Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I speak in favour of the motion. The government is pleased to support the passage of the Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010. The bill will ensure journalists have the confidence to report information that is in the public interest without fear of being held in contempt of court for failing to disclose their sources. It will also encourage a full disclosure of information that is within the public interest by reassuring potential sources that their confidentiality can be maintained. The key element of the bill is the introduction of a rebuttable presumption in favour of journalists’ privilege, based on journalist shield laws in New Zealand. This allows a journalist to refuse to disclose the identity of a source or provide information that would disclose that identity where the journalist has promised to maintain the source’s confidentiality.

However, there will also be circumstances where public interest considerations do demand disclosure. Therefore, the bill permits a court to overturn the presumption where it has been satisfied by a party that the public interest in the disclosure outweighs any likely adverse effect on the informant or any other person, the public interest in the communication of facts and opinion to the public by the press and the ability of the press to access sources of fact. The government considers that this is an appropriate balance and that our courts are well placed to carry out this balancing exercise.

The bill was always intended to ensure adequate protection for journalists and their sources. The amendments passed in the Senate clarify these protections, and the government supports these amendments as the amendments fit within the objectives of the bill and are consistent with the Commonwealth Evidence Act 1995. The definitions in this bill are modelled on the New Zealand journalist shield provisions, as I have indicated. The definitions of ‘journalist’, ‘informant’ and ‘news media’ rely on their ordinary meanings and allow the court to take a case-by-case approach. These amendments clarify the concerns expressed as to whether the New Zealand based definitions are technology neutral and cover all of those engaged and active in the publication of news.

In conclusion, this bill is an excellent example of how all sides of politics can work together in this parliament towards a common goal. I again thank the member for Denison and also Senator Xenophon for introducing this bill and for their willingness to work with the government on this important issue.

See this speech in context