Canberra’s Quiet Gag Order

Here we go again.

As if the push to “combat misinformation and disinformation” and the censorious antics of the eSafety Commissioner weren’t enough, the Australian Government is quietly planning a new “D Notice” system. A “D Notice” is an official government request that the media not publish sensitive military-intelligence information

First, credit where it is due: Declassified Australia did the digging and broke this story late last week, laying out the documents and the timeline that our political and bureaucratic class hoped you would never read.

What those documents showed is that Australia is inching, quietly and deliberately, toward reviving a British-style media censorship regime for military and intelligence reporting. The branding is softer now, “advisory,” “voluntary,” “dialogue,” but the aim is the same: keep uncomfortable facts away from the public until the state says otherwise.

For three decades after the 1950s, Australia ran a “D Notice” system. Officials told editors what not to publish about military operations, spy agencies, and sensitive kit. It fell into disuse around 1982 because journalists increasingly ignored it, and the public grew tired of the culture of secrecy. Britain kept the model and rebranded it as the Defence and Security Media Advisory, DSMA, a committee where editors are invited to voluntarily “seek advice” before publishing. And “voluntarily” sounds lovely until you remember who holds the clearances, the briefings, and the leverage.

The spark for this push was the 2019 AFP raids on the ABC and on journalist Annika Smethurst over reporting on alleged war crimes and a proposal for domestic spying powers. Michael Pezzullo, then Home Affairs Secretary, pitched a “modern D Notice.” Leaked text messages revealed that he told a Liberal Party fixer that Scott Morrison was supportive of the idea and that Labor’s Mark Dreyfus “seemed interested.” Bipartisan, you might say, just not in your favour. Some press at the time assured us the idea “vanished.” It did not.

Freedom of information documents, obtained and reported by Declassified Australia, show that Australian officials have been courting Britain’s DSMA committee since late 2019, attending workshops and briefings. A June 2022 email from Australia House in London, one month after Labor won office, states Home Affairs had been engaging DSMA “over the last year” to “stand up a similar role” here. Senior officials met the DSMA secretary in May 2022. The committee’s minutes record an Australian presence again in November 2024. Translation: the machinery did not pause for an election. The plan began under the Coalition’s watch and kept rolling on under Labor. It was a case of different political colours but the same policy destination.

Proponents of this plan include the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), an outfit that has received millions of dollars in funding from the US Department of State and major global military defence contractors. It has also been linked to the CIA. ASPI and others present a kinder, gentler “D Notice” system, a media-led committee, “voluntary” notices, a trusted secretary with full clearances, no prosecutions, just “responsible conversations” about what might endanger lives. That is the brochure. In practice, the UK committee has issued letters reminding editors that certain special forces deployments “should not be published.” It thus becomes advice with teeth. British outlets routinely send sensitive drafts to the secretariat. Because the process is confidential, the public cannot see what was pulled, softened, or delayed. “Voluntary” becomes coercion, backed by access, reputations, and the ever-present spectre of secrecy laws.

And what of independent media? Will publications such as Confidential Daily, Rebel News, and Declassified Australia get a seat at the table for this censorship committee? That's highly doubtful. What is more likely is that, alongside government, the mainstream media will dominate and use their power to suppress independent media, who are largely filling the void of real government scrutiny that they've long since abdicated themselves from.

Australia’s secrecy regime is already severe, with broad offences, heavy penalties, and a flimsy public interest shield. The Australian Government is desperate for powers that will regulate what people see on the internet under the guise of “combating misinformation and disinformation.” They've empowered the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to extend far beyond its original remit of protecting kids online to trying to enforce global censorship of a post by a Canadian activist on a US-based social media platform. Add a closed-door triage over what the public may learn regarding military-intelligence information, and you have the makings of the most comprehensive speech control framework in the democratic West.

It is true that he mainstream media cannot be trusted. Much of their journalism is clickbait with adjectives or blatant left-wing propaganda. However, if the media is sloppy or biased, the answer is not to suppress stories before they see the light of day. You do not fix a dodgy smoke alarm by padlocking the fire exits.

Neither crass reporting nor bias justifies a standing, confidential filter inside the national security state. Names of covert operatives and live operations should be handled with care, absolutely. Editors already weigh that, often in consultation with agencies. What must not happen is a culture where the state quietly decides which truths are “safe” to learn and when.

Unfortunately, it is clear that Australia is being prepared for large-scale censorship. And the push is largely bipartisan. In the case of this new "D Notice" system, it seems the Coalition lit the fuse, and Labor has kept the flame alive. They both want censorship of military-intelligence information that is off the books and beyond public challenge. It is a blatant attempt by the political and bureaucratic class to stifle the truth and must be resisted.

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed, everything else is public relations.”
– (attributed to) George Orwell