Ground 2
29 The appellant submitted that the IAA found that he was a reporter/presenter, but not a reporter against the Sri Lankan government demanding transparency and accountability, or that his political reports were anti-government pro-separatist or pro-Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The appellant submitted that in deciding that he did not report on transparency and accountability, the IAA relied on a finding that the appellant's reporting was "objectively" not biased at [29]. The appellant submits that this is not at all to the point and that the question is whether his harassers thought he was biased. The IAA found that his harassment was due to the SLA, Mr Karuna, his sister, or the Karuna political arm. The IAA found that the appellant was accused of giving preferential air time to the TNA.
30 The appellant submitted that the IAA found that the harassment he received was "election related" and that the IAA said that the appellant "has not provided other examples about specific pro-Tamil reporting outside the election period". The appellant submitted that this finding had to be assessed in the context of the questions asked of him by an officer of the Department at an interview and he submitted that he was asked to give "one example" of a news article. The appellant submitted that he provided an answer which was clearly political in nature, but he was not asked to provide multiple examples. His response was not to be exhaustive, nor was the question not directed to any particular time period. The appellant submitted that the IAA unreasonably failed to have regard to harassment before 2012, possibly going back to 2009.
31 The appellant submitted that he gave evidence that he was "working for the Tamil Community Programs and all" and broadcast protest information three days in advance. He broadcast the Vavuniya protest live. It was because of the appellant that people attended the protest. He broadcast a political program which included "political problems" involving electricity and water. He was asked by Mr Karuna to "reduce whatever you are talking about the Tamil people's matter" and requested TNA publicity. He was "announcing these things and we are educating people what is happening". Mr Karuna blamed his sister's failure on the radio station. The appellant's evidence regarding the Vavuniya protests was said to be internally consistent, detailed and convincing. The appellant submitted that the failure of the IAA to refer to the above evidence in the decision indicated that it did not find it material. The appellant submitted, however, that in the context of this matter, the failure to do so was indicative of a failure to give active intellectual consideration to the issue and was unreasonable.
32 The Minister interpreted the appellant's complaints in this ground to be, in effect, a complaint that the IAA failed to consider whether the appellant would be imputed with a particular political opinion by reason of his political reporting. The Minister submitted that the IAA addressed these claims and found that: (1) journalists and broadcasters in Sri Lanka do not now face the same risk as they did under the previous Rajapakse government; (2) whilst the appellant reported on political matters, apart from one report involving the Vavuniya protest, his reporting did not involve demands for government "transparency and accountability"; (3) the appellant's reporting was not "against the Sri Lankan government", nor was it in favour of the LTTE or other separatist groups; (4) the adverse attention the appellant had previously attracted was related to reporting of a specific event, the Vavuniya protest, and occurred in the specific context of the politically tense election campaign in 2012; and (5) the appellant would not be returning to Sri Lanka as "a high-profile or identifiable anti-government journalist/broadcaster". The Minister submitted that there was no obvious error in the IAA's reasoning.
33 The Minister referred to two further complaints made by the appellant. The first was that it was unreasonable for the IAA to rely on the appellant's failure to give examples of specific pro-Tamil reporting outside the election announcements in 2012. The Minister submitted that whilst it was true that at one point in his interview with the delegate he was asked to provide "one example" of his journalism, that question could not be viewed in isolation. The appellant had the opportunity to put forward as many specific examples as he wished to support the claims. The questioning by the officer of the Department should not be categorised as confining his opportunity to advance his claims. Secondly, the appellant complained that the IAA did not give proper consideration to specific aspects of the appellant's evidence regarding his reporting of the Vavyniya protests and the subsequent pressure exerted by Karuna supporters. The Minister submitted that this complaint failed on the facts. The IAA largely accepted the appellant's claims in respect of this particular incident. However, it found that it occurred in a specific factual context, namely, the 2012 election campaign which would not likely be repeated if the appellant were to return to Sri Lanka now. The Minister submitted that, in any event, the IAA was not required to engage in a "line by line" refutation of every single matter raised by the appellant: Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo [2018] FCAFC 151; (2018) 362 ALR 48 at [48].
34 I understand the appellant's submission to raise, in effect, three complaints that it submits give rise to unreasonableness in the IAA's decision.
35 First, the IAA erred in its reasons in placing any weight on the fact that the appellant's reporting or broadcasting was not objectively politically biased towards the TNA. Furthermore, the IAA erred in finding that the appellant had not reported against the Sri Lankan government demanding transparency and accountability and in not accepting that his political reports were anti-government, pro-separatist or pro-LTTE. The focus was, according to the appellant, wrong in that it was what people thought, not the objective facts which are critical. I reject this complaint. It may be accepted that it is how a person is perceived by others which is the critical fact, but that does not mean that an objective assessment is not relevant in determining the probabilities. Furthermore, it is relevant to consider where the findings ultimately leads and it is to whether the appellant would be returning to Sri Lanka as a high-profile or identifiable anti-government journalist/broadcaster. The objective position is not irrelevant to that issue.
36 Secondly, the appellant claimed that the IAA erred in finding that the appellant gave only one example of specific pro-Tamil reporting outside the election period. I note the evidence to which I was taken about the appellant conducting political programs and being asked to provide an example. In my opinion, none of this amounted to specific pro-Tamil reporting outside the election announcements and furthermore, I think the appellant had the opportunity to give evidence of other incidents.
37 Finally, I do not think that failing to find that there were problems going back to 2009 was an error in view of the appellant's evidence that when he started he had "little, little problem but I didn't take much notice".
38 Ground 2 must be rejected.