Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I am sure we all thank Senator Ludwig for doing so; I could listen to him talk about that Evidence Act for hours! First of all, I want to seriously acknowledge the point made by Senator Ludwig on behalf of the Labor Party in relation to a more detailed examination of some of the issues and the prospective legislation in this area. The Democrats certainly look forward to the opportunity to analyse the suite of reforms through the Senate committee process. I still think it would have served a useful purpose in this circumstance, but I understand the will of the Senate and look forward to that opportunity in the future. I also take note of Senator Ludwig’s reference to the privacy review that is underway. That will be another significant report for the Senate to examine. I look forward to the government at some point addressing some of the loopholes and flaws in Australia’s current privacy regime.

The Democrats are sympathetic to the position that the Greens have put forward in their amendments. Our reading, and obviously that of others, of the first amendment is that the addition of a reference to ‘the public interest in maintaining the protected confidence of journalists’ sources’ provides additional protections, particularly for whistleblowers. My party will be supporting the intent of that amendment. We do not have a problem with the second amendment. We have expressed concern about something being given greater weight, so we will be supporting that amendment.

Through you, Chair, as I have done privately in the last few moments, I implore the Greens to consider whether or not they need to divide when people have indicated on record how they will vote. However, that is not my decision to make. Having said that, the Democrats will be supporting the amendments before us. Given what the first amendment is intending to achieve—that is, further protection for whistleblowers—we will all need to look at it in the next tranche of legislation. However, in this case, the terminology refers to ‘protected confidence of journalists’ sources’. We will support the amendments before us.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Nettle’s) be agreed to.