Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to discuss the issue of whistleblowers and the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013. The Greens have long had a keen interest in seeing that we advance the national interest by having strong whistleblowers legislation. It has been a frustration of ours for a considerably long time that we have failed to have that, and Australian democracy has not been served well by the fact that people who blow the whistle end up being the victims in those circumstances and subject to a shoot-the-messenger strategy rather than others actually learning from the messages that they have to convey.

Our view is that whistleblowers are essential to advancing our national polity. When police officer Col Dillon spoke out, he caused the Fitzgerald commission, which in turn changed the entire system of governance in Queensland. Similarly, there were years of political resistance to examining the scourge of institutionalised child sexual abuse until Peter Fox broke ranks and spoke out last year. His actions are already changing the course of history in Australia in relation to that particular issue.

The Greens are concerned about the needless complexity of the bill that is in front of us, particularly when a template for best practice and simplicity already exists in the ACT legislation that was introduced under the Greens-ALP agreement. Nonetheless, we will support this bill because it improves workplace rights for public servants and it will increase efficiency and minimise public expenditure waste. I have to say that I was really disappointed that, after the government said it would act on whistleblowers, it did not do so for a very long time and that the bill that was brought forward was in fact a pathetic piece of legislation. I congratulate the current Attorney-General for turning his mind to this and significantly improving the bill that first came forward. Unfortunately, this bill is a lot more complex than it needs to be. Nevertheless, I want to acknowledge the work that has been done by the Attorney-General to get this onto a reasonable frame.

Having said that, the Greens did secure an amendment in the House of Representatives. That is because, in the bill as it stands, there is provision for emergency whistleblowing when it comes to the issue of public safety, human safety, but there was nothing in the legislation which provided for an imminent risk when it came to the environment. As people would be aware, there are always situations where you might end up with people knowing—in the case of the Gulf of Mexico, for example, there was that oil rig. We had the Montara spill here in Australia. There are many other examples where people may have known and would have liked to blow the whistle and be safe and able to do so before disasters occur or know that disasters are imminent which will have significant impact for the environment. So I am pleased that the government accepted that amendment. It will allow the whistleblower to go public immediately, instead of having to wait over 100 days, if they have knowledge of a significant threat to the environment. Someone who knows of regulatory failure or a compromised EPBC assessment threatening our places that are too precious to lose will now be able to expose it publicly before the damage is done.

The passage of this bill will plug one more leak in the accountability wall. In so doing, the parliament has left the biggest gap to be the last one to fill—that is, a national anticorruption commission. The Greens have long said that we need a national anticorruption commission. We have not got it as a result of this legislation, but of course it is something that we will keep on campaigning for. A permanent commission as embodied in the Greens' National Integrity Commissioner Bill would complement this whistleblowing scheme. I note, of course, that the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity already overseas the Federal Police; nevertheless, I do not think it is enough.

We need, as I said, a national anticorruption commission that could pursue wrongdoing exposed in our Public Service, particularly if our amendment to include MPs in the legislation is successful. We are putting that up as an amendment because we think it is important that people who know of wrongdoing in parliamentary offices, not just ministerial offices, be covered by whistleblower protection. We cannot continue to rely on ad hoc responses to corruption like we saw with the Customs review announced last December after the exposure of corrupt officials. It is time that there was a systemic process that covered everybody under whistleblowers so that they had their cases, the allegations that they made, fairly assessed.

Just how far we have to travel for proper scrutiny on the activity of MPs is demonstrated by the blanket exemption from these whistleblowing laws of MPs, ministers and their staff. Our amendments place MPs and their staff in the scheme. How can politicians garner public trust when they exempt themselves from the standards of scrutiny that they apply to others?

This issue goes to the heart of what has changed in recent years—that is, the contractual arrangements for senior people in the Public Service. Changing them from permanency to contractual arrangements means that they know full well that their contract has to be renewed under a change of government or even in the course of a period of government, so the community does not have the same confidence that it might once have had in the independence of the Public Service. In fact, people would now argue that we have a ministerial service.

Equally, during the years of Prime Minister Howard, we had the ability to prevent staff of members of parliament from appearing before inquiries. Of course, we will remember that forever in the children overboard affair, where members of staff were prevented, or protected, from attending investigations of committees into those matters. One cannot help but assume that they knew and did not want to have to say what happened, but also, if they had wanted to say what happened, they would not have been covered by whistleblower legislation—and I think they should have been. The Greens also want to remove the affected blackout of external disclosures for employees of intelligence agencies, but we want to keep in place the extensive list of exemptions relating to investigations, operations and national security.

This bill will make our intelligence organisations the most vulnerable of all the public sector agencies because wrongdoing is least likely to be detected. For instance, in 2011 security clearance documents used by ASIO were falsified at the instruction of senior Defence staff to speed up the backlog of applications. Internal complaints yielded nothing, so they went public. The civilian whistleblowers who exposed this fraud have in fact strengthened our national security. What this blanket exemption on external disclosures will do is weaken the integrity of our national security—and that is why we want that changed. Our amendment is for the minister to have broad, non-compellable power to make payments to those who expose wrongdoing. Jurisdictions providing whistleblowers with a cut of any recouped public money has been very successful as both an integrity and a public review measure. This clause would simply allow an act of grace payment in these circumstances or where there is a public interest in doing so.

The example I want to give here is following home affairs minister Jason Clare's refusal to grant a pardon to Allan Kessing. The Special Minister of State could make a payment in recognition of his contribution to public safety and his $70,000 of legal expenses. I still believe a major injustice was done to Allan Kessing, who blew the whistle on security concerns at Sydney airport. It cost him $70,000 in legal fees and he has a criminal conviction. He applied for a pardon for that criminal conviction because it was shown that his issues were not vexatious. What he stood up and said occurred was actually shown to be so.

I have said in the Senate before and I say again today: there should be an explanation from Minister Anthony Albanese, but it has not eventuated. Mr Kessing has always maintained that he did not publicly release the material that resulted in his criminal conviction. He went to his local member for Grayndler with that information, then somehow it made it into the Australian. The ALP used Mr Kessing in their 2007 election campaign to hammer the Howard government's treatment of him. Then they tossed him away, effectively, after he served their purpose and refused him a pardon. I find that disgraceful. To this day I say that Allan Kessing ought to be given a pardon. The amendment the Greens are putting forward would allow not just for him to receive a payment but for the minister to have an act of grace capacity to make payment to anyone who does blow the whistle in the future and is subsequently financially disadvantaged.

Our final amendment removes any shadow of a doubt that the Ombudsman can investigate the way that agencies treat an employee and their disclosure. The government believes it has already achieved this by inserting notes at the end of the relevant provisions, but the Greens do not share this optimism of statutory construction. The explicit prohibition in the Ombudsman Act is not clearly displaced and will probably be determined in court. Why not remove the uncertainty for no public cost and do it now?

I want to refer briefly to the Australian Federal Police. While the parliament may change the law for whistleblowing, what legislators cannot do is change the culture within agencies to encourage and support those who expose wrongdoing. The bullying, marginalisation, humiliation and threats to security of employment will continue, even with the passage of this legislation, unless senior management in the Australian Federal Police take active steps to encourage a new culture in their workplaces. Some agencies will not require much work at all, while others, like the Australian Federal Police, have a lot of reflecting and implementing to do. In fact, the AFP demonstrates the point that having all the right management processes, professional standards, codes of conduct and statutory powers in place means nothing for employees unless senior management embody and actively promote those principles.

There have been two recent AFP whistleblowers whose disclosures were stonewalled by their chain of command and internal complaints systems, so they went to the media. Ross Fusca was a decorated, 30-year veteran who headed the AWB oil-for-food task force. He blew the whistle because the inquiry was shut down when there were many lines of inquiry open. The other is Sergeant Brendan Thomson, who repeatedly warned his special response group management of the heightened risk of rioting and self-harm in the Christmas Island detention centre. After his team was removed from the island, he contacted Commissioner Negus directly, saying his reports were being ignored because they wanted to get off the island. As well, as we all know, the riots ensued.

