Oct 15, 2026 · 36 min · 7 segments
Who gets to defend the public’s right to know—and when do they need permission? After ABC journalist and union president Michael Slezak faced…
Peter GresteGuest
Tina QuinnHostAnthony DockrillHostNow, look, a few years back, we had New York Times journalist Damien Cave on Forth Estate, and he made the point at the time that Australia is probably the most secretive democracy in the world.
The New York Times made its assessment based on a pretty deep dive into Australian secrecy laws.
It started with the fact that we've got no constitutional protection for freedom of speech, for privacy and so on.
And so in the absence of any of those kinds of protections in our constitution, Parliament has been relatively free to pass all sorts of laws that... that undermine media freedom, undermine freedom of speech, undermine our right to privacy.
And we've seen, in combination with that, a huge tranche of national security legislation passed since 9-11, more than any other country on earth.
At the moment, at last count, we're about 92 separate pieces of legislation, and the numbers are rising quite rapidly.
And so we're both one of the least protected in terms of our human rights, but also one of the most heavily legislated in terms of national security.
And in broad terms, that's created precisely the kind of community that Damien's been concerned about.
I mean, there are a whole bunch of specific laws and we can dive into those, but in broad terms, I think he's absolutely right.
Most people listening would not understand the legal minefield that journalists have to go through to report on particular elements of the government.
Look, let's start with the basic principle that journalists are supposed to have access to confidential sources.
That principle is so deeply embedded in our system that we've even got shield laws that allow journalists to refuse to reveal their sources in court.
Now, there are always caveats to that system, but that's the basic principle that we've accepted because we understand that We need, or journalists need that capacity if they're going to be able to hold government to account.
And remember, that is the most basic role that public interest journalism is supposed to play in our democracy.
But the trouble is that the law erodes at all sorts of levels that most fundamental principle.
We start with data retention laws, which give the government the capacity to investigate any Australian's metadata for at least two years without a warrant.
Now, there's been a whole host of journalists at the time this law was passed back in 2015 Journalists complained and said, listen, you can't do that because that exposes our sources.
Now, look, a few years back, we had New York Times journalist Damien Cave on Forth Estate, and he made the point at the time that Australia is probably the most secretive democracy in the world.
The New York Times made its assessment based on a pretty deep dive into Australian secrecy laws.
It started with the fact that we've got no constitutional protection for freedom of speech, for privacy and so on.
And so in the absence of any of those kinds of protections in our constitution, Parliament has been relatively free to pass all sorts of laws that... that undermine media freedom, undermine freedom of speech, undermine our right to privacy.
And we've seen, in combination with that, a huge tranche of national security legislation passed since 9-11, more than any other country on earth.
At the moment, at last count, we're about 92 separate pieces of legislation, and the numbers are rising quite rapidly.
And so we're both one of the least protected in terms of our human rights, but also one of the most heavily legislated in terms of national security.
And in broad terms, that's created precisely the kind of community that Damien's been concerned about.
I mean, there are a whole bunch of specific laws and we can dive into those, but in broad terms, I think he's absolutely right.
Most people listening would not understand the legal minefield that journalists have to go through to report on particular elements of the government.
Look, let's start with the basic principle that journalists are supposed to have access to confidential sources.
That principle is so deeply embedded in our system that we've even got shield laws that allow journalists to refuse to reveal their sources in court.
Now, there are always caveats to that system, but that's the basic principle that we've accepted because we understand that We need, or journalists need that capacity if they're going to be able to hold government to account.
And remember, that is the most basic role that public interest journalism is supposed to play in our democracy.
But the trouble is that the law erodes at all sorts of levels that most fundamental principle.
We start with data retention laws, which give the government the capacity to investigate any Australian's metadata for at least two years without a warrant.
Now, there's been a whole host of journalists at the time this law was passed back in 2015 Journalists complained and said, listen, you can't do that because that exposes our sources.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.