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

Standing orders should not be suspended. All of us in this House have an obligation to the administration of justice, and this motion is not appropriate in the context of a criminal trial which started today in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, where a jury will be empanelled this week. To repeat, this is a jury trial. Of all the matters ministers should speak on, a current criminal trial is not one of them. As everyone in this place should know, to do so carries the substantial risk of prejudicing a proceeding before a court. As Mr McBride's proceeding remains ongoing, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to comment, and I will not be commenting on the particulars of that matter.

But I am happy to make some comments about the prosecution process in Australia. The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth does not conduct prosecutions. One of the most important features of our criminal justice system is that the decision to prosecute is a matter for the independent Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The Attorney-General's power to discontinue a prosecution that has been commenced by the independent Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is an extraordinary power that should be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances. Clearly, that has been the view of every Commonwealth Attorney-General since Federation, given that the power in section 71 of the Judiciary Act has been exercised only once in 120 years. I'll say that again: the power in section 71 of the Judiciary Act has been exercised only once in 120 years. That might be a little hint to you about the exceptional circumstances that might be required.

Generally, the only time that the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth will be involved in the prosecution process is when a law specifically requires the Attorney-General to consent to a prosecution in order for it to proceed. There are a small number of laws which require the Attorney-General's consent, in addition to the decision being made by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to commence a prosecution. That's for a very good reason. It is vital to the administration of justice in Australia that the prosecution process is, and is seen to be, largely independent of the political arena, and we should all be thankful for that. We should be thankful that, in Australia, the prosecution process is largely independent of the political arena.

I invite all of those on the crossbench to contemplate this: if the Commonwealth Attorney-General intervened in a prosecution as a result of public or political pressure, that could have a range of far-reaching consequences. It could call into question the Attorney-General's motives. It could politicise the prosecution process. It could undermine the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions. So any suggestion—and it's the implication of this motion that is now before the House—that an attorney-general should intervene in prosecutions routinely or has some kind of permanent, standing or ongoing supervisory jurisdiction in circumstances that are not truly exceptional should be strongly resisted. That's why the standing orders should not be suspended. I will say this, too, about the process of reform on whistleblowers. In relation to law reform, the government is delivering on its commitment to ensure that Australia has effective frameworks to protect whistleblowers. This work is critical to supporting integrity in the rule of law.

I have a very longstanding personal interest in this. I was the Attorney-General and Special Minister of State in 2013 who brought to this House the Commonwealth's first legislation to protect whistleblowers. It's called the Public Interest Disclosure Act. When we brought that bill before the parliament and had it passed in our last term in government, I wrote into the act a statutory review process in order to ensure that, within two years of that bill becoming law, there would be a review to ensure that it was working as intended. The former failed government, which had no interest in whistleblower protection, of course ignored that statutory review that was conducted by Philip Moss. The Moss review had to wait until our government, which has an interest in whistleblower protection, came to office and picked it up. We have implemented a little over half of the recommendations of the Moss review in a bill that I brought to this parliament last year.

We have, in the Public Interest Disclosure Act, a framework which facilitates and protects disclosures of wrongdoing raised by public officials. Its aim is to promote integrity and accountability in the Commonwealth public sector. On 1 July 2023, the first stage of reform to that system, the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Act 2023, commenced and ensured that immediate improvements to the public sector whistleblower scheme were in place when the National Anti-Corruption Commission commenced. It was important to match the commencement of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The improvements included strengthening protections for disclosures of witnesses, focusing the scheme on integrity wrongdoing, making the scheme easier to administer and enhancing oversight of the scheme.

More specifically, the amendments which commenced on 1 July reinforced the positive duty to protect whistleblowers upon principal officers by requiring them to provide ongoing training and education to public officials in their agency, strengthened protections for whistleblower disclosures and introduced protections including expanding the definition of detriment that will attract remedies. The amendments enhanced the oversight role of the Ombudsman, enhanced the oversight role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and facilitated the reporting and sharing of information relating to public interest disclosures to ensure that they can be properly addressed. The reforms also improved the allocation and investigation processes for authorised officers and removed solely personal work related conduct from the scope of disclosable conduct. This first stage of reform implemented 21 of the 33 recommendations of the 2016 review by Mr Philip Moss AM. It's another reason why standing orders should not be suspended as sought by the member for Brisbane.

The government will soon commence a second stage of whistleblower reform to address the underlying complexity of the Public Interest Disclosure Scheme and provide effective and accessible protections to public sector whistleblowers. That'll include consideration of the remaining recommendations of the Moss review, some recent parliamentary reports, some recent external reviews and reports from stakeholders and significant changes to the integrity landscapes since the Public Interest Disclosure Act was introduced, which include, of course, the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We are interested in the community's views on what reforms are required to the Public Interest Disclosure Act and to other related measures to ensure the public sector whistleblower framework is fit for purpose. We'll be seeking views on who can make and who within the government can receive disclosures, including a 'no wrong door' referral approach. We'll be seeking views on pathways to make a disclosure outside of government. We'll be seeking views on protections and remedies that are available under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. We'll be seeking views on the function of oversight and integrity agencies and support for whistleblowers, including potential functions of a whistleblower protection authority or commissioner as well as education and training. That's another reason why standing orders should not be suspended.

There have been a whole range of improvements in recent times to the broader Commonwealth National Integrity Framework, including, of course, the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which creates a new avenue for all persons, including public officials, to raise concerns about wrongdoing. Standing orders should not be suspended.

See this speech in context