These two men were both marginalised and humiliated in the workplace. They were offered no official support, yet they both received private text messages and emails from their colleagues congratulating them and apologising for not speaking out themselves for fear that the same treatment would put their mortgages and children's schooling at risk. They are both now in legal disputes with the AFP. Both claim that the legal tactics used are underhanded and breach the model litigant guidelines. Those tactics involve running up costs to place a huge financial burden and the threat of crushing costs orders. As one of the whistleblowers has informed us:

I can guarantee that if the commissioner had to cash in his leave, sell off his personal investments and mortgage his property to finance this course of action he wouldn't be so quick to jump on the litigious merry go round. However it appears when the Australian tax payer is covering his ride it is nothing more concerning than a stroke of his pen.

One of these whistleblowers has spent over $100,000 of his own money, while the other was advised that he will have to spend around $140,000 on his dispute. These two people are at the mercy of the AFP's legal strategy, which is determined by their deep pockets.

Following their treatment by the AFP, we have lost two highly dedicated officers. They have the highest sense of duty and honour to their work, which is why they chose to speak out and challenge mismanagement and cover-ups. As Lieutenant General David Morrison now famously put it this month when challenging sexism in the Defence Force:

The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

You can tell when the leaders like him really want to change the culture, and no such leadership is apparent in the Australian Federal Police.

Based on testimony in Senate estimates, AFP senior management are more in denial that a problem exists rather than being willing to accept that the culture needs to change and that they need to do something about it. After Sergeant Brendan Thomson contacted Commissioner Tony Negus directly criticising the conduct of his superiors, an email went around saying that any current SRG member who has any contact with Brendan Thomson should report such contact as you would if you had contact with criminal entities. What sort of behaviour is that, coming from a senior officer saying that if you have contact with this person, who has been one of your colleagues, treat him as if you had had contact with criminal entities?

Commissioner Negus denied this email related to Sergeant Thomson, claiming:

It was a broad-based email reminding people of their responsibilities.

Deputy Commissioner Peter Drennan also replied:

Yes, there was an email that was sent around. It actually had nothing to do with Sergeant Thomson at all. It was reminding them of their responsibilities and reporting obligations. Unfortunately, it was misinterpreted by one of our officers, who then on-forwarded it and made reference to Sergeant Thomson.

We have copies of the email chain, which were obtained under FOI. The subject heading of the email reads 'SRG members in contact with former AFP member Brendan Thomson'. That hardly leaves room for misinterpretation. As Deputy Commission Drennan stated:

The member who forwarded it to Sergeant Thomson did not edit the original email. He on-forwarded it.

Here we have the public humiliation of a current member of the Australian Federal Police. Instead of reprimanding Assistant Superintendent Greg Corin and the other officers responsible for sending out the email, senior management confronted the officer who forwarded the email. Deputy Commissioner Drennan confirmed:

He has been spoken to. He realises the error he has made. He has withdrawn that.

The AFP continue to deny the psychological impact an email like that can have on someone. With management priorities like that, it is no wonder no-one is willing to speak out.

The AFP have a lot of work to do to inform employees of their right to speak out. He was admonished for contacting the commissioner directly, after his chain of command failed. But that is his workplace right under section 40SA of the AFP Act. Let's hope that this legislation on public interest disclosure that is before the parliament today is the impetus for a cultural change in the Australian Federal Police.

To conclude, although this legislation is late, it is better late than never. It is legislation the Australian Greens had been hoping we would see in here earlier in this period of government. Nevertheless we are now dealing with it. As I indicated earlier, I think it is a lot more complex than it needs to be. We would have liked to have seen something more similar to the ACT legislation, but, nevertheless, what we have is what we are dealing with. I also want to acknowledge those people in Minister Dreyfus's office and in the department who have worked tirelessly for whistleblower protection here and around the world.

