❓ Mr Marmion asks about the government's position on shield laws for journalists. Mr Porter expresses personal support but highlights complexities regarding definition and scope, noting differing views among Attorneys-General.
AnsweredQoN 93Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
JOURNALISTS’ SHIELD LAWS
I have two great newspapers in my electorate—the Subiaco Post and the Western Suburbs Weekly —and the journalists do a great job. Would the Attorney General please inform the house of the government’s position on the introduction of shield laws to protect the state’s journalists? Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER
I have two great newspapers in my electorate—the Subiaco Post and the Western Suburbs Weekly —and the journalists do a great job. Would the Attorney General please inform the house of the government’s position on the introduction of shield laws to protect the state’s journalists? Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. Indeed, they are excellent news information services in his electorate. At the recent Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, a motion was moved—which I supported and, indeed, helped draft—that the ministers agreed that a national evidence working group would provide advice before the end of the year on options for journalists’ shield laws. That has been a matter of some interest in the press. I know the member for South Perth has spoken on it. I can state unequivocally that I personally am supportive of such laws. There is some devil in the details of these laws, and it behoves me in this short speech to give some of the ideas that all members of this house will have to think about when this legislation comes before Parliament. What I would like to do, immediately after that national evidence working group has reported in December, is seek permission from my cabinet to start drafting the legislation. I will say that at that Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, there were many Labor Party Attorneys General—in fact, apart from me, they were all Labor Party Attorneys General—and there was a divergence of views as to whether these laws should be made at all; and, if so, what form they might take. Those views seemed to cut well and truly across political lines. Having sat and listened to the various individual views expressed at that meeting, there were four main issues that I think we as a Parliament, in conjunction with the stakeholders—many of whom are in the gallery today—will need to give some thought to. The first is what is the best mechanism to protect and enhance the public interest. The only jurisdictions that already have shield laws are the commonwealth and New South Wales in their replicated evidence acts. Those acts provide that if the information has come into the hands of the journalist by way of the commission of a criminal offence or any other acts that might give rise to civil liability, the shield is automatically lost. Some people took the view at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that that rule should stay in any other legislation that is replicated; others took the view that that should be one of several factors that is to be considered. That is one of the devils in the detail of this legislation. The second issue is: how do we define a journalist? This is an issue that I think our stakeholders — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Indeed, they are excellent news information services in his electorate. At the recent Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, a motion was moved—which I supported and, indeed, helped draft—that the ministers agreed that a national evidence working group would provide advice before the end of the year on options for journalists’ shield laws. That has been a matter of some interest in the press. I know the member for South Perth has spoken on it. I can state unequivocally that I personally am supportive of such laws. There is some devil in the details of these laws, and it behoves me in this short speech to give some of the ideas that all members of this house will have to think about when this legislation comes before Parliament. What I would like to do, immediately after that national evidence working group has reported in December, is seek permission from my cabinet to start drafting the legislation. I will say that at that Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, there were many Labor Party Attorneys General—in fact, apart from me, they were all Labor Party Attorneys General—and there was a divergence of views as to whether these laws should be made at all; and, if so, what form they might take. Those views seemed to cut well and truly across political lines. Having sat and listened to the various individual views expressed at that meeting, there were four main issues that I think we as a Parliament, in conjunction with the stakeholders—many of whom are in the gallery today—will need to give some thought to. The first is what is the best mechanism to protect and enhance the public interest. The only jurisdictions that already have shield laws are the commonwealth and New South Wales in their replicated evidence acts. Those acts provide that if the information has come into the hands of the journalist by way of the commission of a criminal offence or any other acts that might give rise to civil liability, the shield is automatically lost. Some people took the view at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that that rule should stay in any other legislation that is replicated; others took the view that that should be one of several factors that is to be considered. That is one of the devils in the detail of this legislation. The second issue is: how do we define a journalist? This is an issue that I think our stakeholders — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Indeed, they are excellent news information services in his electorate. At the recent Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, a motion was moved—which I supported and, indeed, helped draft—that the ministers agreed that a national evidence working group would provide advice before the end of the year on options for journalists’ shield laws. That has been a matter of some interest in the press. I know the member for South Perth has spoken on it. I can state unequivocally that I personally am supportive of such laws. There is some devil in the details of these laws, and it behoves me in this short speech to give some of the ideas that all members of this house will have to think about when this legislation comes before Parliament. What I would like to do, immediately after that national evidence working group has reported in December, is seek permission from my cabinet to start drafting the legislation. I will say that at that Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, there were many Labor Party Attorneys General—in fact, apart from me, they were all Labor Party Attorneys General—and there was a divergence of views as to whether these laws should be made at all; and, if so, what form they might take. Those views seemed to cut well and truly across political lines. Having sat