Gordon Reid (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

During the election campaign, right across the electorate of Robertson, up in Dobell in the north and right across the nation, we had constituents talking about multiple different issues, from health care to aged care. But, more importantly, they continually brought up issues surrounding corruption and issues surrounding integrity, which our government, the Albanese Labor government, is absolutely committed to reform. We are delivering long-overdue reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act to ensure that Australia has a best-practice whistleblowing framework for the public sector, which will support the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

The Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 will implement the key recommendations of the 2016 review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act by Mr Philip Moss AM and parliamentary committee reports: to improve protections for public sector whistleblowers and witnesses; to focus the disclosure scheme on wrongdoing, such as fraud and corruption; to make the scheme easier for agencies to administer; to clarify the coverage of the Public Interest Disclosure Act; and to enhance oversight of the scheme by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

I think it's important that we do focus on improving protections for public sector whistleblowers and witnesses. That's a big issue that's been discussed through the parliament. It's a big issue that's discussed in my community, on the Central Coast in Robertson, when we're doorknocking, when we're phone banking and when we have our mobile offices. It's part of that broader issue of integrity and holding government to account.

This bill will strengthen protections for public sector whistleblowers by expanding protections in the act to those who could make a disclosure. It will expand the types of detriment covered by the reprisal protections to encompass a broader range of harm that whistleblowers may suffer when reporting wrongdoing and corruption. It will also expand immunities for persons who witness wrongdoing to be equivalent to the immunities for whistleblowers.

To focus the scheme on significant integrity wrongdoing is consistent with the Moss review. The bill will remove personal work-related conduct from the scope of disclosable conduct under the act. This approach is not to suggest that agencies should ignore other forms of wrongdoing or workplace conflict, but it recognises that there are other frameworks better suited to dealing with such conduct, such as performance management or disciplinary conduct procedures. Whistleblowers will still be able to report personal work-related conduct under the Public Interest Disclosure Act if it amounts to reprisal action or is of such nature that it would undermine public confidence in an agency or have other significant implications for an agency.

We need to make the scheme easier for agencies to administer. Agencies are going to be given more flexibility in how they handle disclosures. This will ensure that conduct disclosures are investigated under the appropriate law or power, including by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The bill will also facilitate improved information sharing between agencies in relation to disclosures through the removal of the general secrecy offence in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. And just to clarify the coverage of the Public Interest Disclosure Act: consistent again with the recommendations of the Moss review, the bill will expressly exclude staff employed or engaged under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act from the scope of the Public Interest Disclosure Scheme to reflect the original intention of the legislation.

The Albanese Labor government supports appropriate whistleblower protections being provided to parliamentary staff and has taken the first step to delivering this outcome through the protections provided in the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation for disclosures of corrupt conduct. The government will also consider whether other protections are appropriate for parliamentary staff who report misconduct in the context of implementing relevant recommendations in Set the standard: report on the independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplacesin particular, the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission.

We're also looking to enhance oversight of the disclosure scheme by the Ombudsman and the IGIS. The bill will enhance oversight of the scheme by the Ombudsman and the IGIS to ensure that agencies' administration of the scheme is effectively scrutinised. Agencies will be required to provide a copy of every investigation report to either the Ombudsman or the IGIS, as appropriate, and to respond to any recommendations that the relevant oversight agency makes in relation to the report. The bill would also implement recommendations 10 and 11 of the report on press freedom by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, to ensure urgent disclosures from intelligence agencies reach the IGIS as soon as possible and to provide for biannual mandatory reporting of statistics to the parliament on all public interest disclosures.

I'll just go into how the interaction's going to occur with the NACC, the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The bill will deliver immediate improvements to the public sector whistleblowing scheme that will be in place before the National Anti-Corruption Commission commences. Any reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act would be reflected in the NACC legislation through consequential amendments, as required, to ensure that the two regiments remain consistent and provide strong protections for whistleblowers.

Furthermore, this bill represents the first stage of a significant package of public sector whistleblowing reform. Following the passage of the bill, the government will commence a second stage of that reform, which will include public consultation on an exposure draft bill that redrafts the Public Interest Disclosure Act to address the underlying complexity of the scheme and also provide effective and accessible protections to public sector whistleblowers, and there'll also be a discussion paper on whether we need to establish a whistleblower protection authority or commissioner.

