Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2017. This bill and the associated amendments that have been circulated represent a significant leap forward in protecting whistleblowers in Australia and set a world benchmark in many areas. While there may be some room for improvement, we should, as a parliament, pass this bill and pass it without delay. In doing so, we would recognise the enormous amount of work that has gone into it over the past two years. Importantly, passing the bill now will give corporate Australia food for thought over the holiday period as to how to implement the bill's whistleblower protection provisions in its workplaces in the coming year. It will also give Australians confidence that, with the help of conscientious employees, the type of disgraceful conduct that we've seen in the corporate sector, which has been flushed out by the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, will become a thing of the past.

I shall speak more about the royal commission in a moment, but let me just say now that the evidence given by the NAB chair, Ken Henry, at the commission last week illustrates what we are up against and why this bill is so important. In an appearance widely condemned by commentators and both mainstream and social media, Dr Henry told the commission that the reforms of the financial sector might take up a to decade to implement. He also stated that the main function of a board is to maximise profits for the company. Clearly, at the NAB board level, when it comes to consuming food for thought, there is little appetite for change.

If passed today, this bill will empower employees in corporations to call out unethical behaviour in their workplaces without fear of repercussion. This bill is part of a process that will, in due course, make Australia the world leader in whistleblower protection in the public, corporate, not-for-profit and union sectors. It's something the parliament has been working on for several years, starting with the rather weak provisions in the Public Service Act. This was followed by a move to a more substantive but still wanting Public Interest Disclosure Act, the PID Act, in 2013. The intention of the PID Act was to encourage officials to report suspected wrongdoing in the Australian public sector, and it gave whistleblowers protection against reprisal action. The government began work on similar provisions for the private sector in mid-2016. It was a commendable step, in both instances, although in both instances the provisions did not equate to world's best practice.

Similar protections were also legislated in the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act, which was passed in November 2016. These protections were added as an amendment by my predecessor, former senator Nick Xenophon. In his speech on the second reading, former Senator Xenophon noted an undertaking by the government to support a parliamentary inquiry into implementing the same level of protection across the corporate and public sectors. In September 2017, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services published a unanimous report on whistleblower protections in the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors. The drafting of this particular bill and the consultation on it were already underway when that report was published.

Whilst the government hasn't yet responded to the parliamentary joint committee report, this bill addresses some 32 of the 35 recommendations. Senator Hume alluded to some of the areas where we still need to do some further work. The three substantive recommendations are not addressed in this bill, as was pointed out, including having a single private sector act, introducing a rewards scheme for whistleblowers and establishing an independent whistleblower protection authority. However, as I stated at the onset, parliament can deal with those matters in due course.

One of my first duties as a senator was to be a participating member of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill in February. At its conclusion, I submitted a dissenting report that contained 12 recommendations. They were recommendations that the Centre Alliance felt were necessary to fulfil an agreement Senator Xenophon made with the government in 2016 to pass the registered organisations bill. In the course of this year, I met with government ministers on numerous occasions to discuss our position on its corporate tax and whistleblower protection reforms. At this point, I'd like to acknowledge Professor AJ Brown, who has been most helpful in an informal fashion in my office. He was in the gallery yesterday but is not here this morning. It's evident from the meetings I had and from the ongoing engagement we had in relation to this issue that the government and Centre Alliance were both committed to improving the protections afforded to whistleblowers, who provide an invaluable service to society, often at a great personal cost. It's critically important to me, as I know it is to the government and all of us in this chamber, that we get the whistleblower protection framework correct. We need to ensure that a strong deterrent against wrongdoing exists. We also need to ensure that, if deterrent fails, more whistleblowers will be encouraged to come forward to expose wrongdoing and that they are protected when doing so. While not all of my suggestions have been adopted, Centre Alliance is sufficiently satisfied with these amendments. I'd call it a nine out of 10, but in the nine the government actually gave a bit more than we perhaps asked for, so, overall, I must thank the government for working with us on that.

The amendments include the adoption of the first two recommendations in the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report. The first of those was to require that the minister cause a review to be undertaken of the operation of the whistleblower laws, as soon as practical, five years after the amendments commence, and that the minister must table a report on the review outcomes in the parliament. The second was to amend the definition of 'journalist' to make it clear that public broadcasters are not excluded from the legislation.

The result of my specific negotiations with the government has achieved the following outcomes. Firstly, the definition of an 'eligible recipient' in the bill has been amended so that it's limited to senior managers rather than supervisors and managers. That basically removes some burden on companies to have everyone completely trained in the provisions. The explanatory memorandum has been amended to ensure that whistleblowers are able to make disclosures to an internal auditor. Individual personnel, employment or workplace grievances are now specifically not protected under this act unless they are a grievance raised under the civil remedy or victimisation provisions under this bill. We don't want to have people using whistleblower protections to raise what are effectively workplace issues. The existing emergency disclosure provisions have been amended to create a new public interest disclosure provision. This will be done using the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 test, the PID Act test, as a reference point and adapting that to the corporate context. That is, there will be a public interest limb and an emergency limb.

The proposed amendments will remove the requirement to wait a reasonable time under the emergency limb, but it will remain in the public interest limb. This is consistent with the PID Act, which refers to the time limit for investigations of a disclosure for the public interest limb only. The main difference in the proposed amendments is that the PID Act is under the emergency limb. A discloser will need to have first made the disclosure to a regulator and will need to notify the regulator prior to making an emergency disclosure, and there is no need to wait a reasonable time. The PID Act allows for emergency disclosures to be made without first making the disclosure internally in exceptional circumstances. The definition of 'reasonable time' for emergency disclosures will be defined in the bill as a fixed 90-day period rather than a reasonable period. ASIC and APRA have both been consulted on this.

Information that may be disclosed under an emergency disclosure has been amended so that it is consistent with the PID Act. This includes a requirement that the extent of the information disclosed in the emergency disclosure is no greater than is necessary to inform the recipient of the danger. A similar limitation will apply to public interest disclosures so that only so much information is disclosed as is necessary to inform the recipient of the relevant misconduct or the improper state of affairs.

The belief or suspicion requirement in the bill has been amended so it does not hinge on state of mind. The burden of proof section makes it clearer that the claimant only needs to prove that detriment was suffered, not the state of mind of the defendant. The tax regime will also mirror this amendment. The term 'victimising conduct' has been replaced with 'detrimental conduct'. This amendment will also be mirrored in the tax regime.

A new subsection in both the corporate and tax regimes has been created that provides an avenue for whistleblowers to claim compensation or other remedies on the basis that they have suffered detriment because the company breached a duty to them. The explanatory memorandum has been amended to provide for circumstances in which a court may make an order for compensation. The bill has been amended to clarify the considerations a court may take into account when awarding compensation, and, finally, the explanatory memorandum has been amended to clarify the factors that may be considered when a court is determining whether a claim can be made.

I am wholeheartedly convinced that the bill before us will usher in a new era of accountability in Australia's corporate sector. For evidence of this, we need look no further than the experience of the Commonwealth Bank whistleblower Jeff Morris. Mr Morris studied economics and law at the University of Sydney and is a certified financial planner. He has had nearly 30 years experience working in financial services, including as a tax manager at NatWest Bank and Deloitte & Touche chartered accountants, as a financial consultant with the firm Towers Perrin, and as vice president of investment bank Bankers Trust Australia. In 2008, Mr Morris joined Commonwealth Financial Planning and soon became concerned about the severe losses and emotional distress being suffered by many elderly and vulnerable clients due to the poor advice they had received. In October of that year he blew the whistle to the corporate regulator ASIC in relation to the financial planner Don Nguyen and Commonwealth Financial Planning.

In June 2013, Mr Morris again blew the whistle on ASIC itself, which for 16 months had failed to act on facts sent by whistleblowers. As many here know, this led to a Senate inquiry into ASIC by the economics references committee that same year. Among the committee's final recommendations were that an independent inquiry be held 'possibly in the form of a judicial inquiry or royal commission', principally to:

… examine the actions of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) in relation to the misconduct of advisers and planners within the CBA's financial planning businesses and the allegations of a cover up.

