|
representatives vote 2022-11-24#11
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-11-25 15:56:04
|
Title
Description
-
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.69.4) to *disagree* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.66.1) introduced by Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent), which means they failed.- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.69.4) to *disagree* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.66.1) introduced by Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent), which means it failed.
- ### What did the amendment do?
- Ms Daniel [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.66.1):
- > *This amendment goes to the leaking of documents and the potential for journalists, particularly from the public broadcasters, to be penalised for receiving such documents, the fear of which, I believe, can thwart investigative journalism and, by extension, damage democracy.*
- Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2223a/23bd035).
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 8, page 16 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add:*
- >
- > *Journalist activities*
- >
- > *(14) To avoid doubt, conduct engaged in by a person who is an employee, contractor or agent of any Commonwealth agency (including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation) that is engaged in the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media does not constitute corrupt conduct if:*
- >
- >> *(a) the person engaged in the conduct in the person's capacity as:*
- >>
- >>> *(i) a person engaged in the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media; or*
- >>>
- >>> *(ii) a person engaged as part of the editorial staff for the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media; or*
- >>
- >> *(b) at the time of engaging in the conduct, the person:*
- >>
- >>> *(i) was a member of the administrative or production staff of the Commonwealth agency or of a contractor or agent of the Commonwealth agency; and*
- >>>
>>> *(ii) was acting under the direction of a journalist, editor or lawyer who was an employee, contractor or agent of the Commonwealth agency.*- >>> *(ii) was acting under the direction of a journalist, editor or lawyer who was an employee, contractor or agent of the Commonwealth agency.*
-
-
|
|
representatives vote 2022-11-24#11
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-11-25 14:39:27
|
Title
Bills — National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022; Consideration in Detail- National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 - Consideration in Detail - Journalist activities not corrupt conduct
Description
<p class="speaker">Zoe Daniel</p><p>I move the amendment circulated in my name:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.69.4) to *disagree* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.66.1) introduced by Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What did the amendment do?
- Ms Daniel [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.66.1):
- > *This amendment goes to the leaking of documents and the potential for journalists, particularly from the public broadcasters, to be penalised for receiving such documents, the fear of which, I believe, can thwart investigative journalism and, by extension, damage democracy.*
- Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2223a/23bd035).
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 8, page 16 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add:*
- >
- > *Journalist activities*
- >
- > *(14) To avoid doubt, conduct engaged in by a person who is an employee, contractor or agent of any Commonwealth agency (including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation) that is engaged in the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media does not constitute corrupt conduct if:*
- >
- >> *(a) the person engaged in the conduct in the person's capacity as:*
- >>
- >>> *(i) a person engaged in the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media; or*
- >>>
- >>> *(ii) a person engaged as part of the editorial staff for the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media; or*
- >>
- >> *(b) at the time of engaging in the conduct, the person:*
- >>
- >>> *(i) was a member of the administrative or production staff of the Commonwealth agency or of a contractor or agent of the Commonwealth agency; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(ii) was acting under the direction of a journalist, editor or lawyer who was an employee, contractor or agent of the Commonwealth agency.*
<p class="italic">(1) Clause 8, page 16 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add:</p><p class="italic"> <i>Journalist activities</i></p><p class="italic">(14) To avoid doubt, conduct engaged in by a person who is an employee, contractor or agent of any Commonwealth agency (including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation) that is engaged in the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media does not constitute <i>corrupt conduct</i> if:</p><p class="italic">(a) the person engaged in the conduct in the person's capacity as:</p><p class="italic">(i) a person engaged in the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media; or</p><p class="italic">(ii) a person engaged as part of the editorial staff for the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media; or</p><p class="italic">(b) at the time of engaging in the conduct, the person:</p><p class="italic">(i) was a member of the administrative or production staff of the Commonwealth agency or of a contractor or agent of the Commonwealth agency; and</p><p class="italic">(ii) was acting under the direction of a journalist, editor or lawyer who was an employee, contractor or agent of the Commonwealth agency.</p><p>This amendment goes to the leaking of documents and the potential for journalists, particularly from the public broadcasters, to be penalised for receiving such documents, the fear of which, I believe, can thwart investigative journalism and, by extension, damage democracy.</p><p>In 2017, ABC reporters Dan Oakes and Sam Clark published a series of news items about allegations of unlawful killings by Australian special forces in Afghanistan. They were based on hundreds of pages of defence department documents which had been given to the reporters. Following their publication, Oakes and Clark were threatened with criminal prosecution, effectively for being in receipt of stolen property. Those charges hovered over the reporters for three years. Then, out of the blue and without warning, AFP officers raided the ABC's headquarters seeking to find the source of the documents. What is clear is that they wanted to find out who had been the whistleblower. As ABC managing director David Anderson said at the time:</p><p class="italic">This … raises legitimate concerns over freedom of the press and proper scrutiny of national security and defence matters.</p><p>ABC editorial director Craig McMurtrie declared the raid 'a very unwelcome and serious development'.