Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I am pleased to present the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press. This statement has largely been prepared by the chair of the committee, the member for Canning, and I acknowledge his outstanding leadership of the committee and the work of all colleagues on both sides of the House and in the other place on this report.

The report covers the committee's consideration of the matters referred to it by the Attorney-General under section 29 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001. The execution of two search warrants by the Australian Federal Police in June 2019 provoked public discussion on the impact of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press in Australia. The committee acknowledges the government has already acted to address concerns raised by journalists, media organisations and civil society in response to the execution of these search warrants. Though these are welcome steps, the committee considers there are other opportunities for further reform.

This report considered both the need to protect Australia from threats to our national security and the importance of public interest journalism to a free and open society. We consider the rule of law and a free press mutually supporting in a healthy democratic society. All Australians have obligations before the law. This includes journalists and media organisations who serve a vital role in upholding it through fair and accurate public interest reporting. No Australians are exempt from the obligations of the law. In our consideration of press freedom we've resisted calls to recommend an exemption from the law for journalists, for reasons detailed in the report. It is the committee's view that there is a healthy tension between the obligations of national security and the transparency of public interest journalism in Australia.

We can improve our current warrant regime as it applies to journalists and media organisations, as the following recommendations make clear. The committee has recommended that the existing role of the public interest advocate, provided by the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, be amended and expanded to apply to warrants involving the investigation of unauthorised disclosure of government information when it relates to journalists and media organisations. In recognition of the gravity of occasions where national security may encroach on the freedom of the press, the committee has recommended elevating the qualifications required of public interest advocates and issuing authorities for these warrant applications. Specifically, we recommend that all warrants sought by an enforcement agency related to a person working in a professional capacity as a journalist or a media organisation should be issued by a judge of a superior court of record in the jurisdiction of issue for the relevant Crimes Act 1914 warrants, and a nominated Federal Court judge for relevant Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 warrants.

While the committee has not recommended an exemption or exception for journalists and media organisations, the committee acknowledges the important place of public interest journalism in Australia and recommends that the government consider whether defences for journalism undertaken in the public interest should be applied to additional Commonwealth secrecy offences. The committee has made recommendations relating to the Public Interest Disclosure Scheme, noting that it is preferable for public servants to have access to a robust process to raise concerns before approaching journalists and media organisations.

In relation to the events underpinning the inquiry, the committee believes there is a role for better cooperation between journalists, media organisations and government departments. Therefore, the committee has recommended that the government consider establishing a mechanism for journalists and media organisations to communicate with the originating agency of national security classified information without the threat of investigation or prosecution. In addition, the committee recommends government departments and agencies prioritise the establishment of media liaison units.

The committee noted the concerns raising the appropriateness of national security classification on documents and recommends that oversight bodies audit and inquire into the implementation and application of the National Security Classification Framework. Though outside of the scope of the inquiry, the committee recognises the evidence it received about defamation, shield laws and freedom of information and has made recommendations on harmonising shield laws and addressing consistency with the freedom of information process.

Finally, the committee recognises that measuring the impact of these recommendations on improving the perception of a free press in Australia is difficult without additional transparency. The committee has therefore recommended additional reporting measures on the Public Interest Advocate regime as well as on warrants that relate to journalists and media organisations. I commend this report to the House.

See this speech in context