General Press Release No. 285 (February 2009)

Whistleblower protection improved, but ...

The report on improved whistleblower protection tabled in federal Parliament today is a forward-looking proposal that contains several helpful recommendations, said Professor Ken McKinnon, the Chairman of the Australian Press Council.

"But", he added, "the quite inadequate recommendation on whistleblowing to the media will ensure that the future situation will be hardly better than it is today."

The report of a parliamentary committee, chaired by Mark Dreyfus QC, Whistleblower protection: a comprehensive scheme for the Commonwealth public sector, has recommended a series of changes that will make it easier for public officials to blow the whistle on corruption, malpractice and chicanery. And it will provide strong protection for those who do so through official channels.

The Press Council's main concern is that the proposal that limits protection of public interest whistleblowers who go to the media. They are protected only when they have disclosed internally and externally, when "reasonable" time has elapsed, and the matter involves "immediate serious harm to public health and safety". Such limits will ensure that the bureaucracy can defeat all attempts to disclose information in a protected way. The weasel words 'reasonable' and 'nature of the matter' in particular tip the scales away from even the most conscientious whistleblowers. "Who will decide what is reasonable?" asked Professor McKinnon.

He added, "Whistleblowers know that their best and quickest chance of rectifying corruption, waste and general governmental incompetence is to go directly to the press. The press has a responsibility to investigate and check the accuracy and fairness of informants before publication. Any failure to do this brings is open to a complaint that the Press Council will adjudicate, and, if necessary, hold the newspaper publicly to account."

Professor McKinnon is worried that, had the proposed "protection" been in force, it would not have protected those who told journalists Harvey and McManus of a cabinet decision to renege on an election promise to veterans. It would not have protected the individuals who exposed government failure to act on a report on deficiencies in Customs at Sydney Airport. It would not protect public officials who blow the whistle on corruption, where there is no threat to "public health and safety".

Professor McKinnon concluded, "The Press Council applauds the effort made by the Dreyfus Committee and the many good suggestions for improvement, but without a better media clause, which the Council will continue to lobby for strenuously, regrettably the proposals will not make enough difference to get anywhere near achieving the objective of a free flow of public interest information."

See also
2008 submission to the Dreyfus Committee on public interest whistleblowing
Council's position on public interest whistleblowing

[ return to top ]

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.