House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Public Interest Disclosure Bill Public Interest Disclosure Bill Public Interest Disclosure Bill Final Stages Final Stages The Legislative Council agreed to the bill with the amendments indicated by the following schedule, to which amendments the Legislative Council desires the concurrence of the House of Assembly: No. 1. Clause 4, page 3, line 29 [clause 4(1), definition of journalist]— Delete '(subject to a regulation made under subsection (2))' No. 2. Clause 4, page 4, lines 34 and 35 [clause 4(2)]—Delete subclause (2) No. 3. Clause 6, page 6, line 28 [clause 6(b)(iii)(B)]—Delete '120' and substitute '90' No. 4. Clause 6, page 6, line 30 [clause 6(b)(iii)(B)]—Delete '120' and substitute '90' No. 5. Clause 8, page 8, line 2 [clause 8(1)]—Delete '$10,000 or imprisonment for 1 year' and substitute: $20,000 or imprisonment for 2 years No. 6. Clause 9, page 8, line 27 [clause 9(5)]— Delete '$10,000' and substitute: $20,000 or imprisonment for 2 years No. 7. Clause 9, page 8, line 33 [clause 9(7), definition of detriment, (a)—Delete paragraph (a) and substitute: (a)	loss or damage (including damage to reputation); or (aa)	injury or harm (including psychological harm); or No. 8. Clause 9, page 8, after line 37—After subclause (7) insert: (8)	For the purposes of this section, a threat of reprisal may be— (a)	express or implied; or (b)	conditional or unconditional, and in any proceedings dealing with an act of victimisation (including proceedings for an offence against subsection (5)) it is not necessary to prove that the person threatened actually feared that the threat would be carried out. No. 9. Clause 10, page 9, line 5 [clause 10(1)]—Delete '$10,000' and substitute '$20,000' No. 10. Clause 11, page 9, line 13—Delete '$10,000' and substitute '$20,000' Consideration in committee. The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move: That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to. May I indicate that the government welcomes the amendments from the Legislative Council. I note that the amendments passed by them after due consideration were sponsored by the Hon. Connie Bonaros. In short, her amendments seek to reduce the time that would expire from 120 days to 90 days for the right for someone to go to the media—that is, to go public—in relation to an allegation of government waste or maladministration that a whistleblower has made and in the event that the relevant authority refuses or is unwilling to actually investigate that complaint. Bear in mind that the primary objective of this legislation is to provide the environment to encourage public sector persons to ensure that they come forward and disclose any maladministration or waste in the public sector, or something that is corrupt or illegal in public administration, and that it is in the public interest that they do so. They need to be protected in those circumstances and supported to ensure that they have an avenue to properly undertake their duty to make those reports. We had followed the 120 days as something that had been recommended by Mr Lander when he undertook a review of this matter and reported in 2014. Although that is abridged now to 90 days, we welcome the same. There is also a substantial increase in the penalties that relate to someone who attempts to interfere with the person's right to blow the whistle in respect of these matters. There was a third area under consideration by the other place, again sponsored by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, where she sought have a reward system introduced, commonly called a 'bounty' in this area of law reform, which has been rejected in other jurisdictions. In the consultation of this matter and including in the report of Mr Lander in 2014, he did not see a reward system as appropriate and we have maintained our view on that. I thank the opposition, that is, the ALP, for their support in rejecting that proposal because we want people in the public sector to be supported and protected through this process. We want them to come forward and step up as part of their responsibility to make sure these things come to light, but we also do not want them to be doing so in anticipation of some reward. That is not what this law is about. They have a duty, they have an obligation and we expect them to honour it. But we also know, especially after Mr Lander in his 2015 annual report reported, that of the 7,000 people he surveyed, one in four, which I think is just alarming, was reluctant to report corruption, misconduct or maladministration. Their most common concern at that stage was that there would be personal repercussions and their job. We completely understand, therefore, the need to ensure that if you have whistleblowing law, it has to actually work and that people have to feel secure in stepping up and undertaking their responsibility. We welcome the amendments that have been presented. I think this is momentous legislation that is going to pass this parliament. I thank the opposition, as I said, ultimately for supporting this. It has had a rocky road historically. It is an extremely significant day that this legislation has finally passed. If I were to give just one example, and I think it is important that I place it on the record, one of the most shocking cases that ever came to light in South Australia in the time I have been in the parliament in the last 16½ years was the Shannon McCoole case. He was a person who was employed in the then child protection area of the department of the former government. In 2014, the premier of the day made a public statement that this man had been charged with most foul charges in relation to child exploitation and pornography. Everyone knows about that. He then announced there would be a royal commission. Later, Ms Margaret Nyland was announced as the royal commissioner. As many members know, Mr McCoole was subsequently convicted. Obviously, very serious allegations were made about the extraordinary expanse of conduct he had undertaken whilst an employee of a government department providing services for children. Why is this so important to this legislation? If legislation had passed in light of the recommendations back in 2013 or 2014 to enable people to safely come forward and, if they were not listened to, were then able to go to the public, would we have been able to catch Shannon McCoole earlier? I say yes. I urge members to have a look at Commissioner Nyland's report and refresh their memories. She uses the McCoole case as an example of shocking child exploitation and pornographic offences. Justice Nyland catalogues, as a case study, the numerous times that colleagues of Mr McCoole from within the department stepped forward to try to alert authorities about his conduct. It was shameful that they were ignored—'Well, yes, there maybe something in it,' but it was not really followed up. This is what happens when good people step up and are not listened to. Today, we are passing historic legislation to ensure that people are protected when they do come forward and that, most importantly, they can go public if nobody listens. I thank the parliament for the debate on this matter. I welcome the amendments today and I look forward to the Governor's assent. Motion carried.