Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Australia) Share this | Hansard source

Today I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018 because this is something that this House should care a great deal about. I will say up-front that the Labor opposition will be supporting this bill, even though we don't believe it goes far enough and its approach is somewhat piecemeal in an area which needs a major and significant overhaul after so many years of relative neglect.

I think most people on this side of the House know that I doorknock a lot. In fact, I've doorknocked at over 76,000 houses with a group of about four people over the last 15 years, and over that time the feedback that I get from people—what people tell me—has changed as their attention has moved. Someday I'll have to write a bit of an essay on how it's moved over that 15 years, but what I've really noticed in the last year to an extraordinary extent is the number of people that raise with me their concern that something's wrong—that decisions that government make, whether it's state, federal or local, don't always make sense. They don't know who those decisions are for or who benefits from them because they don't seem to be in the interests of the community. I get people talking about appalling treatment by banks and their sense of powerlessness when they're dealing with large organisations, the tax office or other large institutions and government bodies.

It's quite a tidal wave of a similar view that has swept across my community in the last year, and that's in spite of the fact that not many of those people would know that we've actually slipped down the corruption index as a nation—that when you rank Australia relative to the rest of the developed world we are slipping down. So the data seems to reflect exactly what people are telling me: that something is wrong. At least there's a willingness of people to believe that now, and to believe it easily. You can see it in social media. Someone suggests something and this wave of belief sweeps through the community, without the community really considering whether or not it's true. I think that reflects a growing sense of unease and mistrust on the part of the community in government, in major institutions and in the corporate sector.

We know that for people who do speak out there are some appalling consequences, but we also know that most people who would like to speak out actually don't. We know that. We know that people sometimes sit for years before they finally work up the courage to do it, and we all know of people who quietly call us and anonymously tell us things, because they're not prepared to put their name to things.

This sense of a loss of trust that our community is feeling actually weakens our capacity as a nation to make decisions, so we should take it very, very seriously. If people lose trust in major institutions, in federal, local and state governments, if they lose trust in the decisions that those organisations make, it weakens the nation's capacity and the community's capacity to make decisions in its own interest, because people walk away, they back off, they become suspicious and they don't engage in the way that they need to.

The government, as I think many people know—I doubt that Deputy Speaker Hastie agrees with me—has a bit of a reputation for a lack of transparency, and, in many cases, for quite aggressive attempts to silence voices. I can refer, for example, to the two-year jail term for doctors who spoke out about the medical conditions of people on Manus and Nauru. I can talk about seemingly lesser things, but extremely important things, like gag clauses for organisations that receive grants. These were abolished by a Labor government and reintroduced by a Liberal-National coalition. Rightly or wrongly, there are perceptions that there are two standards of behaviour: one for ministers of the government and one for those who work for them. Again, rightly or wrongly, there is a perception of this lack of transparency and of a cracking down on people who are outspoken and critical of the government.

In circumstances like this, it's incredibly important that governments act to re-establish trust. There are three major issues that need to be addressed. The first is the federal anticorruption commission. I know the government has put up a proposal. We on this side don't believe it goes anywhere near far enough. We've been calling for a federal anticorruption commission for well over a year. Secondly, we need substantial whistleblower protection. This bill begins that process, but doesn't go far enough. Thirdly, we need higher penalties for corporate crime. Those three things are absolutely essential at this point, and it's good to see even this piecemeal attempt to improve one of them, which is whistleblower protection.

I want to talk briefly about the history of this. This bill implements, to some degree, some of the recommendations of the September 2017 report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into whistleblowing protections in the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors. The establishment of the inquiry was actually part of a deal done between the government and Nick Xenophon and Senator Hinch to pass the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill in November 2016. Way back then, the government established this joint committee to look into this issue. That was 2017. In the last sitting week of 2017, shortly after that, the government introduced the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2017, designed to strengthen protections for corporate whistleblowers and introduce protections for tax whistleblowers. That was way back in the last week of 2017. We're well over a year later and we're now beginning debate on this important bill. That alone says a great deal about this government's priorities and the importance that it places on this bill, which it really only agreed to deal with because of the deal it did with the crossbenchers. And here we are a year later and the bill is here.

