Evidence (Journalists) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 May 2018.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:30): I rise to speak in support of this bill which seeks to introduce provisions to protect journalists and their confidential sources and to ultimately foster a free press in South Australia. As I have mentioned previously in this place, I am proud to be part of the Marshall Liberal government, which is endeavouring to conduct its duties to the best of its ability with transparency and accountability.

The introduction of this bill constitutes just one aspect of an array of initiatives that this government has committed to at the last election to fulfil its mandate of governing openly with robust and informed public debate. It appreciates that one of the most fundamental means of ensuring that this can occur is through enabling journalists to provide information to the community when it is in the public's interest, without fear of punitive action for adhering to the principles and code of ethics by refusing to reveal confidential sources—something journalists hold dear, and I strongly believe for precisely the right reasons.

As you are aware, sir, the Liberal Party has a history of relentlessly attempting to introduce shield laws, as the provisions we are debating are commonly known as, throughout its time in opposition. Indeed, I note the provisions contained in this bill are essentially a reflection of similar bills that were previously introduced in 2013, 2014 and 2015, which had the same intent of affording journalists and their sources with necessary legal protections. I was strongly supportive of the proposed measures presented on all of these occasions when I was on the crossbench and I was disappointed that the previous government did not recognise the need to mitigate the threat to the free flow of information to the public that has been impeded by current legislative restraints.

The new Liberal government is, of course, pleased that the Labor opposition has reconsidered its position and adjusted it to enable the passage of this bill in the other place, particularly since almost every other jurisdiction in Australia has adopted some form of shield laws for journalists similar, or, in some cases, mirroring this particular legislation. The fact that these laws are already in place across most of the nation is indicative of popular opinion on this issue, both within the media industry and throughout the wider community. There is evidently a strong case for South Australia to implement changes at the earliest opportunity to meet these apparent and legitimate expectations. I strongly support the bill.

The bill before us, though, seeks to amend the Evidence Act to create a default rule preventing journalists from incurring civil or even criminal liability for failing to provide information in relation to the identity of one of their sources. This would however—and I think sensibly—be subject to a public interest test, where the court may order the disclosure of informants should it determine that the benefits of this information being made public outweighs any likely detriment to the source, or any other person, or to the value of maintaining a free press. This is rightly a decision for the courts and this bill makes it so.

I understand the Attorney-General expects that this ruling would be a very rare occurrence in practice, and I consider the proposed reforms to strike the right balance between maintaining a free flow of information and providing the courts with the power, in very limited circumstances—and, as I said, expected to be very rare circumstances—to intervene where necessary.

It is important to note that these provisions were developed in consultation with the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, the Ombudsman, the South Australian police force, the Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Chief Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Crown Solicitor and the Law Society, obviously as well as media stakeholders.

The term 'journalist' in this bill is carefully defined, and this is important as it has been a source of some consternation in previous attempts to alter the legislation. In this bill, it is carefully defined as:

…a person engaged in the profession or occupation of journalism in connection with the publication of information in a news medium;

where 'news medium' is in turn defined as:

…any medium for the dissemination to the public, or a section of the public, of news and observations on news;

Although this definition of the profession is flexible enough to adapt to the rapidly evolving channels of communication, unlike the commonwealth's definition, which refers to any person engaged and active in the publication of news, it does not encompass people such as bloggers, who are not recognised as legitimate journalists in many cases and may be less scrupulous, hence their exclusion from this legislation. Indeed, this is becoming increasingly important in an era where so-called fake news can be rife and accounts of events can easily be fabricated, citing undisclosed and therefore unverifiable sources. This happens all too often and often for sinister purposes.

It is certainly not the intent of these proposed shield laws to protect keyboard warriors with ill intent, but rather to enable respectable journalists to undertake their duty of reporting and disseminating important information to the public without breaking the trust of their anonymous sources. In fact, members of parliament—indeed, I am sure all honourable members of this place—would have an appreciation for the media at various levels and the pivotal role that journalists play with regard to our own profession and the dissemination of information from this place and in the broader community.

The importance of developing and maintaining trust with those we engage with throughout the media industry to achieve mutual objectives is, of course, vital. On a personal note, the journalists I have worked with over my more than 12 years in this place—and I have had the privilege of working with many of them over the years—I have found, really without exception, to be men and women who take their positions of influence very seriously. They all share an understanding that their reputations can make or break their success and indeed the success or harm of others.

In my experience, journalists share a common resolve to maintain credibility through conveying facts to the best of their knowledge and would like nothing more than to do so without fear or favour. No doubt, members in this and the other place with backgrounds in journalism, such as the Hon. Frank Pangallo, would appreciate that the threat of criminal sanctions would serve to be a gross impediment to achieving this when the protection of loyal, confidential sources is very important.

I will just add, on a personal note, that after some 12 years in this place, I have only been misquoted on one occasion, that I am aware of, by a particular individual. That journalist acknowledged that I had been misquoted and corrected it. The correction, of course, is sometimes not as useful as getting it right in the first place, but of the literally thousands of quotes I would have provided over the years, there is only one occasion on which I am aware of ever having been misquoted. To me, that is a very strong record of success on the part of the journalists that I have dealt with over that period of time.

The results that journalists can achieve on behalf of the most vulnerable in our community cannot be underestimated and should not be undervalued, in my view. Since my election, I have had countless constituents seek my help, sometimes in desperation and dire predicaments. After doing all I could as an individual member of parliament to advocate on their behalf to the relevant authorities, whether they be ministers in the previous government, departments or whatever, in the absence of a satisfactory outcome the only remaining option is to raise the issue in the media, which I have done on multiple occasions.

More often that not when I have done so, no matter how distressed these constituents may be, they can choose to speak or not to speak. However, I have found that, when I brought these matters to the attention of the media, the outcome was often positive. In the rare cases in which some people choose not to engage with the media, it falls on the individual member of parliament to do what they can behind the scenes. There are also cases when individuals choose to engage with the media, confidentially or otherwise, and the desired results are usually positive.

If sources were afforded greater protection, I have every confidence we would have more South Australians willing to come forward with their grievances, which could potentially mitigate serious shortcomings within both the public and private sectors. We only need to consider the deplorable situations we have seen in recent years involving serious allegations of child abuse in our state system and maladministration in our aged-care facilities to acknowledge that the passage of this bill is warranted to prevent any potential atrocities from occurring or escalating in the future.

This government is not afraid of scrutiny; in fact, it is determined to use its own power to instigate changes where necessary to ensure it is kept to account to advance effective leadership and governance in our state. Shield laws are vital to this process, and I trust all honourable members will see value in supporting the proposed measures before us in the best interests of South Australia. This is good law; I supported it when I was on the crossbench and I support it now.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.