Page 5253 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There is, however, a tension between, on the one hand, that public policy and, on the other the hand, the public interest in having relevant evidence brought before a court during a trial. The proposed law balances these competing interests well because it does not give an absolute right to the professional to not divulge the information. The court can grant the protection only where the client will be harmed by the release of the information and that harm outweighs the desirability of the evidence being heard in court. There is a long list of factors that a court will consider when determining that question.
The second major change is the creation of a separate subcategory of protection for journalists who receive confidential information, known as the journalist shield law, which Mr Seselja spoke of. The new law states that journalists cannot be compelled to release the name of an informant where the journalist promised the informer that they would protect them. This law recognises the public interest in a freely operating press which can demand accountability from government. The law creates a rebuttable presumption that journalists cannot disclose their sources. It is important that the presumption is rebuttable because there may be a time when the public interest in the identity of the informant outweighs the public interest in respecting the confidential nature of that person.
It is also important to note that this ACT bill adopts an important amendment moved by my Australian Greens colleague Senator Scott Ludlam when the laws passed through the federal parliament. This amendment ensures that new media are covered by the protection, not just the traditional print media. This means that the protection for bloggers, citizen journalists and independent media will be equal to that of print journalists. This is important because new media can play a pivotal role in providing a free press; the laws must support them in that role and recognise the emerging nature of press diversity and the fact that many of the online sources of journalism, particularly, are becoming as important, and certainly as timely and in some cases as well respected, as some of the more traditional forms. We have all seen that in the way that some stories get broken these days. That is an important extension to the law that Senator Ludlum inserted, and I am pleased to see that it has been reflected in the ACT bill.
In conclusion, the Greens will be supporting this bill today.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.16), in reply: I thank members for their support of this bill. The passage of this bill today is another important step in the reform of evidence law in the territory. The bill’s primary purpose is to finalise the territory’s adoption of the uniform evidence law. It does this by adopting reforms agreed to by all attorneys-general but not as yet implemented in the commonwealth. The bill has a secondary purpose of ensuring the continued operation of the commonwealth’s specific journalist privilege law in the territory.
Members will remember that earlier this year the territory established its own evidence act. While this was a first for the territory, it did not seek to substantively
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video