Jul 30, 2013

You better be careful blowing the whistle — new laws have holes

New legislation makes it safer for good citizens to blow the whistle on corruption. But there are plenty of traps for inexperienced players, writes former whistleblower Brendan Jones.


With the passage of the Commonwealth’s Public Interest Disclosure Act you would think the golden age of whistleblowing has arrived. The Public Sector Union went so far as encouraging its members: “Anyone working in government who is witness to, or has information about corruption or maladministration can now make a disclosure without fear of reprisals. These new laws will protect them from payback.”

That’s not true. The new law is better than what we had, which was nothing. But it still has serious loopholes. It’s reckless to encourage whistleblowers without warning them of the dangers.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

12 thoughts on “You better be careful blowing the whistle — new laws have holes

  1. bluepoppy

    You make an excellent point. The fact that agencies still investigate their own complaints is the main reason whistleblowers will not be protected. There is a dire need for an external body, whether it is the Ombudsman or the APSC, or a new agency to handle whistleblower disclosures and investigations.

  2. Abuse Bot

    So absolutely true, and so sad.

    When was the last time you saw any TV news program reporting about whistle blowers, who (a) had their life ruined, or (b) made a positive difference?

    Yes – (a) – frequently, and
    No – (b) never.

  3. Damien McBain

    I reckon let them go straight to the media which has a vested interest in getting hold of a story rather than the public service which has a vested interest in keeping things quiet and easy.
    Dracula is not the right custodian for the blood bank.

  4. AR

    The Public Interest Disclosure Bill is only now (barely) acceptable because one of the Greens’ (three proposed) amendments was accepted at the 2nd Reading.
    Dreyfus’ original recommendations, after 18+ months of bi-partisan & bureaucratic obfuscation was a backward step as it required anyone with legitimate concerns to first approach their line manager. As it usually those further up the food chain who are complicit that would be the best way to alert them. Only after 3 more such steps, up the chain of command (sic!)would there have been some slight justification for going public. Lotsa luck keeping your head by then.
    Had the three Green amendments & those of Sen. Xenophon been accepted we would have had real protection for the whistleblower and immense benefit to the public interest.
    Is a slice really better than no bread at all? Only to those starving for true accountability.

  5. Brendan Jones

    Thanks for your comments:


    Linton Besser at Fairfax ran an investigative series about how internal complaints units and the AFP weren’t investigating public service crime. Public Service Minister Gary Gray dismissed Besser’s reports out of hand, and said “The Public Service Commissioner can also initiate an investigation into any matter relating to the APS.” I wrote to the PSC who wrote back denying it.

    Jean Lennane of WBA says any Ombudsman officer who who makes life difficult for fellow bureaucrats risks their own career. Without support from the ministers down, it’s safest to look the other way. A WBA survey showed no whistleblowers found the Commonwealth Ombudsman helpful.

    The AFP is so reluctant their Association wants US-style Fraud Laws which effectively outsource criminal investigations to private law-firms to pursue for profit. If the AFP were doing their job that wouldn’t be necessary.

    The Commonwealth has no truth-seeking anti-corruption body like ICAC. Gray Gray claims one isn’t needed because the Ombudsman, PSC, etc. already provide oversight. Clearly, they don’t.

    @Damien McBain

    Superficially Australia looks like the US so you’d think we have the same free speech rights, so it comes as shock to people we don’t. Under the Public Figure Doctrine in the US if the press learns of corruption they can report it promptly. It’s not like that in Australia where journos must sit on stories, sometimes for years. Consider the press couldn’t report allegations that NSW Premier Robert Askin was corrupt until he was dead!

    Giving the press Public Figure Doctrine protection in Australia would help. Gareth Evans sees problems with it, but the US Supreme Court points out what while free speech has its problems, not having it has even more problems. (Check out Chapter 17 of “Retreat from Injustice” by Nick O’Neill & the ANU’s Simon Rice).

    @Abuse Bot

    True! A WBA survey showed: 90% of whistleblowers are fired, 20% have a relationship breakdown, 20% are sued for defamation, 9% go bankrupt and 6% commit suicide. Anyone thinking about whistleblowing needs to where they’re likely to end.


    The new laws are a start and might eventually morph into something useful, but as they are I wouldn’t recommend anyone use them.

    Some things about the new laws are worse: Under Section 20 journalists now risk 6 months jail, and government lawyers might try and use the new laws to stop victims from suing for Common Law Misfeasance (a very good old law which the public can use to hold corrupt officials to account when their peers won’t).

  6. Serenatopia

    A most comprehensive piece Brendan. Thank you so much for taking the time to write it and for Crikey to provide a platform to raise these critical issues.

    Section 3 of PIDL (Public Interest Disclosure Legislation) states that the Act does NOT make the Crown liable for pecuniary damages or prosecution.

    This was a special message from the Crown to me to quash court case like mine (being the first case to formally use the common law tort of misfeasance in a whistleblower situation against senior public officials in Australia), holding the Crown vicariously liable.

    The reality, is that PIDL declares itself a sham from that section onwards.

    Whistleblowing, particularly Organisational Whistleblowing the kind that involves disclosable conduct mentioned at section 29 (conduct that is unjust, oppressive, unreasonable, constitutes wastage of public monies and results in adverse health affects to a lot of people) is not usually engaged by one or two public officials, it is usual that such conduct is engaged by a group of senior public officials directly representing the Crown.

    It is this kind of whistleblowing that would unleash on the whistleblower the wrath of these officials who usually hold very senior positions and are the very authorised officers to receive the whistleblowing allegations in the first place. These senior officers often collude and mob the whistleblower by taking reprisals that endanger their health and wellbeing i.e. stopping contracts, forcing the whislteblower out of the organisation, referrals to psychiatrists and severe reputational attacks. You would have to have a very senior role to be able to carry out such reprisals. The very people entrusted by PIDL to protect you are the very people you would be whistleblowing about and the very people taking reprisals against you. They are the same people that have very senior friends at the Ombudsman and the Australian Public Service Commission that also eventually get involved in the mobbing…

    The only protection for whistleblowers is to disengage from sham investigations into their complaints and go straight to the media. Otherwise, whistleblow underground…(for more information on how to do this please contact me on 0425 754 299- Serene Teffaha- Human Rights Advocate)

    PIDL has empowered the brutality of the representatives of the Crown and provided a legislative mechanism to eliminate whistleblowers earlier on. The only difference between Nigeria and Australia is that the Australian Government and its Bureaucratic representatives are a bunch of ruthless, double faced hypocrites who smile at you and say they care, while they dig that dagger in you slowly and deeply!

  7. Victim CSIRO

    Without real ramifications there is no impetus to effect any form of meaningful change. Until senior bureaucrats are made publicly accountable for their serious misfeasance and maladministration there will be absolutely no improvement in the culture of the Australian Public Service and other Federal Agencies. Senior Public Officials who in many cases are remunerated far in excess of the Prime Minister are not providing any reasonable value proposition to the Australian Public as a result of the way in which many of them conduct themselves.

  8. Sean Stark

    Great work Bendan.

  9. Brendan Jones

    Responding to the Attorney-General:

    > Mr Jones accepts that under the Act reprisals against whistleblowers are an offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment.

    The AFP have to act on the complaint in the first place (my own crime report is now two years old and still uninvestigated). And the reprisal has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless the agency is stupid enough to leave evidence (e.g. an e-mail saying “I am sacking this guy because he blew the whistle on us”), they can claim the sackings are coincidental. Is the CSIRO going to reinstate the whistleblowers they sacked?

    > A whistleblower who seeks redress through the courts will not be liable for the costs of the agency or department unless the proceedings are vexatious, without reasonable cause or unreasonably cause the other party to incur costs. However, a court can still order that the agency or department pay the costs of the whistleblower, if it is unsuccessful in defending its claim.

    There has been a vigorous debate in Queensland where the CMC whistleblowers face criminal charges for making “vexatious” complaints. Fitzgerald Inquiry whistleblower Nigel Powell said of of the CMC changes: “You will have an official body saying, ‘you better be pretty sure of what you got, because if we find you are vexatious and you don’t have a firm basis for what you are saying, then you could be prosecuted’,” … “Now, what was I saying then – had I actually seen corruption take place? No. “Had I had actual evidence of money crossing hands? No. I had my suspicions, which no longer sounds like it would be enough to make a complaint.”

    Under the PID the whistleblower won’t face criminal charges, but they will still face a costs order that could bankrupt them. Whistleblowers get nothing out of making a complaint. In return they could lose the family home. Why should they take that risk?

    The government’s lawyers claimed my complaint was vexatious, and other whistleblowers said they were accused of the same thing. It appears to be standard operating procedure for government lawyers.

    > in addition to the criminal sanctions which may be imposed for ‘terrorising’ a whistleblower,

    We’ve already established the AFP can sit on crime reports.

    > he or she can apply under the Act to the Federal Court or Federal Circuit Court for a civil remedy, or alternatively seek recourse under the Fair Work Act.

    The Commonwealth has been breaching the Model Litigant Policy for years. (Google “Gillard government lashed for ‘ignoring’ breaches of model litigant rules”) Because of that any individual who goes to court is up against the full force of the Commonwealth’s lawyers. In my case they ignored my repeated requests for alternate dispute resolution, ran up a huge legal bill and threatened me with a costs order at the first hearing. I couldn’t risk bankruptcy, so dropped the case. A prominent lawyer had advised me: “You are wise to try and get out of this – otherwise it will be long, agonising and expensive (and bad for your health). Such is the justice system. The nastiest, baddest, richest litigant holds all the cards.”

    > The government cannot ‘sit’ on a disclosure indefinitely. There are time limits under the Act for steps to be taken to handle a disclosure, and this includes when an investigation into a disclosure must be completed.

    It can be extended indefinitely, in 90 day lots.

    Common sense says at some point the Ombudsman should put their foot down, but e.g. on 2011-03-24 the Ombudsman told me they thought the delay was reasonable. (I asked them “Do you really think not taking even rudimentary steps to secure evidence for two years is appropriate? Particularly when it was still in the hands of the perpetrators? And particularly when the head of the department concerned had been tipped off and had a Conflict of Interest?” They had also failed to interview other witnesses in that time, and ultimately refused to even speak to them.)

    On 2011-06-07 the Inspector General of Defence wrote: “I acknowledge that it took my office around 10 months to finalise our inquiries and this is longer than I would have liked. However, when one takes into account the inherent complexity of the matters raised, … it was simply beyond our capacity to finalise the matter more quickly.” In fact for most of that time they were doing nothing, and this makes the point they can offer any reason (e.g. claiming they are under resourced or still in “assessment phase”) and the Ombudsman won’t challenge it.

    > One of the criteria for external disclosure, including to the media, is if the investigation has not taken place within the statutory time limit.

    Which can be extended indefinitely, in 90 day lots: “An investigation under this Division must be completed within 90 days after the relevant disclosure was allocated to the agency concerned” but “the Ombudsman may extend, or further extend, the 90 day period by such additional period (which may exceed 90 days) as the Ombudsman considers appropriate: (a) on the Ombudsman’s own initiative; or (b) if the agency is not the Ombudsman— on application made by the principal officer of the agency; or …”

    > One of the grounds that allows an external disclosure is for a whistleblower to believe on reasonable grounds that an investigation was inadequate.

    The whistleblower can’t deem the investigation “inadequate” until it is over. For my complaint they waited until just before the State of Limitations expired when the Minister concerned (through Senator Hogg) told me: “your only course of action is litigation, as this case is outside the scope of a review.”

    > The Ombudsman has significant oversight powers under the public interest disclosure scheme and is required to report annually on disclosures received during the year and any complaints made about the handling of those disclosures.

    The Attorney-General’s OLSC (Office of Legal Service’s Coordination) has similar reporting powers on the Model Litigant Policy and look where that’s got us.

    The Ombudsman doesn’t use the powers they already have.

    > But offences also apply to protect the identify of whistleblowers and,

    This is needed. (The Defence Whistleblower Scheme had promised anonymity but the Defence complaints unit despite my written instructions breached my anonymity on the very first day.) But the new offence also means journalists brave enough to report on corruption must now take care to avoid the 6 months jail themselves. Chris Masters himself spent 13 years in civil court after reporting on Fitzgerald corruption in Queensland. He won, but it took a big chunk out of his life and savings. You can’t expect journalists to investigate corruption if that is the price they have to pay.

    The same applies to whistleblowers. They get nothing out of reporting corruption, and you are asking them to risk everything, for a government with a very poor track record of protecting whistleblowers:

    Minister for Justice Jason Clare refused to pardon Sydney Airport Whistleblower Allan Kessing, despite Nick Xenophon saying “The scandal here is that this man, who deserves a medal for the work that he did 10 years ago, was actually persecuted through the courts, had his life effectively ruined by virtue of being charged under Section 70 of the Crimes Act.” I’m told one of the good things about the new laws is they pass that Kessing test, so why is the government refusing to pardon him, particularly given the claims by Barrister Peter Lowe that the federal authorities withheld evidence at his trial?

    The new laws are a start and might eventually morph into something useful, but I wouldn’t recommend anyone use them. The safest course of action for a whistleblower remains to not make the complaint in the first place.

  10. kim sawyer

    The main problem with the legislation is that the Commonwealth Ombudsman is the authority designated to receive and investigate public disclosures, contrary to the recommendation of the 1994 Senate Select Committee to establish a Public Interest Disclosure Agency. The second problem with the legislation is that the protections offered to whistleblowers are very weak compared to legislation overseas. In the US False Claims Act, for example,

    “Any employee who is discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by their employer because of a False Claims action shall be entitled to all relief necessary, which includes reinstatement with the same seniority status such employee would have had without the discrimination, twice the amount of back pay and compensation for any special damages sustained including litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. Whistleblowers are further entitled to 15-25% of the fraud recovered.”

    Real whistleblowers, that is, people who have blown the whistle and paid the price, are very disappointed with the legislation. We were not listened to.

    Kim Sawyer

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details