Journalists carrying out public interest journalism face the prospect of being effectively licensed by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in order to access company data, which is essential for corporate investigations, Crikey has learnt.
The data, which includes a company director’s date of birth and their residential address, is currently publicly available through registries held by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). Such details confirm the identity of company directors and are vital for journalists who are following a company director’s trail.
The plan to insert a new layer of bureaucracy and potentially extend government control over access to information has put the ATO into conflict with the journalists union, the MEAA, which opposes in principle the state licensing of journalists.
The ATO is taking over responsibility for corporate registries currently held by ASIC under a federal government scheme to modernise registry services.
As part of the change, the ATO plans to introduce a tiered system of access to corporate data. The ATO’s plan would restrict public access to personal information on directors. The move to limit access to data has been pushed by the Governance Institute of Australia which, according to its website, represents the interests of “governance and risk management professionals from the listed, unlisted and not-for-profit sector”.
Journalists could still be given access to directors’ full details, as is currently the case with ASIC registries. However, Crikey understands the ATO plans to restrict access to only those journalists who are licensed by the ATO.
An MEAA briefing note obtained by Crikey says the ATO’s plan to “accredit” journalists amounted to licensing journalists and was “contrary to long-standing MEAA policy”. The licensing plan, it said, introduced a “significant practical hurdle” for occasional users and overseas media.
The note said the ATO had been told it was “not their role to decide who is and is not a journalist”.
The ATO has been famously hostile to the public disclosure of information. Three years ago it prosecuted whistleblower Richard Boyle, a one-time ATO debt collection officer who revealed the ATO’s targeting of vulnerable individuals and small businesses in a joint ABC-Fairfax (now Nine) investigation.
Boyle’s home was raided by ATO and Federal Police officers after he spoke to Four Corners. He was charged with 66 criminal offences, subsequently reduced to 24.
Australia drops in press freedom ratings
News of the ATO move has emerged as Australia records a significant fall in press freedom rankings. The 2022 World Press Freedom Index, published by Reporters Without Borders this week, shows Australia has slipped from 25th to 39th place internationally.
“Governments must respect and honour press freedom, put accountability and transparency at the heart of our democracy, and answer the questions asked of them; not the questions they want to answer,” said Karen Percy, federal president of the MEAA Media Section.
“Freedom of Information processes should not be shackled, court cases should not be secret, and elected representatives should not spread disinformation and hide behind claims of fake news.
“Quality, honest and transparent journalism — centred on ethics and the public interest — is the best shot our industry has in restoring our critical role in a democratic society.”
The MEAA has also submitted a list of priority areas to the major political parties. These include:
• Restoring adequate funding to public broadcasters the ABC and SBS, with greater certainty over a five-year funding cycle.
• Implementing reforms to protect whistleblowers who disclose confidential information to media in the public interest.
• Conducting an urgent review of Australia’s security laws to remove impediments and sanctions against public interest journalism.
UPDATE: An ATO spokesperson said in a statement to Crikey following the publication of this story that the tax office was currently running “a number of consultation processes, including with journalists, to ensure proposed changes will meet stakeholders’ needs.”
“These consultation processes are ongoing and still in early stages,” it said.
“The ATO understands the importance of transparency, and is considering a variety of options to balance the need for transparency against privacy requirements and public expectations. No decisions have been made and all options will be considered.”
Access to company data is needed by more than journalists. I currently have an application before VCAT because a company does not want to make good on a warranty claim (we are only talking a few hundred dollars). Just to get heard by VCAT required me to purchase company information (including the Directors names and addresses). Where would that leave everyone – including journalists if we all needed to be registered by the ATO? Seems a crazy idea and will just mean that less and less information will be accessible while the Government holds more and more information (and power).
We might also want to ask who these ‘accredited journalists’ are going to be. My guess, predominantly News Corp soft-focus specialists who know how to toe the line. There may still be some real journalists at News Corp, but I suspect that they won’t get within cooee of this gig.
The new Modernising Business Registers program will give you what you need for free. Same as for journos
Malignant Secrecy, pretending to fix a problem that doesn’t exist, extends its reach yet again.
WTF???? This is not just a matter between journalism and government departments, in this case the unethical and secretive ATO. It is about the public generally and the ATO and the whole practice of commercial law. There are so many outrageous facets to this heinous proposal it is impossible to deal with them in a mere comment. But let’s just start with a few:
This makes me very angry!
Perhaps we should have a Royal Commission into the activities of the Taxation Department as to how it collects OUR money as a taxpayer AND a citizen. Particularly with respect to efficiency and effectiveness as related to legislation.
Maybe Board members should come under the Building and Construction Industry Legislation the same as Unions.
What about access for ethical investors, ethical consumers, or ethical suppliers, who equally should have full transparency?
All such corporate data are public records and should be easily available without charge to everyone. Nobody should have to prove they are ethical in order to access it.
They are going to be under the new Modernising Business Registers arrangements
Autocratic creep. Better stop this one before it takes root.
It took root long ago.