Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 504 ..


MR SMYTH (continuing):

She said Mr McLeod would review all submissions and refer those raising potentially sensitive issues to the head of the Chief Minister's Department, Robert Tonkin, who could ask him to investigate them, thereby attracting all the protections of the territory's whistleblower laws.

I think that that highlights exactly why we should have a full and independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act. There we have a concrete example of one of the unsung heroes of the disaster saying that he is reluctant to tell his story. How many others are there out there? If we continue with the McLeod inquiry as is, we will probably never know.

Mr Speaker, that article referred to whistleblower legislation. In the ACT, that means the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994. The Chief Minister obviously does not understand the PID Act; so, for his education, I will read from it. The main point is made right at the beginning of the act. It says:

An Act to encourage the disclosure of conduct adverse to the public interest in the public sector, and for related purposes.

Let's go into the detail. The definition section reads:

public interest disclosure means a disclosure of information that the person making the disclosure believes on reasonable grounds tends to show-

(a) that another person has engaged, is engaging, or proposes to engage, in disclosable conduct; or

(b) public wastage; or

(c) that a person has engaged, is engaging, or proposes to engage, in an unlawful reprisal; or

(d) that a public official has engaged, is engaging, or proposes to engage, in conduct that amounts to a substantial and specific danger to the health or safety of the public.

Section 4 of the act defines disclosable conduct as follows:

(1) For this Act, conduct is taken to be disclosable if-

(a) it is of a type referred to in subsection (2); and

(b) it could constitute-

(i) a criminal offence; or

(ii) a disciplinary offence; or

(iii) reasonable grounds for dismissing or dispensing with, or otherwise terminating, the services of a public official who is engaged in it.

Subsection (2) says:


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .