• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
Since the 1990s many public law jurisdictions around the world have enacted, or are committed to enacting, legislation to protect public interest whistleblowers. Whistleblower protection has also been passed in corporate law, workplace relations law, consumer law and financial regulation. This paper provides an analysis of this legislation, and identifies several emerging issues for consideration. We identify a strong case for greater consistency in the legal thresholds and operational requirements imposed by whistleblower protection legislation, including recommendations for common tests and processes covering both the public and private sectors. In large part, the prospect for accelerating the transition towards more effective, less 'symbolic' regimes depends on a clearer consensus regarding the public importance of employee disclosures and the organisational advantages of open, proactive approaches to disclosure management.

whistleblower, protected disclosure, confidentiality, australia

Abstract:
The last 15 years have seen many developments in Australian public interest disclosure, or "whistleblower protection", legislation. Since 1991, every Australian public law jurisdiction has enacted or introduced such legislation, and in 2004 comparable provisions extended similar principles to Australian corporate law, and to a lesser extent workplace relations. This paper presents key results from a comparative analysis of these legislative regimes, focusing on five issues: who may disclose wrongdoing in the public interest, the types of wrongdoing that may be disclosed, protection of "public" as opposed to internal or regulatory whistleblowing, compensation mechanisms for aggrieved whistleblowers, and how to best achieve effect legal recognition of the obligations of all employers - public or private - towards employees who blow the whistle in the public interest. This analysis demonstrates the need for greater consistency in the key legal thresholds and operational requirements imposed by Australian whistleblower protection regimes, and the potential for common tests and processes covering both the public and private sectors. In large part, the prospect for accelerating the transition towards more effective, less "symbolic" regimes depends on a clearer consensus about the public importance of employee disclosures and the organisational advantages of open, proactive approaches to disclosure management.

whistleblowers, public interest disclosure, Australia

Abstract:
Since the 1990s Australia's nine jurisdictions have passed (or, in the case of the Northern Territory, proposed to pass) public sector whistleblower legislation. The legislation, which reflects different political origins and legislative aims, is not consistent in many respects and there are few common tests across the jurisdictions. This article analyzes two issues - who the Australian whistleblower can disclose to, and who the whistleblower can make protected disclosures about. The examination of these issues indicates inconsistencies in the public law whistleblower laws enacted since the 1990s. This inconsistency is not sensible in Australia's national economy, where an employee in one State can make a protected disclosure, but an employee in another cannot make the same disclosure.

This article supports the election commitment of the Rudd federal government in 2007 to introduce best practice federal whistleblowing legislation which will hopefully overcome shortcomings analyzed in this article.

Whistleblower, public inerest disclosure, confidentiality, Australia