Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I agree with the government, without any qualification, that no journalist must ever knowingly put someone at risk. In fact, the minister's example of a counter-terrorist operation is a good example of a situation where it would be inconceivable that a sane journalist would report anything that might put anyone involved in that operation at risk.

Of course there are lots of examples that could be used to tease this issue out. There has already been repeated references this morning to the now infamous planting of a listening device in the East Timorese cabinet rooms. There is an example where a type of operation could be occurring where the Australian government or perhaps a zealous official within an intelligence agency might be going beyond what could be regarded as reasonable and ethical behaviour, and there could be a legitimate reason for a journalist to want to publicise that. In that example, that journalist could be liable to up to 10 years in prison; an intelligence official involved in the operation who perhaps is collaborating or working with the journalist, he or she would have no protections under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. So there we have another example, but it is an example that I think very clearly makes the point that this section 35P could conceivably silence or muzzle the media in the future on that rare occasion when a prescribed operation does need or does warrant publication.

The point was made a little while ago, in fact I think it was in response to my colleague the member for Melbourne, that there is already an abundance of laws out there to prohibit and deter the improper disclosure of information or intelligence. The minister listed a number of examples, and used it as a challenge to the Greens: 'Why are you challenging things today when you don't challenge these other things?' I am going to turn that attack on the member for Melbourne around, and I am going to say: if there are already a range of laws that deter and prohibit the improper disclosure of information, then why do we need one more? And, in particular, why do we need one more that goes way beyond any existing penalty and a law to do with an issue that has never been a problem? We are creating solutions for things that are not a problem. The fact is that prescribed operations have been in existence for the Australian Federal Police for years, and to the best of my knowledge no journalist has ever been pursued or prosecuted for disclosing any information improperly about any of those AFP prescribed operations. So why are we creating a solution when there is no problem? Why are we creating laws and more red tape, particularly by a government that is wanting to get rid of unnecessary and superfluous laws? Why? I do not understand it. Why do you want another law?

See this speech in context