It was also a recommendation that such an inquiry:

… make recommendations about ASIC and any regulatory or legislative reforms that may be required.

If we fast forward to today, it's fair to say that Mr Morris's actions as a whistleblower provided much of the momentum for this year's Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. The evidence heard at the royal commission has shocked and outraged Australians. I refer to forged documents, bribery, loans to customers without verifying their living expenses, selling insurance to people who couldn't afford it, lying to regulators and charging fees to clients who had died. These are just a few of the revelations from the royal commission which, for many years in this parliament, it was claimed we didn't need to have. Commissioner Hayne's damning interim report in September also took issue with the performance of ASIC. In the executive summary, the royal commissioner wrote:

Much more often than not, when misconduct was revealed, little happened beyond apology from the entity, a drawn out remediation program and protracted negotiation with ASIC of a media release, an infringement notice, or an enforceable undertaking that acknowledged no more than that ASIC had reasonable 'concerns' about the entity's conduct. Infringement notices imposed penalties that were immaterial for the large banks. Enforceable undertakings might require a 'community benefit payment', but the amount was far less than the penalty that ASIC could properly have asked a court to impose.

The whole of Australia eagerly awaits Commissioner Hayne's final report and his recommendations—perhaps with the exception of Dr Henry and those of his ilk. And I contend that, without whistleblowers like Mr Morris and, of course, Ms O'Dowd, who is in the gallery here now, it is less likely that there would have ever been a royal commission.

This bill ultimately recognises the importance of whistleblowers like Mr Morris and what they can do to make Australia a fairer and better place. It puts the corporate sector on notice that whistleblowers with courage and integrity now have a raft of protections to support them in calling out skulduggery in high places. It also serves as a portent to any unethical practitioners in the public sector, the not-for-profit sector and the trade union movement that they are next, as Australia strives to rid itself of corruption from the inside out.

Before I conclude, I'd like to acknowledge the work of former Senator Xenophon; Mr Steve Irons MP and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services; the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer MP, who had primary carriage of the negotiations; the Hon. Stuart Robert, who has assisted in finalising the amendments; and last but not least, as I said before, Professor AJ Brown. This bill does represent a team effort, and we should be proud of what we have achieved.

This is the culmination of great work by the Senate, from Senate inquiries through to the joint parliamentary inquiries, to difficult and tough negotiations that I had with Minister O'Dwyer. And I might say: those negotiations were tough. There were times when I was summoned to her office; there were times when I ignored her phone calls—all the normal stuff we do in negotiations in the back rooms of this building. But you know what? We got to a really good ending. And, once again, I thank Minister O'Dwyer for her efforts. We've actually come up with a really good piece of legislation. It's not perfect, but it will have an enduring effect on corporate Australia and the ethical conduct of those businesses, and I commend it to the Senate.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, am pleased to make a contribution to the second reading debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2017. And while he's still here, I acknowledge the contribution of Senator Patrick, not just to this debate but to the whole process. It's pleasing to hear that it's not just my phone calls you ignore, but also ministers' as well! But it is an important piece of legislation. As Senator Patrick and other contributors—Senator Hume, as well—outlined, it has been a long road for those who have been a part of this process to get to this point.

Turning to the key provisions of the bill before going through a bit of the background and some of the reasons why: in broad terms, it is important to provide these protections as whistleblowing is a big part of public debate in Australian politics. As I heard Senator Hume mention just before about the current landscape with regard to protections available to whistleblowers and the laws relating to how they're dealt with, the two words that come to mind are 'fragmented' and 'confusing'. They're difficult to navigate, and, as a result, the protections available are lacking, are ineffective and, therefore, act as a deterrent to those who might otherwise out the conduct we've been referring to here. Senator Patrick mentioned the royal commission into the banking sector—a very good example of why we should have in place mechanisms for the private sector when it comes to making sure people are held to account while also acting within the confines of the law.