With that, this bill will make priority amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act to support the government's commitment to ensuring that Australia has effective frameworks to protect whistleblowers. In doing so, this bill reinforces our commitment to restoring integrity and reinforces our government's commitment to the rule of law—something that was missing for the last 10 years under the former coalition government and something we are committed to.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to stand in support of the amendments in the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022. Whistleblowers are part of society's alarm and self-repair system. They bring attention to problems before they become damaging. They play an important role in identifying and calling out misconduct and harm to consumers and our community. We have a fine history of declarations of conscience in this country. Australian whistleblowers have spoken out about police corruption and unlawful actions by our military forces, about child abuse in our churches, about corporate mismanagement and malfeasance, about environmental damage by corporates, about corruption and appointments in public office, and about misuse of public funds. To quote Edmund Burke:

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing.

Although whistleblowers benefit us all, many suffer for their efforts as a result of ostracism, harassment, demotion or blacklisting in the workforce. There's bountiful evidence that many whistleblowers experience financial losses and stress. Many report an increased risk of relationship breakdown and of health problems. My colleague in this House the member for Clark has spoken about the great cost of whistleblowing to him. He said:

Blowing the whistle cost me a great job … I struggled to find work and had little income for years. It was the right thing to do and I don't regret it. But no one telling the truth should be made to suffer.

To add insult to injury, many people find it hard to effect change in the area that they speak out about. The treatment of whistleblowers is often a double disaster for our society. Capable and courageous individuals can be attacked, and sometimes destroyed, while the original problems are not addressed but left to fester.

Put simply, our whistleblower laws in Australia are not working. In 2019 the Federal Court pronounced them 'technical, obtuse and intractable'. The Australian Human Rights Commission recently reported that whistleblowers in this country do not feel supported, that their concerns are not properly addressed and that they've experienced reprisals because they brought forward their concerns.

We urgently need updated whistleblower laws to support the work—the important work—of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It is to be expected that much of the work referred to the NACC will derive from information provided by whistleblowers, so we do have to be ready to protect and to support them. It's hard to imagine that the ongoing criminal prosecutions of David McBride and Richard Boyle aren't having a significant deterrent effect on other people who might think about speaking out. People have to be able to refer matters to government or to draw them to public attention without fear of reprisal.

Just this week, we were told that the government's prosecution of Bernard Collaery has cost this country $5.5 million. We've heard from independent investigations, like the Brereton war crimes report previously, of the need for the Australian Defence Force to protect and empower whistleblowers, and yet David McBride is the only person being prosecuted for his efforts—the only individual yet to face prosecution as a result of the Brereton report, despite the severity of many of the offences identified at that time.

This bill reflects only the first stage of the changes that we need from this government to improve our whistleblower protections. The recommendations of the 2016 Moss review are well overdue. This bill will implement only 21 of the 33 recommendations of the Moss review. The Attorney-General has signalled that, following the passage of this bill, the government will commence a second stage of reform, which will include public consultation on further reforms to address the underlying complexity of our Whistleblower Protection Scheme. The government has to address urgently a number of other gaps in this bill, including: what will be done to shore up whistleblower immunities from civil and criminal liability? What obligations will there be upon employers to protect their employees when they choose to speak up? How might non-public-sector whistleblowers be supported and protected? Will the protections in the Corporations Act be augmented?

I remain very concerned that, even with the amendments proposed in this bill, whistleblowers will still be required to make their way through a very complicated and challenging legal system, so I echo the calls of my colleague the member for Indi, who has called repeatedly for the establishment of an independent whistleblower commission authority or protection. Such a commission would provide practical legal support to whistleblowers and it would enforce the protections available to them. It could act as an independent voice for those who otherwise face serious repercussions when they choose or feel compelled to speak out. To quote my colleague the member for Clark again: 'An anticorruption whistleblower protection commission would revolutionise whistleblowing in this country. It will ensure that the NACC can succeed in helping to address Australia's integrity deficit.'

The government has flagged its intention to consult about the need for such a commission. I urge it to proceed with that as a matter of urgency. I also commend the work of the Centre for Public Integrity and of Transparency International Australia in championing the establishment of such a commission. Consultation on these sorts of reforms by government with expert stakeholders and the general public will ensure that we have a best practice scheme. I congratulate the Attorney-General on starting to address whistleblower protections after so many years of neglect. This bill is an essential step towards strengthening the government's integrity framework, but I do urge the government to commit to implementing all of the reforms necessary to bring Australia at least in line with international standards, if not with world's best practice.

