Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I applaud the government for finally beginning the long process of deep reform of federal whistleblower legislation. It's lamentable that little was done in this policy area during the previous nine years, although I note that the bill before us is very modest and it largely goes to technical changes to dovetail the Public Interest Disclosure Act with the legislation for the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

In other words, there is much more work to be done, and I am impressed by the commitment of the Attorney-General to do that work. But, heavens, it's a lot of work to be done. Indeed, the report released by Griffith University, the Human Rights Law Centre and Transparency International Australia highlights 21 areas of reform needed to achieve effective Commonwealth whistleblower protections across the public, private and not-for-profit sectors. This bill implements only one of those 21 areas in full. The bill does implement four reforms in part, which may actually weaken whistleblower protection in practice. The report goes on to say that more is needed to be done to implement those four recommendations in full, for example by ensuring a 'no wrong doors' approach, increasing powers and resources for training and oversight, enhancing information sharing and the ability to access support, and excluding solely individual employment grievances.

I would add to that report a number of other areas where the government does need to act decisively during this term of parliament. As has been mentioned by other members already, we do need to establish a whistleblower protection commissioner. We do need to extend the Public Interest Disclosure Act to all public officials, including all anticorruption whistleblowers, parliamentary and court staff. We need to provide protection for private-sector whistleblowers by reforming the Corporations Act. This isn't just about the PID Act; we also need to go further with the Corporation Act and the provisions that have been made to that act in recent years for the private sector. We also need legal reform of immunities from prosecution from civil, criminal and administrative liability for whistleblowers, and we need to enforce a positive duty on all employers to protect whistleblowers.

I would add that, in parallel with the reform of the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the Corporations Act, we also need to ensure we have effective media freedom laws. It's one thing for a whistleblower to speak up and do their best to speak truth to power, but those complaints or allegations will go unheard by the community unless the media can safely report those concerns so that the whole community knows what's going on.

Why is this so important? It's so important because whistleblowers are, obviously, an essential component of a healthy democracy. They are an essential component or aid to establishing good governance and good public administration. Unless we encourage, protect and support people who see misconduct or see maladministration or see incompetence, unless we encourage them to speak up, then we will never know about the corruption or maladministration or incompetence. So we need to give them every support we possibly can.

When thinking about the role of these whistleblowers, I reflect on some of the whistleblowers that we've had over the last 20 years or so and the good they have done for this country. For example, in the mid-2000s we would never have learned of the malpractice and misconduct of Dr Patel at Bundaberg Hospital unless the brave whistleblower Toni Hoffman had spoken up. And she did speak up and talked about Dr Patel and what was going on. She did speak up and talked about the refusal of senior hospital staff to act. We only learned about that, and a stop was only put on Dr Patel's practice, because of a whistleblower. There was no other reason.

Similarly, in 2007, we learned of serious security flaws at Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport. We only learned of them because of the brave whistleblower Allan Kessing, who, as a customs official, had written several reports a few years earlier identifying the security holes at Sydney Airport, reports that went totally unheeded and were not acted on. So, eventually, he did speak up.

But Toni Hoffman and Alan Kessing are both good examples of the downside of speaking up. When Toni Hoffman spoke up, she was treated like a leper by Queensland Health. When Allan Kessing spoke up about Sydney Airport, he was prosecuted. In fact, at one stage he faced two years jail for speaking up—for doing the right thing and acting in the public interest. Mercifully, he only received a nine-month suspended sentence. But, frankly, Allan Kessing should not have received a suspended sentence; he should have been applauded as a hero and received, perhaps, some sort of award through the Order of Australia.

What about Witness K? We would never have known that the Australian Secret Intelligence Service had bugged the East Timor parliament building in 2004 if Witness K hadn't spoken up—spoken up internally, spoken up by going to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, spoken up by going to his equally brave lawyer, Bernard Collaery. But what happened to Witness K? Was he lauded as a hero? Did he receive some medal? No. He got a three-month suspended sentence for speaking up, for acting in the public interest, for doing the right thing.

