Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you for the reasons, in large part, outlined by the minister. By leave—I move amendments (3) to (10) on the sheet circulated in my name together:

(3) Schedule 3, item 3, page 69 (lines 19 to 23), omit subsection 35P(1).

(4) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (line 6), omit "Subsections (1) and (2) do", substitute "Subsection (1) does".

(5) Schedule 3, item 3, page 70 (line 20) omit "(1) or".

(6) Schedule 6, items 1 and 2, page 81 (lines 4 to 13), omit the items.

(7) Schedule 6, item 4, page 81 (line 16) to page 85 (line 25), omit the item.

(8) Schedule 6, page 106 (line 2), omit the heading.

(9) Schedule 6, item 24, page 106 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item.

(10) Schedule 6, item 26, page 106 (lines 9 to 11), omit the item.

What is clear is that in Australia journalism plays a vital role in holding the government to account. Thanks to journalism here and around the world we have heard about things like the bugging of the East Timorese cabinet, and we have found out that Australia tapped the phone of the wife of the Indonesian President. We have seen significant journalism coming forth from those who have reported on leaks that have come from Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

As the minister just explained, journalists understand that they also have national security obligations. Any sensible journalist will go through a debate to weigh up security and safety—where that is potentially compromised—as against the public interest or the public's right to know. Good journalists make that assessment all the time. Now this government is coming in and saying, 'We are going to treat every good journalist like a criminal. We are going to treat every good journalist with contempt and increase the penalties and the scope of offences that they will be subject to.' So what we read in the paper about our secret agencies that operate in our name, we probably will not read about from here on in because the government's approach is: rather than read an embarrassing article in the newspaper about an instance where actions done in our name may have overstepped the line, we want nothing to be spoken about at all.

The minister can tell me if I am wrong. He has the opportunity in this debate to say that we are wrong. But if this legislation passes as it stands at the moment, an innocent member of the Australian public could be killed in a bungled operation and no-one would have the right to talk about it and no-one would have the right to know. In fact, if you did talk about it, you would face going to jail. The minister now has ample opportunity to say, 'No, that won't be in the legislation.' It would be great if he did, but I bet you he will not. What this legislation is about is operations that are already secret and are not subject to the scrutiny of an independent security legislation monitor—because the government has not filled that position and, in fact, wanted to get rid of it. Where there is not adequate parliamentary oversight, we in this country are left to rely on the media to shine a light on where they think the line has been crossed. Now, even that light is going to be snuffed out. For that reason I move these amendments.

What these amendments do not do is remove the new provision that makes it an offence to release information that would disrupt an operation or put someone's life in danger. That provision can stay. So I can save those opposite, those heckling and those about to speak all their cant on that front because that provision will remain. What the amendments do is allow for public interest whistleblowing and reporting. The minister has now left the chamber, perhaps because he is not across the legislation, and someone else has come in to take over from him. The minister made a number of comments about whistleblowing and whether or not whistleblowing is protected—and I expect my colleague, the member for Denison, will make some points about that shortly. These amendments protect whistleblowers and protect journalists reporting in the public interest.

Given the haste with which this is being rushed through, given the lack of an independent monitor and given the lack of real parliamentary oversight, if we value democracy and we value transparency, we must preserve that last right of the media to shine a light on where they think our secret agencies have overstepped the mark. That is why I urge the House to support these amendments and I urge Labor to support these amendments.

See this speech in context