David Smith (Bean, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise today to speak in favour of the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022. In doing so, I wish to commend all those from across the parliament who are interested in improving trust and transparency in government. Long overdue reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act, such as those outlined in this bill, put Australia on the path to a best practice whistleblowing framework for the public sector. But we recognise that there is more work to do and we commit to working closely with stakeholders to do so after the passage of these reforms.

The formation of this framework will also support the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which will develop Australia's comprehensive approach to corruption and ensure better transparency and integrity in government. This bill will implement key recommendations of the 2016 review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act by Mr Philip Moss, also known as the Moss review, as well as subsequent recommendations of parliamentary committee reports. It's disappointing that the previous government did not value implementation of the review's recommendations.

Broadly, these recommendations can be broken down into five areas. Firstly, this bill will improve protections for public sector whistleblowers and witnesses. Secondly, under this bill the disclosure scheme will focus on addressing wrongdoing, such as fraud and corruption. Thirdly, this bill will make the scheme easier for agencies to administer. Fourthly, it will clarify the coverage of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Finally, this bill will enhance the oversight of the scheme by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, or IGIS.

This bill will strengthen protections for public sector whistleblowers by expanding protections in the act to those who make a disclosure. It will also expand the types of detriment covered by the reprisal protections to encompass a broader range of harm that whistleblowers may suffer when reporting wrongdoing and corruption. Additionally, this bill will expand immunities for persons who witness wrongdoing to be equivalent to the immunities for whistleblowers. The Attorney-General has continually said that he has a longstanding commitment to whistleblowers, and this bill actions that commitment.

This bill will focus the disclosure scheme on significant integrity wrongdoing. Consistent with the Moss review, the bill will remove personal work related conduct from the scope of disclosable conduct under the act. However, it's important to note that this approach does not suggest that agencies should ignore other forms of wrongdoing or workplace conflict. It does, however, recognise that there are other frameworks that are better suited to dealing with such conduct, such as performance management and disciplinary conduct processes. Whistleblowers will still be able to report personal work related conduct under the Public Interest Disclosure Act if it amounts to reprisal action or if it is of such a nature that it would undermine public confidence in an agency or have other significant implications for an agency. As the Attorney-General has made clear, we need to make sure that people who see wrongdoing, maladministration or corruption can report it to their superiors, and if they don't get action then they should be able to go public with their concerns and be protected against reprisal.

That's the important thing about whistleblower protection. We need to get these laws right, because we all know it's an important part of the integrity ecosystem. It's an important part of good public service administration that people can make complaints and that the government deals with those complaints appropriately with this legislation.

This leads me onto how this bill makes the disclosure scheme easier for agencies to administer. Agencies will now be given more flexibility in how they handle disclosures. This will ensure that the conduct being disclosed is investigated under the appropriate law or power, including by the NACC. The bill will also facilitate enhanced information sharing between agencies in relation to disclosures for the removal of the general secrecy offence in the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

The Moss review identified a need to clarify the coverage of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. To achieve this, the bill will be consistent with the recommendations of the Moss review and will expressly exclude staff who are employed or engaged under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 from the scope of the public interest disclosure scheme, which will reflect the original intention of the legislation. The government supports appropriate whistleblower protections being provided to parliamentary staff and has taken the first steps in delivering this outcome through the protections provided in the NACC legislation for disclosures of corrupt conduct.

The government will also consider whether other protections are appropriate for parliamentary staff who report misconduct in the context of implementing relevant recommendations in the Set the standard report on the independent review of Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces—in particular, the establishment of the independent parliamentary standards commission.

The bill will also work on enhancing oversight of the scheme by the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to ensure the administration of the scheme by agencies is effectively scrutinised. Agencies will now be required to provide a copy of every investigation report to either the ombudsman or the IGIS, as appropriate, and to respond to any recommendations that the relevant oversight agency makes in relation to the report.

Furthermore, this bill would also implement recommendations 10 and 11 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report on press freedom to ensure urgent disclosures in intelligence agencies reach the IGIS as soon as possible and to provide for biannual mandatory reporting of statistics on all public interest disclosures to the parliament.

To complement the government's approach to corruption and integrity, this bill has been designed to support the NACC. With the implementation of this bill, the public sector whistleblower scheme will enjoy immediate improvements, well before the commencement of the NACC in mid-2023. Any reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act would be reflected in the NACC legislation through consequential amendments as required, to ensure the two regimes remain consistent and provide strong protections for whistleblowers.

