Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill, and I seek leave to move amendments (1), (6) and (8) to (58) on sheet GP170 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

That:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:

2. Schedule 1, Parts 1, 2 and 3

The first 1 January, 1 April, 1 July or 1 October to occur after the end of the period of 3 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent.

3. Schedule 1, Part 4

The later of:

(a) immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 2; and

(b) immediately after the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Act 2018.

However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur.

(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (after line 3), after section 1317AAD, insert:

1317AADA Personal work -related grievances

(1) Subsections 1317AA(1) and (2) do not apply to a disclosure of information by an individual (the discloser) to the extent that the information disclosed:

(a) concerns a personal work-related grievance of the discloser; and

(b) does not concern a contravention, or an alleged contravention, of section 1317AC that involves detriment caused to the discloser or a threat made to the discloser.

Note: A disclosure concerning a personal work-related grievance that is made to a legal practitioner may qualify for protection under this Part under subsection 1317AA(3).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the information disclosed concerns a personal work-related grievance of the discloser if:

(a) the information concerns a grievance about any matter in relation to the discloser's employment, or former employment, having (or tending to have) implications for the discloser personally; and

(b) the information:

(i) does not have significant implications for the regulated entity to which it relates, or another regulated entity, that do not relate to the discloser; and

(ii) does not concern conduct, or alleged conduct, referred to in paragraph 1317AA(5)(c), (d), (e) or (f).

Examples of grievances that may be personal work-related grievances under paragraph (a) (but subject to paragraph (b)) are as follows:

(a) an interpersonal conflict between the discloser and another employee;

(b) a decision relating to the engagement, transfer or promotion of the discloser;

(c) a decision relating to the terms and conditions of engagement of the discloser;

(d) a decision to suspend or terminate the engagement of the discloser, or otherwise to discipline the discloser.

(8) Schedule 1, item 9, page 12 (line 17), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(9) Schedule 1, item 9, page 12 (lines 19 and 20), omit "(within the meaning of section 1317AC)".

(10) Schedule 1, item 9, page 12 (line 24), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(11) Schedule 1, item 9, page 12 (line 30), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(12) Schedule 1, item 9, page 13 (line 2), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(13) Schedule 1, item 9, page 13 (lines 5 and 6), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(14) Schedule 1, item 9, page 13 (line 8), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(15) Schedule 1, item 9, page 13 (line 11), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(16) Schedule 1, item 9, page 13 (line 12), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(17) Schedule 1, item 9, page 13 (after line 12), after subsection 1317AD(2), insert:

(2A) A court may make an order under section 1317AE in relation to a person (the first person) that is a body corporate if:

(a) another person (the third person) engages in conduct (detrimental conduct) that:

(i) causes any detriment to a person (the second person) other than the first person or the third person; or

(ii) constitutes the making of a threat to cause any such detriment to a person (the second person) other than the first person or the third person; and

(b) when the third person engages in the detrimental conduct, the third person believes or suspects that the second person or any other person made, may have made, proposes to make or could make a disclosure that qualifies for protection under this Part; and

(c) the belief or suspicion referred to in paragraph (b) is the reason, or part of the reason, for the detrimental conduct; and

(d) the first person is under a duty to prevent the third person engaging in the detrimental conduct, or a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the third person does not engage in the detrimental conduct; and

(e) the first person fails in part or whole to fulfil that duty.

Burden of proof

(2B) In proceedings where a person seeks an order under section 1317AE in relation to another person:

(a) the person seeking the order bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the matters in:

(i) if subsection (1) of this section applies—paragraph (1)(a); or

(ii) if subsection (2) of this section applies—paragraph (1)(a), as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b); or

(iii) if subsection (2A) of this section applies—paragraphs (2A)(a) and (d); and

(b) if that onus is discharged—the other person bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out.

(18) Schedule 1, item 9, page 13 (after line 19), after section 1317AD, insert:

1317ADA Detriment

In sections 1317AC and 1317AD, detriment includes (without limitation) any of the following:

(a) dismissal of an employee;

(b) injury of an employee in his or her employment;

(c) alteration of an employee's position or duties to his or her disadvantage;

(d) discrimination between an employee and other employees of the same employer;

(e) harassment or intimidation of a person;

(f) harm or injury to a person, including psychological harm;

(g) damage to a person's property;

(h) damage to a person's reputation;

(i) damage to a person's business or financial position;

(j) any other damage to a person.

(19) Schedule 1, item 9, page 13 (line 22), omit "subsections 1317AD(1) and (2)", substitute "subsections 1317AD(1), (2) and (2A)".

(20) Schedule 1, item 9, page 13 (line 26), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(21) Schedule 1, item 9, page 13 (line 28), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(22) Schedule 1, item 9, page 13 (line 32), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(23) Schedule 1, item 9, page 14 (line 2), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(24) Schedule 1, item 9, page 14 (line 6), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(25) Schedule 1, item 9, page 14 (lines 9 and 10), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(26) Schedule 1, item 9, page 14 (line 13), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(27) Schedule 1, item 9, page 14 (lines 15 and 16), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(28) Schedule 1, item 9, page 14 (line 18), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(29) Schedule 1, item 9, page 14 (lines 27 to 37), omit subsection 1317AE(2), substitute:

(2) If the detrimental conduct wholly or partly consists, or consisted, of terminating or purporting to terminate a person's employment (including detrimental conduct that forces or forced the person to resign), the court must, in making an order mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), consider the period, if any, the person is likely to be without employment as a result of the detrimental conduct. This subsection does not limit any other matter the court may consider.

(30) Schedule 1, item 9, page 15 (lines 1 to 4), omit subsection 1317AE(3), substitute:

(3) In deciding whether to make an order under paragraph (1)(b) in relation to the first person's employer, the court may have regard to the following:

(a) whether the employer took reasonable precautions, and exercised due diligence, to avoid the detrimental conduct;

(b) if the employer has a policy dealing with any or all of the matters referred to in subsection 1317AI(5) (whether or not section 1317AI requires the employer to have such a policy)—the extent to which the employer gave effect to that policy;

(c) any duty that the employer was under to prevent the detrimental conduct, or to take reasonable steps to ensure that the detrimental conduct was not engaged in.

(31) Schedule 1, item 9, page 17 (lines 22 and 23), omit "(within the meaning of section 1317AC)".

(32) Schedule 1, item 9, page 18 (after line 7), after section 1317AJ, insert:

1317AK Review of operation of whistleblower protections

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be undertaken of the operation of:

(a) this Part; and

(b) Part IVD of the Taxation Administration Act 1953.

Note: Part IVD of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 provides for protections for whistleblowers in relation to tax.

(2) The review must be conducted as soon as practicable after the end of 5 years after this section commences.

(3) The Minister must cause a written report about the review to be prepared.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

(33) Schedule 1, item 12, page 19 (lines 27 to 29), omit subsection 1644(3), substitute:

(3) Subsections 1317AI(1) to (4), as inserted by item 9 of Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Act 2018, apply on and after the day 6 months after the day that item commences.

(34) Schedule 1, item 15, page 27 (lines 6 to 20), omit subsection 14ZZY(5).

(35) Schedule 1, item 15, page 27 (line 25), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(36) Schedule 1, item 15, page 27 (lines 27 and 28), omit "(within the meaning of section 14ZZY)".

(37) Schedule 1, item 15, page 27 (line 32), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(38) Schedule 1, item 15, page 28 (line 4), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(39) Schedule 1, item 15, page 28 (line 11), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(40) Schedule 1, item 15, page 28 (lines 14 and 15), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(41) Schedule 1, item 15, page 28 (line 17), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(42) Schedule 1, item 15, page 28 (line 20), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(43) Schedule 1, item 15, page 28 (line 21), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(44) Schedule 1, item 15, page 28 (after line 21), after subsection 14ZZZ(2), insert:

(2A) A court may make an order under section 14ZZZA in relation to a person (the first person) that is a body corporate if:

(a) another person (the third person) engages in conduct (detrimental conduct) that:

(i) causes any detriment to a person (the second person) other than the first person or the third person; or

(ii) constitutes the making of a threat to cause any such detriment to a person (the second person) other than the first person or the third person; and

(b) when the third person engages in the detrimental conduct, the third person believes or suspects that the second person or any other person made, may have made, proposes to make or could make a disclosure that qualifies for protection under this Part; and

(c) the belief or suspicion referred to in paragraph (b) is the reason, or part of the reason, for the detrimental conduct; and

(d) the first person is under a duty to prevent the third person engaging in the detrimental conduct, or a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the third person does not engage in the detrimental conduct; and

(e) the first person fails in part or whole to fulfil that duty.

Burden of proof

(2B) In proceedings where a person seeks an order under section 14ZZZA in relation to another person:

(a) the person seeking the order bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the matters in:

(i) if subsection (1) of this section applies—paragraph (1)(a); or

(ii) if subsection (2) of this section applies—paragraph (1)(a), as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b); or

(iii) if subsection (2A) of this section applies—paragraphs (2A)(a) and (d); and

(b) if that onus is discharged—the other person bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out.

(45) Schedule 1, item 15, page 28 (after line 28), after section 14ZZZ, insert:

14ZZZAA Detriment

In sections 14ZZY and 14ZZZ, detriment includes (without limitation) any of the following:

(a) dismissal of an employee;

(b) injury of an employee in his or her employment;

(c) alteration of an employee's position or duties to his or her disadvantage;

(d) discrimination between an employee and other employees of the same employer;

(e) harassment or intimidation of a person;

(f) harm or injury to a person, including psychological harm;

(g) damage to a person's property;

(h) damage to a person's reputation;

(i) damage to a person's business or financial position;

(j) any other damage to a person.

(46) Schedule 1, item 15, page 28 (line 31), omit "subsections 14ZZZ(1) and (2)", substitute "subsections 14ZZZ(1), (2) and (2A)".

(47) Schedule 1, item 15, page 29 (line 3), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(48) Schedule 1, item 15, page 29 (line 5), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(49) Schedule 1, item 15, page 29 (line 9), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(50) Schedule 1, item 15, page 29 (line 13), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(51) Schedule 1, item 15, page 29 (line 17), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(52) Schedule 1, item 15, page 29 (lines 20 and 21), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(53) Schedule 1, item 15, page 29 (line 24), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(54) Schedule 1, item 15, page 29 (lines 26 and 27), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(55) Schedule 1, item 15, page 29 (line 29), omit "victimising conduct", substitute "detrimental conduct".

(56) Schedule 1, item 15, page 30 (lines 1 to 11), omit subsection 14ZZZA(2), substitute:

(2) If the detrimental conduct wholly or partly consists, or consisted, of terminating or purporting to terminate a person's employment (including detrimental conduct that forces or forced the person to resign), the court must, in making an order mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), consider the period, if any, the person is likely to be without employment as a result of the detrimental conduct. This subsection does not limit any other matter the court may consider.

(57) Schedule 1, item 15, page 30 (lines 12 to 15), omit subsection 14ZZZA(3), substitute:

(3) In deciding whether to make an order under paragraph (1)(b) in relation to the first person's employer, the court may have regard to the following:

(a) whether the employer took reasonable precautions, and exercised due diligence, to avoid the detrimental conduct;

(b) if the employer has a policy dealing with any or all of the matters referred to in subsection 1317AI(5) of the Corporations Act 2001 (whether or not section 1317AI of that Act requires the employer to have such a policy)—the extent to which the employer gave effect to that policy;

(c) any duty that the employer was under to prevent the detrimental conduct, or to take reasonable steps to ensure that the detrimental conduct was not engaged in.

(58) Schedule 1, page 35 (after line 28), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 4—Contingent amendments

Corporations Act 2001

33 In the appropriate position in subsection 1317E ( 3 )

Insert:

34 At the end of Part 10.32

Add:

1644A Application of amendments relating to penalties

The amendments made by Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Act 2018 apply in relation to the commission of an offence if the conduct constituting the commission of the offence occurs wholly on or after the commencement of that Part.

35 Schedule 3 (table items dealing with subsections 1317AC ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) and subsection 1317AE ( 1 ) )

Repeal the items, substitute:

Taxation Administration Act 1953

36 Subsection 14ZZW ( 1 ) (penalty)

Omit "30 penalty units", substitute "60 penalty units".

37 Subsections 14ZZY ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) (penalties)

Omit "120 penalty units", substitute "240 penalty units".

38 Application of amendments

The amendments of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 made by this Part apply in relation to the commission of an offence if the conduct constituting the commission of the offence occurs wholly on or after the commencement of this Part.

I will speak about the amendments briefly.

These amendments will further strengthen the corporate and tax whistleblowing protections provided in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2017. The amendments will address most of the recommendations of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report into the bill. The cohort of staff who are eligible to receive a whistleblower disclosure will be narrowed to senior managers to reduce the compliance burden on companies.

The emergency disclosure provision, which allows for disclosures to a journalist or a member of parliament, will be revised to align more closely with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. The definition of 'journalist' will be amended to extend protections to disclosures made to journalists employed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or the Special Broadcasting Service.

To ensure the regime operates as intended, disclosures solely about personal employment matters will be excluded from protection under the corporate regime. The amendments will further improve access to compensation for whistleblowers who suffer victimisation. For example, the amendments require a court to consider the period a person is likely to be without employment in circumstances where the detrimental conduct involved termination of employment.

A statutory review of the new regime will be required five years after the commencement date of the bill. For the bill to effectively operate, the commencement date of the bill will be revised to the first day of the second quarter following royal assent. This will provide a lead-in period for businesses to adjust to the new laws.

Lastly, the amendments will give effect to the increased financial penalties in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018 as it relates to offences under the corporate and tax whistleblower regime. The bill and the government amendments to the bill will not affect any existing rights and protections in respect of a constituent raising an issue with a member of parliament that may attract protection under parliamentary privilege. I commend these amendments to the Senate.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to 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.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes schedule 1, item 8, in the following terms:

(7) Schedule 1, item 8, page 11 (line 26) to page 12 (line 10), TO BE OPPOSED.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that item 8 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Australian Greens amendment on sheet 8421 revised:

(1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of operation of amendments

(1) Within 2 years after the commencement of this section, the Minister must cause to be conducted an independent review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) The review must:

(a) specifically examine the effectiveness of whistleblower protections amended or introduced by this Act;

(b) consider how the introduction of a rewards system for whistleblowers may increase reporting of corruption, fraud, tax evasion or avoidance, and misconduct within the corporate sector; and

(c) consider and examine an appropriate rewards or bounties system for whistleblowers who provide information that leads to successful enforcement action.

(3) The Minister must cause to be prepared a written report of the review within 12 months of the review commencing.

(4) The Minister must cause copies of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the report is given to the Minister.

I'll speak to the amendment briefly. As I said yesterday in my speech in the second reading stage, we would like to see a rewards scheme put in place for whistleblowers. We'd like to see that as part of this legislation. Unfortunately, it's not going to be possible to have that drafted and put in in its entirety, so we would like to at least see a review as part of this legislation to make sure we do get any future government focused on a reward scheme. I'll just very quickly read some of the key recommendations from the PJC report on this:

… following the imposition of a penalty against a wrongdoer by a Court (or other body that may impose such a penalty), a whistleblower protection body … or prescribed law enforcement agencies may give a 'reward' to any relevant whistleblower.

…   …   …

… such a reward should be determined within such body's absolute discretion within a legislated range of percentages of the penalty imposed by the Court (or other body imposing the penalty) against the whistleblower's employer (or principal) in relation to the matters raised by the whistleblower or uncovered as a result of an investigation instigated from the whistleblowing and where the specific percentage allocated will be determined by the body taking into account stated relevant factors, such as:

So the committee agreed on putting a reward in the report as a major recommendation. I felt it was one of the key recommendations of the committee. It's disappointing, as I said yesterday, that a number of those recommendations haven't been dealt with in this legislation.

