Independent MLA Michael Moore has given notice of a Bill to repeal the law providing jail for public servants who leak documents.
He proposes also to introduce a whistle-blower protection law.
Mr Moore gave notice of his repeal Bill last week. It repeals section 10 and 11 of the Crimes (Offences against the Government) Act 1989.
Section 10 provides two years’ jail for ACT public servants who communicate official information to unauthorised people.
Section 11 provides seven years’ jail for any person for stealing or receiving ACT property.
Section 10 was cited in a search warrant directed at The Canberra Times last week over leaked ACT Budget information.
Mr Moore says the sections are unnecessary as general criminal law, law of employment and defamation law can deal with any problems.
“”The Executive Government should not have special protections and privileges that other people and organisations do not have,” he said.
If the general law was not enough to protect government property, then that should be fixed.
The law had been brought in at the time of self-government, not by the Assembly, so it had not been properly scrutinised.
Mr Moore agreed with Federal Independent Ted Mack that government should be conducted openly.
Ted Mack argued on the ABC’s Matt Abraham (subs:please leave program acknowledgment in) program last week that the whole budget process should be a public one. After all, it was the public’s money.
Mr Moore accepted that a small range of things had to be kept secret for a short time, such as during a tendering process, otherwise government funds could be defrauded. However, this applied equally to companies and their funds, and the general law could deal with it.
“”There should not be a separate law looking after Number One,” he said.
The same applied to stealing from the government; it was no different from stealing from any other employer.
Land speculation over leaked government information should not be a problem in the ACT because of the leasehold system. And, once again, it was no different from general insider-trading cases which could be dealt with by the general law.
Mr Moore hopes to get Liberal Party support for his repeal Bill and his whistle-blowing proposals. The Liberals have expressed disquiet about the police visiting üThe Canberra Times@ with a search warrant.
The shadow attorney-general, Gary Humphries, said that when leaks occurred during his time in office he just had to grin and bear it.
Mr Moore says he hopes to pick the best of the NSW and Queensland proposals on whistle-blowing legislation.
He wants people who disclose what they believe to be misconduct in its widest sense to be protected from reprisals either from within their place of employment or from outside and for their identity to be protected.
Both the Queensland and NSW proposals provide, at least in part, for this.
The Queensland model provides for protection if the disclosure is made to “”a proper authority”, where “”proper authorities” are each public-sector unit. Public-interest disclosures are to be monitors and reported to Parliament. Mr Moore feels there is a danger in having disclosures made to each public-sector unit, because they are part of the Executive being complained about. He prefers the NSW model.
In NSW, the proposal is for disclosures to go to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Ombudsman or the Auditor-General. These bodies are independent of the Executive.
Queensland provides for protection for people who make a general disclosure to the public at large or any person where there is a serious, specific and immediate danger to public health and safety.
Both models provide for penalties, civil-damages actions or injunctions against people who disclose the identity of whistle-blowers or who take reprisals against them. They also provide that whistle-blowers can take action for damages.
It is understood that in NSW, some of the Independents would like the damages to be limited to economic loss, not damages at large that might attract speculative claims.
Queensland provides for a Whistleblowers Counselling Unit.
There has been some concern that neither proposal provides for disclosure to the media if disclosures to the proper authorities or the independent bodies achieve no result.
Some of the NSW Independents are considering protection for whistle-blowers who make general public disclosure provided they believe the material to be true and it is substantially true. It would be coupled with penalties for knowing false disclosures.