Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to make a few comments in relation to the Public Interest Disclosure Bill—indeed, to the advisory report. I would just like to acknowledge the Chair, the member for Moreton, and endorse his comments of support for the secretariat for the work they have done on this.

The inquiry by the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee into the Public Interest Disclosure Bill follows in a long line of investigations into the adequacy of legislative protection for whistleblowers in Australia. It is needed, as my colleague said, to strengthen the integrity of governance.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, then chaired by the now Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, published a comprehensive report in February 2009 and within that document provided a robust framework for whistleblower protection.

This legislation has been long in the making, as the government did not respond to the report until 2010. However, they substantially agreed with its recommendations and undertook to introduce a bill, and that bill is partially the subject of this committee's inquiry. The Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee also considered the private member's bill from the member for Denison, which was on the same subject. I would like to compliment the member for Denison for also raising the interest in this particular matter.

The committee considers that protecting people who speak out against illegal or improper practices in government departments or other institutions is a critical part of maintaining integrity in those organisations and in our democracy generally. During the course of the inquiries it was clear that there have been criticisms of elements of both this bill and what is commonly referred to as the 'Wilkie Bill'. The committee notes the broader scope of the 'Wilkie Bill' in its coverage of types of disclosures and scope of protections offered, and that it is well supported by many of the stakeholder groups.

There was a general concern with regard to the government's Public Interest Disclosure Bill, about its overall complexity. Mr Howard Whitton, in his submission to the committee stated, 'intending whistleblowers will need a lawyer at their elbow to understand the many procedural steps required for a disclosure to be granted protection'. It is to be hoped, therefore, that there will be greater clarification with regard to some of the more complex points so as to avoid deterring intending whistleblowers from reporting.

Professor AJ Brown listed 10 principles—and I understand that Professor Brown has been very involved in this issue—that he believed needed to be reflected in effective legislation. They are that: it must promote an 'if in doubt can report' attitude for public officials; alleged public interest related wrongdoing in all areas of Commonwealth government should be covered; any carve-outs or special procedures should be fully justified, not just blanket exclusions or exemptions; obligations on agencies to protect and support should be direct, proactive and preventative; implementations should be supported by a single oversight agency; that oversight agency should be properly resourced to do the job; reporting and protection systems should not be complaint-dependent; rules on when officials may/should disclose to the media should be clear and workable; compensation remedies should be clear, simple and accessible; and finally, there should be basic safeguards against abuse and misuse of the system.

The committee recommends that the House of Representatives pass the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013 with amendments to address the deficiencies raised during the course of the inquiry, and suggests that it would also be prudent to await the report from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee so as to improve the operation of this bill with particular regard to: the scope of protections offered where disclosures are made in good faith, though they may later be found to be false or misleading; the scope and clarity of protections offered for external disclosures; and the scope of protections for the whistleblowers from reprisals.

I commend the advisory report to the House.

See this speech in context