Two separate cities; two very different groups of witnesses; two very different concepts of the world.

Federal Parliament's Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security held public hearings in Sydney and Canberra this week as part of its inquiry into the "impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on press freedom".

The inquiry has come about in the wake of controversy over police raids — or execution of search warrants depending on your perspective — on journalists in Canberra and Sydney in June, and the continuing prospect that journalists employed by News Corp and the ABC may end up in jail.

The Government asked the committee to consider, "whether any and, if so, what changes could be made to procedures and thresholds for the exercise of those powers in relation to journalists and media organisations to better balance the need for press freedom with the need for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to investigate serious offending and obtain intelligence on security threats".

In Sydney, on Tuesday, the committee heard from a range of news and journalism organisations, and in Canberra, on Wednesday, it heard from intelligence and security organisations, including the Australian Federal Police, the Department of Home Affairs and the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume. Watch Duration: 17 seconds 17 s AFP won't rule out charging journalist Annika Smethurst

You'd expect the media and intelligence organisations to always have a slightly different view of the question of how much information journalists should be able to get, and in what circumstances.

But the two days of inquiry revealed a lot more than that.

Obviously there was a lot of focus on the circumstances of the two incidents that sparked the inquiry.

But what also emerged were really broad questions about the culture of secrecy in Australia, and very specific ones— which remained frustratingly short of answers — about the complex and overlapping web of laws that now hamper press freedom.

It was hard to escape an implicit message that this web of laws, some very old and some contained in the raft of 75 pieces of federal national security laws passed since September 11, 2001, has become highly complex, possibly unmanageable, and a field ripe for forum shopping.

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume. Watch Duration: 37 seconds 37 s The Australian Federal Police entering the ABC headquarters in Ultimo (Photo - ABC News: Taryn Southcombe)

Culture of secrecy

The issue of the culture of secrecy was best nailed by News Corp executive (and former newspaper editor) Campbell Reid.

"In the United States, if you contact a public official, they have an obligation in their constitution to be as open as they possibly can," he said.

"In this country, public officials seem to have the reverse obligation, and any working journalist who has experienced those two environments is absolutely struck by the difference."

The point repeatedly made by media executives was that the campaign to get legislative change to the "creeping secrecy" that shrouds Canberra doesn't just relate to national security and intelligence.

News Corp executive chairman Michael Miller observed the "creeping secrecy" culture extended beyond national security, raising stories like the exposure of the use of kerosene baths in nursing homes, pink batts, "how older Australians are being treated in aged care, what's going on for our veterans — issues that spark royal commissions and issues that happen down the end of the street".

"It is the media's role to ensure fairness, equality, transparency and accountability. That is what a robust and free media does."

He could have well added problems in the banking sector which led to the banking and financial services royal commission, or to problems in the construction industry.

The great irony, of course, is that so many of these controversies have emerged in areas that have been deregulated, or subject to self-regulation, or not enough regulation.

Yet, while industries — and governments — have often resisted any attempts to re-regulate or even just reform industries found wanting, they have been more than happy to impose what the inquiry shows is a haphazard legal structure that now stymies journalists in their work — and the whistleblowers who they work with — with the threat of jail.

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume. Watch Duration: 24 seconds 24 s AFP Deputy Commissioner Neil Gaughan on the News Corp leak, suggesting it is a senior bureaucrat

The crux of the issue

Unfortunately, there wasn't really an opportunity to test the arguments against this case when the inquiry moved to Canberra. Reflections on a broad culture of secrecy aren't really the territory of a collection of public servants who had trouble in their evidence even saying whether their positions reflected that of the Government or just the bureaucracy for which they worked.

What also went largely unanswered was the narrower question — flowing from Campbell Reid's point — of how individual laws are framed in terms of the media.

"This is the crux of the issue, right?", said Nine Entertainment chief executive Hugh Marks.

"At the moment, you start off with the premise that something that we've done may be a criminal act, and then we have to defend ourselves," he said.

"Whereas if there's a recognition through legislation that the media has a legitimate role to perform, that should be exempted from certain provisions."

Even with a plethora of legislative instruments and different forms of warrants applying to journalists, the powerful point was made by the ABC's managing director David Anderson about what actual laws were used in the raids in June.

"Rather than use legislation that sits there to protect the nation's secrets, the legislation that was used — I won't say randomly — was the Criminal Code under 'receipt of stolen goods'," he observed.

"I am not sure when that legislation was written but I would have thought receipt of stolen goods was different from what we are dealing with when it comes to defence and defence information".

'Hyperlegislation' takes hold

Media organisations, and others, have proposed various changes to try to bring some order and consistency to the laws governing secrecy in Australia and, of course, to knock out what sometimes seem to be unintended consequences of what is now a massive area of legislation, written at different times for different purposes, with the aim of giving journalists confidence that they can do their jobs and, as a result, keep governments accountable.

The evidence given by bureaucrats did not seem to recognise or acknowledge there might be problems in the law. In fact, some argued it would be extraordinary for public servants to come into such an inquiry and say there were flaws in existing laws.

It was not an attitude that was wildly encouraging of a sensible discussion, or even willingness to see how our political culture has been changing.

Constitutional law expert George Williams told the committee a Canadian expert on counterterrorism laws, Kent Roach, had dubbed this "a form of hyperlegislation, meaning Australia has far exceeded the number of laws enacted in the UK, Canada, the United States or elsewhere".

"That term captures the surprise and puzzlement that overseas researchers often experience when they look towards Australia's experience of legislating for terrorism," Professor Williams said.

Whether this bipartisan committee can confront the broad issues of our culture of secrecy as well as the consequences of the Parliament's legislative work of recent decades will be a fascinating study in coming months.

Laura Tingle is 7.30's chief political correspondent.