Mr PALLAS (Tarneit) —  In  rising  to  speak  on  the  Evidence  Amendment (Journalist Privilege) Bill 2012 I wish to indicate  that  our  position  in not opposing  this  bill, in  effect,  is  apprehended  upon  the  recognition  that journalism is an important profession and an intrinsic part  of an effective and functioning democracy. Quite  often those of us in public life become irritated, in  fact downright  outraged on  occasion, about what is said about us, and long should  it be, because effectively that  is what public life is about. If you go into public life, you expect  in many ways the performance  of the job to become an issue  of  public  discussion.  Indeed it  is almost  a key  criteria on  the position description for a job in public life.

The bill  that the Attorney-General has  brought to this  Parliament strengthens the protections that are available to journalists and their sources.

The bill effectively implements the sorts of things to  which  the  former Labor government  committed when it indicated  that it would  introduce shield laws to protect journalists from being compelled to name their sources. We are concerned that there are jurisdictional restrictions in terms of the  broad application of the legislation. The bill seeks to amend the  Evidence Act  2008 to  provide for journalist  privilege,  provide  for  mutual  recognition of  self-incrimination certificates from other jurisdictions and make technical amendments to align the Victorian act  with  the Model  Uniform  Evidence  Bill. However,  it  fails  to incorporate  recognition  for non-court-based  institutions.  There  is  a valid argument that journalist privilege should nonetheless apply to evidence acquired in those circumstances.

In 2008 when Labor implemented the new Evidence Act there was no agreement about a national approach to journalist privilege.

We  have  seen the holding  off  of  legislation in this  area  in the hope that agreement would be  reached or a  nationally  consistent model would  emerge. We believe  a strong democracy  needs robust media prepared  to inquire. The  media should be  able to  operate knowing  there is a level of legislative comfort  in performing their functions, which in many cases are a public service. After all, as the fourth estate the media plays a key role  in the effective functioning of our growing organic  democracy. Journalists should also have the right to ensure that their sources of  information are not  necessarily  exposed to scrutiny  in other than the most exceptional circumstances.

  Mr Eren interjected.

  Mr PALLAS—  I am not going  to  storm against this legislation.  We think in broad measure it achieves some very useful public purposes. However, it does not go far enough.

The privilege  provided by  this bill is that the person seeking  to invoke  the shield  must  be  a   journalist.  There  must,  in  effect,  be  a  promise  or acknowledgement  that  the information will  be provided in  the  context of the journalist’s work and published through a media forum. It is  not a conversation for the purpose of salacious exchange. There is a public interest test.

There  is  grave concern relating to the restrictions in which the  shield  laws operate. They can only operate in Victorian courts in the context of legislation within this jurisdiction. However, journalistic privilege is expressly denied to journalists   who  are  called  before  IBAC,   the   Ombudsman,   the   special investigations  monitor,   the  Office  of   Police  Integrity,   the  Victorian Inspectorate or a commission  issued  by  the  Governor  — for example, a royal commission.  Privilege is also excluded under the Whistleblowers Protection  Act 2001.

Victoria is coming into line with other states. The introduction of  shield laws is  a welcome initiative.  I  am concerned and  the opposition remains concerned about the  restrictions in terms of  jurisdictional scope. Freedom  of the press and other media is an essential issue  by  which  the  government  and  powerful corporations  may  be  held  to  account.  Sometimes  that  can  be  irritating, frustrating and the  source  of considerable angst  amongst public figures,  but nonetheless it is important in a robust democracy.

Whilst public  figures  might not greatly  appreciate this legislation, it  is a substantive move in the right direction. On  that basis, the opposition will not be opposing the bill. We hope the government will think seriously, if not in the context of the matters  before the chamber at  the moment then at some  stage in the future, about the amendments the opposition has proposed. We think  they are a  substantive  improvement in terms of the protections which of course are  the underlying objective and aim of this bill.

We commend those amendments to the government, and we hope that at some stage in the future  they  become the  subject  of substantial consideration  and  debate before this chamber.

See Tim’s speech in Hansard here.