Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week, Australian Defence Force whistleblower David McBride was released on parole. I welcome this but say again that he shouldn't have been in prison in the first place. Remember, Mr McBride provided evidence detailing war crimes committed by ADF personnel in Afghanistan, helping inform the ABC's Afghan Files. Clearly, this was in the public interest, so he should have been lauded as a hero. But, instead, successive governments pursued him, eventually seeing him sentenced to five years and eight months in prison. No wonder so many of us are relieved that Mr McBride is now free. But his experience reflects a pattern of weak legal protections and a succession of antagonistic governments who'd rather punish whistleblowers than address their concerns, which brings me to the latest case—this government's ongoing pursuit of Hillsong whistleblower Natalie Moses, laid bare in last weekend's lengthy and accurate article in the Australian.

Deputy Speaker Haines, you may recall that in 2023 I tabled some 40,000 documents in this chamber provided to me by Natalie Moses, showing how Hillsong had broken laws related to fraud, money laundering and tax evasion. But getting there, or here, wasn't easy, and I can draw no other conclusion than that Ms Moses's lawyer and the government colluded in some way and that they tried to stop me publicising the egregious Hillsong misconduct.

For instance, Ms Moses recounts that, on the night of 9 September 2022, lawyer Josh Bornstein and the assistant minister for charities among other things crossed paths at a Labor function, which dovetails perfectly with me getting a text that night from Dr Leigh asking me to call Mr Bornstein, which I did. Mr Bornstein told me that Ms Moses no longer wanted the documents tabled. But these weren't Ms Moses's instructions to Mr Bornstein, which I didn't know at the time because Ms Moses was camping and uncontactable. In other words, Mr Bornstein and the government stand accused of colluding to silence a whistleblower.

To cut a long story short, Ms Moses was furious, and I tabled the documents six months later. That being the case, Mr Bornstein dropped Ms Moses as a client, claiming she had acted against his advice, and the brave whistleblower endured two psychological breakdowns and was left scrambling for new lawyers. She's now suing the federal government over the minister's conduct, as well as the head of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission for whistleblower victimisation under the Corporations Act. I wish Ms Moses well, because, as she has said, she has been put through the wringer by politicians who were meant to care about her.

Between Mr McBride and Ms Moses, the pattern is unmistakable. This government says it values whistleblowers, but its actions say otherwise.