This bill delivers comprehensive reforms to the public-sector whistleblowing scheme. The bill represents the first stage of a significant package of public-sector whistleblowing reform. Following passage of this bill, the government will commence a second stage of reform, which will include: public consultation on an exposure draft bill that redrafts the Public Interest Disclosure Act to address the underlying complexity of the scheme and to provide effective and accessible protections to public-sector whistleblowers; and a discussion paper on whether there is a need to establish a whistleblower protection authority or commissioner, as raised by many stakeholders and also members in this debate.

The bill will make priority amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act to support the government's commitment to ensuring Australia has effective frameworks to protect whistleblowers. In doing so, the bill reinforces our commitment to restoring integrity in government and the rule of law. Deputy Speaker Payne, like yourself, I represent a large number of public servants in my electorate, the electorate of Bean. I did so prior to coming to this place in my work as an industrial officer in the union movement, particularly working with organisations that represented workers in the public sector. I have had the great privilege of working with people of great integrity who, at times, have needed to shine a light on public-sector maladministration or corruption. The need for greater whistleblower protection and the ongoing need for integrity reform is clear to me, and it's a privilege to speak on a bill that is part of greater moves to address those issues.

There is still work to be done, but already reforms in the first year of the Albanese government have led to an improvement in our global corruption perceptions ranking, as the latest Transparency International data shows. This bill, and the commitment to further whistleblower work, strengthens our approach to good, ethical government. I commend the work of the Attorney-General and I commend this bill the House.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the intentions behind this legislation, and I strongly believe that enhanced protections for whistleblowers must be through the parliament in time for them to be in operation when the National Anti-Corruption Commission begins its work later this year. I welcome the Attorney-General's confidence that this will be the case.

I do remain of the view that these protections should have been part of the corruption commission legislation, and I still believe that serious consideration needs to be given to a whistleblower commission or agency. The form of that is up for discussion. It could, for example, be attached to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office. I understand, but don't entirely agree, with the Attorney-General's view that making it the responsibility of a deputy commissioner of the NACC, as proposed by the member for Indi, would lead to confusion of roles.

However it's done, though, it's overdue. Make no mistake, the government's commitment to the establishment of a national anticorruption commission was a watershed moment in this place. It means that, for the first time, the Commonwealth will have caught up with the states in addressing the dodgy behaviour we've seen, especially over the last decade but going back to the actions of both complexions in the last century.

But, without complementary protections, the NACC risks being one-legged stool. As Justice Griffiths of the Federal Court said in a judgement in 2019 regarding an unsuccessful application by a whistleblower from within this building with regard to the Public Interest Disclosure Act:

The legislation might more accurately be described as technical, obtuse and intractable.

The previous government's raids on the home of journalist Annika Smethurst and the head office of the ABC, my former employer, had a chilling effect on legitimate investigative journalism. That appears, though, to have been the intent. But, as we've seen repeatedly in recent years, sunlight has been the best disinfectant, as the cliche goes, for governments across the country and of all stripes. As the Attorney-General said from opposition two years ago in response to a Senate report on press freedom:

Labor believes journalists should never face the prospect of being charged, or even jailed, just for doing their jobs;

Law enforcement agencies should never be raiding journalists just because they are embarrassing the government.

As a former journalist and foreign correspondent, I completely agree.

Whistleblowers underpin a lot of public interest journalism. Without whistleblowers, much of the hard-hitting journalism that we watch, listen to and read would never be published. This is a critical consideration in an environment of depleting trust in government and institutions and fragmenting democracy.

Federal whistleblowing law for public and private sector whistleblowers recognises the importance of the intersection between the media and whistleblowers by explicitly providing for whistleblowers to go to the media lawfully. But, despite the best intentions of the Attorney-General, who developed and introduced this act in 2013, the law is not working as well as it might. The ongoing prosecutions of Richard Boyle and David McBride provide the evidence. Here are two whistleblowers who spoke up about wrongdoing internally. Their concerns weren't addressed and so, in what they thought was compliance with the law, they went public to the ABC. Arguably because of the complexity of the act that we are discussing, both men are now on trial for doing what they thought was right and lawful in speaking to the media.

The Attorney-General recognised the need for regular review of his original for regular review of his original act by providing for a review after its first five years of operation. Very fortunately, that review went ahead in 2016 under a coalition Attorney-General and was conducted by the former head of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Philip Moss. In consultation with the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Mr Moss produced an authoritative report in 2016 with 16 major recommendations for updating the act. But nothing happened except, thanks to the Audit Office, we did learn about the Leppington Triangle deal, in which land was procured for Sydney's second airport under a dodgy deal at grossly inflated prices. Speaking of which, I do hope the Attorney-General takes note of recommendation 4 of the Senate enquiry, which I referred to earlier. The report, supported by all Labor senators at the time, recommended providing additional resources to the Audit Office so that work on such issues could be expedited without undermining or delaying its other important work.

