The Government's dumb excuses for limiting free speech Reader Richard says the Gillard Government is forced to find ludicrous excuses for breaching our most fundamental rights with its bill to cut press freedom. As he says: These points relate to: (a) criminal offences created by one of the Bills; and (b) the Statements of Compatibility with Human Rights, which are included in each Bill's explanatory statement (EM). I include here excerpts from each Statement (text within quotes is taken verbatim from the EM) but you will need to read the full (usually 2-3 pages) Statements to get their full Orwellian flavour. I have resisted the temptation to add my own glosses to them. Here is how the Government excuses its Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013, as noted by Richard: The Bill, inter alia, requires that "changes of control of significant news media voices will require approval by a Public Interest Media Advocate (PIMA) applying a new public interest test." The Bill creates 13 new criminal offences (albeit all punishable by fine only). But note also that clause 78ML provides that each offence is a "strict liability offence," ie, that the prosecution does not need to prove any intention on the part of the accused in order to establish guilt. Strict liability offences are normally created for, eg, traffic matters. Conclusion to the Statement of Compability in the EM: "This Bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. To the extent that the measures may limit the rights of natural persons to exercise freedom of expression, by precluding a person from being in a position to control a registered news media voice or listed news media voice, the measures are reasonable and proportionate to the goal of promoting diversity of media control in order to promote access to diverse sources of news and information. Here are the Government's excuses for the News Media (Self-regulation) Bill 2013 and News Media (Self-regulation) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013, also as explained by Richard: The Bills" joint EM states (inter alia): Right to freedom of association ... The Self-regulation Bill establishes a scheme that encourages specified news media organisations to become members of a declared news media self-regulation body. However, membership of the news media self-regulation body remains voluntary under the scheme. Accordingly, the Self-regulation Bill does not limit the right to freedom of association. Right to freedom of expression ... The measures contained in the Self-regulation Bill will promote news media organisations" respect for the privacy of individuals through effective and transparent self-regulation which includes mechanisms to achieve compliance with appropriate standards of practice and opportunities for individuals to have concerns addressed. The Self-regulation Bill is therefore consistent with Article 19 of the ICCPR and will balance the rights of the news media to publish, and the rights of individuals in relation to privacy and reputation. Right to take part in public affairs ... It may be arguable that the application of the Privacy Act provisions to news media organisations that do not join a news media self-regulation body (or to those organisations that were suspended or expelled from a news media self-regulation body), could potentially be construed as a ârestraint" on the free press to comment on public issues and to inform public opinion, such that the Self-regulation Bill engages Article 25 of the ICCPR. The Privacy Act provisions merely set transparent, reasonable and generally applied and accepted standards in relation to the handling of personal information. Conclusion: The Self-regulation Bill is compatible with human rights and freedoms because it will promote the balance between freedom of the press and the rights of individuals. And here are the excuses for its Public Interest Media Advocate Bill 2013: Conclusion to the Statement of Compability in the EM: "The Bill is compatible with human rights for two reasons. First, it upholds the right to freedom of opinion or expression and promotes this right. Secondly, to the extent that the Bill may limit human rights with regard to privacy, those limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate to ensure the Public Interest Media Advocate can execute its intended powers and functions. And for its Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013: Conclusion to the Statement of Compability in the EM: "The Bill is compatible with human rights as it advances the interests of Indigenous people in Australia and it ensures the equal enjoyment by Indigenous people of certain human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Bill also promotes diversity of television services in Australia using the most commonly available technology. The first sentence in this Conclusion is apparently based on one provision in a 23-page Bill. Clause 16 (which amends the SBS Act) requires that at least one Director of the SBS is an "Indigenous person" (as defined by clause 15). This is the Newspeak Orwell warned of. The language of liars. I can't believe a court committed to the principles of free speech, a free press and free association couldn't tear this stuff to shreds.