Seanad debates

Wednesday, 20 November 2013

Protected Disclosures Bill 2013: Report and Final Stages

 

11:45 am

Photo of Katherine ZapponeKatherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 5, to delete "TO MAKE" and substitute "TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY MAKING".
I welcome the Minister. The last time we met on the Bill was early in October even though the Minister has been in the House on other issues. I simply note that it was a while ago.

On Committee Stage we proposed an amendment to the Long Title to assist in the public understanding of the aim of the Bill. The Minister rejected our amendment because he said it could have the unintended effect of limiting the scope of the legislation and we do not want that either. He said he would take another look at the issue of the Title and asked me to do so also. I said I would try to come up with something better. Amendment No. 1 represents an effort to clarify the purpose of the Bill in the Long Title. We still feel the current Title does not give much of a sense of the purpose of the Bill to encourage transparency, and tackle maladministration and corruption, which is why we want to have a law to protect whistleblowers. This is why we have proposed the insertion of "TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY MAKING" as a way of trying to note what the Bill is about. We are making the point that we protect the whistleblower in order to protect the public interest. In other words, the primary aim is not so much the protection of whistleblowers but to promote the public interest and in doing so we need to protect the whistleblower.

The Title of the UK Act is similarly vague. However, for example, the New Zealand Act has a slightly different and better formulation in stating that the Act is to promote the public interest. Similarly, the Australian Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 provides that the Act is to facilitate disclosure and investigation of wrongdoing, etc., in the Commonwealth public sector. These both focus on the promotion of public interest, which is proactive rather than the protection of the whistleblower, which one could regard as reactive.

I believe the amendment makes it clearer that the legislation is to actively promote the public interest while protecting those who act to do so by whistleblowing.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.