“All that is needed for evil to prosper is for people of good will to do nothing”—Edmund Burke

TheWhistle NO. 42, JUNE 2005Newsletter of Whistleblowers Australia

PO Box U129, Wollongong NSW 2500

John Millard — see page 2

PAGE 2 THE WHISTLE, #42, JUNE 2005

Media watch

He tried to keepAunty honest

Errol SimperThe Australian, 24 March 2005

IT’S rather sad that one John HavilandMillard perceived, on March 4 andafter 23 years, a need to resign fromeveryone’s ABC. Millard performedhonourably as an internal whistle-blower, often attempting to save theABC from itself. Inevitably, it broughtMillard into conflict with certain ABCmanagers of days gone by, conflictsthat in some cases were never reallyresolved to everyone’s total satisfac-tion.

Given there’s almost certainly ageneration of ABC journalists andmanagers not familiar with Millard’sstory, it’s worth recalling his finesthour was probably 1994, when hespoke out against the corporation’sblind eye to the unofficial — andillegal — sponsorship of so-calledinfotainment programming.

There were other heroes of thatunedifying saga, not least the formertelevision reporter and radio presenterTracee Hutchison, Eric Campbell (nowa Foreign Correspondent reporter) andMegan James (formerly withQuantum).

What was happening was thatinfotainment programs were being puttogether by outside — non-ABC —producers, partly with corporatesponsorship money. They were thenscreened on the non-commercial ABC,complete with numerous and not verysubtle corporate plugs. Worse, therewere senior ABC executives who wellknew about the practice. Revelationsfrom Millard and others were to lead,directly or indirectly, to the resigna-tions of then managing director DavidHill, head of television Paddy Conroy,and several others.

It was a cancerous fiscal culturethat also led to what’s probably thelowest point in the ABC’s history. Itwas revealed, most publicly in theSenate, that a Sunday evening seriesmade by Horizon Films — ExportAustralia — was being funded almostwholly by companies whose profilesand products were being shamelessly

and exclusively featured on theprogram in a favourable light. Senatequestioning revealed the nationalbroadcaster as morally bankrupt andeditorially irresponsible. Even inretrospect, it makes you cringe.

A Horizon consultant, DianneBaig, conceded to circulating materialaround the corporate world to theeffect that companies had only to pay$20,000 to have the ABC make five-minute programs about their companyand/or products as a prime-timeshowcase promotion. The materialhelpfully noted comparable time oncommercial television would costpublicity-conscious companies about$42,000 a minute.

What’s more, the non-commercialABC had agreed to screen thesepseudo-advertisements four times overa two-year period. It had already put18 of a scheduled 50 segments to airbefore the series was somewhatbelatedly withdrawn. The Australianran the story on its front page (onMarch 25, 1995) for the edification ofa disbelieving public and the scribewill forever be in debt to a source —no, not Millard — who had earlieralerted him to Export Australia’ sdoubtful provenance and intention.This shambles, incidentally, had allbeen overseen — or not seen — by aLabor-appointed board.

The willingness of Millard to speak— and write — in favour of preservingthe ABC from corporate money might,in an ideal world, have been expectedto earn him internal kudos. Theopposite happened. Millard foundhimself regarded as A TroublesomePerson and when his televisionprogram The Investigators w a sdumped, Millard was declaredredundant with indecent haste. Thiswas despite the fact he’d alreadytransferred to another program, HotChips. After the threat of industrialaction, Millard was given a job in ruralradio.

It’s worth stressing there was neverthe slightest doubt Millard had beencorrect in his claims about compro-mised ABC editorial integrity and thathe’d subsequently been victimised. Anindependent inquiry into the backdoor

sponsorship claims by a Queen’sCounsel, George Palmer, left nothingto the imagination. Telstra (thenTelecom), for example, had contrib-uted $100,000 to The Home Show. TheBusiness Council of Australia gave$100,000 for the Great Ideas series.The list of corporate donors wasformidable. A second independentinvestigation — of the ABC’ssubsequent treatment of Millard —conducted by a barrister, PhillipColeman, found Millard had suffered a“detriment to his career” as a result ofhis activities.

But if the ABC, led by this time byBrian Johns — Hill’s replacement —believed Millard would be cowed, thenit was wrong. Millard proceeded tolash out against the corporation’sproposed move into subscriptiontelevision, in partnership withcommercial operators. Millardbelieved he saw another serious threatof commercial infection. Again, he andhis allies won. The broadcaster’ssubscription arm, Australian Informa-tion Media, collapsed in September1995.

Even Millard’s friends concede hehas made mistakes. He has spent thelast eight years of his ABC life as aproducer for the well-regardedAustralian Story program and manybelieved his best course would havebeen to forget and forgive past events.It proved difficult. Someone whostayed close to Millard, 56, was thestaff-elected ABC director during thesponsorship scandal, QuentinDempster. Dempster says: “John wascourageous and put his career on theline to expose flaws in the ABC’seditorial policies. And I believe theABC could have been more supportiveof him than it was.”

To be absolutely fair, Millardreceived a $100,000 settlement ondeparture. And an earlier, 1998,consolation came via a Walkley awardfor a story about the rebel Queenslandpastoralist Camilla Cowley.

THE WHISTLE, #42, JUNE 2005 PAGE 3

Whistleblower seeks royalcommission into tragedies

Jason GregoryCourier-Mail, 18 April 2005

THE nurse who blew the whistle onJayant Patel has called for a RoyalCommission into the scandal. ToniHoffman, the Bundaberg BaseHospital’s Intensive Care Unit’s seniornurse, said she had suffered terribly inthe two years since trying to reveal DrDeath’s botched operations.

She said she suffered at the handsof a management that bullies andintimidates whistleblowers.

The woman who has worked forQueensland Health for 20 years saidthe day she went up the stairs (toBundaberg health service districtmanager Peter Leck’s office) aftercomplaining to middle managers “waslike walking alone to the gallows.”

“It was hard to work up thecourage: I was making the complaintsbut no one was paying attention.

“But we should have been listenedto and it should have been dealt with.

“Emotions were running so high inthe ICU after the complaint was firstmade to Peter Leck and nothing wasdone, and we tried every avenue to tryto stop this man, we sat ruminating onwho we could call next,” she said.

Mr Leck has stepped aside pendinga review of the hospital’s safety andquality after he ignored Ms Hoffman’scomplaints.

“I think if there are areas ofconcern, there should be inquiries,” MsHoffman said.

“A royal commission would beindependent.

“Independence was something thatwe were concerned about (because)how independent can an inquiry bewhen Queensland Health are doing itthemselves?

“I mean … you cannot audityourself.

“The worst thing was when weheard a simple Internet search found hehad lost his licence in the US, becauseit meant (the damage) was totallyavoidable if they had done a propercheck here.”

More than 50 former Patel patientsare expected to attend a VictimsSupport Group meeting in Bundabergthis afternoon but it is unknown how

many patients had disastrous outcomesat the hands of the former director ofsurgery, who was paid $200,000 ayear.

Patel fled Australia at Easter andreturned to the US — although havinghad his licence revoked.

“No one wants to hear bad stuff …they want to hear good stuff,” MsHoffman said.

“And (the executive) certainly didnot want to hear anything about DrPatel because, as Dr Patel said himself,he was making money for the hospital,putting through huge amounts ofsurgery, putting in long hours.

“Everyone very much believed thathe was protected by management, hewould say that, and it was our experi-ence when we complained.”

Ms Hoffman even informallycontacted the coroner who “alluded tothe fact that he had some concernsabout what’s going on at the hospital”,and the police who spoke initially tothe nurse but never followed up.

A royal commission-style publicinquiry is also being urged by formerpatients and the state Opposition.

“I think (Queensland Health)should tell the truth and not lie,” MsHoffman said.

“Nothing is perfect and definitelynot in an organisation as big asQueensland Health. (Medical staff)don’t want to be playing up onepolitician against another.

“It seems to me QH never tell thetruth or acknowledge a problem.

“All those involved have put ourlives on hold for the last two years: weare all very easy to cry, we feel terriblefor the patients and guilty and upset forthem.

“It is an unbelievable story:missing bodies and operations beingdone wrong, like hooking up the bowelwrong and the faeces coming out ofthe patient’s mouth.”

She also expressed disgust thatnoticeable problems like returns totheatres, high complication andinfection rates and patients being sentto the ICU after Patel operations werenot acted upon by management.

“I am glad that Dr Patel has left thecountry and there can be no moredamage done and he cannot hurtanyone else.”

Ms Hoffman, whose own GP wastrained overseas, said many overseas

doctors “are brilliant but in Bundaberg(foreign doctors) are not even given anorientation, they come in from Karachiand other places and are not shownaround the town or the culture or theequipment or the terminology.”

Ms Hoffman, who has been gettingcalls of support since being named inSaturday’s edition of The Courier-Mail, intends to return to work.

She asked the people of Bundabergto have faith in the hospital’s staff.

CSIRO gagsretired scientists

Rosslyn BeebyCanberra Times, 14 May 2005

A group of retired CSIRO scientistshas been gagged by management andformally cautioned against makingpublic comment about the nationalresearch organisation.

The warning was delivered yester-day morning by CSIRO SustainableEcosystems chief Dr Andrew Johnsonto about 13 honorary research fellowsat the division’s Canberra headquar-ters.

A group spokesman said thehonorary fellows — who undertakeunpaid research work and mentoringfor CSIRO in return for library andcomputer access — had been “rappedover the knuckles and told to shut up”.

But CSIRO chief executive DrGeoff Garrett said he did not believeany attempt had been made to gag theretired scientists. “We have a policy onpublic comment, and that applies tohonorary research fellows as well as allCSIRO staff.”

Dr Garrett said he had been told themajority of the CSIRO SustainableEcosystems research fellows hadaccepted Dr Johnson’s view on publiccomment.

Dr Johnson confirmed the meetinghad been called to remind the researchfellows of their formal obligations andto establish rules about their conduct.

“They are guests of this division.“They are not employees of the

organisation. They have been told theyare not entitled to make independentcomment.”

The disciplinary action came afterrecent public criticisms by retiredCSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems

PAGE 4 THE WHISTLE, #42, JUNE 2005

ecologist and honorary research fellowDr Hugh Tyndale-Biscoe at a booklaunch in Canberra. At the launch of arevised edition of his book Life ofMarsupials, Dr Tyndale-Biscoe said hehad decided to speak out on changes tothe research direction of CSIROSustainable Ecosystem after severalwildlife ecologists were told they were“surplus to requirements”.

Dr Johnson said yesterday that DrTyndale-Biscoe was “entitled to hisview, but it is a mistaken view”.

He dismissed suggestions that DrTyndale-Biscoe had been reprimanded,but said it had been made “loud andclear” to the research fellows whattheir rights and obligations were “ifthey wish to stay on as part ofCSIRO”.

A member of the group said thehonorary fellows had been given threechoices — they could agree with thedivision’s restructure, disagree but “beprepared to wear it”, or resign if theyfelt they couldn’t “live with thechanges”.

CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystem’shonorary research fellows includeEmeritus Professor Charles Krebs,international biodiversity expert DrDenis Saunders and former curator-in-charge of the Australian NationalWildlife Collection, Dr RichardSchodde.

Opposition public administrationspokesman Senator Kim Carr hasdescribed the warning to the CSIROresearch fellows as “extraordinarilyauthoritarian”.

