House debates

Thursday, 31 May 2007

Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2007

Second Reading

2:08 pm

Photo of Kelvin ThomsonKelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to do so. The government has essentially succumbed to hubris and arrogance with respect to this legislation. The government fervently hopes that, in passing this most minimal of changes in this area, the public will forget the way in which it has treated issues of access to information and the protection of sources. It demonstrates a contempt for the democratic system and the democratic process—that is, all of us who believe in an independent and professional media as an integral component of a healthy democracy. By addressing the smaller issues and ignoring the bigger issues, the government is acting at the last minute and, in the face of pressure concerning two journalists, doing a little bit of market repair work.

This bill is a last-minute attempt to ameliorate the rising tide of media criticism of this government for its failure to provide adequate protection to Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus, who were just doing their job. What did they do? They simply revealed that the government had failed to deliver $500 million in extra pensions promised to veterans and war widows. When the journalists refused to reveal their sources, they ended up being charged with contempt. That charge has hung over their heads as a form of intimidation and blackmail not just for those individual journalists but by way of example to the profession as a whole. This case has essentially been used to hang the threat of contempt over other journalists and would-be whistleblowers who might seek to embarrass the government by revealing the truth in the name of the public interest. My fear and belief is that the government has enjoyed the situation of the last couple of years, where journalists have felt intimidated and threatened. The privilege of office does not simply mean a licence to use government coffers and bureaucracy as another marketing mechanism for the government. It is a requirement that we genuinely respect independent sources of thought and expression and that we genuinely treat information as being beneficial in the development of public policy.

It is a matter of concern to me that Australia continues to drop in the international rankings for press freedom. Just last year we saw independent groups such as Freedom House and Reporters Sans Frontieres dropping our ranking for press freedom. We are now in the position of being behind countries such as Namibia. In the modern era the currency of democracy is information, but regrettably the government has an empty wallet to show the public. If you look at the gutting of freedom of information, if you look at the abuse of conclusive certificates to quash legitimate freedom of information requests, these are stark reminders to us all of habitual abuse of office.

The nature of the modern media is that we are increasingly living in an era that could be dubbed ‘rip and read’ journalism. The media is a massive machine that chews through information. In feeding this process, it is all too easy for time-starved and pressured journalists to simply take the convenient path of reporting the latest turn in the scandal of the day or taking what claims are made at face value and simply running claim and counterclaim without any checking. The time allowed for genuine investigation, analysis and digging is dwindling in an age when the public seek entertainment as much as information. We are also well aware of the shortening time frame of the news cycle.

In emasculating freedom of information, the government has removed a vital potential source of media inquiry. This tends to make the media more beholden to other sources of information and it enables the government to engage in what in footy parlance we would call a process of ‘flooding’—where they can drop stories and bombard media outlets with a coordinated campaign of announcements, particularly if there is something embarrassing or awkward to get off the front pages. In cutting off avenues such as freedom of information, the government seeks to snow the media and, in consequence, the public.

Comments

No comments