Page 5252 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The most significant element for which this bill makes provision is the adoption of existing commonwealth law that established journalist shield laws. These provisions, which are similar to the provisions relating to the more general professional privilege provisions I outlined earlier, provide for protection from evidence of information that would disclose the identity of a journalist’s sources. Once again, a discretion is available to the court to allow the evidence if it is in the public interest. The onus is on the party seeking the disclosure to show that the disclosure is in the public interest.
The scrutiny committee raised a concern about what it saw as a lack of clarity in relation to the scope of the court to exclude or include evidence of a protected certificate. In its response, and noting that the Law Society raised a similar concern, the government acknowledged this issue. In doing so, the government also noted that the bill mirrors the uniform national legislation and that it is important to maintain consistency in the national approach. Nonetheless, both in its response to the scrutiny committee and in the briefing the directorate officials gave Mrs Dunne, the government undertook to follow up on the matter at the national level. I am aware that this process has started already, and the opposition is grateful for that.
In relation to the journalist shield provisions, I note that the definition of “journalist” is very broad. It does not, for example, specify that a journalist must hold any particular qualifications. Thus it could be that someone who runs a social media page or a blog on the internet could be regarded as a journalist. The law as it applies to the ACT is quite new, because it was only recently introduced into the commonwealth law. Accordingly, there is no journalist shield case law that could provide guidance on these matters. So these provisions are untested, and we do have some concerns about them. It is clear that some revision will be required in the future as case law develops. This is an area of law which will need constant monitoring, and it may well be up to the Assembly to come back after a reasonable period of time has elapsed, review these laws and look at whether or not any amendments are necessary.
With those caveats, the opposition will support the bill.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (10.12): The Greens will be supporting this bill today. It makes important changes to update the evidence law for the ACT.
As the attorney has described in detail, one major change is the expanded range of evidence that is protected and that can be prevented from being disclosed in court. Under the current law, communication with a lawyer is, of course, protected. The amendments today will extend that protection to include communications with other professionals such as doctors, psychologists and social workers where confidentiality is vital. The court will be empowered to prevent the professional from divulging information that was given to them on trust and on a confidential basis.
There are clear public policy grounds for giving legal recognition to the ethical duty to respect conversations of this nature. The relationships covered by the law all hinge on trust. If the client does not trust the person they are speaking to, they will not open up and talk frankly with them, which means that they will not get the full benefit of the assistance they require.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video