Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was very pleased to attend last week the first function of the Parliamentary Friends of Whistleblowers, of which I am very, very happy to be a co-chair. I acknowledge the other co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Whistleblowers—namely, Senator David Pocock, Senator Deborah O'Neill and Andrew Wilkie MP. I also note that in attendance was Senator Shoebridge of the Australian Greens and Senator McKenzie of the National Party of Australia. We had the benefit of hearing at this important function from a number of outstanding Australians who are providing assistance to whistleblowers. Those outstanding Australians include Mr Kieran Pender, the associate legal director of the Whistleblower Project of the Human Rights Law Centre, and also from Mr Gabriel Shipton, founder of the Information Rights Project. We also heard from the wonderful Adele Ferguson AM of the ABC. Adele Ferguson is one of Australia's most highly awarded investigative journalists. She's also a two-time winner of the Gold Walkley, the nation's highest journalism honour.

I'd like to place on record excerpts from Adele Ferguson's speech. She said: 'The launch of the Parliamentary Friends of Whistleblowers sends a signal that protecting those who speak up is not optional; it is foundational to democracy. And it begins with a simple truth: without whistleblowers, many of the most important public interest stories and scandals exposed in this country would never have been told. As an investigative journalist, some of the most significant stories I've worked on, stories that changed laws, returned hundreds of millions of dollars to exploited workers and victims of financial abuse, triggered parliamentary inquiries and helped lead to a royal commission, began with people who saw something wrong and chose not to stay silent. The banking scandals that led to the royal commission started with insiders who exposed forgery, fraud and cover-ups. The wage theft scandal at 7-Eleven back in 2015 was so powerful and undeniable because workers and advocates spoke up and someone inside the head office was willing to provide spreadsheets showing just how widespread the noncompliance was. The banning of engineered stone, those shiny kitchen benchtops, after workers developed silicosis from the deadly dust relied on insiders who revealed how warnings were ignored.'

It goes on to mention the cosmetic surgery investigation and systemic weaknesses in Medicare. Ms Ferguson also refers to the childcare expose that exposed systemic failures in that $20 billion sector. She goes on and says this about the whistleblowers: 'In each of my investigations, the public saw the headlines and the reforms that followed. What they didn't see and what I got to see in some cases were the months and sometimes years of fear, isolation and personal risk faced by the brave whistleblowers who decided to speak up. Over the years, I've had whistleblowers call me in tears, I've watched strong people fall apart from the stress and I've seen families go through enormous upheaval because their partner chose to act in the public interest. The public sees the reforms; they rarely see the human cost.'

What are we to do in relation to our whistleblowers? One of the things we need to do urgently is establish a whistleblower protection authority. I previously advocated both in this chamber and through my committee work, as have others in this place, for the establishment of a whistleblower protection authority. Why? Let me give you the answer from one of Australia's outstanding whistleblowers, Mr Shelton, who worked for Securency and Note Printing Australia between 2007 and 2008. He joined as a business development manager but quickly ascertained that part of his business role was to actually solicit businesses through corrupt payments.

He refused to do so, and he also brought it to the attention of the authorities, who, for a disgracefully long period of time, failed to act. This is why Mr Shelton says that we need a whistleblower protection authority:

An independent whistleblower protection authority, which could provide a guide, a way forward and a pathway on what you will experience, what's going to come up and what you will feel, and also provide some support services, would have made the world of difference to me. It's too late for me, but, for others who come after, yes—100 per cent—there needs to be an independent whistleblower protection authority that covers both the private and public sectors.

In terms of a roadmap for what a whistleblower protection authority should look like, go no further than looking at the publication entitled A fair go for speaking up:design principles for Australia's total whistleblower protection authority, issued by a consortia including Transparency International Australia, Griffith University and the Human Rights Law Centre. They list the desired features that any whistleblower protection authority should have.

It should prioritise protection of the whistleblowers. It should provide support to the whistleblowers so they can navigate the difficult road they're embarking upon. It should prevent adverse outcomes for whistleblowers. It should provide mediation and administrative redress. It should provide a remedies focus. It should also, where necessary, take legal action to protect whistleblowers. It should provide for a system of rewards, compensation and financial support for whistleblowers. In many cases, whistleblowers actually deprive themselves of future earning capacity because they've blown the whistle on corrupt practices. It should provide a comprehensive and seamless jurisdiction. It should have adequate powers and resources, and it should be entirely independent.

That roadmap is already there in terms of a whistleblower protection authority that could cover both the public and the private sector. It's about time that Australia established a whistleblower protection authority and appropriately recognised the contribution made by whistleblowers. They are the heroes of our civic society, bringing to the attention of the community and to our attention as lawmakers wrongdoing occurring in our community, and we owe it to them to afford them as much protection and support as we possibly can.

I was delighted to attend an event hosted by Ipswich Hospice Care over the weekend, and it was a fundraising event—a trivia night. We all love a good trivia night. My team did appallingly badly, but, apart from that, good fun was had by all. I want to put on the record my great regard and esteem for Ipswich Hospice Care, the chair, the board—Melinda Parcell is the chair of the board; Gail Rogers is the CEO—to Gail, her team and all the volunteers and supporters. They do a wonderful job at Ipswich Hospice Care.

Ipswich Hospice Care was established back in the mid-1980s through the vision of a wonderful lady by the name of Dr Hilda des Arts and also through the efforts of Reverend Eric Moore of Central Mission in Ipswich. It was established to provide palliative care and services to the people of the greater Ipswich region, and it's helped hundreds and hundreds of people during the course of providing services to my community. I want to give my heartfelt thanks to Ipswich Hospice Care and the whole team there, from the board to the staff and the volunteers. You do wonderful work, and you're a cherished institution for the greater Ipswich community.

I was quite astounded to read an article in the ABC talking about the outcomes of the My Aged Care funding algorithm and how it impacted a Melbourne man, Graham Crossan, who has advanced motor neurone disease. He cannot eat, he cannot talk and he cannot breathe unassisted, and yet, when his case was entered into this algorithm, the result the algorithm provided was that he didn't need any increased support; in fact, he needed less support.

To me, the case of Mr Graham Crossan is a red flag. It's a red flag. The minister has been warned. If the algorithm is producing nonsensical outcomes such as this for Australians who most need support, it raises serious questions in relation to whether or not the algorithm is fit for purpose.