaginenore 12y ago
A smear? Tony Abbott is the idiot who A) dissolved the Climate Commission, because he thinks climate change is a hoax B) is destroying the Great Barrier Reef by removing the carbon tax C) appointed a climate change denier Dick Warburton to review the alternative energy funding D) directly cutting $435m from renewable energy agency, while removing the mining taxes E) asked UNESCO to remove 74,000 hectares of Tasmanian forest from its World Heritage List The guy is the classic right wing moron who only cares about a short term profit ala drill-drill-drill and doesn't give a shit if the environment or the whole plant goes to shit because of it.
- jamhan 12y ago
  Your points have NO relevance to this attempted association to high-level international corruption. Can you provide any relevant information/arguments?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- nness 12y ago
  Uh, B. isn't correct. The risk to the Great Barrier Reef is to do with a new nearby port for coal exports. The dredging of the area is expected to unsettle seabed which could impact the nearby reef. Despite all that, these are all unrelated to the original post.
  - ScottBurson 12y ago
    I think what (B) is referring to is ocean acidification caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolving. This also threatens coral reefs.

fblp 12y ago

From the article: - The court made this order to: "- prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specified individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings. These orders are made on the grounds that they are: - necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by other reasonably available means; and - necessary to prevent prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth in relation to national security. " The court would be very careful about making such orders and Australia has one of the strongest separations between the courts and the government. This means that the decision is likely to be made for fair administration of justice rather than for political reasons.

avz 12y ago
Yes. Because secret court orders and censorship strengthen trust in the proper administration of justice.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Proper administration and trust in same are not the same thing. A 5-year moratorium on reporting of (possibly false) allegations could definitely be the proper approach.
  - steven2012 12y ago
    Why not a 5 year moratorium on any details on any crime, since there could be significant defamation resulting from the trial? Why do these politicians have so much more protection that regular people? If international trade is so important, then why publish any details on any trading partner?
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Some jurisdictions keep rape trials in camera for precisely this reason pending a guilty verdict. A great deal depends on the degree and credibility of the allegations made about the foreign counterparty, which I think the court is more qualified to assess than the public. As for why yu treat some politicians and public officials with kid gloves, the short answer is because they run countries (to varying degrees) and a domestic legal issue, while important, may not be so important that it justifies the risk of destabilizing another country, since Australia will still need to deal with the country in question after the individuals in question have left the stage. Ultimately, the value of diplomatic relations may exceed that of short-term legal transparency, depending on the circumstances.

yen223 12y ago

Yet another reason for my home country of Malaysia to be in the news, and not in a positive way. Malaysia, what happened to you?

chaostheory 12y ago
Nothing happened since nothing has really changed. It is South East Asia after all.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

eng_monkey 12y ago

I have no doubt that Australia has significant higher levels of fraud and corruption than what is usually perceived by society. The problem is that the press here reports virtually nothing, probably as a consequence of the strange defamation and libel laws that we have. As an example, I have witness of two significant cases of fraud in the last 5 years. In the first, a lawyer stole more than $2 million from trust accounts. The second was a professor from a major university who misused close to $100K from grants. In both cases, the matters were dealt with internally (returning money, compensating victims, etc.) and no single piece of information about this went to the press.

Istof 12y ago
you were directly involved in both cases?
- cma 12y ago
  He said he witnessed both. If you see a mugging, are you directly involved?
  - Chronic29 12y ago
    You don't know. That is why you ask.
sjy 12y ago
Those sound like pretty serious crimes. Are you saying that the police and media were informed and nothing was done about it?
- eng_monkey 12y ago
  The Australian Federal Police was informed of the lawyer fraud and showed a complete lack of interest. Actually, it was quite shocking. This matter was never resolved criminally, just professionally. The Law Society simply disbarred the lawyer and put the law firm in administration. The Fidelity Fund (responsible for dealing with trust account fraud, which apparently is something quite normal in spite of public perception) returned lost money to clients.

jpatokal 12y ago

This appears to be about the Reserve Bank of Australia/Securency corruption scandal, which has already been all over the Australia media since 2009? Given the recent dates, though, apparently there's some juicy info in the affadavit (which was not released) that hasn't been leaked to the press yet. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-30/rba-officials-face-parliament/4400664 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-30/rba-officials-face-par...