The bill before us in effect introduces new protections into two separate acts. Firstly, the Corporations Act 2001 will be amended to create a single, strengthened whistleblower protection regime that covers the corporate and financial credit sectors. Secondly, the Taxation Administration Act 1953 will be amended to add new protections to tax whistleblowers who report tax misconduct. These are two very important areas that I'm pleased to see are going to be addressed as part of this legislation.

Part 1 of the bill strengthens protections for corporate whistleblowers by expanding the protections to a broader class of persons. It also expands the list of disclosures that can be protected. It extends the protections to cover third-party disclosures in certain circumstances and provides greater protection of whistleblower confidentiality, which is incredibly important. We've seen situations where that certainly hasn't been the case. It improves access to compensation for whistleblowers because ultimately, as we've seen, there is a cost associated with undertaking the act of a whistleblower. It is creating a new penalty offence so that law enforcement agencies will be better able to take enforcement action and it introduces a whistleblower policy requirement for all large companies.

The bill also amalgamates the protections contained in several acts into the Corporations Act, in effect creating a bit of a one-stop shop. The consolidation covers the following acts: the ASIC Act 2001, the Banking Act 1959, the Insurance Act 1973, the Life Insurance Act 1995, the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, as well as adding protections for conduct that contravenes the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 and the Financial Services (Collection of Data) Act 2001, which were not covered under the existing law.

The second part of the bill introduces new protections for those tax whistleblowers in the Taxation Administration Act 1953, which are broadly consistent with the enhanced protections under the Corporations Act, so we have a consistent approach there, and will facilitate disclosures about tax misconduct. As others have said, it does strike the right balance between ensuring and encouraging genuine whistleblowers do come forward while also removing the protections for vexatious complaints, which I heard Senator Patrick talking about in his contribution. We will make sure people don't use these mechanisms to raise, in effect, vexatious complaints and do damage that they should otherwise not be doing.

I'll just go to the background, the road to where we are today with regard to this piece of legislation and the much needed protections that they do now bring into place. Obviously, anyone who has followed the whistleblower public debate understands that it is described as a public good. People who blow the whistle on misconduct, on corrupt behaviour, are performing an essential function in the community, so therefore they are deserving of protection. There have been a number of pieces of work undertaken by parliamentary committees. A quick glance has shown that we had the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services table their report, Whistleblower protections, which I'll come to shortly, about the importance of whistleblowers; the Senate Standing Committee on Economics with its final report on the performance of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission; Treasury's review of tax and corporate whistleblower protections in Australia; the Moss review, which reviewed the Public Interest Disclosure Act in 2013; and the Brown and Lawrence report on the strength of organisational whistleblowing processes, just to name but a few. I can come back a little later to some of the work that was done in those reports.

Turning first to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Finance Services and their Whistleblower protections report of September last year, chapter 2 provides some context to this whole issue. It goes into the issue of why whistleblowing is important in the Australian political and financial landscape. The report says:

The key arguments for establishing effective whistleblower protections are essentially based on a view put by numerous submitters and witnesses that whistleblowing was critical in fostering a culture of transparency, accountability, and integrity.

It goes on to cite an example provided by Ms Serene Lillywhite, who, at that time, was the CEO of the organisation Transparency International. She indicated in her submission to the inquiry that:

Further:

Another submitter, Mr Jordan Thomas, in his submission to the same inquiry pointed out:

… that whistleblowers perform a vital service to both markets and organisations because:

Indeed, some of those I will look to a little later in the debate.

Further evidence in that particular inquiry, from the Australian Federal Police—which is interesting to take the point of view of a law enforcement agency and how they deal with these issues:

… informed the committee that whistleblowers are important in detecting serious financial crime that is often sophisticated, well concealed, and part of a culture of cover-up.

Again, this is referring to the banking royal commission. The misconduct that has been talked about, the shocking findings, the terrible actions that were perpetrated by many have been uncovered there, which is in line with what the AFP are saying with regard to their submission to this particular inquiry. The AFP noted:

… that due to the complex nature of serious financial crime there is often a low risk of discovery by regulators and law enforcement unless whistleblowers are supported in coming forward. The sorts of matters where whistleblowers may inform investigations include foreign bribery, serious tax crime, identity crime, corporate and government corruption matters and serious fraud offences.

