Senate debates
Monday, 15 November 2010
Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010
Second Reading
1:31 pm
Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source
Senator Collins, I do not remember the rat, but I am sure you can illuminate me after I have had a chance to reflect on my colleagues’ contributions.
I know there has been some criticism by the opposition in relation to the Attorney-General not moving on this previously. The fact is that in all my dealings with the Attorney-General and his office he has been open and willing to advance this. It is also fair to note that when the Attorney previously moved on this area he received resistance from some of the states—ironically, some of his Labor colleagues were particularly hesitant to move in relation to reform in this particular area. So I do not think it is fair to ascribe blame to Mr McClelland as the Attorney-General for delays. I think he had some resistance from the states.
That brings me to Senator Ludlam’s contribution. The issue of ambiguity was raised. I want to make it absolutely clear that under the provisions of this bill a ‘journalist’ is defined as being:
... a person who in the normal course of that person’s work may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium.
It is important to note that the definition does not specify the medium in which the information may be published, and in that way is technology neutral. Certainly, with the advancements of technology, it is important that we do not narrow the terms under which ‘a journalist’ may be defined when it comes to the format in which news and information is delivered. Further, the reference in the definition to that person’s work does not seek to define a journalist as someone who is paid; rather it is to distinguish those who are making one passing comment, from someone who is engaged and active in the publication of news. I think there is a clear distinction between the two. I want to put that on the record for the purpose of this, and I am happy to elaborate on that in the course of the committee stage.
Ultimately it is important to note that under this definition the court has discretion to determine whether or not a person meets criteria under the provisions of this privilege. That is why this is a huge advance on what has previously been the case. I note that Senator Ludlam has indicated that the Western Australian Attorney-General, Mr Christian Porter, has expressed concerns about these moves. I have already had a good but relatively brief discussion with Mr Porter when parliament last sat several weeks ago and hopefully I will be able to continue further discussions with Mr Porter. I hope to be able to convince him of the merits of this particular reform, because it is important that there is uniform law and I do not think Western Australia would want to be a bit like a shag on a rock—simply be isolated from other jurisdictions which are moving towards this reform. And I hope that Senator Brandis, as shadow Attorney-General, will be able to convince his Western Australian colleague of the merits of the reforms that he himself has proposed. There is one key distinction between what Senator Brandis has proposed—and that relates to whether the classes of persons obtaining privilege should be expanded to other professions. Perhaps comment on that should be delayed until the committee reports next Tuesday week.
In relation to Senator Wortley’s comments, I acknowledge her passion for this issue as a former secretary of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance in South Australia. I know of her concern for protecting journalists’ sources—for which this is a very important reform which would involve a new era for journalists in Australia—and acknowledge her long-standing interest in relation to this. I also thank Senator Ludwig for setting out his position. As I understand it, there was Labor Party policy for reform in relation to this back in 2007. It is pleasing that we are all coming together to reform the law in relation to this. So I thank my colleagues for their indications of support. I also thank the member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie, for working together with me in relation to this. I am also grateful for the work of the federal Attorney-General’s office—in particular, Ms Elizabeth Brayshaw—for the way that the Attorney-General’s office has worked with me on this particular issue.
I am looking forward to the committee’s report, and I am looking forward to the passage of the legislation for this long overdue reform in the Senate next week.
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
No comments