Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Hansard source

Labor is pleased to support these amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2017. We consider that the government's original bill was very weak and failed to provide corporate whistleblowers with protections they actually need and deserve. Labor is pleased that the government finally agreed to strengthening this bill, which I know was the product of almost a year of pressure from Centre Alliance and, also, experts such as Professor AJ Brown, who joins us again today. I'm sure he's hoping the bill might actually pass through the Senate, because it's been a long couple of days getting through matters here in the Senate.

I also want to acknowledge the importance of the committee that was formed through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. I particularly want to commend Labor's team on that committee—Ms Butler, Mr Keogh, Senator Ketter and myself—who, with great guidance in many ways from Professor Brown, was able to advance a road map. We'd have to say that the road map hasn't been completely followed by the government. This bill is contextually a significant step forward, but, nonetheless, it doesn't address all of the issues that were well aired in that inquiry.

Clearly, the amendments do some significant work, including changing the definition of 'journalist' for emergency and public interest disclosure categories to cover journalists working for the ABC online. We do support that amendment but we remain concerned that the proposed definition may not extend to journalists working for other entities such as The Guardian or The Conversation. We have raised this issue with the government, but, at this point in time, it would seem that they are not going to address that concern.

Importantly, the amendments will allow whistleblowers to make a claim for compensation when a body corporate breaches a duty it owes to the whistleblower to prevent a third party engaging in detrimental conduct towards them. This does represent a significant change in our conversations with whistleblowers. We hear time and time again how companies have let whistleblowers down and failed to protect them from reprisals, from victimisation and from colleagues within the same company with whom they've worked on many occasions. This duty will make it clear that companies must protect whistleblowers.

The amendments also provide that a court making a compensation order must consider the period a person is likely to be without employment in circumstances where the detrimental conduct involved termination of employment. We have heard through the media and, certainly, in the course of the inquiry into the bill and the inquiry that preceded it of whistleblowers and from whistleblowers who are unable to find work for years after they blow the whistle on misconduct. This small amendment will go some way to ensuring that compensation that they receive adequately takes into account the detriment they have suffered and are likely to suffer in the future.

We know, sadly, that this is a government that was very quick to put in place a strong regime for union whistleblowers but was incredibly slow to create the protections necessary for corporate whistleblowers. It's disappointing, but, sadly, not surprising anymore, that the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to strengthen this bill. Time and time again we've seen them running a protection racket for big business. They resisted the banking royal commission for 600 days. They voted against the banking royal commission on 26 occasions. And just last week, in the House, the government voted against tougher penalties for corporate misconduct. While we acknowledge this is a step forward, this government has form. Last week they continued to show that they are the friends of the top end of town, and they continue to disappoint the Australian people. The protection racket that they're running has got to stop.

But I want to close, if I can, positively by acknowledging a few amendments that Labor are particularly supportive of. We are very pleased to see the public interest disclosure included in these amendments. The government's previous single emergency disclosure would not have provided whistleblowers with adequate protection when going to the media. We also support the expanded definition of 'detriment', about which Senator Patrick made some considerable comment in his contribution in the second reading stage. Labor recognise that whistleblowers are suffering in a multitude of ways. These amendments do not—I clearly state: they do not—make the bill as strong as Labor would have liked, but we are very pleased to see that the bill has been improved.

Question agreed to.