The AFP went on to argue that:

If people are discouraged from coming forward to regulators or law enforcement due to lack of protections for their safety, protection from legal action and the personal and financial impacts of disclosing company information, there may be no case to prosecute. Where people do come forward, but are not willing to give evidence, due to lack of protection for anonymity, law enforcement may not have sufficient evidence to prosecute. This may not be fixed solely by enhancing protections as court procedures can only go so far in protecting witness identity.

Whether or not improved whistleblower protections would encourage people to come forward and disclose wrongdoing would depend on how the system is framed, and whether the public has the confidence that the system can ensure any protections.

Of course, another submitter said:

The Governance Institute of Australia … argued that whistleblowing has a critical role to play in identifying and stopping misconduct in the corporate sector, but it is only one aspect of companies' overall programs to ensure compliance with regulation and to prevent and detect misconduct …

Obviously, it is an issue that these submitters, those people who participated in that inquiry and provided evidence, agree should not be taken lightly; therefore, work needs to be put in, and that's why this legislation is critically important.

The current landscape, as has been discussed, is fragmented and confusing, which is why we saw the need to reform it and why submissions were made to various inquiries, including the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into this particular piece of legislation. Currently in Australia we have protections under three main pieces of legislation. There are state and territory protections as well, of course, and I'll turn to the Tasmanian laws shortly. Federally, as has already been referred to in this debate, we have the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, the PID Act; the Corporations Act; and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. The PID Act has application across the Commonwealth Public Service, statutory agencies and other Commonwealth authorities, the Defence Force and contracted service providers for Commonwealth contracts. It applies, in the main, to disclosures made within government—that is, disclosures to 'authorised internal recipients'. In this situation, whistleblowers can disclose directly to their supervisors as well as to the authorised internal recipient of the relevant agency, which is prescribed in the legislation and set out in whatever arrangements apply to the relevant agency. The authorised recipient can include the Commonwealth Ombudsman if it's considered appropriate. Of course, circumstances would vary from agency to agency.

In addition to internal disclosure, it's possible to make a disclosure externally, such as to the media or to a member of parliament, providing certain conditions are met. Whistleblowers, under this legislation, are protected if they go public believing on reasonable grounds that an investigation into the internal disclosure was inadequate and if wider disclosure satisfies public interest requirements, which, of course, are set out in the legislation.

Turning to protections under the act, should an individual make a public interest disclosure as defined under the act, there will be protection for that individual from any civil, criminal or administrative liability, and no contractual or other remedy or right may be enforced or exercised against the individual on the basis of that disclosure. Conduct is disclosable if it falls within the broad concept of wrongdoing in the public sector. Disclosable conduct includes conduct which unreasonably results in danger to the health or safety of one or more persons; unreasonably results in, or increases a risk of, danger to the health of one or more persons; contravenes Australian law; constitutes maladministration; or involves a waste of government money. That, of course, is something we should all be avoiding. As has been mentioned already, the Moss review investigated the effectiveness of public interest disclosure legislation and highlighted that it had only been partially successful for a number of reasons.

Turning to current protections federally with regard to the private sector, we've got the Corporations Act 2001. Current protections for whistleblower disclosures in the corporate sector are contained in part 9.4AAA of that act, which was introduced as part of a suite of reforms in 2004. We've also got protections for public interest disclosures concerning misconduct or an improper state of affairs or circumstances affecting the institutions supervised by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA, in the following acts: the Banking Act, the Insurance Act, the Life Insurance Act and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—those pieces of legislation that I said earlier on were being consolidated under one piece of legislation. I also mentioned the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. In 2016 this parliament passed amendments to that act, strengthening whistleblower protections for people who report on corruption or misconduct in unions and employer organisations. The amendments were part of an agreement negotiated by the government with the Senate crossbench to establish the new Registered Organisations Commission and strengthen the governance of trade unions.

That is a bit of a snapshot of the lie of the land federally. As has been pointed out by a number of reviews, including the Senate inquiry which finally led to this piece of legislation we have before us, there were improvements to be made, and so here we are making them.

