Page 141 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
obviously depends on the type and severity of the improper conduct or wastage detected. The authority investigating the report will be required to update the whistleblower at least every 90 days and upon completion of the inquiries. This is to ensure that complaints do not disappear in the bureaucratic maze and are dealt with properly. It also ensures that snow jobs do not occur.
A common thread of cases involving whistleblowers has been the potential of reprisal against the complainant. This Bill sets a penalty of $10,000 or 12 months' imprisonment, or both, for any person found to have engaged in, or attempted to engage in, reprisals. The legislation also permits a person who has suffered detriment to seek damages by way of a civil claim against the person who has engaged in the reprisal. It also places an onus upon authorities to do everything in their power to protect from unlawful reprisal a person who makes a public interest disclosure. This could include, for example, the relocation of a person to another area in the public service if this is felt to be warranted, but only - and I stress "only" - with the consent of the individual concerned.
One of the primary concerns of all whistleblowers is that their identity and the information contained in their disclosures should not be made public or available to any person not directly involved in the investigation. This Bill creates a $5,000 penalty for any public official who, without reasonable excuse, provides confidential information gained through the official's involvement in the administration of the Act to any other person. A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading statement to a proper authority with the intention that it be acted upon as a public interest disclosure is also liable to a $10,000 fine or 12 months' imprisonment, or both. This provision is to protect the system as well as the public servants involved. I am sure that nobody wants a situation which allows malicious people within the public service to upset the whole system of government. This provision has been included to protect innocent persons from malicious and false allegations.
The Gibbs committee report of December 1991 on Commonwealth criminal law recommended that whistleblowers should be protected by legislation. The report's recommendations form the basis for the Bill I have tabled in the Assembly today. Similar legislation either has been introduced or is being drafted in Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales, as well as for the Commonwealth.
If we want accountability and transparency in public decision making and administration, mere codes of conduct and mission statements simply do not go far enough. We need a mechanism or a set of procedures to permit an employee to speak out in the public interest - which is, after all, in all our interests. Last week, I was pleased to see the Chief Minister finally come out in support of whistleblowers legislation. Unfortunately, last year, when I first announced my intention to draft this Bill, the Attorney-General, Mr Connolly, questioned the need for it. I can only presume now, Madam Speaker, that the Attorney-General too has seen the light. This legislation will encourage public institutions in the ACT to improve their processes and performance so that the need for this very legislation for public interest disclosures will be minimised.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .