overview
flows
pornography
Australian law
overseas law
agencies
advocacy
texts
free speech
filters, labels
news
books
comics
photography
performance
film & video
games
broadcast
official secrets
FOI
archives
whistleblowing
media privilege
related
Profiles:
Human Rights
Aust
Constitution
& Cyberspace
Defamation
related
Guides:
Intellectual
Property
Publishing
|
Whistle-blowing
This page looks at whistleblowing: disclosure of corporate
information in the public interest, despite commercial
agreements or secrecy legislation.
It covers -
A
supplementary note
discusses particular whistleblowing cases in more detail,
along with pointers to academic and other studies.
introduction
What of disclosure of information in the public interest,
despite employment contracts, non-disclosure agreements,
trade secrets legislation and enactments governing the
conduct of public servants?
Typically whistleblowing involves an 'insider' in an organisation
taking concerns to -
- a
supervisory entity within/for that organisation (eg
to a Board of Directors, bypassing executives, or to
an accounting or standards compliance body)
- a
government regulatory agency or legislature, or
- the
media
in
the knowledge that the organisation may respond with litigation
and vilification and that colleagues (particularly in
technical communities such as medicine, law and the police)
may be unsupportive.
JG Starke's 1991 'The Protection of Public Service 'Whistleblowers'
(in The Australian Law Journal, Vol 65, No 4)
defines public sector whistleblowing in the context of
Australian law as -
- a
disclosure of information evidencing objectionable misconduct,
not otherwise known or visible;
- such
disclosure is made in the reasonable belief that this
information demonstrates that there had been such misconduct;
- the
person making the disclosure acts in good faith, without
malice;
- the
disclosure is made in the public interest with a view
to ensuring that the community has an effective civil
service; and [more problematically]
-
the disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law,
or considerations of national security or defence would
not preclude it being made.
One
commentator wryly adds that disclosure "usually occurs
in a way whereby the whistleblower (either intentionally
or accidentally) is identified publicly with the complaint,
and claims that the principle motive for the disclosure
was to advance the public interest."
Contrary to some studies, whistleblowing is not a new
phenomenon that appeared in the 1960s. Legislation specifically
protecting and encouraging disclosure by 'whistleblowers'
dates from the past four decades but instances can be
tracked to at least the 1780s (with for example Thomas
Cochrane's The Autobiography of a Seaman exposure
of corruption within the British navy and contractors)
and the beginning of last century with works such as the
exposé by Wilhelm Muehlon, ex-Director of the Krupp
industrial group.
The US Government Accountability Project comments that
whistleblower legislation is an essential underpinning
for civil society, protecting -
individuals who in various societies have been termed
"whistleblowers," "bell ringers,"
and "lighthouse keepers." All expressions
refer to a common identity – an individual who
warns of threats to the public by serving as a "people’s
witness." ...
This form of freedom of expression is a basic human
right. People’s witnesses are the lifeblood for
efforts to prevent, investigate and prosecute corruption.
They personify a basic premise of jurisprudence that
"sunlight is the best disinfectant." Without
the free flow of information from knowledgeable witnesses,
anti-corruption campaigns are empty and lifeless. Experience
demonstrates, however, that in a repressive environment
they will be silent observers instead of speaking out
on behalf of the public. Freedom of expression provides
our citizens the freedom to be partners in genuine challenges
to corruption.
William
de Maria comments that whistleblowing is
a
complex social phenomenon. Solo acts of disclosure in
the public interest, whistleblowing is both pro-social
and anti-social.
It's good for society because it exposes wrongdoing
and it gives a battery charge to tired old democracy,
and it's good for our kids to see a few moral heroes
up there with their sporting and movie icons.
Whistleblowing is anti-social because it erodes trust
among work colleagues. We as a nation do not discriminate
between whistleblowing and its ugly sister, dobbing.
In our consciousness these are scrambled: we hate dobbers
and we will continue to confuse them with whistleblowers
for at least another generation.
He
suggests that there is a cost as "we move from a
work culture where no one would, or could disclose, to
one where today's workmate could be tomorrow's informer".
Nick Perry's 1998 sociological analysis Indecent Exposures:
Theorizing Whistleblowing comments that
The
case material indicates that the characteristic trajectory
of whistleblowers' careers (after they have gone public)
is, with few exceptions, a downward spiral. There is
the further prospect that this will be linked to a blame-the-victim
strategy, i.e. that the associated psychological deterioration
may be cited as a vindication of the imposition of sanctions
in the first place. Whistleblowing might well be classified,
therefore, as a form of occupational suicide - or perhaps
as accidental career death.
US
whistleblower Sherron Watkins commented that disclosing
inappropriate behaviour at Enron was a "lonely road
to take", arguing against the term whistleblower
because it had a pejorative ring to it.
studies and spectacles
US academic and privacy expert Alan Westin edited Whistle
Blowing! Loyalty & Dissent in the Corporation
(New York: McGraw-Hill 1981). Whistleblowing in the
Social Services: Public Accountability & Professional
Practice (London: Arnold 1998) edited by Geoffrey
Hunt, Elaine Kaplan's 2001 The International Emergence
of Legal Protections for Whistleblowers (PDF)
and The Legal Implications of Disclosure in the Public
Interest (Oxford: Oxford Uni Press 1987) by Yvonne
Cripps are of similar value.
Christine Parker's valuable The Open Corporation:
Self-Regulation & Corporate Citizenship (Melbourne:
Cambridge Uni Press 1986) and Global Business Regulation
(Cambridge: Cambridge Uni Press 2000) by John Braithwaite
& Peter Drahos consider the responsibilities of executives,
corporate directors, government agencies and notions of
self-/co-regulation.
David Lewis' 2001 Middlesex University inaugural lecture
discusses principles and enactments in Australia, South
Africa, the UK and New Zealand. Papers in Whistleblowing
at Work (London: Athlone Press 2001) edited by Lewis
offer insights about the UK legislation.
For the UK there is a useful introduction in Clive Ponting's
The Right to Know: The Inside Story of the Belgrano
Affair (London: Sphere 1985), Whistleblowing:
The Disclosure of Wrongdoing (London: Sweet &
Maxwell 1999) by John Bowers, Whistleblowing - Subversion
or Corporate Citizenship? (London: Chapman 1994) edited
by Gerald Vinten and Sheryl Groeneweg's 2001 paper
for Industry Canada on Three Whistleblower Protection
Models: A Comparative Analysis of Whistleblower Legislation
in Australia, the United States & the United Kingdom.
For a US perspective consult The Whistleblowers: Exposing
Corruption in Government & Industry (New York:
Basic Books 1989) by Myron & Penina Glazer, Freedom
Inside the Organization: Bringing Civil Liberties to the
Workplace (New York: Dutton 1977) by David Ewing and
the Government Accountability (GAP)
site. A perspective is offered by Nicholas Lampert's Whistleblowing
in the Soviet Union (London: Macmillan 1984).
For Australia insights are offered by the NSW Professional
Standards report
on Whistleblowing In The Professions and In
The Public Interest, the 1994 report of the Senate
Select Committee on Public Interest Whistleblowing.
For Australian public sector whistleblowing see in particular
the Australian Law Reform Commission report
Integrity: but not by trust alone - AFP & NCA
complaints and disciplinary systems regarding the
Australian Federal Police and National Crime Authority.
Other studies include Blowing the Whistle: The Organizational
& Legal Implications for Companies & Employees
(New York: Lexington Books 1992) by Marcia Miceli &
Janet Near, Whistleblowing at Work: Tough Choices
in Exposing Fraud, Waste & Abuse on the Job (Boulder:
Westview 1999) by Terence Miethe and Bureaucratic Opposition:
Challenging Abuses at the Workplace (New York: Pergamon
1979) by Deena Weinstein.
The historical flipside of whistleblowing is discussed
in Accusatory Practices: Denunciation in Modern European
History, 1789-1989 (Chicago: Uni of Chicago Press
1996) edited by Sheila Fitzpatrick & Robert Gellately;
other pointers feature in our profile on surveillance.
Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in Science
(Oxford: Oxford Uni Press 1985) by William Broad &
Nicholas Wade highlights issues within scientific communities.
We have highlighted a range of studies here
regarding whistleblowing by current/former operatives
of intelligence agencies, such as Malcolm Turnbull's book
on the 'Spycatcher Affair' in Australia and the UK, and
controversies such as Mordecai Vanunu's disclosure of
activity at Israel's Dimona facility.
Whistleblowing in popular culture has had mixed treatment,
with discomfort about delation perhaps resulting in most
attention on the 'intrepid reporter' genre. US feature
films include All The Presidents Men (1976),
Silkwood, Serpico (1973), The China
Syndrome (1979), Three Days of the Condor
(1975), Mr Smith Goes To Washington (1939) and
The Insider (1999).
A supplementary note
on this site discusses particular whistleblowing cases.
Australia
Australian legislation centres on whistleblowing by public
sector employees.
There is currently no national enactment and no specific
protection in the Australian Constitution.
The Senate Finance & Public Administration Committee
released a report (PDF)
in 2002 on the 2001 Public Interest Disclosure Bill,
aimed at covering the federal public sector beyond provisions
found in the 1999 Public Service Act. Submissions
regarding that Bill are here.
The federal Corporate Law Economic Reform Program
(Audit Reform & Corporate Disclosure) Bill 2003,
unfortunately more restricted than comparable overseas
legislation such as Sarbanes-Oxley in the US, would extend
protection under the corporations law for public interest
disclosures regarding business activities.
The proposal follows high-profile corporate collapses
(such as that of HIH Insurance and One.Tel) and the 'CLERP
9' issues paper Corporate Disclosure: Strengthening
the Financial Reporting Framework.
State/territory legislation, essentially concerned with
government bodies, includes the -
Whistleblowers
Protection Act 1993 in South Australia | here
Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001 in Victoria
Whistleblower Protection Act 1994 (PDF)
in Queensland
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994 in the
ACT | here
Protected Disclosures Act 1994 in NSW | here
Official Corruption Commission Act 1988 in
Western Australia.
Other
enactments that are specific to particular industries
or activities, such as environmental protection and childcare,
offer limited protection beyond obligations to report
offences such as suspected child molestation.
In the private sector there has been disagreement about
the utility of corporate and professional codes of practice
and ethics, highlighted in the 2001 Whistleblowing
report
by the NSW Professional Standards Council noted above.
Standards Australia (SA)
released a standard (AS 8004-2003) on Whistleblowing
Protection Programs For Entities during 2003. The
standard is a useful start in the encouragement of best
practice within organisations and community acceptance
of whistleblowing in an environment where reporting is
sometimes seen as "dobbing" or "unAustralian".
However, like associated corporate governance standards
it is not mandatory and it does not provide effective
legal protection.
William de Maria's 2002 The Victorian Whistleblower
Protection Act - Patting the Paws of Corruption?
(PDF)
and Deadly Disclosures: Whistleblowing and the ethical
meltdown of Australia (Adelaide: Wakefield Press
1999) offer a bleak view of implementation of the Australian
legislation, supplemented by Stuart Dawson's 2000 paper
Whistleblowing: A Broad Definition & Some Issues
for Australia and Peter Grabowsky's cogent Controlling
Fraud, Waste & Abuse in the Public Sector (PDF).
Accounts of Australian whistleblowers feature in Quentin
Dempsters's Whistleblowers (Sydney: ABC Books
1997), Deborah Locke's memoir Watching the Detectives
(Sydney: ABC 2003), Fred Brenchley's Allan Fels: A
Portrait of Power (Milton: Wiley 2003) and Thomas
Frame's Where Fate Calls: The HMAS Voyager Tragedy
(Sydney: Hodder & Stoughton 1992). Locke's revelations
led to the 1994 NSW Royal Commission (Wood
Royal Commission) into the state police force.
To Protect & Serve: The Untold Truth About The NSW
Police Service (Sydney: New Holland 2003) by Tim
Priest & Richard Basham is of interest for its account
of dealings with shockjock Alan Jones; one reviewer acutely
described it as a "how-to-guide on getting maximum
media exposure".
New Zealand
Whistle blower protection legislation in New Zealand centres
on the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 (PDA),
essentially concerned with government agencies.
The literature includes Secrets & Lies: The Anatomy
of an Anti-Environmental PR Campaign (Nelson: Craig
Potton 2000) by Nicky Hagar & Bob Burton, which followed
leaking in 1999 of documents from the Shandwick public
relations consultancy regarding work for the NZ forestry
agency.
UK and the PIDA
In the UK the primary legislation is the Public Interest
Disclosure Act 1998 (PDF),
which
The 1998 Act provides protection for disclosure relating
to a specified list of malpractices: a criminal offence
or failure to comply with a legal obligation, a miscarriage
of justice, damage to the environment, endangerment of
a individual's health and safety or concealment of any
of these malpractices. Disclosure to an employer will
be protected if made in good faith. Disclosure to a legal
adviser need not be made in good faith, as an employee
must simply have a reasonable belief that disclosure shows
one of the specified malpractices. Disclosure to designated
regulatory bodies must be made in good faith and relate
to that body's responsibilities.
Disclosure to other entities, such as the media, involves
stricter tests. It must be made in good faith and the
whistleblower must reasonably believe that the information
is substantially true, not make the disclosure for personal
gain and reasonably believe they will suffer if the disclosure
is made to the regulator or that evidence will be concealed
or destroyed if made to their employer.
An overview is provided by Gordon Borrie & Guy Dehn's
paper
Whistleblowing: The New Perspective and Geoffrey
Hunt's Whistleblowing in the Social Services: Public
Accountability and Professional Practice (London:
Arnold 1998). UK whistleblower policy and support organisation
Public Concern at Work (PCaw) publlished Whistleblowing
Case Summaries: Notable Decisions under PIDA, a report
with summaries of 70 notable legal decisions under the
Act.
US
A range of US legislation at the federal and state levels
covers obligations on corporate directors, employees and
public officials to report on improper behaviour within
the public and private sectors.
The US federal model is based on a multilateral system
whereby whistleblowers can petition the Office of Special
Counsel (OSC)
and other agencies for protection against retaliation
due to reporting of "wasteful or illegal" activities
involving government. The Whistleblower Protection
Act (WPA)
of 1989 - extended in 1994 to cover employees of some
government corporations and to employees in the Veterans
Administration - prohibits the federal government from
reprisals against employees who blow the whistle on public
sector misconduct and provides a means of redress. Computingcases.org
features
a discussion of the 1989 Hughes case.
'Qui Tam' provisions are featured in the 1986 False
Claims Act (here),
the latest version of the 1863 'Lincoln Law' enacted under
President Abraham Lincoln to combat corruption relating
to the Union Army. In principle those provisions allow
any citizen to sue on behalf of the US in the case of
fraud or misuse of public property.
In effect, the law allows citizens to become public prosecutors
and receive up to 15% of civil fines (claimed
as aggregate US$9 billion as of 2003). The highest reward
so far appears to be US$77 million received by Douglas
Durand in 2001 in connection with impropriety by TAP Pharmaceuticals.
The 2002 Sabarnes-Oxley Act, passed after the collapse
of Enron and other disasters explored here,
requires corporations to have systems for the internal
reporting of misconduct to supplement surveillance by
government agencies and reporting by third parties such
as accounting firms.
