Queensland journalists need protection for confidential sources

The new laws will also provide greater protection for whistle-blowers who will be able to apply to the Supreme Court for an order to stop or remedy any reprisal action against them by employers. Whistle blowers will be able to anonymously give journalists information in the public interest.

The journalists’ union welcomed the new WA shield laws and say they provide a good example for other states to follow. The WA Attorney-General Christian Porter said the laws were the result of consultations with the media, judiciary and lawyers, and the protections for whistleblowers were the most comprehensive in the country.

Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance federal secretary Christopher Warren said the laws met three key tests. The shield protections would operate on the presumption that confidential sources remained so, unless a judge ordered otherwise, they would apply to journalists facing all judicial bodies and also protected whistleblowers."It's a significant step forward. It's a good model for WA and it provides a good basis for other states to pick things up," he said.

We certainly need similar shield laws in Queensland. Whistleblower issues here have included the Dr Patel scandal and Queensland Health’s various debacles, quite apart from past disclosures about police corruption and political misbehavior.

I applaud the WA moves as a major advance in sensible legislation to address an outmoded attitude toward protecting confidential disclosures.

Significantly though the WA shield laws do not apply to “citizen journalists”, that is, those not employed by acknowledged media organisations. The legislation provides a strict definition of a journalist and will not apply to bloggers. Given the sometimes uncensored, unchecked and extreme views pushed by bloggers, the qualification is significant. This is not a signal for wholesale anonymous ‘flaming’ via the blogs while hiding behind shield laws.

It would make sense to enact similar laws in Queensland. People need to be aware that at present here so-called private conversations have no protection when it comes to the criminal law. A confession to a priest, a teacher, a friend, or even a doctor or psychiatrist is not safe.

Police can subpoena that person to give evidence and they are legally required to say what they know. Even journalists can be required to break their ethical standards and identify their sources, or face serious consequences.

If a person told a doctor, or a priest or a journalist if their intent to commit a crime or had admitted their involvement in a crime, prosecutors are legally entitled to subpoena the doctor, priest or journalist and demand they tell what they know.

Moral, religious and ethical barriers may be thrown up but the legal steamroller is unstoppable. That’s why we need solid shield laws.

Lawyers are the only people who are not legally required to breach any confidentiality matters with their clients. Everyone else is legally fair game.

The NSW case should be a timely reminder for teachers, who already had a legal duty to report suspected crime, particularly if they were aware of a sexual offence against any of their pupils.The only private confessions that can’t be used in court are those obtained by a threat or inducement.

I agree with comments by WA Attorney General Christian Porter that the state’s new media protection laws would strike an appropriate balance between the public interest in a free media and the need to ensure courts have access to all relevant information.

The next stage is to see such enlightened legislation introduced in Queensland, a state where the disclosures of whistle-blowers have been invaluable to the greater public good.