Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The Democrats amendment is based on interesting precedents. They include a reference to section 16 of the Public Service Act, which is the weakest public service whistleblowing provision of all in our nine governments. Nevertheless, it does exist and it is better than nothing. The precedents within the amendment draw on the very good initiative of the Treasurer in introducing whistleblower provisions into the Corporations Law—the first time in Australia’s history that whistleblowing provisions have been introduced for the private sector. The subsequent extension of those provisions to the Workplace Relations Act is also reflected in this amendment. So this amendment actually repeats the government’s words in three acts and which are slightly adjusted for this act.

The government is rejecting not just this amendment but, of course, its own concepts which have been established elsewhere. That is unfortunate. The reason for the Democrats amendment is to show up the government for being resistant to full disclosure. We would design a much stronger whistleblowing regime. Members of the Senate would be aware of my extensive private senator’s bill on public disclosures. Nevertheless, we support there being some provision for whistleblowing.

One of the things that have motivated us is that there is an immense institutionalised pressure on employees to keep quiet and not notify circumstances which they are concerned about. I recognise and acknowledge what the minister is saying and the government’s attempts to much improve the environment for disclosure. It is not as bad as it was, with the institutions in which children were put in the last century, when over 500,000 children were in institutions and the staff of those institutions did not disclose the mental, physical, emotional and sexual abuse of those children, which was widespread. Indeed, when children escaped and told the police or were sent to hospital and told doctors and nurses their stories, they were just ignored and sent back to the institutions for another round of sexual or physical abuse by the people who ran those institutions. The modern environment is not quite as bad as that, but you still have to provide the mechanisms and motivations for whistleblowing.

When the government rejects its very own legislative words, which it has established in other pieces of legislation, what I read is not a willingness to maximise disclosure but a resistance to ensure that proper and full disclosure occurs. So I am disappointed that the government has rejected this amendment. I will be urging my colleagues and the Labor opposition to keep pushing at the issue of whistleblowing in this sector, where people are vulnerable, disadvantaged and at risk, and where the nature of their age and circumstances means that they need maximum protection from the staff and authorities. With his obvious keenness to make this portfolio work under his tutelage, I do hope that the minister returns to this issue and in fact does provide for proper whistleblowing provisions within the aged care sector.