A Comparative Analysis of Whistleblower Protections

Abstract

This paper analyses and compares the legislation and associated administrative practices for managing the whistleblowing processes within each of the states of Australia. It finds great variations among the Australian states, but in general, determines that even the best of the legislation could be extended and strengthened. As important, however, are the deficiencies that the study identifies in legislative coverage at the Commonwealth level, as well as in the protection of whistleblowers in the private sector. It also finds that the administrative procedures of the 'appropriate authorities' responsible for implementing the legislation in the states and territories could equally be strengthened. Current procedures do not appear to respond to the objectives of the various whistleblower acts. As a result, the overriding purposes of ensuring that the revealing of wrongdoing will correct and strengthen ethical behaviour in Australian organisations, and that the person who reveals the wrongdoing does not suffer as a consequence, seem to be lost. The paper then compares the rationale in the Australian legislation with that of the UK and the USA. These acts have very different approaches to each other and to the Australian legislation, particularly the UK Public Information Disclosure Act and the US False Claims Act, and do have lessons for Australia. In other specific respects, however, they are, arguably, just as ineffective.

Keywords: Whistleblowing, ethics, teaching ethics

JEL Classification: A20, H11