George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

The opposition does not support any of the three proposed amendments. I note what Senator Ludwig has said in relation to amendment (1). I will deal with amendments (2) and (3). In particular, I express the concern that by broadening the definition of ‘journalist’ and the activities that are captured by the bill by removing ‘in the course of that person’s work’ and substituting ‘is engaged and active in the publication of news’ the bill expands it reach beyond that which a journalist does. In the opposition’s view it is appropriate and desirable to protect journalists, as the title of the bill indicates. ‘Anyone engaged or active in the publication of news’ could mean any person who, for example, publishes material on the internet or contributes to a blog—any citizen who by any medium publishes something that might be considered to be newsworthy.

Our concern is reinforced by amendment (3), which substitutes for the words ‘a medium’—’news medium’ being a defined term in the bill—the words ‘any medium’. If these amendments from the Australian Greens were to be adopted, the whole purpose of this bill would be expanded massively beyond its original conception, which is to protect journalists’ sources in defined circumstances. It would not merely protect journalists and it would not merely protect news media; it would be carte blanche to anyone who wanted to publish anything anywhere that might be considered to be news.

I ask honourable senators to pause to reflect on what that would mean, for example, for the operation of the law of defamation. There is a case, and it is a case that I on behalf of the opposition made for several years before either the government or indeed the Greens interested themselves in this matter, for protecting journalists’ sources in the derivation and subsequent publication of news. If you break the nexus between the privilege and the work of a journalist, what you have is a blanket protection, albeit subject to rebuttable presumptions, of anyone publishing anything anywhere that might be considered to be news. That is not the purpose which this legislation ought to be serving. It is certainly not the purpose in the opposition’s alternative legislation, which we seek to serve. We seek to protect the work of journalists as a profession in the course of their ordinary work, which is the language of the bill in its existing form. We acknowledge that the protection of sources is in appropriate circumstances an appropriate aspect of that protection of the work of journalists. But adopt these amendments, and particularly amendment (2), and it ceases to be legislation that protects journalists at all. It creates a free-for-all in the publication of anything, with no limitations at all. It would extend a protection meant to facilitate the work of journalists to anyone engaged in whatever form of opportunistic activities. So we counsel very strongly against the adoption of these amendments from the Greens. At their most extreme level, they would entirely defeat the purpose, which is a narrow and specific but important public policy purpose, of the bill.