New corruption watchdog Michael Riches vows not to pressure journos to reveal sources

The new NT corruption watchdog has promised not to use his powers to pressure journalists to reveal their sources without the approval of a court.

• ICAC Commissioner Ken Fleming subjected an NT News journalist to a secret interrogation about the identity of a source
• OPINION: No journalist should have to choose between professional ethics and criminal prosecution

NEW NT corruption watchdog Michael Riches has promised not to use his powers to pressure journalists to reveal their sources without the approval of a court.

In response to questions from the NT News, Mr Riches said the journalist shield law in the Evidence Act “ought to apply to my office and me”.

The statement comes after his predecessor, Ken Fleming QC, told parliamentary estimates last month the shield did not apply to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Mr Riches said while he agreed that the terms of the legislation “tend towards the view” that the shield did not apply to ICAC, he supported its application in any event.

“The media play an important role in a democratic society,” he said.

“At the heart of quality journalism is the ability to receive, in confidence, reliable and accurate information.

“Parliament has recognised the importance of protecting journalists and their sources and I can think of no good reason why that protection should not to extend to my activities.”

Mr Riches said while “that protection should not be absolute”, it should be up to a court to decide under what circumstances it could be overridden.

RELATED NEWS

ICAC contractor David McGinlay awarded at least 12 ICAC investigations

NT Govt expected to refer former ICAC boss Ken Fleming to Privileges Committee

Chris Burns, Daryl Manzies and John Elferink call for ICAC overhaul after Fleming saga

“(The act) recognises that there will be occasions where the public interest in disclosing a source outweighs the public interest in the protection of the identity of that source. In those cases, the privilege should be displaced. I think that is a sensible balance,” he said.

“But I do not think that should be a matter that I determine. The question of whether the privilege ought to be displaced should properly rest with a court, as is contemplated in section 127A (of the act).”

Follow @jas_walls