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

Does not the Attorney concede that the words 'effect or likely effect' would, whilst making the provision broader in terms of the categories for which a journalist information warrant is required, still be consistent with the aim of the government's amendment—that is, to protect a journalist's source? Or rather—and I will stand corrected—in order for a journalist information warrant to be granted, there is a process prescribed in the bill. The circumstances in which that occurs are now confined in part to showing that there is a purpose for making the authorisation: to identify another person or eligible person. You could have the person seeking the warrant simply say, 'The purpose is not to seek to identify the source, but it could well be an incidental effect to that.' Given the government's negotiation with the opposition and listening to concerns of major media organisations including News Ltd and Seven West in this country, does not the Attorney concede that there may be circumstances when the bill in its current form as proposed by the government would not require an authorisation, because the authority or agency seeking the metadata says, 'This is not the purpose for the authorisation, but it may well be a collateral effect that a source will be disclosed and therefore we do not have to go through this process of the public interest advocate'?