Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Evidence (Journalists) Amendment Bill Evidence (Journalists) Amendment Bill Evidence (Journalists) Amendment Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 5 July 2018.) The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (18:05): I rise today to indicate that Labor will not oppose the journalists shield laws being introduced through the Evidence (Journalists) Amendment Bill 2018. Various amendments are being proposed by a number of crossbenchers, and we will listen with interest during this debate to see which, if any, the opposition will support. This is an area that has been of significant interest to both the media and the public. We indicate also that we are amenable to seeing how these laws operate in practice and, if needed in the future, coming back and looking at further amendments, depending on how these laws operate in practice. That said, I indicate that we supported in the House of Assembly the bill as it stood in progressing to this place, knowing that there were amendments and concerns that had been raised on a couple of issues. Regarding the definition of 'journalist', concerns have been raised with the Labor opposition that the definition as prescribed in the bill before us is too stringent and ought to be more accommodating, given the fragmented nature of journalism today and particularly with online presences of the different forms of news media and journalism that take place. We have also had representations that it is too wide in its scope as it currently stands. Some of the alternative suggestions that have been put have included such things as having a journalist defined by adherence to a code of ethics or as a member of an organisation that represents journalists. We have certainly had representations made to us in terms of the definition of journalists, to make it tighter or to make it looser, in effect, than what is in the bill. Another major concern that has been raised in consultation is that of essentially lifting the veil of the shield and how that can be done. The bill currently allows the shield to be lifted either by a court on application of a party to a particular proceedings or by the court on its own motion. I think we have had representations on the desirability of leaving the 'of its own motion' part in there. I know that a number of amendments have been filed from crossbenchers in relation to the issue of its own motion. If the government has a view on those amendments and what they do or do not support, I suspect that will help greatly in the flow of this bill through the committee stage. The Hon. J.A. DARLEY Legislative Council The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (18:08): I rise in support of this bill, which is similar to my 2013 and 2014 bills, which also addressed the issue of providing protections for journalists from revealing their sources. The issue of confidentiality is very important when people speak to journalists to expose matters. Individuals need to have confidence that when they are speaking out about important matters they will not be persecuted or punished for the information they provide to journalists. Similarly, journalists need to be sure that they will be protected from having to reveal their sources. It creates trust between the journalists and the informant which can lead to important information being exposed to the public. The bill will do this by amending the Evidence Act and providing a protection for journalists from liability if they fail to provide information that would identify their sources. The definition of 'journalist' is a point of contention which has been debated in this chamber before when it has considered previous versions of this bill. In 2014, the last time I introduced a similar bill, that version contained the same definition as the federal act. I note that the government has diverted from this; however, the Hon. Mark Parnell has filed amendments which will change the definition and I am supportive of this. I understand another major issue which has been flagged is the use of the word 'reasonably' in 72B(1)(d) of the bill. Concerns have been put to me that by having such a word included it would insert a discretion as to whether a person reasonably expected their identity would be kept confidential. Requests have been received to have this word removed. However, I understand that by having the word 'reasonably' in the bill it actually broadens the scope and the shield would have a wider application thereby protecting more people. The provision was in my original bill and I believe the public would be best served by retaining the word in the bill. People should be protected even if they only have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality rather than an explicit expectation. Another major point of contention is whether courts should be able to remove the shield on their own motion or not. I note there have been amendments filed which will remove the ability for courts to do this; however, again, going back to my 2014 bill, this provision was clearly inserted into the bill then, albeit with slightly different wording, which allowed the Supreme Court to remove the shield on its own motion, if they believe there is a public interest to do so. I understand the Hon. Mark Parnell has moved amendments to this provision and I believe this is a good compromise position which deserves my support. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.