Editor’s view: Democracy demands sources be protected
Queensland is the only state in the country that does not have laws that provide journalists with a legal privilege to protect the identity of their sources. It’s time to right that wrong, writes the Editor.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Annastacia Palaszczuk’s newfound but very welcome respect for press freedom represents a unique opportunity to right a wrong with Queensland law.
Our state is the only one in the country that does not have some form of so-called “shield laws” for professional journalists – laws that essentially provide journalists with a legal privilege to protect the identity of their sources, akin to the privilege that lawyers enjoy with their clients.
The absence of shield laws has a demonstrable chilling effect on the pursuit of journalism and the courage of whistleblowers.
It means that Queensland is at risk of corruption flourishing again if those with information that could expose misconduct are at risk themselves of the law judging them to be the criminals.
Journalists face an inexcusable dilemma that while their Code of Ethics stipulates that they must protect individuals who provide them with information in confidence, there is no legal framework that shelters this relationship.
LNP’s vow on journalist shield laws
It means a reporter can be forced to attend the Crime and Corruption Commission’s “star chamber” and threatened with contempt of court if they refuse to reveal their source.
This might seem like an extremely unlikely turn of events, but it happens far more often than it should. Just last week, the Supreme Court’s David Jackson ruled the media had no right to protect its sources in a case involving the corruption watchdog and a Queensland journalist, who cannot legally be identified.
“The practical effect is that a journalist who refuses to answer questions by the CCC that would identify a confidential source is at risk of a hefty penalty, including imprisonment,” said solicitor Sophie Robertson, from Bartley Cohen. “The well-recognised and important public interest in confidentiality of journalists’ sources does not apply to CCC investigations,” Ms Robertson said. “It’s an issue that goes to the heart of freedom of expression.”
After last Friday hastily ditching planned laws to criminalise the reporting of corruption allegations during elections, the Palaszczuk government should now join the LNP Opposition and commit to introducing strong shield laws.
The information that journalists reveal frequently exposes flaws in our system and the wrongdoing of individuals in positions of great influence. This state’s landmark Fitzgerald Inquiry – which uncovered a profound and shocking network of political and police corruption – came about only because of the endeavours of a journalist from The Courier-Mailwho faced a litany of bullyboy legal threats as well as physical threats.
The only reason governments have for not introducing shield laws is to protect themselves. But now every state – other than Queensland – has come to the conclusion that this excuse isn’t good enough.
This argument is often hijacked by an ill-conceived view that such a shield would extend to anyone who described themself as a “citizen journalist”. This is just not true. The Commonwealth shield law is limited to those who are actively engaged in the publication of news. Unlike the legion of faceless keyboard warriors, professional journalists have a code of ethics and a strong self-regulatory framework.
It is past time that Queensland had shield laws of its own and for politicians to realise they have nothing to fear from such reform.
Except, of course, if they fear that some truth might be exposed.