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

My concern is that Greens amendment (2) goes beyond that; that Greens amendment (2) would attract the protection, which it is the purpose of the bill to afford to journalists, to anyone engaged and active in the publication of news—not just someone who, doing the work of a journalist, may be acting without remuneration but anyone purporting to do the work which journalists commonly do; in other words, publish news.

The opposition’s attitude, and this is reflected in the way in which the opposition bill is structured, has always been that the professional confidences which apply to a range of professions—for example, the legal profession and the medical profession—ought to be applied to the protection of journalist sources as well. With respect, we approach this from an entirely different frame of reference than Senator Ludlam does. We see this reform as an extension of the law that protects professional confidences and we accept that, because reliance on sources in the bona fide investigation and subsequent publication of news is integral to a journalist’s work, the relationship between a journalist and a source ought, at least presumptively, be a privileged relationship.

The amendment that Senator Ludlam proposes is not so limited and does not really approach the question from that perspective. As I interpret his amendment it says that, as long as something is news, it does not matter who publishes it or publicises it. That is why I said in my earlier contribution that, if we expand the definition of ‘journalist’ as widely as he would have us do, this ceases to be legislation which provides this protection, which privileges a particular kind of communication in which journalists are engaged in the course of their professional activities. It says to every person in society that, whether they are journalists or not, if they are seeking to publish or bring to public awareness a fact which they assert to be a newsworthy fact, they should have a presumptive privilege. That is not the protection of journalist sources; it is a much more extensive thing which we do not think is good policy—it is the protection of a communication between any person and a source which might result in the person deriving the information choosing then to publish it in any form on the basis that it is news. That is the reason for our caution here and our opposition to the Greens amendments.