With those remarks I thank the government for accepting our amendment on putting in whistleblower protection for notification of an imminent threat with regard to the environment, in addition to what they have done themselves on an imminent threat with regard to human life and safety. I look forward to the passage of the bill, and I hope we can persuade the members of the coalition to support our other amendments that we have indicated we will move, and have circulated.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition strongly supports this bill. As those listening to the broadcast would be aware, the coalition has led the field in Australian politics in advancing the cause of whistleblower protection. In making these remarks I would particularly like to acknowledge Professor AJ Brown from Griffith University, who has consulted me frequently in relation to the development of this bill and who has played a distinguished role in this area of policy. I acknowledge the warm concurrence in my remarks of the minister, Senator Ludwig.

As I said, the coalition for many years has been the leader of the field in this area of policy. I remember going to the Right to Know conference organised in Sydney some years ago by John Hartigan, then the CEO of News Limited in Australia, and speaking on that occasion on this subject. I noticed there were no Greens representatives at the Right to Know conference, but, as in so many things, the Greens are very long on the rhetoric but very short on the performance when it comes to pursuing beneficial public policy reform.

The bill in the form presented to the chamber, and, ultimately, with the benefit of the considerations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, will create a legislative scheme for the investigation of alleged wrongdoing in the Commonwealth public sector. It will provide for protective mechanisms for current or former officials who make qualifying disclosures under the regime.

The question of the Commonwealth enactment of whistleblowers protection legislation has been agitated for several years. I think it is fair to say that this government has dragged its feet on the issue. The Labor Party announced its policy during the 2007 election campaign. In 2008 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, chaired by the present Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, was asked to examine whistleblower protection models and to report its findings. That report was delivered in January 2009. The government did not respond to the report until fully 14 months later, in March 2010, agreeing substantially with the committee's recommendations and undertaking to introduce a bill in the course of that year.

As we know, there was no bill in 2010, nor in 2011, nor in 2012. I look forward to the minister, in winding up the debate, explaining the extraordinary delay in bringing to the parliament on the 3rd last sitting day of the parliament legislation that was a commitment of the Rudd government in the 2007 election campaign, legislation which is substantially in the form of the report recommended by a parliamentary committee that reported as long ago as January 2009.

Senator Faulkner told the University of Melbourne Law School in December last year:

The Government broadly endorsed the findings of the Committee in 2010, however, no exposure draft of a Bill based on the Report's recommendations has yet been made public – over three years later. And here let me remind you that the Report's recommendations were generally regarded as sound in 2009, and they were generally consistent with the better whistleblower laws of most of Australia's States and Territories which have now been in effect for almost two decades.

So the criticism of the delay by the government in bringing this legislation to the chamber is not just criticism from the opposition but criticism by the Labor Party's senior senatorial statesman, if I may so describe him, Senator John Faulkner.

The bill has now been introduced for debate, as I said, in the final days of this parliament—much too late for the Rudd-Gillard government to have anything to fear from sunlight being shed upon the legislation by its proponents like Senator Faulkner or from the opposition. Operation Sunlight, you might recall, was the much vaunted policy that the Labor Party took to the 2007 election that was designed to promote transparency in the field of both whistleblower protection and freedom of information laws. It has produced this result: information is more restricted today than it was then and whistleblower protection has been delayed through the life of two entire parliaments. So much for heroic rhetoric dressed up in Orwellian phrases.

The objects of the bill are stated to be to promote the integrity and accountability of the Commonwealth public sector, to encourage and facilitate the making of public interest disclosures by public officials, to ensure that public officials who make public interest disclosures are supported and are protected from adverse consequences relating to the disclosures and to ensure that disclosures by public officials are properly investigated and dealt with. The regime operates by providing a framework for the protection of public officials, including former officials, from adverse consequences for disclosing information that in the public interest should be disclosed. It also provides for the investigation of matters that are so disclosed.

A public official for the purposes of the bill includes the secretary of a department, an APS employee or an employee of an executive agency; an individual, principle officer or member of the staff of a prescribed authority; a member of a prescribed authority other than a court; a director of a Commonwealth company; a member of the Defence Force; a parliamentary services employee; an individual employed by the Commonwealth other than an APS employee who performs duties for a department, executive agency or prescribed authority; a statutory office holder; and a contracted service provider for a Commonwealth contract where the services are provided principally for the benefit of an agency.

A public interest disclosure is a disclosure of information by a public official that is a disclosure within the government to an authorised internal recipient concerning suspected or probable illegal conduct or other wrongdoing; a disclosure to anybody if an internal disclosure has not been adequately dealt with and if wider disclosure satisfied public interest requirements; a disclosure to anybody if there is a substantial and imminent danger to health or safety; or a disclosure to an Australian legal practitioner for purposes connected with one of the other three bases of disclosure. However, there are also restrictions, which are designated publication restrictions, security classifications and when a disclosure is made to a foreign public official.

The central concept here, then, is what is disclosable conduct. Not all conduct is wrongdoing. Therefore, not all conduct ought to be disclosable. Conduct is only disclosable if it falls within the broad conception of wrongdoing within the public sector. Conduct is not disclosable conduct if it relates to political or expenditure matters with which a person disagrees such as the conduct of a judicial officer performing judicial functions or the conduct of intelligence agencies in the proper exercise of their functions and powers. These exclusions are proper and necessary and the coalition supports them.

I want to emphasise in particular clause 31 of the bill, which provides for the avoidance of doubt that conduct is not disclosable conduct if it relates only to a policy or a proposed policy of the Commonwealth government or action that has been, is being or is proposed to be taken by a minister or the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President of the Senate or amounts, purposes or priorities of expenditure or proposed expenditure relating to such a policy or proposed policy or such action or proposed action with which a person disagrees.

The point of that is to make it clear that the purpose of this legislation is not to provide a platform for people to agitate political grievances or to provide a forum for people to use to tie up political or administrative decision making merely because they may disagree with the decision that has been made. The purpose of whistleblower protection legislation is and only is to protect whistleblowers who disclose wrongdoing. I am well aware of concerns held by some, particularly in the business community, that political activists may try to use the whistleblowers protection regime embodied in this legislation as a vehicle to collaterally attack political decision making for political purposes only. The legislation is so written that that is not possible. To abuse the process of the legislation, which evidently the Greens would encourage people to do, would itself be a wrongdoing. Whistleblower protection legislation is justified because it provides the opportunity to expose wrongdoing, not because it provides a platform to agitate political grievances.

Now, protection does not extend to the making of a statement that is false or misleading and also does not affect liability for the discloser's own wrongful conduct. The protective mechanisms include orders for restatement, compensation, apologies and injunctions. It will also be an offence to take reprisals against a person who has made protected disclosure. There is, for the reasons I indicated a moment ago, always the great risk of the vexatious or improper use of these mechanisms. And those who use them vexatiously, for purposes for which the legislation does not allow, should feel the full weight of the law upon them. The Ombudsman and the IGIS, in the case of the intelligence agencies, have additional functions to ensure the proper implementation of the scheme.

The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which reported earlier this month. Coalition senators joined with the majority recommendation that the bill be passed, subject to a number of amendments. Some 73 amendments were moved in the other place, and the coalition supports them. We think this is a tighter and more focused scheme in consequence of those amendments. In particular, the requirement for a review of the operation of the scheme within two years of its commencement is, in our view, a sensible amendment.

I wish to turn briefly to the amendments foreshadowed by the Greens and by Senator Xenophon. The coalition opposes the Greens amendments. A provision for an act-of-grace payment is unnecessary, because that is already provided for under section 33 in the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997—something that no doubt escaped the attention of the Greens. The Greens amendments, which are seeking to narrow the exemption in relation to the intelligence sources, technologies and operations—reflecting the Greens's trademark paranoia about those who protect our country—also cannot be supported. The intelligence community is subject to its own special oversight regime through the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security—a fact that also has obviously escaped the Greens. As the committee heard, the inadvertent or inappropriate disclosure of intelligence information may compromise national security and potentially place lives at risk—conduct in which Mr Julian Assange, Senator Scott Ludlam's great friend, of course rejoices.