There have already been comments in this place about David McBride, an Army lawyer. We would not have known about the allegations of war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan if David McBride hadn't spoken up. Is he applauded or lauded as a hero? Is he looking at getting an AM or an AO or an AC? No. He's in the court—for speaking up and doing the right thing, for speaking truth to power, acting in the public interest.

Richard Boyle is facing 24 charges for revealing misconduct in the ATO. Why isn't Richard Boyle being lauded a hero? Why isn't he getting an AM or an AO or an AC or an A-something? Why is he before the courts? The problem is, in this country, we have almost a cultural aversion to whistleblowers. They're tall poppies. They're attention seekers. They're not team players. No wonder, in this country, with most high-profile whistleblowers it ends in tears. No wonder, in this country, there are countless whistleblowers at lower levels—of the federal Public Service, perhaps in local or state government, or perhaps in the private sector, in little or big companies all around the country.

I'll tell you what happens to those people. More often than not, they don't end up as heroes. They don't even get a mention here, because I've never even heard of them. They've never even made the media. These are the people who are ignored. They're ridiculed, they're marginalised, they're forced out of their jobs, they're sacked, they're prosecuted and they're sued. They become unemployable in their sector, they lose their jobs, they lose their families and, sadly, sometimes they even lose their lives.

Compare that to, say, the United States. In 2002, in TIME magazine's 'Persons of the year' there were three whistleblowers: Sherron Watkins, Cynthia Cooper and FBI special agent Coleen Rowley. They were on the cover of the magazine for whistleblowing about financial fraud at Enron and WorldCom and failures in the FBI before 9/11. That's how whistleblowers should be treated. They should be on the front cover of the magazine. They should be treated as heroes.

What we should be doing in this place, through you, Deputy Speaker—and the Attorney-General is in the House now. I do applaud the Attorney-General. I have a lot of confidence in his commitment to deep reform of the Public Interest Disclosure Act during this term of parliament. I take this opportunity to remind the Attorney-General he must not stop there. We also need deep reform of the Corporations Act. We also need those media freedom laws I've referred to, because what good are a whistleblower's allegations unless those allegations can be ventilated publicly and tested in the court of public opinion and people can learn all about them?

I'm a bit reluctant to talk about my own whistleblowing episode. In fact, for most people, you probably can't remember it anymore or weren't even born. In 2003 I was working at the Office of National Assessments, now the Office of National Intelligence, and I spoke up. I resigned and went to the media about the fraudulent case for the invasion of Iraq. Interestingly, there were no whistleblower protections for me then. Even these days, with the current Public Interest Disclosure Act, there is zero protection for someone like me, in the security services, for speaking up. That has got to be remedied. No matter where you are in the broad Public Service, including the security services, including the Australian intelligence community, if you are witness to misconduct you must be encouraged to speak up, and protected and supported if you do.

I don't want to see repeats of what happened to me, were I instantly lost a job I loved. There were a lot of financial and personal downsides. Heavens, at one stage, the Prime Minister's staff were working the press gallery, saying I was mentally unhinged and didn't know anything about Iraq. I don't want that repeated. And through you, Deputy Speaker, to the Attorney-General: We can take steps to ensure that it isn't repeated. I would hope that I acted in the public interest and helped to inform the community about the fraudulent case for war—weapons of mass destruction and so on.

I'll finish my remarks there. I do applaud the government for moving on this. I encourage them to move very strongly. I encourage them to be guided by reports like that report I referred to by Griffith University, the Human Rights Law Centre and Transparency International Australia, which highlighted 21 areas of reform needed and made clear that this modest bill before the House today goes to only one of those 21 areas. I can understand why the government is rushing through this bill—so that legislation dovetails with the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act. But let's not pause after this. Let's go hard. And I'd be very keen to work with the government to provide whatever insights I can to assist them with this very important act.

We don't want, in the future, people like Alan Kessing to be having a nine-month suspended sentence. We don't want people like Toni Hoffman, albeit a state official, to be treated like a leper. We don't want people like Witness K to be having a three-month suspended sentence. We don't want people like David McBride or Richard Boyle to be facing court. We want the whistleblowers that we have authority over and responsibility for to have their concerns addressed and for those people to be supported and safeguarded—and I guarantee that this country will be a much better place for it,

See this speech in context