Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

My private member’s bill, the Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010, is the so-called ‘shield law’. I add that the bill in essence gives journalists the right to protect an anonymous source’s identity unless a court can prove that the public interest is best served in disclosing the identity of the source—in other words, it would give protection to journalists who publicise information provided by sources choosing to remain anonymous. The bill is based on the premises that everyone has the fundamental right to free speech and that sometimes people need to speak out anonymously, especially when it comes to people blowing the whistle on official misconduct. Importantly, the bill is entirely consistent with the journalism profession’s code of ethics.

The amendments moved by Senator Ludlam in the Senate would broaden the scope of the bill and recognise the rapidly changing face of news, news mediums and the people who deliver it. The amendments would change the definition of ‘journalist’ from—

… a person who in the normal course of that person’s work may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium …

to—

a person who is engaged and active in the publication of news …

The amendments broaden the definition of a journalist from the traditional, where someone works for a newspaper, radio, television station or newswire, to include those who work in what we call the new media—for example, those who blog, Tweet or who use Facebook or YouTube to publish news. They too are engaged and active in the publication of news and they too will sometimes be given information by an informant on the condition of anonymity. They too deserve protection, and these amendments would deliver that.

The simple fact is that technology is driving a seismic shift in the way news is delivered nowadays as well as how we consume news information. These amendments would allow the shield law to ride those leaps and bounds and remain contemporary. I would add, however, that the intent of this bill and these amendments is not to offer blanket protection to anybody and everybody out there making public comments—for instance, the many thousands of people posting comments online. Ultimately, the definition of a journalist as somebody who is engaged and active in the publication of news will direct the protection to those who genuinely deserve and require it. If uncertainty arises, the courts can be trusted to adjudicate. Central to Australia’s democracy is freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I believe that this bill and the Senate’s amendments go some way—an important way—to protecting both.

See this speech in context