Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7672 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6L, page 34 (lines 8 to 10), omit paragraph 180G(1)(b), substitute:

(b) a purpose, effect or likely effect of making the authorisation would be to identify another person whom the eligible person knows or reasonably believes may be a source;

(2) Schedule 1, item 6L, page 34 (lines 26 to 28), omit paragraph 180H(1)(b), substitute:

(b) a purpose, effect or likely effect of making the authorisation would be to identify another person whom the authorised officer knows or reasonably believes may be a source;

These amendments amend the criteria under which an eligible person or enforcement agencies may not make an authorisation for disclosure of information relating to a journalist or their employer unless a journalist information warrant is in force. The amendments alter the provisions to include where the purpose or likely effect of making the authorisation would be to identify another person who is known to be a source, or is reasonably believed to be a source, so that an authorisation cannot be made under these circumstances.

If we can put this in context, what is proposed in the bill in terms of the excluded categories—that is, those categories for which a journalist's information warrant must be sought—is that you need to show if a purpose of making the authorisation would be to identify another person whom the eligible person knows or reasonably believes to be a source. I know this is not competition law, but it does remind me about the debate of the effects test that the Harper review is looking at. In other words, to show purpose, and to simply confine it to purpose, seems to me to be unduly narrow. That is why I have moved an amendment that would allow a broader approach that would allow inclusion of the words 'effect' or 'likely effect'. The argument by those seeking authorisation is: 'This is not our purpose,' but if the effect or likely effect of making the authorisation would be to identify a source, then I think that should be included. I think it is consistent with what the government has put up in this bill. It is intended to have a regime in place to protect journalists' sources. But having it confined simply to purpose, particularly in the context of the public interest advocate regime, where there is not an opportunity for the media organisation to be consulted, I think it is important that we have it as broad and consistent as possible with the purpose of what the government's amendment says. The aim of these amendments is to broaden the circumstances under which information cannot be disclosed without a warrant, to ensure that sources are not inadvertently identified. My concern is that the word 'purpose' is simply too narrow; that it ought to include 'effect' or 'likely effect', because of the debates we have seen in other pieces of legislation about the narrowness of the word 'purpose' in the context of what the government's amendment is trying to remedy.