I understand, Minister, in your speech on the second reading today, you said that you are in the process of providing a response to those recommendations, so I look forward to that. But we would feel more comfortable with at least putting a clause into this legislation that this will be dealt with. We've had discussions with the government—with Treasury officials—on this issue in recent days. We wanted to have this within 12 months, but we're happy to put this in at 24 months, so two years down the track. I think that will, shall we say, sharpen the focus on actually getting this key recommendation implemented. We have an opportunity to at least put that in today, and I ask the Senate to consider the Greens amendment.

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

Labor will not be supporting this amendment. I do want to acknowledge the importance of the report that the senator has been reading from, and I note it has the date of September 2017. The government should have well and truly responded to this very significant issue for the Australian people, but they haven't done so. In the absence of the government's response to that, I think that changes things somewhat, Senator Whish-Wilson. It's unlikely, in our view, that enough case law will develop in the next 12 months in order to conduct the kind of review you were foreshadowing in your comments. We also understand that the amendment as proposed, despite your expressed intention, is not supported by either the government or Centre Alliance.

Clearly, the PJC inquiry into whistleblowing considered how the introduction of a rewards system may assist whistleblowers and how it might work. I well remember those proposals and the briefing that we received on this issue from Professor Brown and many expert witnesses, and we considered the factors that a body administering a rewards scheme should consider when allocating a reward. Great work has already been done. Once again, it's a shame that the government didn't take the opportunity to respond to this report in full. In the absence of that, we are unable to support your amendment this morning, Senator Whish-Wilson.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Centre Alliance won't be supporting the Greens amendment, for similar reasons to those espoused by Senator O'Neill. But I can assure Senator Whish-Wilson that, as soon as the bill has passed, my office will be contacting the government and we will be pestering—close to the point of stalking—the government to make sure that we continue down this pathway, this very good pathway, that we're on. I'm reminded of the saying: how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time is the answer. So, whilst we agree with the sentiment of the Greens, we will not be supporting the amendment.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, we hope that the pestering doesn't become stalking, but let's see how we go. The government won't be supporting Senator Whish-Wilson's amendment. It would require a review to be undertaken two years after the bill receives royal assent. This in our opinion is too short a period to judge the effectiveness of the amendments. The amendments do not commence on royal assent but up to six months later, meaning the effective review period may be as little as 18 months. The amendments requiring some companies to implement whistleblower policies may have only applied for as little as 12 months. The policy requirement for public companies, large proprietary companies and registrable superannuation entities to have a whistleblower policy may not even apply when the review needs to start.

The government has already tabled amendments, which passed, to introduce the review of the new whistleblower laws to be undertaken five years after the commencement of the bill. This implements the recommendation of the Senate Economics Committee report. A five-year period was chosen to allow time for proper consideration of the effectiveness of the new regime. The time frame suggested in the Greens amendment would not allow for this. The PJC inquiry recommended a rewards system. The government is considering those recommendations and will respond in due course. It is duplicative, even unnecessary, to require another review that must consider the introduction of a rewards system in addition to the existing consideration that the government is giving to the PJC recommendations.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd just like to get on record in terms of the minister's response that there is perhaps a little bit of confusion here. The five-year review that's been put into this legislation refers to what we're passing today, which I think all senators have acknowledged only partially reflects the PJC report and the good work that was done by this chamber and the other place. Our review very specifically refers to a rewards scheme. We would have liked to have seen that included in the detail today, along with many of the other the recommendations in that review. We've actually had plenty of time to do this, let's be honest. Senator Patrick, I understand that you personally agree with a rewards scheme and the concept of it, and I'm sure you do too, Senator O'Neill. So let's not gild the lily here. This is an opportunity to make sure that, for any future government—maybe your government, Senator O'Neill, rather than the minister's government, but whichever government it is in a year or two's time—there is a specific date set aside that will at least compel a review into a rewards scheme. Hopefully there are other avenues by which we can do that, but we felt like this was at least a half-measure that would be effective in this legislation today.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.