Searching For Sources

Richard Ackland discusses a recent inquiry in Queensland in which the question of the confidentiality of journalists' sources was important.

One item Santa managed to squeeze into my stocking just in time for reading over the Christmas-New Year break was Mr Russell V. Hanson's fascinating 78-page report commissioned by the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission.

The Brisbane silk had been charged with the thankless task of trying to track down the source of the leaks to a couple of journalists. In March last year The Courier-Mail and The Weekend Australian published some explosive material about investigations made by various law enforcement agencies into allegations of corruption concerning the former Labor Cabinet minister Graham Richardson.

The CJC felt it had to have the inquiry into the leaks because there had been such a lot of huffing and puffing by ALP figures in Canberra accusing the commission of being responsible for this damaging flow of information. Presumably the attacks from the likes of Senator Robert Ray were rallying calls to bolster their mate Richo in his hour of need.

The thrust of many of the stories, published by The Courier-Mail and written by journalist Paul Whittaker, was that the Australian Federal Police had gone slow on the investigations and that there was a bitter row raging between the CJC and the AFP over the handling of Operation Wallah.

Mr Hanson's hearings ranged over 27 days. Lawyers for all and sundry appeared, 48 witnesses were called to give evidence, 272 exhibits were tendered, and the whole thing cost more than $1 million.

No discovery made

The result, which was tabled in the Queensland Parliament on December 21, was completely predictable. No sources for these leaks were discovered, the journalist Mr Whittaker kept his trap shut, and all we were left with were a few pompous remarks from Mr Hanson about the evil consequences of leaking and the need for the unhelpful journalist to be punished.

The whole thing was an exercise in tedium and futility. What we all really want to know is what has happened to the Operation Wallah investigations now, what was it that Richo was supposed to have done, who were the businessmen he knew with criminal connections, and whether he was supplied with prostitutes in exchange for political muscle?

To know all of that is infinitely more in the public interest than finding out who leaked their concerns about the way the matter was being handled by the Federal Police.

Contrary to Mr Hanson's barristerial view of the world, a lot of people would want to pin a medal on the chest of the source for such a story. Certainly the journalists who went to the trouble to investigate and bring us this interesting information are held in the highest esteem by their colleagues and others, whatever Mr Hanson might think.

No source found

Mr Hanson laboured hard to show that the words used by the CJC in its briefing papers and in correspondence with the FBI were similar to those used by Whittaker in The Courier-Mail. He then went through everyone he felt had access to those documents and analysed the possibilities and motives they may have had for leaking. He weighted their performances in giving evidence and under cross-examination. From this he determined that the Queensland Police Service was not the source, nor were any members or staff of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee, nor anyone in the Australian Federal Police, nor the big suspect - the Criminal Justice Commission or any of its staff.

Hanson was concerned that not only does someone who supplies confidential information to journalists break the law but "commits a gross breach of faith to his employer".

More important, though, he thinks that once such a leak takes place the journalist has a hold over the leaker - the implication being that the journalist is now in a position to corrupt and compromise the source.

This observation about the relationship between sources and journalists shows no glimmer of understanding about the nature of journalism and the world of strategic leaking. If journalists are bound by the ethical requirement to protect their confidential sources of information, as was clearly demonstrated by Whittaker's refusal to answer most of the questions put to him in the inquiry, how could they have "a hold over the person giving the information"?

Not to draw too fine an analogy, the journalist and the source are in it together, rather like the prostitute and the client.

No white-wash

Mr Hanson went on to find that, contrary to Whittaker's articles, the AFP had not engaged in a "white-wash" of the Richo allegations. Yet we find the AFP did not record in its final report the observation in its preliminary report that: "There is no doubt that [businessman whose name is suppressed] pandered to the sexual proclivity of Senator Richardson."

According to the AFP this was left out because both the unnamed businessman and Senator Richardson denied the suggestion. End of story, no further inquiry needed - although there was sworn evidence from the prostitutes which supported that proposition.

Curiously, Mr Hanson was upset that Whittaker did not answer most of the questions put to him, and that the CJC did not move the Supreme Court to have him punished for contempt.

He felt an order for indeterminate detention would have persuaded Whittaker to give evidence. Possibly a few thumb screws and fast-growing bamboo might have helped, too.

Clearly the world would be a better place if more cheeky journalists were in jail and there were more useless inquiries conducted by QC's on $3,500 a day.

Richard Ackland

see also
Index of material on Confidential Sources

Return to APC News 1996 Index

[ return to top ]

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.