The bill does make some key improvements. It broadens the conduct about which disclosures can be made. It allows for anonymous disclosures. It removes the requirement that a whistleblower makes a disclosure in good faith. It allows for disclosures to lawyers for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. It strengthens restrictions of obtaining the whistleblower's identity. So it does make a number of improvements. The bill has been improved further by negotiations and amendments by Centre Alliance. I would like to thank the crossbench in the House and the Senate for working so hard to improve this bill, because it is an incredibly important area.

But the bill has been criticised. Professor A J Brown, a leading expert in Australia on whistleblower protections and a member of the government's own expert panel, reportedly called this bill a 'limited step' and 'a more sideways than a forward step on key issues'. The bill has been criticised in relation to the compensation arrangements and for only protecting disclosures to the media and parliamentarians in very limited circumstances. So there's quite a bit of criticism. But, again, while it might be a side-step, it is a step—a step a year later and a step under pressure, but a step nevertheless.

Labor, on the other hand, has announced policies that go much, much further than this. But, for a government that fought the royal commission into banks for so long, that argued against the royal commission into child sexual abuse, that held off against a royal commission into aged care, that voted against a royal commission into disabilities just last week, that is heavy-handed towards people that speak out, that lacks transparency and that has to be led kicking and screaming to all those areas, this is a step forward, and it is well improved by the amendments made by Centre Alliance—and, once again, I would thank those.

Labor's policy in this area goes much further than this. It sets up quite a new system. It sets up a whistleblower reward scheme; it establishes a whistleblower protection authority; it overhauls our whistleblowing laws with a single whistleblowing act; and funds a special prosecutor to bring corporate criminals to justice. That is a significant change to the way this nation handles whistleblowing and the protection that it provides. The banking royal commission, as we know, highlighted the appalling and even criminal conduct in the banking sector, and it was only possible because brave whistleblowers and bank victims came forward and Labor listened. The Liberal government did everything they could to protect the banks from that.

Right now, blowing the whistle on crime and misconduct is incredibly difficult, and whistleblowers often face reprisals and some are never able to work again. There are serious consequences to livelihood, mental health and reputation for whistleblowers. For many Australians who see wrongdoing and want to stop it whistleblowing is simply not worth the risk. That shouldn't be the case. So Labor will establish a whistleblower reward scheme to make it easier for good people to come forward and report instances of crime and misconduct. The scheme will allow whistleblowers to receive a percentage of the penalties arising out of wrongdoing that they reveal. Once a crook is hit with a financial penalty as a result of whistleblowing, the whistleblower reward scheme will allow a proportion of the penalty to be given as reward to the whistleblower. The relevant investigative or law enforcement agency will have discretion to determine the level of reward within a legislative range.

Labor will also strengthen protections for whistleblowers through the establishment of a whistleblower protection authority—literally, a one-stop shop to support and protect whistleblowers. The authority will have dedicated staff to advise whistleblowers on their rights, assist them through the disclosure process and help them access compensation if they face reprisals. A person sitting within a major corporation, expert in their field, may not know the process and the protections that they are entitled to if they are a whistleblower. This will provide an expert staff to help them through that process.

Labor believes that all whistleblowers should be treated the same regardless of the type of workplace they're in, but right now our whistleblower laws are opaque and inconsistent and depend entirely on where you work. A Shorten Labor government will also create a single Australian whistleblower act, consolidating all of the mainstream whistleblowing legislation into one location so that whistleblowers can readily understand how they are protected. This will be a major shake-up of Australia's whistleblowing regime. We will undertake detailed design work to make sure that the new laws, the proposed reward scheme and the whistleblower protection authority are powerful and effective.

Labor is commit committed to cracking down on misconduct and corruption in the banking and financial services sector. These announcements build on our commitment to a banking royal commission implementation taskforce and to deliver an extra $25 million over the next two years for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to tackle corporate crime. As part of this funding, Labor will also appoint a special prosecutor to crack down on corporate criminals.

The difference in approach to this between the government and the opposition are clear. The government has been dragged by the Centre Alliance through a deal to support another bill and into looking at this area. Over a year later, they finally brought the bill to this House. It is a piecemeal approach; it is a sidewards step. As I said, we will support it; but the difference between this government's approach and Labor's approach is clear. Labor will establish a coherent, transparent, easy-to-understand and navigable process for whistleblowers that will assist people who have identified corporate crime or government crime to come forward and serve their community in the way that we need them to. Once again, we will support this bill, but there's much, much more to be done. I would seriously urge the government to look at Labor's proposal and consider it very seriously.

See this speech in context