We also found out about colour-coded spreadsheets. The Attorney-General says he is implementing the important recommendations of the Moss review except for those rendered redundant by the passage of time. Fair enough; a lot of water has either passed or frozen under the bridge over seven years. But anticorruption advocates argue it's not quite that simple. Transparency International, the Human Rights Law Centre and Griffith University's Centre for Governance and Public Policy welcome these amendments generally but argue that the amendments only address one recommendation in full and four in part from the roadmap outlining 21 actions needed to return Australia to global best practice for protecting whistleblowers. In particular, they are concerned, as I am, about the question of the intersection between whistleblowers and journalists and the vulnerability of both under the current regime.

I would like, therefore, to propose amendments to section 26 of the PID Act to add clarity and symbolic statutory recognition of the importance of journalists to whistleblowing. I have discussed this with the Attorney-General, and I know he has reservations about this. But such a definition, and what I am proposing, are not exclusive. The media is going through what I would say is a permanent revolution as the digital revolution rolls on. There are bloggers, there are websites and there are citizen journalists who are doing great work in holding the powerful to account. It's not my intention with my proposed amendments to make journalists the exclusive preserve of this important work of the fourth estate—whistleblowers would still be able to go where they will—but my amendments would enhance the protections for both reporters and whistleblowers.

I would therefore suggest inserting the definition from the Corporations Act into the PID Act. It reads:

journalist means a person who is working in a professional capacity as a journalist for any of the following:

(a) a newspaper or magazine;

(b) a radio or television broadcasting service;

(c) an electronic service (including a service provided through the internet) that:

(i) is operated on a commercial basis, or operated by a body that provides a national broadcasting service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992); and

(ii) is similar to a newspaper, magazine or radio or television broadcast.

There has been criticism of this law for its lack of clarity. It's not a law that's user-friendly, as the Federal Court judgement I cited earlier demonstrates. The amendments seek to signpost to whistleblowers that journalists are an avenue to whom they can speak in appropriate circumstances.

The remainder of the text of my amendments seek to improve the operation of the external and emergency disclosure provisions, to act as a safeguard when whistleblowers don't tick all the highly technical boxes that they're currently required to but where their whistleblowing is in the public interest. As I have said, two are currently on trial; these provisions would provide an additional layer of certainty. While the Attorney-General would argue that it's difficult to define 'journalist' in this modern world, I would argue that if it's good enough for the Corporations Act then it's even more important here. Indeed, in an environment of disinformation, defining what a journalist is could be argued to be more important than ever, on a broader level.

I would also argue that the cases of Boyle and McBride show that other avenues often throw up roadblocks, and worse. I appreciate the consideration given to me and to the other crossbenchers by the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General's office as we address this important second leg of these anticorruption reforms. These amendments are a genuine attempt to address the scope of his intentions.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to stand today to support the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review] Bill 2022, which means the Commonwealth public sector whistleblower protection regime—largely set out in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. This bill implements 21 of the 33 recommendations of the 2016 Moss review, and recommendations from two other inquiries, into the adequacy of whistleblower laws.

As an Independent member of parliament, I was sent to this place to fight for integrity in government. This battle is never over, but sometimes we take important steps forward—however modest—and today is one of those days. Last month, we had some positive news for integrity: Australia has stopped its slide down the annual Corruption Perceptions Index after decades of decline. In fact, we've turned it around. From a record low in 2021, last year we reported a two-point increase which lifted our global ranking from 18 to 13. The reason was the enactment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which so many people in this place, and outside it, campaigned on for over a decade.

I've been concerned about our declining position in the corruption league table since I came to this place. That's because integrity isn't an esoteric concept or a concern of the privileged. From Bright to Byawatha, people stop me in the street and tell me, 'Don't give up on fighting corruption in politics.' Whistleblowers play an integral role in fighting corruption and maintaining integrity in our government. By protecting people when they report suspected wrongdoing, we encourage transparency and proper conduct, and we discourage fraud, corruption and waste of public funds.