Australian intelligence agencies have obligations to our foreign partners to maintain confidentiality of information shared for the purpose of assisting those agencies to fulfil their national security functions. Mr Lambie has written in my script here that the Greens amendments failed to grasp those facts. I suspect the Greens grasped them all too well and are happy to see national security compromised in the pursuit of ideological whimsy. The coalition rejects the amendments proposing to extend the regime to members of parliament and their staff. This is an unacceptable incursion into parliamentary privilege and the role of the parliament itself. The appropriate institution for the supervision of members of parliament is the parliament itself. This is where the conduct of members and senators is exposed, reported and made accountable. If the Greens do not accept that parliament is up to the task, they should say so.

In relation to the amendments proposed by Senator Xenophon, I understand his concerns. However, the coalition does not agree that his amendments, while worthy, are properly located within this legislation. Rather, they should be considered when the matters that were recently the subject of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security arise for consideration of the next parliament. With those observations, and in the proud Liberal tradition of championing open government and whistleblower protection, the opposition is pleased to support the bill.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, before you commence your address I might just advise you that at 1.55 the Senate will be considering these bills, and I suggest you tailor your remarks accordingly.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will try to do this in 60 seconds or less, because I know Senator Sinodinos has a contribution to make. I support these bills. I believe these matters should go further. I note the work that a number of successive ministers have done on this, including Senator Ludwig and Senator Faulkner as well as Mr Dreyfus, the Attorney-General. I am concerned that these bills would still fail the litmus test—the Allan Kessing case. Whilst the legislation provides a mechanism for greater internal scrutiny, it does not protect those whistleblowers who feel that they must go public in relation to their concerns. I want to correct something, not in a dismissive way, but just to clarify what Senator Milne said. I admire and am grateful for her support of Allan Kessing, whom I know very well and who I believe does deserve a pardon. Mr Kessing maintains his innocence, maintains that he never leaked those documents, and I believe him. Although he was convicted, the issue is that if we had appropriate whistleblower protection laws he never would have been prosecuted in the first place. My fear is that this bill, whilst an improvement—much work has been done—will not deal with the fundamental issues at stake in relation to people who have information, such as Mr Kessing.

Finally, I note that the coalition will not be supporting the amendments. Perhaps I could get a quick indication from Senator Ludwig, from the government, in relation to this. At least Senator Brandis said it was worthy. I guess I will have to take that compliment, and maybe the amendments I am seeking to move will find another place through the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As stated by Senator Brandis, we will be supporting the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013 and the Public Interest Disclosure (Consequential Amendments) Bill. I welcome these bills. As someone who has worked in government administration I am well aware of the difficulties whistleblowers face. The fact of the matter is that in many organisations, particularly at the senior levels, you do face a culture of group think and a very strong push towards conforming and telling people up the line what they want to hear. Often, that can lead to a situation where people go along with things that perhaps they should not go along with, and therefore you have a situation where other people of conscience or those who feel strongly about something want to have a capacity to express to someone their concern about what has happened within their organisation. It is always a very sad thing when you feel you cannot go to someone more senior in your organisation in order to make a point or disclose something that you believe should be disclosed. It goes to the point that I think Senator Milne made in her contribution: that, over and above whatever laws we have—and certainly we support the strengthening of the laws in this regard—it is about how you get cultural change in organisations so that people feel they can have the confidence to talk about these matters to more senior people or that all people in the organisation, for want of a better description, share a certain moral compass on issues.

A very big responsibility is placed on the chief executives of organisations and on their boards, to not only talk the talk but also to walk the walk when it comes to these matters. Those who transgress should be seen to be punished, so that everybody within the organisation gets the very strong feeling that those who do wrong will be punished and that senior people will not turn a blind eye to things.

I am aware of a number of whistleblower cases in the past, under both this and the previous government, where it would have benefited those individuals if this legislation had been in place. But, as I say, I think it is quite important that we get cultural change, and that goes to the way that some organisations constitute themselves. It is clear at the federal level that there have been a number of organisations over the years where dysfunction has seemed to continue, for all sorts of reasons, and people on both sides of politics, as ministers or whatever, have been unable to bring those organisations to heel and sort them out. So I think that is an ongoing challenge.

