Antinuclear

Australia’s New Censorship Is Voluntary – and That’s Why It’s Dangerous

4 December 2025,  David Tyler, https://theaimn.net/australias-new-censorship-is-voluntary-and-thats-why-its-dangerous/

When journalists internalise the state, the state no longer needs to silence them.

Australia has discovered the most polite form of censorship ever devised. No jackboots, no warrants, no midnight raids; just a quiet conversation, a “national security” reminder, and journalists voluntarily silencing themselves. Why pass laws when you can persuade the press to behave as though they already exist?

This is not satire. It is policy. And its blueprint comes straight from Whitehall.

The Quiet Request

Three weeks after Labor took office in June 2022, officials in Attorney‑General Mark Dreyfus‘s department reached across hemispheres to Britain’s Ministry of Defence. Their purpose was not military cooperation, intelligence sharing, or treaty work. It was media control; specifically, how to make censorship unnecessary by convincing journalists to do it to themselves.

The model: Britain’s Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee (DSMA).
The tool: a pre‑publication vetting mechanism disguised as collaboration.
The tone: “voluntary.”
The effect: silent.

DIY censorship? Brilliant.

Not a Draft. An Import.

Freedom of Information documents show this was not curiosity. It was a virtual IKEA flat‑pack – imported, piece by bureaucratic piece, from the mother country to its former colony. The assembly instructions came straight from London. A spare Allen key always comes in handy.

• 2019: Days after Federal Police raided ABC and News Corp offices over war‑crimes reporting, red‑faced Australian officials began attending DSMA sessions in London.
• 2021–2022: Bureaucrats refined plans for a “similar role” in Australia.
• May 2022: Secret roundtables with major editors were held. No minutes. No attendee lists. No sunlight.
• June 2022: Dreyfus’s department formally requested London’s assistance.

The continuity is chilling. Liberal ministers started the project. Labor ministers continued it. Bureaucratic inertia was the constant.

This isn’t a partisan conspiracy. It’s worse: a bipartisan agreement that journalists must learn to censor themselves politely.

How Britain Silences Without Silencing

DSMA is a masterpiece of bureaucratic subtlety. It issues “advisories,” not bans. Journalists “consult” before publishing, rather than submit for approval. A discreet military officer suggests what to omit “for national security,” while the state never dirties its hands with formal censorship laws.

The committee’s proceedings are confidential.
Its members are hidden.
Its advice is non‑binding.
Yet it boasts a 90% success rate persuading journalists not to publish.

Dissent hasn’t been criminalised; it has been professionalised. To ignore DSMA advice invites prosecution under the Official Secrets Act – or, more immediately, career suicide. The threat is legal, but the engine is cultural.

This is what Canberra admires: not censorship, but managed consent. The state doesn’t punish critics. The critics simply internalise the state. Intuit the boss’ wishes, a bit like a Murdoch editor.

The Dreyfus Paradox

Mark Dreyfus once helped chisel the High Court’s implied freedom of political communication into Australia’s constitutional framework. He argued that democracy depends on journalists criticising power freely.

Journalist training programs

And now? His department has chased a censorship model whose brilliance lies in never admitting it exists.

This isn’t hypocrisy. It’s absorption. Dreyfus didn’t renounce principle; he was subsumed by machinery. You don’t have to betray your beliefs if the institution performs the betrayal for you.

He thought he was protecting national security. What he safeguarded was secrecy itself.

The Machinery

This project did not dissolve when ministers changed. It doesn’t depend on elections. The relationships with UK Defence persist. Editors who attended closed‑door sessions still hold their seats. Bureaucrats continue to discuss frameworks for “voluntary advisory mechanisms.”

And the scaffolding grows stronger through parallel controls:

• Harsher secrecy offences that criminalise public‑interest reporting.
• Online misinformation laws with ministerial discretion over speech.
• Digital identity requirements for internet access.
• Discussion papers on journalist registration systems.

Individually, each seems modest. Together, they form something like a velvet‑lined cage.

The Respectable Mask

Systems like DSMA need legitimacy. Enter Peter Greste: a journalist jailed in Egypt, a symbol of press freedom, a moral compass. Conference transcripts show him engaging with advocates of reviving the Australian D‑Notice system, DSMA’s predecessor.

The argument attributed to him is seductive: pre‑publication consultation protects journalists from prosecution. Ask permission; avoid jail.

And in the process, a core civic principle collapses quietly under manners and moral suasion.

The Question

Australia must stop asking whether a DSMA system will be adopted. It already has been – culturally.

The question is whether Australians still believe freedom of political communication is a public right or whether it has become a regulated professional privilege.

Is a journalist free if they must first seek permission to tell the truth?

That’s the moment democracy becomes polite enough to disappear; and the risk now confronting every newsroom in the country.

* * * * *

CLARKE & DAWE: HOW TO SILENCE A COUNTRY WITHOUT LAWS

SETTING: Parliament House lawn.

BRYAN DAWE holding freshly printed FOI documents.

JOHN CLARKE appears as a senior official from the “Department of National Information Harmony,” calm, courteous, and utterly terrifying.

BRYAN DAWE: John, your department has been in discussions with the UK about its Defence and Security Media Advisory system.

JOHN CLARKE: Yes, Bryan. Very sensible. A voluntary censorship system.

BRYAN DAWE: Voluntary censorship?

JOHN CLARKE: Correct, Bryan. It’s censorship that journalists choose.

BRYAN DAWE: Why would journalists choose to censor themselves?

JOHN CLARKE: National security, Bryan. Also career security. Also avoiding prosecution. And staying in the good books.

BRYAN DAWE: So the government isn’t forcing them?

JOHN CLARKE: No, Bryan. That would look terrible. We simply provide advice about what not to publish.

BRYAN DAWE: And the journalists follow it?

JOHN CLARKE: Over 90% of the time, Bryan. Very cooperative species.

BRYAN DAWE: Doesn’t this undermine press freedom?

JOHN CLARKE: Not at all, Bryan. The press is free to comply.

BRYAN DAWE: FOI documents show your department approached the UK three weeks after Labor was elected.

JOHN CLARKE: Correct. But the previous government started it. It’s bipartisan secrecy, Bryan. The safest kind.

BRYAN DAWE: So both sides agree on this system?

JOHN CLARKE: Absolutely. It avoids embarrassment across the aisle. Truly unifying.

BRYAN DAWE: What is the advantage of a voluntary censorship system?

JOHN CLARKE: You never need to admit you’re censoring anything. The media does it for you. It’s very efficient.

BRYAN DAWE: And what if journalists refuse?

JOHN CLARKE: They are still free to refuse, Bryan. Then they can be prosecuted. Freely.

BRYAN DAWE: John, isn’t democracy supposed to rely on an independent press?

JOHN CLARKE: Yes, Bryan. Which is why the press must work closely with the government.

BRYAN DAWE: That sounds like dependency, not independence.

JOHN CLARKE: Independence is most reliable when it is professionally supervised, Bryan.

BRYAN DAWE: So transparency is preserved?

JOHN CLARKE: Entirely, Bryan. We always encourage transparency; provided it has been cleared with us first.

BRYAN DAWE: John, is this censorship?

JOHN CLARKE: No, Bryan. It’s voluntary. Only the consequences are compulsory.

This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES

December 6, 2025 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | media