Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Clark has raised concerns in his motion about the prosecution of Mr David McBride and Mr Richard Boyle. As I told the House yesterday in response to a question from the member for Clark, I am strongly of the view that integrity and the rule of law are central to Australia's criminal justice arrangements. It's true, as the member for Clark has pointed out in his motion, that the Attorney-General has power under the Judiciary Act to discontinue proceedings. It's also true, which he appeared to accept in speaking to the House, that that power to discontinue proceedings is reserved for very unusual and exceptional circumstances.

The motion itself points out that Mr McBride is facing criminal charges and is to appear in court on 13 November 2023. As a consequence, it would be inappropriate to comment further on the particulars of his case. The motion does not point out, or at least not directly, that Mr Boyle is also before the court. The current status of Mr Boyle's proceedings is that he raised a preliminary question relying on the Public Interest Disclosure Act in the District Court in Adelaide. He was unsuccessful. He appealed to the Court of Appeal in South Australia. His appeal has been heard and the court has reserved its judgement on that matter. So, again, as with Mr McBride, Mr Boyle has an ongoing criminal proceeding in court in South Australia. As for Mr McBride, it would be inappropriate to comment further on the particulars of the criminal proceeding concerning Mr Boyle.

But I wish to note that the government is committed to delivering strong, effective and accessible protections for whistleblowers. I detected something of a concession from the member for Clark that that is in fact the case. The government has already delivered priority amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act, an act that I am very proud to have brought to this parliament in 2013, an act that was reviewed as required by the provisions of the act by a statutory review conducted by an eminent Australian public servant in Mr Philip Moss, who reported to the former government in 2016. Sadly, as with so much else, the former government declined to act on the recommendations that Mr Moss made for improvements to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013.

On coming to government, we acted on Mr Moss's suggestions for improvements to the Public Interest Disclosure Act and we have already delivered priority amendments to the act.

As I've said publicly already, the government intends to commence a second stage of reforms, which will include public consultation on, firstly, broader reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act to provide effective and accessible protections to public sector whistleblowers and address what I think is fairly recognised as the underlying complexity of the current scheme. Secondly, there will be public consultation on the need for additional supports for public sector whistleblowers, with a possibility that there should be created a whistleblower protection authority or a whistleblower protection commissioner.

The Albanese Labor government is delivering on its commitment to ensure that Australia has effective frameworks to protect whistleblowers, which are critical to supporting integrity and the rule of law. Reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act were long overdue by the time that we took office in May last year. Significant reform is required to restore the act to a scheme that provides strong protection for public sector whistleblowers.

As I'm sure the member for Clark would appreciate, and the member for North Sydney should also appreciate, using a suspension motion to call for intervention in an ongoing court case—in this case, the member for Clark is using a suspension motion to call for intervention in two ongoing court cases—is highly irregular, and the government will not be supporting this motion.

See this speech in context