03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) Commonwealth provision would be broad enough to cover a part-time employee or not-for-profit publisher like Mr Slater. [72] Both New South Wales and Western Australia have adopted the narrower phrase “engaged in the profession or occupation of journalism.” This imposes a requirement of greater work commitment than either the Commonwealth or New Zealand definitions. [73] In my view the Commonwealth provision of “engaged and active in the publication of news” is more in line with the New Zealand definition “in the normal course of that person’s work”. On a plain meaning, like its Commonwealth counterpart, the New Zealand definition does not require remunerated work or engagement in a profession, although a lack of remuneration from the blog will be relevant to assessing “the normal course of work”. However, the phrase does require regular endeavour over a period of time. [74] In my view the following matters are relevant to the assessment of whether Mr Sl ater as receiving information in the normal course of his work: w whether the receiving and disseminating of news through a news (a) medium was regular; (b) whether it involved significant time on a frequent basis; (c) whether there was revenue derived by the blog site; and (d) whether it involved the application of journalistic skill. 39. Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010 (Cth) (Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitution Affairs) and Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010 (No 2) (Cth) (additional comments by Australian Greens). Was Mr Slater receiving information in the normal course of his work? [75] It was submitted by Mr Karam that work should be defined narrowly in the sense of how a person “makes a living”. It was suggested that work was a person’s occupation and means of earning a living. It would not include, for example, a hobby, and Mr Slater’s efforts were by his own admission in that category. He submitted that Mr Slater did not receive information in the “normal course” of work as required by the definition in s 68(5), but rather in the course of a hobby or pastime. Mr Blomfield deposed that Mr Slater had been a sickness beneficiary in the receipt of income protection insurance, which due to illness rendered him incapable of work due to depression. He referred to a number of articles which suggested that Mr Slater received income protection insurance for a period of approximately five years from 2004, had been in receipt of a sickness benefit, and had stated in his blog that he found Whale Oil important in dealing with his depression and a form of therapy. [76] Mr Karam also quoted statements by Mr Slater that his career was in consulting work, that Whale Oil was the “product of passion”, and as an all consuming “hobby” rather than as “work”. Mr Slater has stated that “I’m not a journalist, I’m a partisan blogger”. Mr Karam quoted a statement of Mr Slater made during the relevant period that he does not generate any revenue from Whale Oil. Mr Karam relied on these facts to www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 17/30