Tuesday, 24 November 2015
Migration Amendment (Charging for a Migration Outcome) Bill 2015; In Committee
I thank the minister for the answer. The issue is this: it is a question of degree. Sometimes a whistleblower may have done the wrong thing and, of course, that is to be condemned. But if the transgression of the whistleblower pales into insignificance with the information that the whistleblower is providing, then I wonder whether that ought to be taken into account, and also the circumstances for the transgression on the part of the whistleblower if, for instance, there was coercion, if there was intimidation or a whole range of other circumstances that led to the whistleblower doing the wrong thing, to put it colloquially. I wonder whether that should be taken into account. I am just wondering whether the ministerial discretion is now excluded in terms of the protection of the whistleblower by virtue of a transgression on the part of the whistleblower which may really pale into insignificance compared with the information that is being disclosed, information that may well be acted on by the department if there is malfeasance or other wrongful conduct involved.