Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I also stand in support of this suspension of standing orders motion. I appreciate that the government has a desire to increase the protection of whistleblowers and has commenced this process. Last year, when the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 was being discussed, the crossbench urged the government to improve protections for whistleblowers with a whistleblower protection authority. Some changes have been made to whistleblower protection, but clearly not enough, so we find ourselves in this extraordinary situation with David McBride on trial this week.

I acknowledge the Attorney-General's point that his power to intervene should only be applied in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. It's only been exercised once in 100 years. The question here is really whether these are exceptional circumstances. I think the government finds itself in a difficult position of its own making, because that whistleblower protection wasn't extended last year at the time when the crossbench was pushing for that. This appears to be exceptional. Mr McBride has done everything right: he told the truth, he showed courage and now he's paying the price. Earlier in his defence in the proceedings against him, Mr McBride sought to rely on the Public Interest Disclosure Act to introduce evidence and to defend himself in that prosecution. But the Commonwealth made an application under public interest immunity to prevent that evidence from being introduced in court, which, as Mr McBride has said, made his Public Interest Disclosure Act application and the conduct of his defence impossible. These circumstances are extraordinary, and so I call upon the Attorney-General to intervene because these are extraordinary circumstances, and to assure the Australian people that in our democracy whistleblowers will receive the appropriate protections.

See this speech in context