TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW - SKY NEWS AGENDA

18 March 2009

DAVID SPEERS: The royal commission into the Victorian bushfires began today.

Around 100 farmers and other local residents attended a consultative meeting in Myrtleford where the rules are being laid out as to which of the terms of reference will be dealt with in what priority.

Meanwhile, the Federal Government is also taking a keen interest in this Royal Commission and talking about its own inquiry into the Victorian bushfires.

Joining me now is the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland.

Attorney-General, can you tell me what sort of inquiry the Federal Government is considering?

McCLELLAND: We're focusing on the specific topic of arson.

All the reports indicate that unfortunately a number of fires were deliberately lit in Victoria, and that's consistent with research around Australia which estimates that about half of the fires in Australia are deliberately lit, causing damage in the order $1.6 billion.

SPEERS: So you'll be looking at whether current laws, federal laws and state laws are adequate to deal with arson?

McCLELLAND: We’ll be looking at the consistency of laws to make sure that they are sufficiently severe to deter arson. Looking at policing techniques to catch arsonists. Looking at a range of education programs and community engagement programs to prevent arson occurring in the first place.

SPEERS: But the laws, as I understand it, do allow for punishments up to the equivalent of a murder charge when it comes to arson. Can you get much stronger than that?

McCLELLAND: Certainly in some States they are effectively equivalent to a murder. And indeed in California now there is a murder trial taking place on the basis of a person accused of arson, similar issues, reckless indifference to the loss of life.

But we would want to make sure that those penalties are consistent and we want to make sure that the law enforcement practices, that are actually catching the arsonists, are according to best practice.

SPEERS: What does that mean?

McCLELLAND: That means the police being able to liaise regularly with fire authorities evidence that they've seen, community watch programs.

In Western Australia, for instance, in some local government areas, effectively a Neighbourhood Watch program into the bushland. These sorts of things.

In terms of South Australia, some programs where they specifically watch youths at risk, and indeed let the youths know that they're being watched.

These sort of things for ongoing engagement with the community to prevent arson occurring.

SPEERS: One of the big complaints coming out of the Victorian bushfires, as you know, is the lack of adequate back-burning, national park management, essentially.

Now, in Victoria the State Government did have a target of 130,000 hectares to be burnt each year but the last 10 years they've only burned around 30,000 hectares. Is this not something the federal inquiry should also look at?

McCLELLAND: Certainly one of the agenda items is access to fuel, and obviously the fuel in the vicinity of homes will be one of the issues that is on the agenda.

SPEERS: Okay. So this federal inquiry will look at whether states are meeting the targets they lay down to properly manage the fuel that's around its homes?

McCLELLAND: Essentially what we're doing is bringing the experts in who have some expertise in dealing with arson, bringing together best practice.

And of course one of those issues will be what you do to minimise the damage that arsonists can cause, and that is obviously setting fire to very dense bushland near homes. So that will necessarily be an issue.

SPEERS: Who will lead this inquiry?

McCLELLAND: I am Chairing the inquiry.

Its recommendations will then go to an Experts' Committee the following week, from all State and Territory and Federal agencies, emergency response agencies, police and fire agencies, to work through and develop a program of implementation.

So, while we’re not going to solve the issue in the next two weeks we’re going to give a very good solid start to it.

SPEERS: On a separate matter, I understand tomorrow you will be introducing legislation to do with journalist shield laws. Now, governments have tried this before, promising that they will protect journalists and protect whistleblowers. What will your legislation entail?

McCLELLAND: It's modifying the existing provisions and it will include a specific object so that when the court exercises its powers it has to have regard to not only the administration of justice but also the public interest in receiving information, obviously from the media.

It will also remove an exemption from the previous laws where if information had been given to a journalist contrary to the law, criminal or civil law, then the privilege was automatically excluded, there was no prospect of having it.

What we are doing will put that as a factor that the court will consider but not an exclusion.

So in exercising its discretion, the court will have regard to the conduct of all parties but, in so doing, it will be underpinned by this object of having regard to the public's right and public interest in receiving information.

SPEERS: The bottom line is will journalists be able to protect the identity of their sources that may have embarrassed the Government or bureaucracy, and not be subject to a contempt of court charge?

McCLELLAND: It's going to be a matter for the discretion of the court.

Certainly it will be far more likely that journalists will be able to protect their source under these provisions.

SPEERS: But the court can still demand sources be revealed?

McCLELLAND: The court can, for instance, a factor is a national security consideration.

It might well be if the journalist is accused of defaming someone and needs to produce its source to confirm the source of the defamation.

The administration of justice applies both ways, not only if it's merely embarrassing government, we would expect the court to say, well, no, this is a legitimate public interest and the court should protect the journalist privilege.

SPEERS: It has to be a national security issue?

McCLELLAND: No, there are a range of factors that the court can consider.

But in considering each and every issue it has to have regard to that public interest in being informed.

But if a journalist acted irresponsibly and defamed someone and hid behind not disclosing its source for the purpose of justifying its defamation, then in the administration of justice the court can have regard to that in determining whether the source should be disclosed or not.

SPEERS: And what about the whistleblower or the member of the public who wants to talk to a journalist about a serious Government failure, what protection do they have?

McCLELLAND: Well, previously the journalist had none because a whistleblower acting contrary to law, a secrecy provision in legislation automatically prevented the privilege from being claimed by the journalist.

We're removing that.

The legality of the disclosure will be one factor but it meshes with the prospective whistleblowing laws because that will determine whether the disclosure is illegal or not.

Again, if the disclosure is consistent with the whistleblowing laws, then there won't be any question of legality and hence again more likely that the privilege will be protected.

SPEERS: Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, thank you very much for joining us.

McCLELLAND: Pleasure.

END