Government sent 'chilling' letter to Channel Nine over One Nation strip club broadcast

The attorney general’s department admonished Channel Nine for broadcasting a story about the One Nation candidate Steve Dickson misbehaving in a strip club because it may have breached foreign influence laws, Nine’s chief executive, Hugh Marks, has told the press freedom inquiry.

Marks said the personal letter he received in May had a “chilling effect” and was a perfect example of an authoritarian culture aimed at gagging the media.

The One Nation Senate candidate was forced to resign in April after A Current Affair aired footage of him groping dancers and making disparaging comments about a woman in a Washington DC strip club.

After the ACA story was broadcast Marks received a letter from an assistant secretary in the attorney general’s department scolding the network for not paying close attention to the new foreign influence transparency scheme, even while admitting Nine had not broken any laws.

One Nation's Steve Dickson resigns over strip club footage Read more

“It is the attorney general’s department view that, if this broadcast was done on behalf of a foreign principal (Al Jazeera) then it would be a registrable communications activity,” the department said.



“However, we note that Al Jazeera has subsequently issued a public statement denying its involvement in the broadcast which may indicate that the broadcast was not undertaken on Al Jazeera’s behalf.”

Marks told the parliamentary inquiry hearing in Sydney that the department had recommended Nine “undertake a self-assessment of our registration obligations”.

“It was quite clear that we hadn’t even come close to breaking any laws,” Marks said. “So why send the letter? This type of correspondence has a chilling effect because the maximum penalties for these offences range from six months’ to five years imprisonment.

“This is a perfect example of the ‘tone’ that is being set of a culture aimed to ‘gag’ the media and provide disincentives to us uncovering wrongs which merely embarrass or offend public officials.

“The accumulation of laws which are gagging the media will lead to an erosion of the strength of our democracy. And more importantly the public won’t know because we can’t tell them, and that is the real tragedy for our society.”

Australia's press freedom needs better protection. Here’s where to start | Rebecca Ananian-Welsh Read more

The government’s foreign influence transparency register is designed to make public the identity of foreign government agents attempting to influence Australian democracy.

The inquiry was triggered by high-profile raids on the News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst and the headquarters of the ABC, prompting concern that journalists could be charged for publishing protected information.

Protected information formed the basis of ABC reports of alleged unlawful killings by Australian troops in Afghanistan and plans by the secretive Australian Signals Directorate to extend powers to spy on Australian citizens.

Marks was flanked by the top media chiefs from the ABC, News Corp, Free TV Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age in a united front aimed at relaxing laws which are curbing public interest journalism.

“We are seeking a culture of law making where exemptions for the media are the default not a hard fought for defence,” Marks said.

“Our laws should recognise the value of our media, doing our job in the public interest. This sets a healthy culture of transparency. It’s true that nobody is above the law, but we need the right laws. The current tone being set seeks to restrict, not respect a free media.”

Marks, who now has responsibility for the former Fairfax mastheads, told the committee the Sydney Morning Herald had spent years and $60,000 in legal fees trying to get the New South Wales government to disclose the cost of Vivid and the government had spent hundreds of thousands fighting the move.

The ABC’s news director, Gaven Morris, told the inquiry that after the AFP raids the ABC felt less able to protect its confidential sources and those sources were withdrawing because they felt intimidated.

“We simply can’t say to a source anymore ‘we absolutely can guarantee you’ll be protected’,” Morris said. “And that is what’s at risk and that is what’s at stake.”

“That is the bond that’s been broken.”

He said the tough suite of laws, including FOI, defamation and national security, meant journalists had to go through myriad hurdles now to get a story published.

“Our journalists are robust and will continue to do their best work,” Morris said. “But what I worry about is whistleblowers.”