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

We might have to agree to disagree then because when I read the report it is in absolute black and white where the chair and the committee as a whole makes the observation repeatedly that in the absence of an exposure draft they are unable to look into these matters properly. Hence, that crucial recommendation—41—which is an overarching recommendation saying that before these proposals could be progressed there needed to be a detailed exposure draft, that it needed to be released for effective public and stakeholder consultation and then subject to effective parliamentary scrutiny. You and I can disagree, Minister, on our interpretations of this, but I would leave it to the public to have a look at that report and to see where things are expressed in black and white.

Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will ask another question of the government. Earlier today, the minister made the point that the reforms in this bill in no way are clamping down on whistleblowing in the public interest. In fact, this morning the minister referred to the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The shadow Attorney-General has also referred to it in this place today. My question to the government—and really, it only needs a 'yes' or a 'no'—is: isn't it the case that the Public Interest Disclosure Act specifically carves out intelligence material and intelligence officials from any of the protections afforded by the Public Interest Disclosure Act? I think that needs a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

See this speech in context