zmmmmm 12y ago

It's interesting how transparently self contradictory the document is. Clause 5 simply says: > The purpose of these orders is to prevent damage to > Australia's international relation... In other words, the entire purpose is political. However this was obviously insufficient grounds, so the next clause says: > These orders are made on the grounds that they are: > > necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to > the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by > other reasonably available means; and necessary to prevent > prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth in relation to > national security. So suddenly it is about "justice" and "national security". So the suppression order to suppress corruption is corrupt itself, and doesn't really even try to hide it, safe in the knowledge that it, itself, is supressed.

jacques_chester 12y ago
The law is a mechanism, not a policy. Her Honour made the order according to law in her best judgement. You might not agree with the Commonwealth seeking the order, you might not agree with her reasoning. But it is very silly to seriously propose that you've found a Hollywood-villain judge who is being deliberately evil. If you don't like the decisions judges make, you need to talk to your MP about getting the law changed. Then the judges will make different decisions in accordance with the updated laws. That is how our system works.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >But it is very silly to seriously propose that you've found a Hollywood-villain judge who is being deliberately evil. "Hollywood-villain judge who is being deliberately evil"? There are tons of corrupt judges in most countries, including a huge percentage of judgdes that function in favor of this or that political party. It's utterly naive to think that a judge that rules in favor of a multinational / government etc because of interests (from being appointed by said government to direct bribery), is so uncommon as to be a "Hollywood-villain judge". For tons of openly blatant cases (some proven in court, and some bringing down whole governments), study the history of places like Southern Europe, Latin America, Africa, etc. (It's not that it's uncommon in the west -- they just do it with more finesse and hide it better. Or, sometimes not, eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal ).

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

majika 12y ago

Can I publish a link to this page on my website? Or is this link now illegal in Australia? What about a link to this HN submission? This is ridiculous. Unfortunately, authoritarianism is the norm in Australia; we are the quintessential nanny state.

vacri 12y ago
This kind of censorship has nothing to do with being a nanny state. Despite things like this, RSF still rates the US as being less free than Australia when it comes to the press, and the US doesn't have much of a socialist, 'nanny' slant. Neither does authoritarianism have anything to do with 'nanny'-ism. Is China a nanny state? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Eritrea? What about the continent-spreading empires of the last century that were run by mustachioed gentlemen, were they 'nanny' states? As for whether it's a good thing or not to be a 'nanny' state, perhaps have a look at the quality of life in the 'nanny' versus non-'nanny' states.
- majika 12y ago
  > This kind of censorship has nothing to do with being a nanny state. ... Is China a nanny state? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Eritrea? What about the continent-spreading empires of the last century that were run by mustachioed gentlemen, were they 'nanny' states? It is related, because censorship is authoritarian, and nanny-statism is authoritarian. If the government of a democratic society thinks it should tell its people what they can and can't say, then it's likely that that government (i.e. society) also thinks it should intrude into people's lives and protect them from themselves, because personal responsibility is dangerous. This correlation certainly holds for Australia, which is why I mentioned it. Those countries you mentioned - China, Saudi Arabia, etc - aren't democratic, so I don't think their authoritarianism reflects the societal will. Thus, the authoritarianism doesn't transfer to, e.g., the government telling people they can't ride a bicycle without a helmet. Authoritarian and democratic countries are nanny-states, almost by definition: e.g., the UK, Australia, Singapore. > RSF still rates the US as being less free than Australia when it comes to the press I love the Reporters Without Borders, but I don't think their Press Freedom Index has much merit. Not only is its methodology flawed and subjective, but the calculation of the index is highly opaque, and so I suspect it's somewhat politicized. We don't know (1) the number of respondents from each country, (2) the kinds of respondents from each country, or (3) the distribution of answers to the questionnaire for each country. Without those things, we can't talk empirically about press freedom. As it stands, we can only speculate on what the simplified "index" means. You mentioned the US as a comparison for press freedom: I'd like to point out that the US is home to a number of organizations that publish very controversial opinions, like Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, Cryptome, The Intercept, etc. I find it very, very difficult to imagine these organizations existing in Australia (or many of the countries at the top of the RSF's index) -- don't you? I mean, it's illegal to publish "racist" opinion here, and the majority of Australian society seems fine with that - any American I mention that to laughs in my face, and rightly so. Furthermore, the US also has a number of excellent (at times) news organizations, like The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC, and PBS. Sure, these organizations are influenced by the US government, but influence isn't quantitative. To say that the ABC, or the Sydney Morning Herald, or Nine are influenced by the Australian government less is mere speculation. All news organizations are influenced by the society to which they serve, and the government to which they report on. You should always try to vary who and where you get your news from, and always be aware of bias. > As for whether it's a good thing or not to be a 'nanny' state, perhaps have a look at the quality of life in the 'nanny' versus non-'nanny' states. As an Australian, I don't think banning psychoactive drugs, nor banning "racist" speech, nor mandatory bike helmets, nor bar lockouts at 12pm, nor homeschooling restrictions do anything to improve the quality of life here. In fact, I think those policies harm the quality of life significantly. Australia's economic success (and thus "quality of life") is thanks to its (small-l) liberal economic policies of the 80s and 90s, and the resources boom of the 00s -- not because I can't buy a joint at a cafe here. FWIW, if you're basing your judgment of "quality of life" on the UN Human Development Index, know that that is another highly simplified and flawed index. I'll let you look into that on your own. The HDI certainly isn't a ranking of quality of life - but a well-traveled person like yourself would know that, right?

