Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

These amendments are broadly consistent with the amendments moved previously by the Democrats and subsequently withdrawn. The main difference, as I see it, between the amendments moved by the Australian Labor Party and those moved by the Democrats is that the ALP amendments are slightly narrower in that they do not extend protection to disclosures made by friends of people receiving residential care. For the same reasons as were outlined in relation to the Democrat amendments, however, the government does not support these amendments. I touched on that in my summing up speech earlier.

The government considers that there is a major difference between staff and approved providers on the one hand and people such as residents, families and advocates on the other. The reason for that is that approved providers and staff are required by law to make reports to the police and the department, whereas the other group of people that I have described are not. We have one group, the staff and providers, who have to report. The other group, which is made up of residents, families and advocates, do not have to report. Where there is a duty imposed on someone, we believe there should be reciprocal protection in relation to that duty of disclosure.

The other group that does not have that duty can make reports confidentially or anonymously and can thereby avoid any action at common law. As has been noted in numerous reports relating to whistleblowing, anonymity is one of the strongest protections available to people who make disclosures. This option is not available to approved providers under the new compulsory reporting requirements. That justifies putting in place protections for those providers. Those providers cannot make a report anonymously, whereas the other group that I have described can—the friends, residents and advocates.

We have available the common law, which provides various protections under public interest and truth. The common law, as we have seen, provides a sound basis for protecting any action where someone has a basis for making that report—that is, if you want to not do it anonymously. I think that that is an appropriate balance. Nonetheless, this will be the subject of monitoring. The government does not agree to these amendments for those reasons, but of course all of this will be monitored, as I mentioned earlier.