Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Minister, that I am labouring this point. An observer might think it a bit self-indulgent that members of parliament are talking about the need for greater protection for members of parliament, but I am only using the example of you and me—or someone in this place—because I think it is a very helpful way of understanding a flaw in the bill.

The amendment accepts—and I agree—that journalists have a very important role to publicise wrongdoing. I agree with you. It is legitimate that journalists should have protection. But in what the government is trying to achieve here, with the support of the opposition, the logic is breaking down somewhere. If we agree that journalists should have protection so that they can effectively publicise wrongdoing, then surely my standing up here and ventilating a concern expressed to me privately by a constituent about, say, misconduct in a Public Service department, is equally important. And that source of information surely should have the same protection as the source who might go to a journalist instead.

For example, let's say someone rings me up from the Department of Veterans' Affairs this afternoon and tells me of a serious wrongdoing in DVA. If I think, 'Okay, that's very important,' I might jump up here next Monday and take the opportunity afforded me to describe that wrongdoing in DVA. The chances are that someone, somewhere is going to ask who made a call from a DVA number to my number today. I am sure you can see what I am getting at. It is an example. Why shouldn't the source of information in DVA—in that example—have just as much protection as someone who might have gone to a journalist?

See this speech in context