Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5283:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 7), after paragraph 126B(4)(h), insert:

                 ; (i)    the public interest in maintaining the protected confidence of journalists sources.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (lines 8 and 9), omit “, and give the greatest weight to,”.

I explained the purpose of these amendments in my speech in the second reading debate. They are about trying to ensure that we recognise the public interest of journalists being able to keep the confidentiality of their sources. The example that I gave in my speech was in relation to airport security and the flaws around airport security that were revealed by the whistleblower. The public has an interest in ensuring that whistleblowers and others remain anonymous so that they feel confident in providing information to journalists. There is a public interest in having whistleblowers feel willing and able to put forward their information in a way that assists the community, such as in the airport security example that I used. That is the intention behind the first amendment. The second amendment, as I described during the second reading debate, relates to national security, which the judge must consider in making a decision about protection of journalists’ sources. It is appropriate that it be a factor, but the concern that the Greens have is about giving the greatest weight to national security so that it overrides all of the other considerations. We do not think that is appropriate. We think it should be a factor but not given the greatest weight. That is what the second amendment does.