Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Madam President, I support the bill for the reason that I have had absolutely no faith in the bill as it was previously written and presented. Anything to tidy up that bill and straighten it up to make it easier for people to make complaints within their organisation about what is happening is certainly welcome. That is where I will start with the act that was in place to give protection to whistleblowers. It has never worked and, in fact, it created many hassles.

I want to briefly refer to a case that I have referred to on many occasions and that is the old Ward 1E position, now renamed, where we saw some tragic consequences of an act that was supposedly in place at the time to protect those three women who brought forward some very grave issues that were occurring within that system at the time. Those women thought that they were protected by that act. But it turned out that a lot of senior people in place at the time did not even know of the existence of that act. That was revealed during the Estimates process, that some people were not even aware that there was such an act. Suffice to say that those women tried everything possible to raise their complaints. They went to every level of management. They went as far as they could possibly go, but at each stage they were knocked back and it was in sheer frustration and desperation that they went to a member of parliament. That is the only time that things started to happen. Those women were prepared to put their jobs on the line to do that. I admire the three of them and the simple fact is that they lost their jobs as a result.

So how could people have faith in the system that was acting and operating in that way? One can only hope that the amendments to this bill will allow people to make complaints, knowing that they will be protected.

Will it be better now? The second reading speech reads well and sounds good. But, in reality, will it offer an open and transparent opportunity for employees to raise complaints without fear of retribution, transfer, loss of opportunities or ostracism? It should not surprise the Government that the current legislation has not been extensively used because those who did blow the whistle were treated worse than criminals. It should not have surprised the Government at all that it was not extensively used. For goodness' sake, one only had to look around to see what was happening to determine that and the reasons for it.

I do have some concerns about the consultation process and perhaps the Leader can address this.

The draft went out for consultation, I understand, but the responses had to be in within nine days of its going out. The last draft was sent out on 13 October 2009, one to two weeks I would suspect before the bill was introduced into the Assembly. I suspect that responses were few, if any, and that if we did have responses nothing would have changed in the bill because of the very short time frame. It was only a few days from the time that it was sent out until the time the bill was introduced in the Assembly. So I would be very surprised if it did have any changes made to it, if there were any responses that is. It was a token effort in my opinion at getting input from anybody else.

On public consultation the cut-off date was 21 October 2009 and it was brought into the Assembly on or about the end date in October. A very short period of time. The minister makes comments like organisations should embrace the concept of information on improper conduct being brought forward because it will allow them to rectify the problem and remove further risk. Previously not too many managers have welcomed that information coming forward, and it has created immense problems. If these amendments to that bill do what they are designed to do, it is my opinion that there will need to be a huge culture change in some of these organisations for it to work.

One or two of the issues I want to refer to. It is interesting the number of people who still refer to Tasmania Police as the police force. It has been the Police Service now for a long time. I am concerned at what seems to be a relatively simple process of an employee making a complaint against an organisation or a person in a department or something going wrong in a department and the convoluted process that some will need to go through to have that complaint actioned. Take the Ward 1E as a good example. Many of the issues there were very simple matters, but there was not a proper complaints register in place and complaints were not followed up. They were fairly simple matters that could have been fixed very quickly if the right managers had been in place at the time. Others were very serious and those matters would have taken a lot longer and I realise that. But they should never have taken five years.

Interestingly, there are some issues here where the Ombudsman will be dealing with some of these matters. There is a time frame on an organisation to complete a matter that arises within it and it must be completed as soon as is practical, which is sensible wording. In any event it must be concluded in six months but, as I understand the amendments, if it is not concluded within that six-month period it will go to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman then has the right to extend it for a further six-month period or the Ombudsman can take over the complaint. But in many instances the Ombudsman will be required to investigate. I have some concerns there because the Ombudsman has made a number of appeals to the Government for increases in his staff because he says currently he does not have the staff, is not able to keep up with the work that he has. He has certain time limits placed on him under this bill as well. He must conclude it as soon as is practicable and within 12 months. If it takes any longer than that he has to complete a report and bring it back to the Parliament to identify to us reasons the matter has not been concluded.

I feel for the Ombudsman with his staffing problems, but perhaps with this bill, if it is supported, very clearly it will provide him with extra work and extra activity.

Mr Wilkinson - Not just this bill, the Integrity Commission Bill will as well because with the Integrity Commission they could say, 'Go and see the Ombudsman or go and see the State Service Commissioner'.

Mr DEAN - You are absolutely right, the Integrity Commission will also cause the Ombudsman to have to complete further duties. So, the Government will need to take a serious look at the staffing levels within that office, if they are really serious about this bill working at the end of the day. If not, I can see many reports coming from the Ombudsman back into the Parliament to identify why matters have not been able to be concluded on time or within a certain period of time. It is all very well to put these bills and things into place, but it is going to be a bit like that Cat Management Bill - and I will refer to that later on during the week - about pushing it back onto other organisations that do not have the staff and do not have the funding to be able to do what is required of them. It really is an interesting area.

Madam President, I just want to say in conclusion that it does not matter what we do and what changes we put in place in bills such as this; nothing will change unless there is a severe culture change within these organisations to embrace the people coming forward and making complaints. I agree that it should be done through the right levels that are in place. I have no problem with that at all, but it should be made easy for these people and they should be supported all the way through that process. I note in this bill - and I do like that part of it - that is where an organisation has to put into place a responsible officer to manage this moving forward. That is a good move and I commend the Government for taking that course of action, because that has been an issue that has created some problems. Managers have had to take on that responsibility and it has not always worked. I hope that there is a culture change. I would hope that it does work because there are some shocking examples out there, unfortunately, of where it has not worked previously. Some people have paid a very severe price for bringing forward issues that had only been brought forward to make the organisations better and to stop some of the terrible practices that were occurring. I am sure people here do not want me to go through some of those things that were happening at Ward 1E, such as sexual relationships within the organisation and goodness knows what else. So I will steer clear of that but let us hope it does work, Madam President.