Bodies concerned with whistleblowing include -
- Government
Accountability Project (GAP)
- Project
on Government Oversight (POGO)
- Taxpayers
Against Fraud (TAF)
- National
Whistleblower Center (NWC)
GAP
has presented the Organisation of American States with
a 'Model Law' (here)
to implement Article III, Section 8 of the Inter-American
Convention Against Corruption by "protecting
those public servants and private citizens who exercise
their human right to freedom of expression, by acting
on their duty to disclose and challenge corruption".
Insights are offered by Divided Loyalties: Whistleblowing
at BART (West Lafayette: Purdue Uni Press 1980) by
Robert Anderson, Robert Perruci & Leon Trachtman and
works on the cases noted below.
Canada
New Brunswick is the only Canadian jurisdiction providing
specific protection (under its Employment Standards
Act) for whistleblowers.
Several federal and provincial enactments (primarily concerned
with environmental protection and public health) provide
more targeted protection. The Canadian Human Rights Act
for example prohibits any person from
threatening,
intimidating, or discriminating against an individual
because that individual has made a complaint, given
evidence, or assisted in the initiation or prosecution
of a complaint under the Act.
the academy
Whistleblowing in the sciences - and more generally in
the academy - has centred on administrative misconduct,
plagiarism and manipulation
of data.
Two points of entry into the literature are Marcel LaFollette's
Stealing Into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism & Misconduct
in Scientific Publishing (Berkeley: Uni of California
Press 1992) and Daniel Kevles' sobering The Baltimore
Case: A Trial of Politics, Science & Character
(New York: Norton 1999). Documentation regarding a recent
Australian incident is accessible from the UNSW page here.
whistleblowing, the net and the media
Theorists have suggested that the internet is likely to
become important as a mechanism for whistleblowing, offsetting
restrictions on mainstream media (in particular the tendency
to self-censor in the face of private sector litigation
or government suppression orders) through global access
to
- images
or transcripts of documents and
- associated
commentary
In
a 2000 interview US whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg for
example suggested that the web might have the same impact
as the photocopier.
In practice most whistleblowers appear to have approached
(or been coopted by) traditional media and entities such
as parliamentary committees, rather than self-publishing
or providing documentation to activists in other jurisdictions.
Questions of professional privilege, in particular protection
for journalists against disclosure of information provided
on a confidential basis, are explored in the following
page of this guide.
programs and ethics
Whistleblowing programs are as much about corporate culture
(and the efficacy of action by third parties) as they
are about formal standards and aspirational statements.
Internal whistleblowing programs aim to
- underpin
corporate standards and codes of ethics (or codes of
ethics that cover a particular profession)
- encourage
employees to bring legal, financial or other malpractice
to the attention of an internal authority for action
on a timely basis
- minimise
the organisation's exposure to the damage that can occur
when employees circumvent internal mechanisms
- obviate
the need for intervention by another body, eg in response
to inaction after concerns were brought to the attention
of an authority within the organisation
In
large organisation those programs often feature formal
whistleblowing procedures and positions (eg in accord
with the Standards Australia whistleblowing standard noted
above) and hotlines that may accommodate anonymous reporting.
Whistleblowing to external entities - whether to a government
regulatory body (often under-staffed, slow to move or
indifferent to the concerns of the whistleblower) or to
a professional body (eg a bar association or medical association)
may involve meetings, correspondence or calls to a hotline.
Some whistleblowers appear to regard formal channels as
too risky and instead rely on the classic leak of documents
or briefing of a journalist, a task that can call on skills
in media management.
Impediments to a successful internal whistleblowing program
include
-
lack of trust in the organisation's system for identifying
and responding to malpractice
- perceptions
that whistleblowers are "dobbers"
- concerns
about retaliation in the workplace (including lack of
legal protection)
- concerns
about potential defamation
or other litigation
- expectations
about little support from unions and alienation from
peers
next page
(media and confessional privilege)
|
|