In exchange, whistleblowers should have legal protections against reprisal actions and immunity from liability. That's the promise that we give them in return for the risks they take. Whistleblowers should not suffer because they tell the truth, but that's what we see, time and time again. We have a system of inadequate protections which leave people exposed, victimised and prosecuted, when they should be celebrated for their bravery. It's no secret that our whistleblower protection laws are unfit for purpose. As we just heard from the member for Goldstein, Justice Griffiths of the Federal Court, in 2019, described the Public Interest Disclosure Act—and it's worth repeating this—as 'technical, obtuse and intractable'. Once, Australia's whistleblower protection laws set the international standard. They've since become out of date and inconsistent. The reforms in this bill are long overdue.

These reforms are especially urgent to lay the groundwork for the new National Anti-Corruption Commission and to support disclosures of corrupt conduct to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. In order for the commission to do its job, we need to guarantee that those who report corrupt conduct have the strongest possible protections in exchange. It's public servants, officials and employees who know what's really going on. They're the single most important way in which wrongdoing will be brought to light, and that's why it is critical that these reforms are enforced before the NACC opens its doors in mid-2023.

These reforms are the first of two sets to the Public Interest Disclosure Act, and the Attorney-General has promised that, following the passage of this bill, the government will commence a second stage of further and broader reforms to the act. In particular, I welcome the Attorney-General's commitment to an exposure draft process on the next stage of reforms and a discussion paper on the proposal for a whistleblower protection authority or commissioner—this is really important. It was a key pillar of my 2020 proposal for an integrity commission, and consideration of this proposal was supported by the advisory report from the joint select committee examining the NACC bill.

There is much to be commended in this bill. I support the provisions that enable the NACC to fulfil its function to investigate serious or systemic corruption, such as providing officers with greater discretion to refer appropriate matters to the NACC for investigation. This provides greater flexibility to agencies in how they handle disclosures and makes sure the matter is dealt with by the most appropriate agency. I also support the expansion of the definition of 'detriment' so that a whistleblower is now protected from the full spectrum of potential reprisals. Reprisal actions such as reputational or financial damage, any form of discrimination and harassment or psychological harm will now be covered, bringing this into line with the protections of the Corporations Act. I welcome the positive duty on principal officers of Commonwealth agencies to support public disclosures and witnesses as well as supporting whistleblowers on their staff. This is important to create a pro-integrity and pro-disclosure culture across the government.

I would, however, urge the government to consider the concerns raised by the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission about the impact of excluding MOP(S) Act staff from making protected disclosures. I urge them to consider concerns about removing disclosures relating to personal work-related disputes and conduct from the scope of disclosable conduct. Stakeholders have raised concerns that this will result in blanket exclusions from protection, if it includes a workplace element. According to research, about half of whistleblowing cases involve some kind of work-related conduct. The drafting of this section may result in it being misinterpreted, to the detriment of whistleblowers, and this should be considered.

Yet, there is still much to do to ensure whistleblower protection laws can be effectively administered and offer best-practice protections. The priority among these is the establishment of a whistleblower protection commissioner. Whistleblower protection laws are complex. Smart and well-intentioned people who want to report misconduct may find the laws hard to navigate—indeed, we know they do. When facing uncertainty, they may decide the safest path is to stay quiet, and that's not what we want. In the cases of David McBride and Richard Boyle, we've seen the worst result: two whistleblowers, who believed they were doing the right thing and following the rules, only to find themselves prosecuted. We can't have that.

An independent whistleblower protection commissioner would support public and private sector whistleblowers who are navigating the legal system. It would ensure that whistleblowing laws work in practice. It would be a one-stop shop for practical advice, assistance and guidance for whistleblowers. It would conduct independent investigations into detrimental actions and enforce legal protections when internal procedures of other agencies fail, and it would assist other agencies to uphold their own internal processes, championing best practice, because that's what we want. A whistleblower protection commissioner would bring profile and authority to this important function. They put it on the agenda and shift the conversation.

Another important area for reform is immunities from prosecution. There are currently significant legal gaps and uncertainties about what immunity is available to whistleblowers from civil, criminal and administrative liability. Legal reform of these immunities is necessary to ensure legal actions, whether they be civil or criminal, do not drag out for years. We also need to streamline protection for non-government whistleblowers by creating a single law which covers them all. Currently, Australian private and not-for-profit sector organisations are subject to incomplete and inconsistent whistleblower protections laws. For example, unions, aged-care providers and National Disability Insurance Scheme whistleblowers are all subject to different laws, and some of these are out of date. A single consolidated law for all private and not-for-profit sector whistleblowers is necessary, with consistency between public and private sectors where possible.