</p><p>Now to the NACC legislation. I am pleased that the Attorney-General has seen fit to raise the bar on applications for warrants to raid media organisations and their journalists, by agreeing that they should be scrutinised by a supreme court judge rather than a member of the AAT. The Attorney-General has also enhanced the protections for both reporters and whistleblowers. But I remain concerned about the effect of the meaning of 'corrupt conduct', with a section on reporters employed or engaged by public broadcasters, who are Public Service employees and are therefore captured under this section of the bill.</p><p>As a former journalist, I would like to point out that investigative journalism is hard. There are roadblocks. There are obstructions, sometimes of a legal nature, and there is sometimes danger and risk to the safety of the reporters involved. Any further roadblocks that we put in place could potentially paralyse investigations that are much needed for the sake of our democracy and for the kind of transparency that the NACC is supposed to facilitate. Adding fear of prosecution makes these investigations even harder and will potentially dissuade journalists from putting in this work.</p><p>The risk of an investigation into the legitimate work of ABC and SBS journalists potentially undermines the statutory independence of the public broadcasters. It could also hobble investigative journalism and media freedom. The government suggests that this won't happen and that, in any event, it would be addressed in prospective amendments to other legislation, including the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Respectfully, to the Attorney-General, I don't think that leaving a known gap, assuming some future change will occur, is appropriate. Therefore, I urge the House to support my amendment, which would put beyond doubt the exclusion of the possibility of its application to ABC and SBS journalists' use of leaked information or documents received in the normal course of their work.</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Katter</p><p>With so many of the cases that are being referred to here, I cannot help but give reality to what the honourable member is proposing. The reality comes from arguably the most courageous journalist I've seen in my lifetime, Steve Austin, who was with the ABC in Brisbane. He did the expose which was one of the major lightning rods for the inquiry in Queensland which overcame the problem of continual murders by a group of policemen in that state. Steve did a 'Crooked Creek Cattle Company' series—which was the most startling and remarkable thing I'd ever heard on radio—with enormous courage, because he knew the number of people that had been murdered already, the number that had been set up on charges and the number of journalists that had been sacked. Yet he had the courage to go on and do the job.</p><p>It's no secret that the centre of the corruption was a Detective Sergeant Murphy, who was running what they called 'the Joke' throughout Queensland, and he had a house at Hedges Avenue on the Gold Coast, which is the most expensive address in Australia. Steve had the camera there—this was the second thing that he did; and he called me in and showed me—and he interviewed him. Tony Murphy came out, and Steve said, 'Detective Sergeant Murphy, you have a house in the most expensive address in Australia and two top-of-the-range Mercedes-Benz in the garage. Could you explain how you do this on a take-home pay of 70 grand a year?' I said to Steve Austin, 'I'm not going near you. I'm going to get caught in a ricochet. You've got a life expectancy of days.'</p><p>The point I want to make, in backing up the honourable member for Goldstein on this amendment, is that he was ordered not to use that tape exposing Tony Murphy. The ABC boss in Melbourne told him that not only was he not to use it but he was to send the reels down to Melbourne. Now, to show you the extraordinary courage of this man, he did send the tapes down to Melbourne, but he put copied tapes that night on national television. Whilst it was posthumous assistance for the 42 that were dead—of those 42, there were 21 burnt to death at Whisky Au Go Go. They hadn't paid their protection money, so their nightclub was burnt to the ground. But someone had locked the exit doors from the outside, and the people couldn't get out and were incinerated to death. In retrospect, I believe that these terrible happenings could have been avoided if people like Steve Austin had been given much greater licence and power to do the job that they wanted to do. So I very, very strongly back the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein.</p> <p class="speaker">Kate Chaney</p><p>I rise to back this amendment. It's really vital that we have a frank and fearless media, and that's part of the work that we need to do to rebuild trust in government. The ABC and SBS are in a different position to other media outlets, in that they are both Commonwealth public servants and they are in the business of reporting the news and potentially exposing corruption. So I'm very supportive of this amendment.</p><p>I don't think it's the intention of the government or of the legislation to put those journalists in a difficult position. There is at the moment a risk that they could be investigated for corrupt conduct for receiving documents in the course of doing their job in reporting the news. This amendment addresses that, for clarity, to ensure that it can't be used for that unintended purpose. The fundamental aim of the legislation is to strengthen our institutions, and this amendment is consistent with doing that for the purpose of ensuring that the public can see what's going on in government.</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Dreyfus</p><p>I thank the member for Goldstein for her amendments and for her constructive engagement on this legislation. The bill contains safeguards to protect the identities of journalists' sources and uphold the public interest associated with a free press. Journalists and their employers would not be required to do anything under the bill that would disclose the identity of their source or enable that identity to be ascertained.</p><p>In addition, the government has put forward amendments to further strengthen this protection in response to the recommendations of the joint select committee reviewing these bills and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendments broaden the safeguards for the protection of journalists in relation to search warrants issued under the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill and extend protections for journalists' sources to persons assisting the journalist who are employed or engaged by the journalist's employer and persons assisting the journalist in a professional capacity, for example camera operators or administrative staff. The government does not support the proposed amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that the amendment moved in the name of the member for Goldstein be disagreed to.</p> -
-
|