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

Before responding to your contribution, Senator Ludlam, if I may say so, you do me less than justice. Not only was I part of the body of opinion in the Senate that supported the shield laws; I actually introduced the legislation.

Senator Xenophon interjecting—

Thank you, Senator Xenophon. It was introduced initially as a private senator's bill by me. It was initially opposed by the Labor Party and the Greens. It was, in subsequent months or years, then adopted by the Labor Party, but the legislation was originally introduced by me. So I have nothing but commitment to the idea of the rights of journalists to protect their sources. That is why, although initially it was not part of the bill because journalists and their sources were never the target of this bill, I am quite comfortable with the amendments that were introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr Turnbull and which now comprise division 4C of the bill.

If I may say so, Senator Ludlam, I think you make a very good point. If only for the sake of consistency, I think it is undesirable that there should be different definitions of 'journalism' in different Commonwealth acts. You have instanced the provisions in the Evidence Act that protect journalists, which extend confidentiality to journalists' sources, and which I supported. On reflection, I think the way that it is expressed is a little wide but unfortunately the problem that you identify would not be solved were we to adopt your amendment because there are other definitions elsewhere in the Commonwealth law which apply this definition of 'journalist'. In particular, division 119 of the Criminal Code, subsection 119.23(f), uses this definition of 'journalism'.

You know as well as I do, Senator, that the definition of 'journalist' has been the subject of much public discussion, especially driven by the expansion, beyond the imagination of people even 30 years ago, of the media through which journalism may be published and conducted. But the definition that is preferred here—a person who is working in a professional capacity as a journalist—is not necessarily a contradiction of your amendment. There is no doubt that it is more generic. It is not a question of whether a person draws a pay cheque, by the way. A person can be working in a professional capacity as a barrister even though he does not render a fee for a particular case. The definition calls attention to the notion that there is such a profession as journalism, whose members consciously identify as such and who observe certain professional standards so that they are recognisable members of a body of people who undertake the same profession. That is the concept sought to be captured here.

It may well be that, given that there are inconsistent definitions of 'journalism' or 'journalist' already in the Commonwealth statues—and, indeed, between the Commonwealth and the states—some regularisation and standardisation should be adopted. But, for the time being, given that this definition is more generic, and is consistent with one of the two definitions currently extant in the Commonwealth statutes, the government prefers to deal with the issue in this way.