pithcheroo 12y ago

Interesting tidbit on the drama in vietnam. http://m.canberratimes.com.au/national/envoys-link-with-viet-spy-revealed-20120812-2433b.html http://m.canberratimes.com.au/national/envoys-link-with-viet...

sjy 12y ago

Arguably, the Wikileaks summary goes too far in claiming that the order "forbids any discloures (sic), by publication or otherwise, of any information relating to the court case by anyone." The order is limited to disclosure that "reveals, implies, suggests or alleges" that various specified politicians received, attempted to receive, or were intended to receive a bribe. It is not really clear that the orders themselves (sans the Bird affidavit) "suggest" that bribes were attempted or intended. It's also unclear whether the explicit inclusion of "the terms of these orders" is supposed to resolve this question or merely state that disclosure of the orders themselves could be an offence. Perhaps this explains why the affidavit itself wasn't leaked.

hadoukenio 12y ago
The ABC has a writeup today about WikiLeaks publishing the suppression order, but gives zero information about what was in. I think that gives a good indication as to what the ABC's legal team thought about publishing the contents of the suppression order: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-30/wikileaks-publish-details-of-suppression/5634800 It's going to be interesting to see what the papers say tomorrow. But even more importantly, it's going to be really interesting to see what MediaWatch has to say about this.

locusm 12y ago

Is this around the RBA bank note printing scandal? Check out the Four Corners doco on it. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/09/30/3857148.htm http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/09/30/3857148.ht...

nness 12y ago
Good link, cheers for sharing!
- locusm 12y ago
  np, I find the Four Corners stuff to be of super high quality.
retrogradeorbit 12y ago
I was going to bring this case up. Thanks for beating me to it. Interesting in this case of bribing officials in foreign countries and funding groups linked with terror cells by Note Printing Australia was that the AFP was asked to investigate and they simply refused.

femto 12y ago

The Australian media is dutifully reporting on an organisation that I will leave nameless. http://www.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-publishes-unprecedented-secret-australian-court-suppression-order-20140730-zyc6m.html http://www.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-publishes-unprecede...

tomjen3 12y ago

Since HN is not in Australia, what exactly is it that we are not allowed to know?

camino020 12y ago

Australia's head of state is the queen of England ruling them through her Governor General. What other things don't they don't know? Oh, and by the way same goes for Canada.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nly 12y ago
Not the Queen of England per se, since technically the Australian sovereign is the 'Queen of Australia' and the Canadian head-of-state the 'Queen of Canada'. They happen to both be Queen Elizabeth II, but legally they're distinct and these roles have little to do with the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Canada

igonvalue 12y ago

Don't forget to click the "Read the full press release here" link for more context from WikiLeaks. For some reason, I thought that would just take me to the original document located further down the same page (so I didn't find the page until I got to it indirectly via search engine). I wonder if anyone else made the same mistake? https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/press.html https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/press.html

femto 12y ago

Followup: With the leaked court order, the Australian government has been forced to make a media release to the effect that people (such as the President of Indonesia) mentioned in the order are not accused of any crime [1]. We have the amazing situation where Australian's are expected to swallow a media release, without being allowed to know what it is about. The mind boggles. Mind you, this is the same system that is directing doctors not to report hundreds of cases of self harm among child refugees [2], so the culture of censorship is endemic. [1] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/indonesia-demands-explanation-from-australia-over-wikileakspublished-court-order-20140731-zz75y.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/indone... [2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-31/detention-centre-inquiry-hears-claims-of-immigration-cover-up/5637654 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-31/detention-centre-inqui...