Page 2209 - Week 07 - Thursday, 27 August 2020

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


MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (11.23): I am pleased to start the debate today on this bill and to reflect on what an important section of our legislation public interest disclosure law is. We welcome the amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act that seek to further embed a pro-disclosure environment for our public servants and the wider public.

As members are aware, we have certainly sought to improve the integrity, oversight and transparency of government operations for many years. We have campaigned on freedom of information reforms and the creation of an independent integrity commission, and we have been proud to support the successful implementation of these reforms in the fabric of government.

We believe that a healthy democracy requires probity, transparency and accountability in all aspects of government, including government departments, government-owned entities and statutory authorities, and we will continue to seek open and transparent access to government information, including a clear presumption of proactive disclosure as part of a robust freedom of information system. Today’s amendments are an ongoing evolution of this approach, and we will be supporting them.

The bill and revised supplementary amendments are the result of close observation of the existing scheme, a dedicated and professional review, and of course a response to the creation of the Integrity Commission. Central to these amendments is the requirement that all disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act be forwarded to the Integrity Commissioner, creating a single point of oversight for serious wrongdoing disclosures and recognising the Integrity Commission as the pre-eminent integrity body in the ACT.

In essence, the Integrity Commissioner would determine if they wished to deal with a matter, dismiss it or refer it to another body. This should provide greater comfort to the community that, similar to the reportable conduct scheme, issues of concern are being considered in a systematic fashion as well as on the merits of each individual complaint or disclosure. The amendments will also provide a greater level of clarity and certainty for the public service in defining roles and responsibilities, as well as terms.

The meaning of the term “disclosable conduct” in section 8 of the PID Act has been amended to remove overlap with the definition of “corrupt conduct” as set out in the Integrity Commission Act. The focus of disclosable conduct is now on maladministration and substantial and specific dangers to public health or safety, or the environment. This is sensible and ensures that the right pathways for review and complaint resolution are utilised to avoid, wherever possible, inappropriate referrals.

A new clause clearly identifies that disclosure officers will receive disclosures of disclosable conduct rather than public interest disclosures, reflecting again the important role of the Integrity Commissioner in determining the threshold for an actual public interest disclosure.


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