Page 1401 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 11 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
On the question of reporting, there are important differences. Clause 237 of the Public Sector Management Bill provides that the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman shall publish reports of disclosure and responses in annual reports. However, clause 238 enables an authorised official within a department or authority to decide for himself or herself whether or not to refer a matter to the Ombudsman or the Auditor-General. So it will not necessarily reach the Ombudsman or the Auditor-General. In some circumstances, that referral to those people may not happen and the matter is investigated internally under clause 186 of the Bill, which deals with internal departmental disciplinary action, in which case all documentation is kept secure; that is, there is no reporting.
Clause 10 of the Carnell Bill, by contrast, requires detailing in annual reports of the procedures for whistleblowers. That answers the point the Chief Minister made about there being no provisions there to explain to people what is going on or what are the provisions dealing with whistleblowing. In addition, the unit has to provide in these annual reports statistics showing a number of things: The number of public interest disclosures received in the period of the report; the number of each type of PID received; the number of PIDs referred to that agency by other agencies; the number of PIDs investigated; the number and type of PIDs referred to other agencies; the number of PIDs upon which no action was taken and why; and the number of PIDs taken which were substantiated by investigation. The remedial action taken on each substantiated PID or recommendation of the Ombudsman will have to be shown as well.
If I were seeking to disclose some matter in the public interest, I would much rather have the protections afforded by Mrs Carnell's Bill. I would very much rather be in that position. I think anybody, if they sincerely acknowledge a desire to protect public servants and others in these circumstances, would make that acknowledgment as well. Under our Bill, the maximum protection would be supplied to whistleblowers. Where there is a risk of unlawful reprisal, the complaint will be handled within the relevant authority or by the Ombudsman. It will not be passed around to somebody else. Unlawful reprisals themselves are punishable by a $10,000 fine or up to one year's imprisonment, or both.
Clauses 34 and 35 of our Bill ensure that a whistleblower is not liable for making a PID, although I referred before to false or misleading statements. Whistleblowers will also be provided with information about protection and remedies against unlawful reprisals and, with his or her consent, an officer affected or potentially affected by unlawful reprisals can be relocated. I refer the Chief Minister, if she still thinks there are no provisions about information of that kind, to clauses 25 and 26 of the Bill. I wonder whether she has actually read it.
I refer finally to the point the Chief Minister made about the appropriate location for whistleblower protection. The Chief Minister believes that it should be in her Bill - there are no surprises in that, I suppose - because public sector matters are dealt with in that Bill. I think there is a very good reason for not locating it in that Bill. First of all, let me say that there are many provisions dealing with the role of public servants that are, at least
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .