The Oz editor bargained over lives in AFP raid
|
Former editor of The Australian, Paul Whittaker, bargained with the Australian Federal Police over how many lives would be lost if the newspaper published its scoop on the Operation Neath anti-terrorism operation before raids took place, it was revealed in the Melbourne Magistrates Court today. The Commissioner of the AFP, Tony Negus, said that when he told Whittaker — now editor of the Daily Telegraph — that lives would be at risk if he published, Whittaker replied: “Well, how many lives are at risk?” Negus said he responded that if the suspected terrorists were alerted to police attention, they “may actually go to the nearest shopping centre and decide to take action because they won’t have time to prepare properly”. Negus said Whittaker replied: “Well, what are we talking about, one person being killed, or are we talking about a number of people being killed?” The AFP had previously sought to suppress details of Negus’s conversation with Whittaker, but these attempts were defeated after Crikey and The Age got a lawyer into court to argue against suppression. Magistrate Peter Mealy ordered that the documents be released to the media this morning. Crikey publishes the documents below. Yesterday’s events came on the first day of what is expected to be a long committal hearing in the prosecution of former Detective Senior Constable Simon Artz, who is accused of leaking information to The Australian’s reporter Cameron Stewart. It brings to an end more than a year of efforts by News Limited to suppress details of the Whittaker-Negus conversation, including Federal Court action last year to suppress an Office of Police Integrity report containing the information. The detailed insight into how The Australian, in the words of Artz’s lawyers, held the AFP “to ransom” comes at a sensitive time, with the federal government’s media inquiry, which is inquiring into media ethical standards, soon to hold public hearings and due to report early next year. In a statement released this afternoon, Whittaker said that his recollection of the conversation differed from that of Negus. “The questions I asked of Mr Negus, which are different from those contained in his statement, were consistent with normal journalistic rigour,” he said. “Editors have a duty to test the assertions of anyone seeking to prevent publication of a story.” Whittaker said The Australian had shown an “abundance of caution and good faith” in its dealings with the AFP, and that its action in agreeing to hold off publication until after raids had taken place had been praised by Attorney General Robert McClelland and the then-AFP commissioner Mick Keelty, as well as by journalists’ union head Chris Warren. In court, Negus agreed he regarded Whittaker’s behaviour as “reprehensible” and said he and his colleagues had been “devastated” by the leak, which they believed could jeopardise months of work. In a later conversation with Whittaker, Negus said he had told the editor “We’re begrudgingly providing you this briefing to actually stop the thing being printed tomorrow.” Whittaker replied: “Well, we’re begrudgingly stopping the printing.” As a result of the conversation with Whittaker, reporter Cameron Stewart received detailed briefings on Operation Neath in return for the newspaper holding off publication. Negus rejected suggestions that the AFP had been held to ransom, saying it was a “negotiated solution”. Negus was also asked why the AFP had joined with The Australian in trying to keep details of the conversation suppressed. He agreed that he had been “made aware” that News Limited wanted the suppression, but rejected suggestions that he had been threatened by News Limited, or that a deal had been done. The leak had meant that the option of delaying the raids so that more evidence could be gathered — which was being considered at the time — had been lost. All the agencies involved — including ASIO, the AFP, Victoria Police and the NSW Crimes Commisssion — had agreed the raids should happen as soon as possible because of the leak. They took place on August 4, 2009. The Stewart scoop was published and available on the streets of Melbourne in the early hours of that morning, some hours before the raids, Negus said. It also became apparent in evidence yesterday that when Stewart approached the AFP he had only partial information on Operation Neath, understanding it to have an “international” implication, but not domestic. It was the AFP that told him that alleged terrorists were planning an attack on an Australian army base. (click on the pages for a larger version)
|
|
|
|
26 Comments
Wow!
That’s a fairly juicy (and rather smelly) story you’ve dug out there Margaret.
Well done.
Fantastic work Margaret and to the rest of the Crikey team and not forgetting Fairfax. This is real consequential journalism.
I am also pleased the law and legal system allowed this to be published. Very much in the public interest.
It would not have been a surprise to see News of the World instead of Australian. It seems to have a similar culture about it.
And then the campaign against Overland started because he complained about this leak.
Amazing.
What happens if the Australian has paid a benefit? Does that change the criminality? Could we see Limited News in the cross hairs just as Conroy is making his choice for the contract. Could we see Limited News owners considered unfit to hold media licences? As in bye bye Murdoch and his spawn from our lives.
Rupert will not be amused.
Simply animals. The pigs at the Australian must be held to account. From this hour forward, not one penny of govt advertising should be given to them. Taxpayers - rise up against any govt department who advertises in the Australian! Enough is enough !
Great work Margaret and props to the Crikey team, Fairfax and lawyer Sandip Mukerjea.
Journalism at its best exposing journalism at its worst!
Well done Margaret. It is the root of all evil. Money and Murdoch, If its not one it is the other.
The AFP should have just issued a control order against anyone working for any News Limited production.
Problem solved with as much amusing irony as possible.
Negus - “There are domestic aspects to this investigation which involved planned attacks on a military base”.
Whittacker - “Listen, I’ll speak with the editor-in-chief of The Australian and Cameron Stewart and then I’ll get back to you”.
Hubris factor one million. Can’t wait to see how the News Ltd. spinners, and their supporters, wriggle out of this one. I’ll bet folding money they play the “in the public interests/fearless journalism/against censorship” card.
One thing worrying me - the impact this could have on Australian Somalis. The records mention “the Somali community financing terrorism”. I’m having a hard time believing that the entire Somali population in this country is “financing terrorism”. Where this goes from here is anyone’s guess.
Congratulations.
Journalism [the real kind] at work.
Kudos to Margaret and to Crikey.
Why anyone could find themselves shocked by the behaviour of these vermin after the NoTW revelations I can’t fathom.
Anyone got a flame thrower handy?
Some journalist, their editors and source whistle blowers have been exposed by their own workplace as Machiavellian in the way they conduct themselves. I believe this is a good thing. Edward James
The awful and sad thing is that I am not surprised by this.
Excellent coverage Margaret.
What’s the betting that the media inquiry will not be going anywhere near this sort of “difficulty”?
Great work to all involved. What’s the bet that MSM doesn’t run with this? If this was a politician they would all be running with it until they resigned. When it’s one of their own, it’s all softly, softly, journalism with feather dusters. Most journos don’t upset the sugar daddy because one day they might get an offer to be on the Ltd News payroll.
Not surprising really. Ethics have been conspicuously absent at the The Australian for some time. The BIG question for mine - did the News Ltd flagship publication pay for the leak? Can’t imagine the senoir constable leaked this information for love so if he was remunerated in some way, are we seeing behaviour identical to NOW in the UK?
Rebekah Brooks would fit in quite neatly at The Australian.
What a rat Whittaker is … he should be known from now on as “How Many Lives” Whittaker.
Once again we are reminded that News Ltd publications do not act in the public interest.
Bring on the media inquiry!
“The questions I asked of Mr Negus, which are different from those contained in his statement, were consistent with normal journalistic rigour. Editors have a duty to test the assertions of anyone seeking to prevent publication of a story.” - Whittaker’s statement in The Oz.
To paraphrase the old proverb, in Whittaker’s case (and Limited News) “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to print your story and remove all doubt.”
I guess more lives lost equates to more newspapers sold. Or am I being too cynical?
Wasn’t it Julian Assange who told the editors of three newspapers that he had no issues with releasing the Manning data, even if the names of Afghani interpreters and Allied operatives were released to the public and perhaps enemy.
His attitude was, anybody involved was fair game.
And these names should be withheld because….oh yes that’s right - they’re on our side…. the side of the angels.
@Peter Ormonde
Good to see you acknowledge they’re on our side. Perhaps if your happy to…dismiss somebody who puts his ideology over human safety, fair enough. I would rather the interpreter and his family live than the Taliban fighter who would slit their throats. We learned nothing from what he released and yet this narcissist insists he is of some revolutionary use.
Was the material obtained illegally by Manning?…Yes
Did Assange receive stolen media and release it?….I believe so.
Should he face the courts for his actions?….Yes
Yes it’s a complex business this loyalty, secrecy and protection of our sources. Arguably those on the receiving end of our air strikes based on this anonymous information - those whose families are killed - would like to know which of their neighbours put them into the target zone. But we believe them and protect them. OK.
I, for one, would take the Gillards and the Obamas - and those who are outraged by the potential disclosure of names - far more seriously if they would open our borders to take our allies - these interpreters, informants and their families when they are forced to flee their homelands as we leave. Just as we had to do following our defeat in Viet Nam.
People get stuck in the middle … they believe us… they think we care about them… they think we will protect them. We did once. Let’s just see how it goes this time.