Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. In May, I gave notice of my intention to amend the Public Interest Disclosure Act to provide additional protection to whistleblowers who or driven to make their disclosures to a journalist or to an MLA when this government or any government fails to act on their earlier disclosure. The catalyst for the introduction of this amendment was the government’s failure to prevent the leaking of copper concentrate into the harbour. The bill is not just a political knee-jerk reaction to this one incident. It did, however, prompt me to review an amendment I introduced into the second reading debate of the Public Interest Disclosure Act in November 2008. At that time, the government did not support the amendment to allow a person to escalate their disclosure to an MLA or a journalist. However, the former Attorney-General made some valid and constructive comments I have taken on board for the purpose of developing this bill: (a) they should be centred around the definition of a journalist; (b) that only public officials could make the escalated disclosure rather than anyone else eligible to make a disclosure; and (c) the fact that the MLA or journalist may not be aware of the reasons the commissioner did not begin to complete the investigation, I have taken those into consideration - and I acknowledge the contribution made by the former Attorney-General in bringing this matter to this new stage. I am confident, Madam Speaker and honourable members, these concerns have been addressed now by this bill. The ability for allowing a person to retain protection and escalate their disclosure to a journalist or MLA in certain circumstances currently exists in the Protected Disclosure Act 1994 New South Wales, and was recommended by the Whistle While They Work Project commissioned by the federal government and carried out by Griffith University. As previously mentioned by the member for Johnston, the provision is in fact rarely used in New South Wales, however, perhaps this is due to a learning spectre of public exposure that compels the government to deal with a disclosure in a timely, comprehensive and purposeful manner, it provides the motivation for that necessary action, holding government truly to their word to be honest, open and accountable, an additional mechanism. And therefore, in this case, disclosure, if that be the case, disclosure to the media or an MLA is not required. In fact, in November 2009, the New South Wales Parliamentary Committee commented, in the Independent Commission Against Corruption into the Protection of pubic sector whistleblower employees, that it would appear that, and I quote, ‘the provisions are working in a way they were intended to be used, that is, as a last resort for whistleblowers who have exhausted relevant internal or external disclosure avenues’. The House of Representatives Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended that members of parliament be recognised as an alternative third party that disclosures could be made to and that disclosures to the media should be protected. I quote:
Madam Deputy Speaker, I also chose to incorporate another amendment that formed part of my committee stage amendments at the introduction of this act, and that is that a person with a disclosure related to an MLA be allowed to choose to take that disclosure either to the Speaker, as is currently allowed, or to the Commissioner. It is an odd situation within the act where, as a response to a disclosure about an MLA to the Speaker, the Speaker is under no obligation to investigate the matter, respond to the person making the disclosure, or advise them of any decision regarding that disclosure. I would like to reiterate that this in no way reflects on the current Speaker, but a genuine attempt to provide, on any occasion ever, the perception of a conflict of interest, it would be dealt with by this mechanism. I will address the provisions of the bill. Clause 3 inserts a new provision to section 4, Definitions, defining the term ‘journalist’ as used in clause 4. I have chosen to incorporate this definition to allay the former Attorney-General’s fears about the possible disclosure of government information to a shady fringe dwelling Internet blogger bearing the title ‘journalist’. The bill categorises a ‘journalist’ as ‘a person engaged in the occupation of writing or editing material intended for publication in the print or electronic news media’. This is the same definition that exists in the New South Wales Protected Disclosures Act. Clause 4 repeals and replaces the existing section 11 of the act with new provisions relating to making public interest disclosures. Section 11.1 will allow a person making a disclosure about an MLA the option of making the disclosure to either the Speaker or the Commissioner. The intention of this provision is simply to provide a person not to disparage the reputation of the Speaker, etcetera. Again, I do not accept the reasons given by the former Attorney-General that it would be inappropriate for the Commissioner to reflect on the conduct of a parliamentarian. A disclosure about the Speaker can be made to the Commissioner, but why that could not extend to any other member of this House is beyond me. There are a number of reasons why confidence in an internal disclosure could be undermined, particularly given the size of our parliament and the NT public sector. The amendment is about giving options. This act is about giving protection and peace of mind to a person who is so troubled by the conduct of a parliamentarian, that they have either exhausted the available internal channels, or feel they cannot rely on the external channels to address that conduct, and for the government to say that a parliamentarian should not be held up to the same degree of accountability as any other public servant, or that their actions are above investigation by the Commissioner, is simply unacceptable. Also, in clause 4.11.2 allows a person to take their disclosure to an MLA or journalist if: 1 they have already made an earlier disclosure and their disclosure to the MLA or the journalist is about substantially the same material; 2 there has been inadequate or inappropriate action in response to their disclosure, or 3 there has been no action on their disclosure within six months of making the disclosure; 4 a disclosure can only be made to a journalist if there is a significant risk or damage or harm to the environment or an individual as a result of a lack of action or lack of adequate or appropriate action; 5 the person making the disclosure must provide the documentation and correspondence from the Commissioner to the journalist or MLA; 6 the person making the disclosure cannot be making the escalated disclosure for personal gain such as providing disciplinary action or dismissal. As I mentioned earlier, I introduced these amendments with similar provisions when the Public Interest Disclosure Act was first introduced to parliament. I believe the concerns raised then by the former Attorney-General have now been addressed. The lack of additional external avenues for a whistleblower has been identified as a serious deficiency in Australian whistleblower legislation. This legislation about providing the ultimate protection for people who have the courage to stand up and speak on serious misconduct and corruption in the Northern Territory public sector, and they deserve the support of this parliament. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. |