Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022, acknowledging that, once again, a large proportion of what has been brought before us today stems from coalition policy. At the outset I want to acknowledge those who work exceptionally hard to keep Australians safe through our counterterror, intelligence and national security agencies. The wider community will probably never know the sort of work they do to keep Australians safe. I also want to acknowledge the hard work of our Public Service. As a person who came from small business, I really didn't understand the hard work that many, if not the vast bulk, of our public servants actually performed until I was intimately involved with them. As a small business operator I suppose you always have that cavalier approach to public servants—the view that they start at 9 am and knock off at 5 pm. But having now worked very closely with both the Queensland and the Commonwealth Public Service, I can say very strongly that the Public Service is full of very hardworking, diligent operators who are committed to working for the benefit of their fellow Australians, and I commend them for the work they do.

In government, the coalition led significant reforms to the way our intelligence community and law enforcement agencies operate, with record funding and outstanding results. However, while both sides of the House have worked to equip our agencies to contend with emerging threats and advancing technology, the accountability mechanisms have acquired modernisation in line with the same threats, technologies and community expectations. The coalition has taken the imperative to modernise this space very seriously, which is why we're working with the government on this bill, which is very similar to the legislation we brought into this place when we were in government. In that sense, much of the bill is uncontroversial. However the bill is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

The bill amends the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, or the PID Act, which allows public officials to disclose wrongdoing in the Commonwealth government sector and facilitates their investigation. This act had bipartisan support and allows a public official to make internal public interest disclosures to any supervisor, an authorised officer in an agency, the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. When we talk about authorised officers, we're referring to the head of an agency or someone appointed in writing to receive those disclosures. In a narrow range of circumstances, public interest disclosures can be made externally, but usually only after an internal disclosure is made.

The act also sets out that agencies are obliged to investigate a matter in relation to such a disclosure. The point of this kind of statute is that someone making a disclosure ought to receive protection from reprisals and civil, criminal or administrative liability when they disclose disclosable conduct, such as fraud, serious misconduct, corruption or minor wrongdoing which meets the threshold. It is, in essence, whistleblower legislation.

The importance of this legislation is driven home by one of the best recent examples, which was in relation to the DNA lab in Queensland—it's a great example. The entire criminal justice system in Queensland was pretty much predicated, in serious offences, upon evidence being tested at this DNA lab. The terrific work done by Walter Sofronoff KC in his report into that DNA lab found absolute, systemic failures. He made 123 recommendations. It is a blight on the Queensland criminal justice system and it is a blight on the Queensland government that the DNA lab was left to some appalling circumstances of management. It has, unbelievably, resulted in travesties of justice where many people may never see justice. Many people who may have committed offences may never be brought to justice.

This bill, which amends the PID Act, is a very good example of the importance of protecting whistleblowers. We know that many whistleblowers do not feel adequately protected under the current act. I'm probably conflating two different issues; my concern is specifically in relation to the DNA lab in Queensland, and I should make it very clear that this is a piece of Commonwealth legislation and that I'm not seeking to draw any comparison between that and Queensland, or to conflate the two. But there is a very salient lesson here: when whistleblowers don't feel as though they're adequately protected, or don't want to be whistleblowers, and so then don't make those complaints, then bad things can happen as a result. I think I know the Attorney-General well enough to say that those sorts of issues would weigh very heavily on his mind, as they should for the senior law officer of the Commonwealth.

In relation to the bill in question, there are concerns currently, as I said, that whistleblowers don't feel supported. They feel that their disclosures have not been taken seriously and, in some instances, they have experienced reprisals. At the agency level it's been found that the procedures are unclear or overly complex, and that the kinds of disclosable conduct are too broad. This disincentivises the disclosure of relevant conduct. As a result of these issues, the previous coalition government invited Philip Moss to offer recommendations in his statutory review. There were two joint parliamentary committees, and they offered their recommendations.

The bill in question today largely implements the recommendations from a series of reports, which were agreed to, agreed to in part or agreed to in principle by the previous coalition government. In particular, the bill implements 21 of 33 of the recommendations made by Philip Moss in his 2016 review of the act. It also implements the recommendations from the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Service's Whistleblower protections report in 2017, and it implements recommendations from the parliamentary joint committee inquiry into press freedoms in 2020. This includes the removal of personal work-related conduct from the PID Act, unless that conduct relates to system wrongdoing or reprisal action.

The bill provides increased flexibility as to how disclosures are handled. It also extends the protections from reprisals to witnesses and those who may not yet have made but have proposed to make or could make a disclosure. The bill includes new information sharing provisions. It allows other investigative agencies to be informed about matters within their remit. These changes have come about in response to the Moss review recommendations. They address a known problem in the PID Act whereby the secrecy offence unnecessarily hampers agencies' ability to respond to wrongdoing in their own organisation. They allow smaller agencies to refer a disclosure to the portfolio department, avoiding tying up small bodies in investigative red tape. The coalition supported these recommendations in its response to the Moss review, and I welcome this bill's changes to the PID Act.

We all have an interest in ensuring that wrongdoing in the public service is not only identified but addressed and, perhaps even more importantly, prevented. Strong whistleblower legislation will affect people who are maybe on the cusp, thinking, 'Should I do this wrongdoing or shouldn't I?' If they know that the colleagues that they work with have appropriate protections to be able to bring that wrongdoing to the attention of appropriate authorities then the intent must be that they won't then go and perform those acts of wrongdoing.

We've all taken seats in this place, in this parliament, to make a commitment to fostering our democratic institutions. The people who elected us here expect nothing short of our utmost integrity, and they also expect nothing short of those who earn money on the public coin: our public servants. They expect our public servants also to be doing the right thing. They also expect us and our public service to call out wrongdoing. This is about a culture of trust and ensuring confidence in our system of government. It's about protecting the rights of those who have committed themselves to the public service. May we never forget that important duty as members of this place. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context