ADDITONAL COMMENTS BY THE AUSTRALIAN GREENS

1.1        The Australian Greens support the Evidence Amendment (Journalists' Privilege) Bill 2010.

1.2        Effective shield laws for journalists and whistleblowers act as a fortification against wrongdoing and an encouragement to vigilance and integrity. We believe that a strong and independent press is an essential safeguard for a democratic society, and that the individuals who disclose matters to journalists in the public interest should also receive protection from threat or disadvantage.

1.3        However the Australian Greens assert that such protections should extend beyond the traditional definition of a journalist to include all persons involved in the act or process of journalism; no matter who they are or in what medium they publish.

1.4        The bill states that the definitions of 'journalist' and 'news medium' are already quite broad. In Schedule 1, section 126G:

journalist means 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

news medium means a medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news

1.5        'Journalism' and 'blogging' are two examples of activities that end up producing certain kinds of media outputs that are often 'observations on news' or are conveyed to 'a section of the public'. What remains ambiguous in this interpretation is whether 'in the normal course of that person's work' implies that a journalist has to be paid.

1.6        For the sake of clarity, the Australian Greens seek to amend the definitions in the Bill to:

journalism means the reporting in a news medium of facts which are, to the best knowledge of the person reporting those facts, fair, true and accurate, and includes incidental processes such as the gathering of information for that purpose

journalist means a person who engages in journalism, no matter who the person is nor the medium in which the person publishes his or her material

1.7        We argue that it should not rest on whether or not your work is paid as to whether these protections are afforded, but rather whether or not it is in the public interest for the source to be protected. It would therefore become the responsibility of the court to decide whether or not the source disclosure was in the public interest, as is entirely appropriate.

1.8        This was raised in the Senate Inquiry by Jonathan Este, Director of Communications, Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance:

If an academic is writing on Crikey or in the newspaper, paid or unpaid, what they are doing is deemed to be journalism so it should be protected... rather than trying to define what is or is not a journalist, by saying they are paid and this is the normal course of their work, is to ask: is the outcome of what they are doing an act of journalism? (Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs – Legislation Committee, 18 November 2010).

1.9        The Greens also seek to ensure that protection is proffered to those operating in independent and alternative media, not just the traditional or major media outlets.

 

Senator Scott Ludlam

Australian Greens

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page