Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 21, after "opinion" to insert "or suspicion".

We had a full debate on these amendments on Committee Stage and I do not propose to go back over all of it. We have a different Minister of State in the House - he is welcome - and I should mention that the aim of these two amendments is to widen the protection to whistleblowers and encourage potential whistleblowers to make disclosures in the public interest in good faith. Currently the Minister has included just the word "opinion", and whistleblowers would be protected against liability where they inform or disclose an opinion that an offence has been or is being committed.

I am grateful to the Minister for Justice and Law Reform because he accepted two other amendments on Committee Stage which will also significantly widen the protection for whistleblowers. That will cover an offence which may have been or may be being committed, which is a great improvement on the language in the original Bill. Opinion should not be left as bare opinion because that places the bar too high for the whistleblower, and it would require that a whistleblower would form an opinion. A potential whistleblower may have something which he or she regards as no more than a mere suspicion but if it is genuine and made in good faith, we believe the person should be protected from liability where there is disclosure. There is also the provision that such people will not be protected where they make a disclosure knowing it to be false, misleading, frivolous, vexatious or reckless in that regard. There is already a protection against any misleading or frivolous allegations.

It seems that "opinion" is setting the bar too high and it is not the same as "suspicion". We had a long debate earlier about the meaning of the two words and I am grateful to Senator Regan for his support for the amendment. Senator Regan and I are right in arguing that "opinion" is not the same as "suspicion", as an opinion is more than a suspicion. We agree that an opinion includes a suspicion and may be formed on the basis of a suspicion but it requires more than a suspicion to form an opinion. This may sound like semantics but we want to ensure that those who believe they should make a disclosure in the public interest in good faith are not discouraged from doing so because they believe that what they have is no more than a suspicion and they do not have enough to have a full opinion.

Inserting "opinion or suspicion" would create an atmosphere and context that is more encouraging to potential whistleblowers. We have already had a full debate on the value of whistleblowing and the enormous importance of the deed in a range of areas from institutional sexual abuse to banking and medical malpractice to corruption in the planning process. I will not go back over that ground but the Minister for Justice and Law Reform indicated earlier that he would consider the argument made by Senator Regan and me before coming back to us with a view on whether "opinion" could be broadened to "opinion or suspicion". I hope the Minister of State has good news for us and I would be very grateful if he considered accepting these two amendments, which strengthen the protection for whistleblowers afforded by section 4.