Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I have a comment and a question for the minister. I am the first to agree that journalists should have some level of protection. They should have some certainty that they can keep their sources confidential, particularly when it comes to national security articles they might be working on. In fact, the minister would remember that, early in the 43rd Parliament, I progressed successfully the so-called shield laws to give journalists greater protection as far as ensuring that they could keep their sources confidential.

The issue here is not so much that journalists need extra protection; the issue is why don't other people have greater protection? For example, why would we say that it is important for a journalist to keep private the name of a source, but yet it is not important for a lawyer for instance—or perhaps a judge or a medical professional—to keep private the fact that he or she had a communication with someone? Some in this place would even argue that a priest should be able to reliably keep confidential the names of the people that they might deal with. What about members of parliament, who might be approached by someone in the community on a very, very sensitive matter? That member of the community would feel that their identity must be reliably kept confidential.

The point is that there are lots of people in the community who have an equally legitimate need to have their identity kept secret in certain circumstances, for very good reasons and for reasons equally as good as a journalist. In fact, in my personal opinion, I think warrants should be required for the security services to access metadata in any case, for any person. We know that already the security services are accessing metadata hundreds of thousands of times. Every time they access metadata, they are effectively searching someone's private property. We accept in the community that, when it comes to the search of private property, it is entirely proper that the security services should get a warrant if they are going to go into someone's house or search someone's property. So why is this different?

As I made perfectly clear in my speech to this bill in this place yesterday: this is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity to examine the need to give protection to all members of the community. I can see no good reason why this bill should not require warrants for any access of metadata, for any purpose, for any person. Yes, that would slow things up. I accept that that would make it more difficult for the security services. But the point that I made yesterday, and I make it again, is that because it would be a bit more difficult, because there would be a bit more of a tension in the process, the security services would be reluctant to just ask for information at the drop of a hat. The number of times that metadata is accessed would fall dramatically because the security services would find it, frankly, an embuggerance. They would focus just on the people that they really need to focus on, and they would not be accessing metadata on a whim, which I have no doubt occurs at the moment. Because at the moment and if this bill becomes law, for everyone except journalists, it will be just so easy for any security service officer to pick up the phone, ring up Telstra, Optus, Vodafone or whoever, and ask, 'What have you got on Harry Bloggs?' There will be next to nothing to put any sort of impediment in the way of that going on.

By the way, I do not accept the minister's answer that there is no, and should be no, protection or confidentiality when a lawyer speaks to a client or someone who might be a client, but that is not the point here. The point here is that we accept that journalists should be able to keep private that they are in contact with someone, surely that should be extended to lawyers. My question to the minister is: what is so special about journalists that only they get protection, not lawyers, not doctors, not members of parliament, and not priests perhaps, as would be view of some people? Why can't we all have protection? (Time expired)

See this speech in context