George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

The blunt answer to your question is that the government did not consider that it was necessary to have a special regime for journalists because this law is not about journalists. As I said in an interview with a media organisation early last week, this is a law about terrorists, organised criminals, paedophiles and people who are likely to be the subject of investigation by the police. Frankly, I am not acquainted with any journalists who are terrorists, organised criminals or paedophiles—and I do not think there are any; I am sure there are none. The 20 pages that have been introduced into this bill have been introduced really to put to rest what I consider to have been a false issue. But people, in good faith, were troubled by this—including your good self—in my view unnecessarily and unwarrantedly. Nevertheless, we have introduced this into the legislation.

In relation to members of the legal professional, there is a pretty clear answer to your question. This is a bill about metadata; it is not about the content of a communication. I can understand the argument that the metadata of, for argument's sake, a telephone connection between a journalist and a telephone number could identify a source. But what the law regarding lawyer-client privilege protects is legal advice, which is, of its very nature, content. The law relating to lawyer-client privilege does not protect or prevent a person from being asked, for example, whether he had engaged a lawyer or whether he had had a communication with a lawyer. The interest, the confidential information that that legal principle protects, is what the lawyer advised the client or what the client may have told the lawyer in the course of seeking advice and representation. So the whole basis of this legislation, which excludes content, means that legal advice or what passes between a lawyer and his client could never be captured by it.