I will turn now to Tasmania, where the issue of whistleblowing is very regularly talked about in the public debate. We have a number of local identities who have spent a lot of time advocating for changes to whistleblower laws and increased protections. In Tassie we have the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2002. The purpose of that act is to encourage and facilitate the making of disclosures of improper conduct by public officers or public bodies; to protect persons who make such disclosures, and others, from reprisals; to provide for the matters which are disclosed to be properly investigated and dealt with; and to provide all parties involved in such disclosures with natural justice.

Disclosures about improper conduct can be made to the Integrity Commission of Tasmania, to the Ombudsman or directly to the relevant agency. Of course, we do have an Integrity Commission, which was set up five or six years ago and is the entity which deals with the majority of public sector related claims of misconduct. We've seen some very interesting findings from that body over recent times. It does have a great range of powers at its disposal to deal with the problems that have been raised by those making the complaint. It's good to see entities like that operating effectively. In some cases the act in Tasmania requires that certain disclosures can be made directly to the Ombudsman—for example, if it's a complaint relating to Tasmania Police. A disclosure about the commissioner for police could be made to the Ombudsman. Generally, though, disclosures about improper conduct are made to the Integrity Commission.

An act of improper conduct, under the Tasmanian legislation, has a very similar definition to that in the federal laws we are talking about here. But, again, the findings of the royal commission and the awful things that we've heard about in the public debate prove the point as to why this legislation is so critically important and why we need to do the best we can by those in our community, particularly in the private sector, who are willing to stand up and speak out against acts of misconduct and corruption. Providing them with protections, a better mechanism, a more straightforward and streamlined approach to the laws relating to whistleblowing, is an excellent thing to be doing, and it is pleasing to be speaking on this legislation here at the end of the parliamentary year. Like Senator Patrick and Senator Hume, I commend this bill to the Senate and thank those senators who've had a huge hand in putting it together—in particular, Senator Patrick—for their work on this. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's good to follow my good friend Senator Duniam. I join with him in thanking all of those senators who have played a part in bringing us to this point where we will be passing a very important piece of legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2017. This bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to strengthen Australia's corporate and tax whistleblower protections. Corporate crime is estimated to cost Australia more than $8.5 billion a year and account for approximately 40 per cent of the total cost of crime in Australia. Whistleblowing plays a critical role in uncovering this criminal activity as well as misconduct. It may also improve poor compliance cultures by ensuring that companies, officers and staff know the risk of misconduct being reported is far higher. Strengthening protections to allow whistleblowers to come forward will assist regulators to receive information earlier, to investigate contraventions, to take appropriate enforcement action, to limit the risk of loss to investors, and to ensure trust and confidence in the integrity of the corporate and financial system.

However, whilst legislative protections have formed part of the Corporations Act since 2004, they have been used sparingly and are increasingly perceived as being inadequate given recent advances in whistleblower protections in the public sector and overseas. Independent reviews of corporate sector whistleblowing provisions in Australia have found that they lag those of the public sector and those of comparable overseas jurisdictions. There was an independent evaluation of G20 countries' whistleblowing laws which was undertaken in 2014, and a separate assessment of those same laws was undertaken by the Senate Economics References Committee as part of its 2014 inquiry into the performance of ASIC. They both found that the current corporate whistleblower protections are overly narrow and make it unnecessarily difficult for those with information to qualify for protections.

The committee made a number of recommendations. It recommended a comprehensive review of Australia's corporate whistleblower framework, which would bring it closer to Australia's public sector whistleblower framework under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. To remedy these inadequacies, the government committed, in December 2016, as part of the Open Government National Action Plan, to ensuring appropriate protections are in place for people who report corruption, fraud, tax evasion or avoidance, and misconduct within the corporate sector. In order to achieve this, the government committed to improve whistleblower protections for people who disclose information about tax misconduct to the ATO. It also committed to pursuing reforms to whistleblower protections in other parts of the corporate sector, with consultation on options to strengthen and harmonise these protections with those in the public sector available under the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

Further, there are no specific protections for tax whistleblowers, and the range of secrecy and privacy provisions relied upon are incapable of guaranteeing absolute protection. That is why the government announced, in December 2016, as part of the Open Government National Action Plan, that it would ensure appropriate protections are in place for people who report corruption, fraud, tax evasion or avoidance and misconduct within the corporate sector. To be very specific, the government committed to introducing whistleblower protections for people who disclose information about tax misconduct to the Australian Taxation Office and strengthening and harmonising corporate whistleblower protections with those available in the public sector.