and listened to the various individual views expressed at that meeting, there were four main issues that I think we as a Parliament, in conjunction with the stakeholders—many of whom are in the gallery today—will need to give some thought to. The first is what is the best mechanism to protect and enhance the public interest. The only jurisdictions that already have shield laws are the commonwealth and New South Wales in their replicated evidence acts. Those acts provide that if the information has come into the hands of the journalist by way of the commission of a criminal offence or any other acts that might give rise to civil liability, the shield is automatically lost. Some people took the view at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that that rule should stay in any other legislation that is replicated; others took the view that that should be one of several factors that is to be considered. That is one of the devils in the detail of this legislation. The second issue is: how do we define a journalist? This is an issue that I think our stakeholders — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
I thank the member for his question. Indeed, they are excellent news information services in his electorate. At the recent Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, a motion was moved—which I supported and, indeed, helped draft—that the ministers agreed that a national evidence working group would provide advice before the end of the year on options for journalists’ shield laws. That has been a matter of some interest in the press. I know the member for South Perth has spoken on it. I can state unequivocally that I personally am supportive of such laws. There is some devil in the details of these laws, and it behoves me in this short speech to give some of the ideas that all members of this house will have to think about when this legislation comes before Parliament. What I would like to do, immediately after that national evidence working group has reported in December, is seek permission from my cabinet to start drafting the legislation. I will say that at that Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, there were many Labor Party Attorneys General—in fact, apart from me, they were all Labor Party Attorneys General—and there was a divergence of views as to whether these laws should be made at all; and, if so, what form they might take. Those views seemed to cut well and truly across political lines. Having sat and listened to the various individual views expressed at that meeting, there were four main issues that I think we as a Parliament, in conjunction with the stakeholders—many of whom are in the gallery today—will need to give some thought to. The first is what is the best mechanism to protect and enhance the public interest. The only jurisdictions that already have shield laws are the commonwealth and New South Wales in their replicated evidence acts. Those acts provide that if the information has come into the hands of the journalist by way of the commission of a criminal offence or any other acts that might give rise to civil liability, the shield is automatically lost. Some people took the view at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that that rule should stay in any other legislation that is replicated; others took the view that that should be one of several factors that is to be considered. That is one of the devils in the detail of this legislation. The second issue is: how do we define a journalist? This is an issue that I think our stakeholders — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
At the recent Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, a motion was moved—which I supported and, indeed, helped draft—that the ministers agreed that a national evidence working group would provide advice before the end of the year on options for journalists’ shield laws. That has been a matter of some interest in the press. I know the member for South Perth has spoken on it. I can state unequivocally that I personally am supportive of such laws. There is some devil in the details of these laws, and it behoves me in this short speech to give some of the ideas that all members of this house will have to think about when this legislation comes before Parliament. What I would like to do, immediately after that national evidence working group has reported in December, is seek permission from my cabinet to start drafting the legislation. I will say that at that Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, there were many Labor Party Attorneys General—in fact, apart from me, they were all Labor Party Attorneys General—and there was a divergence of views as to whether these laws should be made at all; and, if so, what form they might take. Those views seemed to cut well and truly across political lines. Having sat and listened to the various individual views expressed at that meeting, there were four main issues that I think we as a Parliament, in conjunction with the stakeholders—many of whom are in the gallery today—will need to give some thought to. The first is what is the best mechanism to protect and enhance the public interest. The only jurisdictions that already have shield laws are the commonwealth and New South Wales in their replicated evidence acts. Those acts provide that if the information has come into the hands of the journalist by way of the commission of a criminal offence or any other acts that might give rise to civil liability, the shield is automatically lost. Some people took the view at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that that rule should stay in any other legislation that is replicated; others took the view that that should be one of several factors that is to be considered. That is one of the devils in the detail of this legislation. The second issue is: how do we define a journalist? This is an issue that I think our stakeholders — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
I will say that at that Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, there were many Labor Party Attorneys General—in fact, apart from me, they were all Labor Party Attorneys General—and there was a divergence of views as to whether these laws should be made at all; and, if so, what form they might take. Those views seemed to cut well and truly across political lines. Having sat and listened to the various individual views expressed at that meeting, there were four main issues that I think we as a Parliament, in conjunction with the stakeholders—many of whom are in the gallery today—will need to give some thought to. The first is what is the best mechanism to protect and enhance the public interest. The only jurisdictions that already have shield laws are the commonwealth and New South Wales in their replicated evidence acts. Those acts provide that if the information has come into the hands of the journalist by way of the commission of a criminal offence or any other acts that might give rise to civil liability, the shield is automatically lost. Some people took the view at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that that rule should stay in any other legislation that is replicated; others took the view that that should be one of several factors that is to be considered. That is one of the devils in the detail of this legislation. The second issue is: how do we define a journalist? This is an issue that I think our stakeholders — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
