Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I present the committee's advisory report on the Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Bill 2012, the Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 and the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—On 1 November 2012 the Selection Committee referred the Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Bill 2012 and the associated Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report.

The Selection Committee suggested that the committee further examine the detail contained within the bills and any unintended consequences that may follow.

On 21 March 2013 the Selection Committee referred the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report.

The Selection Committee suggested that the committee consider the circumstances under which a protected disclosure may take place.

The committee conducted separate inquiries for each bill and has chosen to present the results of both inquiries in the one report.

The bills propose two different public interest disclosure schemes for the Commonwealth public sector.

The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Bill 2012 aims to strengthen public integrity by encouraging and facilitating the disclosure of corruption, maladministration and other wrongdoing in the Commonwealth public sector. It will do so by providing protection for public officials to make such disclosures.

The second bill, the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013, aims to encourage a pro-disclosure culture by facilitating disclosure and investigating wrongdoing and maladministration in the Commonwealth public sector. It will promote the integrity and accountability of the Australian government public sector.

The emphasis of the scheme is on disclosures of wrongdoing being reported to and investigated within government. This emphasis is designed to ensure that problems are identified and rectified. The bill establishes a scheme with clear procedures for officials to follow when a disclosure of suspected wrongdoing is reported.

The committee notes the strong support for a public interest disclosure scheme. The committee considers that legislation for public interest disclosure is overdue and welcomes the introduction of these public interest disclosure bills.

On balance, it is the view of the committee that the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013 is more appropriately situated in terms of providing a comprehensive framework for public interest disclosures across the Commonwealth public sector.

Given that there is a view from stakeholders that introduction of public interest disclosure legislation is long overdue, and the expectation that the final sitting day of the 43rd Parliament will be 27 June 2013, this committee urges the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to conclude its deliberations on this bill as a matter of urgency so that the bill may be considered by both Houses prior to the parliament rising for the election.

The committee unanimously recommends passing the Public Interest Disclosure Bill with due consideration given to some of the issues raised in the committee's advisory report.

I thank the Deputy Chair and committee and secretariat for the work in this report and commend it to the chamber.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to make a few comments in relation to the Public Interest Disclosure Bill—indeed, to the advisory report. I would just like to acknowledge the Chair, the member for Moreton, and endorse his comments of support for the secretariat for the work they have done on this.

The inquiry by the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee into the Public Interest Disclosure Bill follows in a long line of investigations into the adequacy of legislative protection for whistleblowers in Australia. It is needed, as my colleague said, to strengthen the integrity of governance.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, then chaired by the now Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, published a comprehensive report in February 2009 and within that document provided a robust framework for whistleblower protection.

This legislation has been long in the making, as the government did not respond to the report until 2010. However, they substantially agreed with its recommendations and undertook to introduce a bill, and that bill is partially the subject of this committee's inquiry. The Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee also considered the private member's bill from the member for Denison, which was on the same subject. I would like to compliment the member for Denison for also raising the interest in this particular matter.

The committee considers that protecting people who speak out against illegal or improper practices in government departments or other institutions is a critical part of maintaining integrity in those organisations and in our democracy generally. During the course of the inquiries it was clear that there have been criticisms of elements of both this bill and what is commonly referred to as the 'Wilkie Bill'. The committee notes the broader scope of the 'Wilkie Bill' in its coverage of types of disclosures and scope of protections offered, and that it is well supported by many of the stakeholder groups.

There was a general concern with regard to the government's Public Interest Disclosure Bill, about its overall complexity. Mr Howard Whitton, in his submission to the committee stated, 'intending whistleblowers will need a lawyer at their elbow to understand the many procedural steps required for a disclosure to be granted protection'. It is to be hoped, therefore, that there will be greater clarification with regard to some of the more complex points so as to avoid deterring intending whistleblowers from reporting.

Professor AJ Brown listed 10 principles—and I understand that Professor Brown has been very involved in this issue—that he believed needed to be reflected in effective legislation. They are that: it must promote an 'if in doubt can report' attitude for public officials; alleged public interest related wrongdoing in all areas of Commonwealth government should be covered; any carve-outs or special procedures should be fully justified, not just blanket exclusions or exemptions; obligations on agencies to protect and support should be direct, proactive and preventative; implementations should be supported by a single oversight agency; that oversight agency should be properly resourced to do the job; reporting and protection systems should not be complaint-dependent; rules on when officials may/should disclose to the media should be clear and workable; compensation remedies should be clear, simple and accessible; and finally, there should be basic safeguards against abuse and misuse of the system.

The committee recommends that the House of Representatives pass the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013 with amendments to address the deficiencies raised during the course of the inquiry, and suggests that it would also be prudent to await the report from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee so as to improve the operation of this bill with particular regard to: the scope of protections offered where disclosures are made in good faith, though they may later be found to be false or misleading; the scope and clarity of protections offered for external disclosures; and the scope of protections for the whistleblowers from reprisals.

I commend the advisory report to the House.