The commitment in the Open Government National Action Plan also reaffirmed the very important 2016-17 budget announcement made by the Liberal-National government that it would introduce new arrangements to better protect individuals who disclose information to the Australian Taxation Office on tax avoidance behaviour and other issues and to further strengthen the integrity of Australia's tax system. I'm very pleased to say that the bill that we are debating today in the Senate delivers on those commitments. Given the lack of protections for tax whistleblowers and the need to strengthen protections for other whistleblowers in the corporate sector, the government is progressing these reforms in parallel, including introducing them as part of the same legislation. This will ensure consistency in protections where it makes sense to do so.

Part 1 of this bill will strengthen protections for corporate whistleblowers by expanding protections to a broader class of persons. It will expand disclosures that can be protected. It will extend protections to cover emergency and public interest disclosures, subject to preconditions and excluding from protection disclosures of purely personal work related grievances. It will also improve civil remedies for whistleblowers, creating new civil penalties to make enforcement action easier and introducing a whistleblower policy requirement for all large companies. The bill amalgamates these protections from several acts into the Corporation Act, which is a good piece of consolidation. The consolidation will cover the Corporations Act, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, the Banking Act 1959, the Insurance Act 1973, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. As well as this, it will add protections for conduct that contravenes the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 and the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001, which are not covered under the existing law. It's a significant consolidation across a range of Commonwealth legislation. Part 2 of this bill will introduce new protections for tax whistleblowers under the taxation law. These protections are broadly consistent with the enhanced protections under the Corporations Act and will facilitate disclosures about tax misconduct.

Together, these reforms will help to protect whistleblowers who may, in some circumstances, expose themselves to significant personal and financial risk in return for their critical role in the early detection and prosecution of misconduct in businesses and the avoidance or evasion of tax liabilities. Benefits will also be derived by the Australian business community, as we believe the reforms will encourage improved corporate governance and integrity, through the whistleblower policy prescription for large companies, and increase the likelihood of misconduct being reported. It will lead, hopefully, to better standards and better governance.

The measures contained in this bill have been extensively consulted upon and have the very strong support of a number of peak industry bodies and regulators, including ASIC, the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Federal Police. The government welcomes the further consideration of the adequacy of the government's legislative, institutional and policy framework for addressing whistleblower protections by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services and the good work that was done by that committee in its inquiry into whistleblower protections in the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report, Whistleblower protections, which was tabled in the parliament on 13 September 2017, with a corrigendum tabled on 14 September 2017, made 35 recommendations. The Australian government acknowledges the committee's observation that effective whistleblower protection frameworks foster integrity and accountability while deterring and exposing misconduct, fraud and corruption.

The government is committed to strengthening the whistleblower frameworks for the public, corporate and tax sectors and welcomes evidence based discussion of opportunities to enhance whistleblower protections and effective handling of allegations of wrongdoing at the Commonwealth level. This bill addresses many of the recommendations made in this report. The government is considering the remaining recommendations of this report and will respond to all recommendations in due course.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the support and dedication of Senator Rex Patrick, who has—as Senator Duniam pointed out in his contribution—worked very closely with the government to bring about several of the government amendments to the bill. It's evident that Senator Patrick is aligned with the government's commitment to improve the protections available to whistleblowers, who provide an invaluable service to the wider community.

In summary, we believe that this is a very important reform. It's a long overdue reform. It will involve significant consolidation of a number of pieces of legislation. We think it will improve the ability of whistleblowers to blow the whistle on misconduct and fraud. I want to thank those who have contributed to the bill and I want to thank those who have contributed to this debate. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.