Mr KEENAN (12:25 PM) —The opposition does not support these three amendments proposed by the Australian Greens and supported by the Labor Party, and I support the comments made by the shadow attorney-general, Senator Brandis, in relation to them. In particular, the coalition wishes to express the concern that broadening the definition of ‘journalist’ and activities that are captured by the Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010 and removing ‘in the course of that person’s work’ and substituting ‘is engaged and active in the publication of news’ expands it beyond the reach of what a journalist does.

In the opposition’s view, it is appropriate and desirable to protect journalists, as the title of the bill indicates. ‘Anyone engaged or active in the publication of news’ could mean any person who, for example, publishes material on the internet or contributes to a blog—any citizen who, by any medium, publishes something that might be considered newsworthy. Our concern is reinforced by amendment (3), which substitutes for the words ‘a medium’ the words ‘news medium’, being a defined term in the bill the words ‘any medium’.

If these amendments from the Australian Greens were to be adopted, the whole purpose of this bill would be massively expanded beyond its original conception, which is to protect journalists’ sources in defined circumstances. It would not merely protect journalists, and it would not merely protect news media. It would be carte blanche for anyone who wanted to publish anything anywhere that might be considered news.

I ask members to pause to reflect on what this might mean, for example, for the operation of the laws of defamation. There is a case that the opposition has made for several years—before the government or indeed the Greens were interested in this issue—for protecting journalists’ sources. If you break the nexus between the privilege and the work of a journalist, what you then have is a blanket protection, albeit it subject to rebuttal presumptions, for anyone publishing anything anywhere that might be considered to be news, and that is not the purpose this legislation ought to be serving.

It is certainly not the purpose sought for it to serve in the opposition’s alternative legislation. We seek to protect the work of journalists as a profession in the course of their ordinary work as set out in the language of the bill in its existing form. We acknowledge that the protection of sources is, in appropriate circumstances, an acknowledgement of the protection of the legitimate work of journalists. But if we adopt these amendments, particularly amendment (2), then it ceases to be legislation that protects journalists at all. It creates a free-for-all in the publication of anything with no limitation. It would extend a protection meant to facilitate the legitimate work of journalists to anyone engaged in whatever form of opportunistic activities.

We would counsel very strongly against the adoption of these amendments from the Greens. At their most extreme level, they would entirely defeat the purpose of this bill, which is a narrow and specific but important public policy purpose—that is, to protect journalists going about their legitimate business. We would urge the House not to consider massively expanding this bill to enshrine basically anybody publishing anything anywhere at any time.

Question put: