Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The amendments that we have circulated have the effect of providing a slight broadening of the definition of ‘journalist’ and what it actually means. I will take the chamber through this in a little bit of detail, because I think it is quite important. At the moment we have some definitions in schedule 1 of the bill which provide that ‘journalist’ means a person ‘who is engaged and active in the publication of news in the normal course of that person’s work’. The reason I am raising this issue is that we have some concerns at the moment that the bill is effectively drafted for a 20th century interpretation of who qualifies as a journalist, that it is intended to apply—probably quite correctly, in the original sense—to people working for regular media organisations in the distribution of news, whether it be a newspaper or electronic media. I think this goes back to the original definition of ‘journalist’ as someone who might be a member of the MEAA, or who has signed up to the Journalists Code of Conduct—or whatever definition of journalism you might wish to adopt.

One of our amendments proposes to delete the words ‘in the normal course of that person’s work’. That just means that, if you are engaged and active in the publication of news then you might have put yourself in a position where an informant would have contacted you and expected the kind of protections that this bill seeks to provide, and as far as I am concerned it should not matter whether you work for the Age or for the ABC, whether it is a piece that you put on Crikey, or whether it is a piece that you have even put up on your own blog, for that matter. What we are trying to do here is make sure that it does not matter who you work for, or whether you were paid; if it is an act of journalism you should be offered the protection of the court and it should be up to the court to decide, not necessarily whether the protection applies but whether it is in the public interest that the disclosure should occur or not. We are not seeking to simply apply blanket protection to anybody who adds a comment to Facebook.

I understand I have government support for these amendments, negotiated towards the end of last year after a little bit of back and forth. I would very clearly like to put on the record that we are not seeking to have any comment or any piece of work that might be put out in the name of journalism protected by this power. What we are very strongly seeking to do, though, is make sure that the door to the court is not closed in the first instance—based on, for example, an interpretation such that, if you were not paid for that work, should you and your source be offered the protection that this bill seeks to provide. That is effectively the important distinction that we are seeking to draw here. If the court decides that it is in the public interest that your source be protected then it should not depend on whether you were paid or not.

At the very last minute the government has introduced a certain amount of ambiguity into the precise nature of their support for the amendments that we have circulated, so what I might do at this stage is give the minister an opportunity to clarify that ambiguity. I was told, just for the record, that the government was satisfied with the form of words that we had ended up with late last year. I confirmed that with the Attorney’s office earlier this week. If there has been some confusion, or if the amendments did not turn out quite the way the government was anticipating, then obviously we will negotiate right here on the floor of the chamber, which would be very interesting. But I first seek some clarification from the minister as to exactly what the government proposes to do with the Greens amendments when I move them.