I am also aware of some cases where, as in the case mentioned by Senator Xenophon, I believe the persons involved have some right to feel aggrieved at the way they have been treated. It is not for me to make judgements on the matter here. I cannot go into it. But I do feel the person in question in that case was operating from the best of motives. So we have to support people who are trying to do the right thing. But, as I said, ultimately it is not just about laws; it is about the way organisations conduct themselves, and that is really the responsibility also of the leaders of those organisations.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for the consideration of these bills has now expired. The question is that these bills be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

In respect of the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013, the question is that amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 7420, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.

Australian Greens ' circulated amendments—

(1) Page 22 (after line 7), at the end of Division 1, add:

24A Act of grace payments

(1) The Minister may authorise one or more payments of an amount or amounts specified in the authorisation to a person who has made a public interest disclosure (even though the payment or payments would not otherwise be authorised by law or required to meet a legal liability), if:

(a) the Minister is satisfied that the disclosure resulted in protection or the reclaiming of public money; or

  (b) the Minister considers, in the Minister's absolute discretion, that there are reasons of public interest for making the payment or payments.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) has the effect of appropriating the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purposes of making a payment under that subsection.

(2) Clause 31, page 31 (lines 31 to 34), omit paragraph (b).

(3) Clause 36, page 35 (line 29), before "An", insert "(1)".

(4) Clause 36, page 36 (line 3), at the end of the definition of authorised officer, add:

  ; or (c) in the case of a House of the Parliament:

     (i) a Senator or Member who belongs to that House or a public official who belongs to the Finance Department; and

     (ii) is appointed, in writing, by the principal officer of that House (with the agreement of the principal officer of the Finance Department, if the public official belongs to the Finance Department), as an authorised officer for the purposes of this Act.

(5) Clause 36, page 36 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add:

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of authorised officer, the Finance Department means the Department administered by the Minister administering the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.

(6) Clause 41, page 36 (line 7) to page 36 (line 16), omit paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), substitute:

  (a) information that has originated with, or has been received from, an intelligence agency that is about, or that might reveal:

     (i) a source of information; or

     (ii) the technologies or methods used, proposed to be used, or being developed for use, by an intelligence agency to collect, analyse, secure or otherwise deal with, information; or

     (iii) operations that have been, are being, or are proposed to be, undertaken by an intelligence agency;

(7) Clause 41, page 36 (line 32), omit "(b),".

(8) Clause 69, page 61 (after table item 12), insert:

(9) Clause 71, page 65 (after line 15), after paragraph (b), insert:

  (ba) a House of the Parliament; or

(10) Clause 73, page 67 (after table item 2), insert:

Question negatived.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I just have it noted that only the Australian Greens—

Senator Xenophon interjecting—

sorry—and Senator Xenophon supported that?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That will be noted in the Hansard. The question now is that amendment (1) on sheet 7424 revised, circulated by Senator Xenophon, be agreed to.

Senator Xenophon ' s circulated amendment

(1) Page 74 (after line 7), at the end of Part 5, add:

84 Interception and access

(1) Subsection (2) applies if the Minister is required to prepare a report for the purposes of section 99 or 161 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.

(2) The report must set out, for each enforcement agency, statistics about applications, warrants, interceptions, notices and authorisations made in respect of persons who are:

  (a) members of either of the Houses of Parliament of the Parliament of Australia; or

  (b) members of a parliament of a State or Territory of Australia; or

  (c) journalists.

Question negatived.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I have it noted that only the Australian Greens supported me on this particular amendment, for the record.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is noted. In respect of the Public Interest Disclosure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013, the question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7421, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.

Australian Greens ' circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 15), after item 7, insert:

7A After subsection 5(4)

  Insert:

  (4A) Paragraph (2)(d) does not prevent the Ombudsman from investigating action that, under subsection 5A(1), is taken to relate to a matter of administration.

(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 29), omit "it", substitute "the conduct, and any action taken by the agency in relation to the disclosure,".

Question negatived.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I ask, again, that it be noted that only Senator Xenophon supported the Australian Greens on those amendments.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That will be noted.