The second issue is: how do we define a journalist? This is an issue that I think our stakeholders — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Indeed, they are excellent news information services in his electorate. At the recent Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, a motion was moved—which I supported and, indeed, helped draft—that the ministers agreed that a national evidence working group would provide advice before the end of the year on options for journalists’ shield laws. That has been a matter of some interest in the press. I know the member for South Perth has spoken on it. I can state unequivocally that I personally am supportive of such laws. There is some devil in the details of these laws, and it behoves me in this short speech to give some of the ideas that all members of this house will have to think about when this legislation comes before Parliament. What I would like to do, immediately after that national evidence working group has reported in December, is seek permission from my cabinet to start drafting the legislation. I will say that at that Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, there were many Labor Party Attorneys General—in fact, apart from me, they were all Labor Party Attorneys General—and there was a divergence of views as to whether these laws should be made at all; and, if so, what form they might take. Those views seemed to cut well and truly across political lines. Having sat and listened to the various individual views expressed at that meeting, there were four main issues that I think we as a Parliament, in conjunction with the stakeholders—many of whom are in the gallery today—will need to give some thought to. The first is what is the best mechanism to protect and enhance the public interest. The only jurisdictions that already have shield laws are the commonwealth and New South Wales in their replicated evidence acts. Those acts provide that if the information has come into the hands of the journalist by way of the commission of a criminal offence or any other acts that might give rise to civil liability, the shield is automatically lost. Some people took the view at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that that rule should stay in any other legislation that is replicated; others took the view that that should be one of several factors that is to be considered. That is one of the devils in the detail of this legislation. The second issue is: how do we define a journalist? This is an issue that I think our stakeholders — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Indeed, they are excellent news information services in his electorate. At the recent Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, a motion was moved—which I supported and, indeed, helped draft—that the ministers agreed that a national evidence working group would provide advice before the end of the year on options for journalists’ shield laws. That has been a matter of some interest in the press. I know the member for South Perth has spoken on it. I can state unequivocally that I personally am supportive of such laws. There is some devil in the details of these laws, and it behoves me in this short speech to give some of the ideas that all members of this house will have to think about when this legislation comes before Parliament. What I would like to do, immediately after that national evidence working group has reported in December, is seek permission from my cabinet to start drafting the legislation. I will say that at that Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, there were many Labor Party Attorneys General—in fact, apart from me, they were all Labor Party Attorneys General—and there was a divergence of views as to whether these laws should be made at all; and, if so, what form they might take. Those views seemed to cut well and truly across political lines. Having sat and listened to the various individual views expressed at that meeting, there were four main issues that I think we as a Parliament, in conjunction with the stakeholders—many of whom are in the gallery today—will need to give some thought to. The first is what is the best mechanism to protect and enhance the public interest. The only jurisdictions that already have shield laws are the commonwealth and New South Wales in their replicated evidence acts. Those acts provide that if the information has come into the hands of the journalist by way of the commission of a criminal offence or any other acts that might give rise to civil liability, the shield is automatically lost. Some people took the view at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that that rule should stay in any other legislation that is replicated; others took the view that that should be one of several factors that is to be considered. That is one of the devils in the detail of this legislation. The second issue is: how do we define a journalist? This is an issue that I think our stakeholders — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
I thank the member for his question. Indeed, they are excellent news information services in his electorate. At the recent Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, a motion was moved—which I supported and, indeed, helped draft—that the ministers agreed that a national evidence working group would provide advice before the end of the year on options for journalists’ shield laws. That has been a matter of some interest in the press. I know the member for South Perth has spoken on it. I can state unequivocally that I personally am supportive of such laws. There is some devil in the details of these laws, and it behoves me in this short speech to give some of the ideas that all members of this house will have to think about when this legislation comes before Parliament. What I would like to do, immediately after that national evidence working group has reported in December, is seek permission from my cabinet to start drafting the legislation. I will say that at that Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, there were many Labor Party Attorneys General—in fact, apart from me, they were all Labor Party Attorneys General—and there was a divergence of views as to whether these laws should be made at all; and, if so, what form they might take. Those views seemed to cut well and truly across political lines. Having sat and listened to the various individual views expressed at that meeting, there were four main issues that I think we as a Parliament, in conjunction with the stakeholders—many of whom are in the gallery today—will need to give some thought to. The first is what is the best mechanism to protect and enhance the public interest. The only jurisdictions that already have shield laws are the commonwealth and New South Wales in their replicated evidence acts. Those acts provide that if the information has come into the hands of the journalist by way of the commission of a criminal offence or any other acts that might give rise to civil liability, the shield is automatically lost. Some people took the view at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that that rule should stay in any other legislation that is replicated; others took the view that that should be one of several factors that is to be considered. That is one of the devils in the detail of this legislation. The second issue is: how do we define a journalist? This is an issue that I think our stakeholders — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
