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

I know it is a little unorthodox to put a question to a shadow spokesperson, and I should apologise to Senator Brandis in this instance because this bill has come on fairly suddenly and I have not had the opportunity to speak about the intention of these amendments with Senator Brandis. Irrespective of the views he might hold I apologise that I was not able to speak to him about them before we found ourselves in committee.

I wonder whether Senator Brandis would care to address the issue of the government’s drafting of the bill. The bill has been through quite an exhaustive committee process over the last couple of years, but it would appear on my reading to exclude the protection of the courts from people who were not being paid. That is quite an important distinction that I do not necessarily know that we want to draw. This does not go to the definition of whether or not you are a journalist; it hinges on the language around ‘in the normal course of that person’s work’—and I think a commonsense reading of that text would indicate that you would need to be drawing some kind of payment for the publication of the work.

The case that I put and the reason that I strongly support this amendment being passed is that I do not think that is a distinction we should draw. I think there is genuine public interest journalism in Australia, on the most sensible definition of how people would understand the term, that is not necessarily paid and does not necessarily appear in the early pages of the Sydney Morning Herald but is nonetheless journalism and should be afforded the protection of the courts that I think we are all in agreement should be applied and updated. I wonder whether Senator Brandis would care to address this issue in the context of the remarks he has just made.