The job of improving whistleblower protections is far from done. I would encourage the Attorney-General, his hardworking staff and department to have regard to the landmark report Protecting Australia's whistleblowers: the federal roadmap, from Griffith University, the Human Rights Law Centre and Transparency International Australia, as it is a checklist for the next tranche of reforms.

The implementation of these reforms, especially in how it relates to the work of the NACC, is a key concern of mine. On Monday I was appointed to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and today I was honoured to be elected as deputy chair of this committee. The parliamentary joint committee will consider proposed recommendations for the appointment of the commissioner, deputy commissioner and inspector. It will ensure that these positions are accountable to parliament by monitoring and reviewing their performance, examining investigation and annual reports, examining trends and changes in corruption, and reporting to parliament. It will inquire into any question in connection with the committee's functions referred by the parliament and report back. It will review the NACC's budget and finances and report to both houses of parliament on the sufficiency of the NACC's resourcing to effectively perform its functions.

This parliamentary committee is an important mechanism for the oversight of the NACC. It needs to be strong and independent. As a member of this committee, I will use my considerable position to make sure that the NACC delivers on the promise it made—we made—to the Australian people: that it is robust and adequately funded; that appointments are not politicised; that, as much as appropriate, the committee and the NACC are accountable, transparent and open to scrutiny; that these reforms and the ones to follow work in practice; and that whistleblowers are getting the protection they deserve, which allows them to come forward and expose corruption.

As a parliamentarian I can't rest, and I will not rest, until I know that whistleblowers have the strongest possible protections. We owe it to them, to the taxpayers and to the public good to make the path clear. Let's close the loopholes, let's fix the system and let's give these brave whistleblowers the protections they are entitled to.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to 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,

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2022. This is an important piece of reform that strengthens our whistleblower protections. It reforms the current scheme, which in 2019 was labelled 'technical, obtuse and intractable' by a Federal Court judge. Why is this so important? Obviously, it is to encourage and enable more whistleblowers to call out wrongdoing and services but also because these are essential to the operation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which will soon be underway and for which we passed legislation only a few months ago.

Why is this so important? The big difference with the model of the National Anti-Corruption Commission that was passed by this government, as opposed to the one proposed by the Morrison government, is independent referral pathways for allegations or concerns about wrongdoings. This is where whistleblowers play such a huge role, because they have the ability to identify, be privy to information and raise the alarm about and awareness of those wrongdoings. Without protections though, they then face retribution from government and face prosecutions. I should say it was very commendable that one of the earliest actions of the government was, in fact, to drop the prosecution of Bernard Collaery.

There are, of course, still many cases on foot. The most prominent, of course, is Julian Assange, who has been languishing for much too long without any real active engagement in obtaining his release. There are also McBride and a number of others. It is really important for us as a society to have whistleblower protections because they play an intrinsic role in anticorruption, ensuring that Public Service decisions are made for the good and that there isn't a corruption of processes.

As many have outlined, this bill gives effect to longstanding recommendations and improvements to the act. It will: give greater flexibility in the way that agencies handle a public interest disclosure, including information sharing, so that disclosure can be investigated by the most appropriate agency; increase protection for disclosers; give witnesses the same protections as disclosers; provide greater oversight of the scheme by the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security; allow disclosures to be investigated under another law or power, including—welcomely—the National Anti-Corruption Commission; and remove personal work-related conduct from the Public Interest Disclosure scheme unless it relates to systematic wrongdoing or is reprisal action for a disclosure. These changes are welcome and will deliver immediate improvements to whistleblower protections. They respond to many of the concerns and recommendations made on the 2016 Moss Review of the act. I note for members of the now opposition that for so many years it was in their power to make these amendments much sooner, and I think it would have been to the benefit of Australians to have had those amendments and recommendations made.

I welcome the fact that the government has committed to a comprehensive review and potential redraft of the Public Interest Disclosure Act to address the complexity of the scheme. I urge the government in conducting that review to consider the implementation of a whistleblower protection authority, as advocated for strongly by the member for Indi, the member for Clark, and Transparency International Australia—among others. The Human Rights Law Centre said that these reforms are an important first step—however, there are large technical changes to make on administrative improvements, and the reforms don't yet address the fundamental issues with the law. We need a comprehensive reform of the legislation to address private sector, public sector and media whistleblower protections. AJ Brown of Griffith University points out that our laws are still very reliant on whistleblowers having the legal resources and the money to be able to go to court and fight for their own protection. This puts a very onerous responsibility on them when, as a society, we benefit from their courage and bravery in becoming whistleblowers because they alert us to wrongdoing and corruption. A whistleblower protection authority would aim to address that gap.