At the recent Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, a motion was moved—which I supported and, indeed, helped draft—that the ministers agreed that a national evidence working group would provide advice before the end of the year on options for journalists’ shield laws. That has been a matter of some interest in the press. I know the member for South Perth has spoken on it. I can state unequivocally that I personally am supportive of such laws. There is some devil in the details of these laws, and it behoves me in this short speech to give some of the ideas that all members of this house will have to think about when this legislation comes before Parliament. What I would like to do, immediately after that national evidence working group has reported in December, is seek permission from my cabinet to start drafting the legislation. I will say that at that Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, there were many Labor Party Attorneys General—in fact, apart from me, they were all Labor Party Attorneys General—and there was a divergence of views as to whether these laws should be made at all; and, if so, what form they might take. Those views seemed to cut well and truly across political lines. Having sat and listened to the various individual views expressed at that meeting, there were four main issues that I think we as a Parliament, in conjunction with the stakeholders—many of whom are in the gallery today—will need to give some thought to. The first is what is the best mechanism to protect and enhance the public interest. The only jurisdictions that already have shield laws are the commonwealth and New South Wales in their replicated evidence acts. Those acts provide that if the information has come into the hands of the journalist by way of the commission of a criminal offence or any other acts that might give rise to civil liability, the shield is automatically lost. Some people took the view at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that that rule should stay in any other legislation that is replicated; others took the view that that should be one of several factors that is to be considered. That is one of the devils in the detail of this legislation. The second issue is: how do we define a journalist? This is an issue that I think our stakeholders — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
I will say that at that Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, there were many Labor Party Attorneys General—in fact, apart from me, they were all Labor Party Attorneys General—and there was a divergence of views as to whether these laws should be made at all; and, if so, what form they might take. Those views seemed to cut well and truly across political lines. Having sat and listened to the various individual views expressed at that meeting, there were four main issues that I think we as a Parliament, in conjunction with the stakeholders—many of whom are in the gallery today—will need to give some thought to. The first is what is the best mechanism to protect and enhance the public interest. The only jurisdictions that already have shield laws are the commonwealth and New South Wales in their replicated evidence acts. Those acts provide that if the information has come into the hands of the journalist by way of the commission of a criminal offence or any other acts that might give rise to civil liability, the shield is automatically lost. Some people took the view at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that that rule should stay in any other legislation that is replicated; others took the view that that should be one of several factors that is to be considered. That is one of the devils in the detail of this legislation. The second issue is: how do we define a journalist? This is an issue that I think our stakeholders — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
The second issue is: how do we define a journalist? This is an issue that I think our stakeholders — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I know the member might have some ideas, but I am talking about how, in a legal fashion, we would define a journalist. The problem that arises is that with the advent of the internet and commentary and blogging, many people consider themselves journalists and write stories based on sources. It might be that some will take the view that some people who blog are not subject to the same rigorous ethical standards — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : As they are at The West Australian ! Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Exactly. I was going to say, “Journalists in formal news media services”, but we can use The West Australian as an example. This is an issue that journalists themselves, particularly journalists at The West Australian and other organised newspapers in this jurisdiction, might be interested in. If the protection is extended to everyone who blogs, it in many ways diminishes the status of individuals who are employed in formal news services. There is now a very strong lobby arguing to extend that protection to bloggers. It is very interesting that a Labor Party Attorney General took the view that an undesirable element of such a law was that, heaven forbid, a journalist might write a story without having a source. He took the view that that might more readily occur with people who journalise in an informal way on the internet, and that people in defamation proceedings might be forced into a situation whereby they would want to know who the source was, pursuant to the idea of the defence of truth, but could not be forced to compel the source, and that one may not exist. Some quite complicated issues arise. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am glad that the minister likes it. Finally, we need to consider our own whistleblower legislation. Protection exists for whistleblowers who give information on public sector matters. In some instances, the extent of that protection will bear upon the extent of the shield laws. We all have difficult issues to consider. I imagine that these issues will be bringing into play different views on both sides of the house and different members of each party will have different views about these things. I am committed to the laws. I have my own views about how they might be constructed. I will wait until the evidence appears from working group reports in December and I will go to cabinet shortly after that.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.