David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

and to provide some actual information in response to the questions, because that would give us the opportunity to say: 'Thank you, Minister. That was very helpful and answered the question.' Unfortunately, in the exchanges we've had to date I haven't been able to say that, because you've made a series of febrile political points rather than address the questions that have been asked of you. That might be your writing instructions, but it's unfortunate because there are stakeholders watching this deeply concerned about whistleblower protections and these are quite legitimate questions that you could provide, if you were adequately briefed or had the interest, adequate responses to. Instead, we're getting those febrile political points—highly agitated and not directed to the questions that have been asked. It's an unfortunate exercise and an unfortunate breach of faith with the many stakeholders concerned about these amendments watching this.

I indicate, in relation to a number of the Greens amendments, that the intent was to implement the Moss report as best we could, and to also address the concerns that were raised with us in the course of the inquiry. One organisation that raised concerns was the CPSU. The Labor Party normally listens to the CPSU and genuinely takes its concerns on board, and we too listen and take on board the CPSU's concerns. The CPSU raised concerns, as did other organisations that made submissions, that the bill as presented exempts members of parliament staff, or MOP staff, from having access to the PID Act.

We've seen how staff working for members of parliament need more protections, not less. That's been apparent in case after case after case. This workplace can be very tough, particularly for the staff of members of parliament. There seems to me to be a pretty powerful reason to implement the recommendation that first came from the House of Representatives committee in 2009, that MOP staff should have the same kinds of protections and be able to raise a disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosures Act. It was also a key recommendation of the Set the standard report, that also said that parliamentary staff employed under the MOP(S) Act should be included as public officials in section 69 of the PID Act and be permitted to make public interest disclosures. Likewise, it was a recommendation made in the Moss review. So we had the House of Representatives committee in 2009 saying it should happen, the Set the standard report saying it should happen and we had the Moss review saying it should happen: that MOP staff should have these protections.

I'm grateful that my party, the Greens, has looked at that material and thinks it's important that we put those protections in place. So we will be moving that amendment in committee to try and put those protections in place, because we've read the 2009 report from the House of Representatives committee, we've read the Set the standard report and we've read the Moss report, and they all say to do this. So, Minister, my question is: given that, will you support the Greens amendment, and, if not, why not?