In conclusion, I welcome this reform. I commend the Attorney-General for taking on these recommendations and urge the government to expedite its review of the legislation to ensure protection for whistleblowers in the future. I take this opportunity to again urge the government to act on the case of Julian Assange. It has been way too long. It is intractable, I appreciate that, but there must be a way to resolve that issue—and in relation to McBride as well. We need to have a situation where it is the alleged wrongdoing that is prosecuted, not the whistleblowers.

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

I thank members for their contribution to the debate on the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill. As I said when I introduced this bill, the Albanese government is committed to restoring trust and integrity in government, and an effective public sector whistleblowing framework is essential in achieving this.

The bill is only the first stage of a process to comprehensively reform the Public Interest Disclosure Act to restore it to a best-practice whistleblowing framework, but it is an important first stage. This bill contains priority amendments to the act to implement long-overdue recommendations from the 2016 review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 conducted by former integrity commissioner Mr Philip Moss AM, the 2017 whistleblower protections report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, and the 2020 report of the inquiry into the impact of the exercise law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

These amendments will make immediate and significant improvements to the act to improve protections for both disclosers and witnesses; to focus the act on integrity wrongdoing, such as fraud and corruption; to enhance oversight of the scheme by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security; and to make the act easier for agencies to administer and for disclosers to engage with. The bill will also amend the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation to ensure that the whistleblower protections in that framework remain closely aligned with those in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. These improvements are intended to be in place before the National Anti-Corruption Commission commences its operations in mid-2023.

With this bill, the Albanese government is taking an important first step in improving Australia's whistleblowing framework for the public sector. The legislation will strengthen protections for public sector whistleblowers and, in doing so, will support our broader efforts to restore integrity in government. The government recognises that some time has now passed since the recommendations of the Moss review and parliamentary committees were made and that the introduction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be a significant change to the Commonwealth's integrity framework.

Following the passage of this bill, the government will commence a second stage of reform. This will include public consultation on comprehensively redrafting the act to address the underlying complexity of the scheme and to provide effective and accessible protections to public-sector whistleblowers, and a discussion paper on whether there is a need to establish a whistleblower protection authority or commissioner. This staged approach to reform will allow sufficient time to closely examine what reforms may be required to ensure Australia has a best practice framework to protect whistleblowers beyond those recommended by the Moss review and parliamentary committees. Consultation on these further reforms will ensure they are not only shaped by users of the Public Interest Disclosure Act across government but also informed by experts and the general public to ensure Australia has a best practice scheme.

The Albanese government is committed not just to reforming the public sector whistleblowing framework but also to ensuring that it remains effective. That is why the government has included provision for a further statutory review of the act in five years time as a mechanism to address issues that may come to light through the practical operation of the legislation. It is, of course, my intention to bring forward legislation to implement the second stage of reforms well before that time, following consultation on the exposure draft legislation and discussion paper this year. Nevertheless, this review provision is a marker of the government's enduring commitment to integrity and accountability, and to maintaining public trust in government.

Throughout this debate we've heard a broad consensus on the importance of a strong and effective public sector whistleblowing framework. We've also heard differing views on some aspects of the legislation. It should be clear to all that the government is committed to ensuring the effectiveness of these reforms and of the public sector whistleblowing framework more broadly. We look forward to receiving the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the bill, and we'll consider any recommendations it may make, as well as issues raised by members in this debate. While there's been support for this bill as a welcome step in improving whistleblower protections, issues raised during the debate, such as the need to establish a whistleblower protection commissioner or authority, will also be considered as part of the proposed stage 2 reform process that I've outlined.

Australians rightly expect honesty, accountability and integrity in government. With this bill, the Albanese government is taking an important first step in improving Australia's whistleblowing framework for the public sector. It will contribute directly to the important work of the National Anti-Corruption Commission by making immediate amendments to strengthen protections for whistleblowers. It will complement the work the Minister for Finance and I are doing to ensure Commonwealth agencies take measures to prevent, detect and deal with corruption by creating new requirements in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014. And it will complement the work we are doing to restore trust and confidence in Australia's administrative review framework by ensuring that public officials can blow the whistle on maladministration, fraud and corruption in government. The bill will strengthen public sector whistleblower protections and, in doing so, will support our efforts to restore integrity in government. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.