Hundreds of safetywhistleblowers sackedhttp://unionsafe.labor.net.au/news/

25 February 2005

Hundreds of UK workers are beingsacked every year for refusing to workin unsafe workplaces according to aUK Trades Union Council (TUC)investigation, and they are looking tothe Australian model as a solution.

The survey was conducted jointlywith UK safety journal Hazards.

Hazards says that in the five yearssince 1999, 1,500 workers have foundthemselves out of a job for raisingsafety concerns with their employers.

The TUC says that under the UK’s1996 Employment Rights Act workershave a right to refuse to do dangerouswork, but because an employer foundguilty of unfairly dismissing someoneon safety grounds may be looking at apenalty of as little as £3,800, manyunsafe bosses find it cheaper to sackthan make improvements.

The study shows that whileworkplaces with unions are likely to besafer places than those with no unionpresence, a union safety rep trying toimprove the safety of workingpractices can find their attemptsthwarted by employers with scantregard for the health and safety of theiremployees.

Safety reps can raise safetyconcerns with their bosses, butemployers can simply choose to ignoretheir approach, for there is no legalduty on them to respond says the TUC.

“It shouldn’t be a firing offence toobject to unsafe work,” says TUCGeneral Secretary Brendan Barber.“Workers should not be placed in thesituation where they are forced tochoose between risking their job orrisking their personal health and safety.

“We need a legal system thatprotects safety whistleblowers, notrewards them with their cards.

“The problem is far worse thanofficial statistics show. Unionisedworkers get advice and representationso are far more likely to get their jobback where employers do the wrongthing. Workers who aren’t in a union,and casual and migrant workers standlittle chance of redress.”

“Giving union safety reps morerights in more workplaces is theultimate win-win,” says HazardsEditor Rory O’ Neill. “It providesskilled, trained on-the-ground unionsafety advisers at absolutely no cost tothe Government, complementing thework of the Health and SafetyExecutive and saving lives in theprocess.”

The TUC and Hazards are callingfor several improvements to be madein an attempt to reduce the number ofworkplace accidents which saw 235deaths and nearly 31,000 seriousinjuries happen in the UK last year.

The Government should introducea system of roving safety reps in theUK to allow unions to bring saferworking to workplaces where there is

no union presence. The experience ofother countries like Italy, Norway andAustralia suggests that roving reps canhave a significant impact on improvingworkplace safety records.

The Government should allocatemore resources to allow the Health andSafety Executive and local authoritiesto increase the number of workplacesthey can inspect each year.

In Australia, unions are able to useProvisional Improvement andProvisional Prohibition Notices againstemployers who take risks with thehealth and safety of their workforce.The Notices are proving very effectiveat curbing dangerous working prac-tices, and the Government shouldintroduce a similar system here.

There should be a right for workersand union safety reps to refuse to workin dangerous workplaces without thefear of victimisation or dismissal, andwhere an employer has been foundguilty of unfair dismissal, theemployment tribunal should have theright to give the worker their job back.

High Court supports TitleIX protection: law nowcovers whistle-blowers

Charles LaneWashington Post,

30 March 2005, page A01

The Supreme Court toughened afederal law against sex discriminationin federally funded educationalprograms yesterday, ruling that itprohibits not only unequal treatment ofgirls and women at school, but alsoofficial retaliation against anyone —male or female — who blows thewhistle on unequal treatment.

By a vote of 5 to 4, the court ruledthat the federal law, known since itsadoption in 1972 as Title IX, author-izes a federal lawsuit by RoderickJackson, a girls’ basketball coach inBirmingham who says he was fired in2001 for complaining that boys’ teamswere receiving better equipment andpractice facilities.

Writing for the majority, JusticeSandra Day O’Connor noted thatJackson’s claims remain to be provenat trial, but that Title IX would beweakened unless plaintiffs such asJackson were entitled to a day in court.

THE WHISTLE, #42, JUNE 2005 PAGE 5

“Reporting incidents of discrimi-nation is integral to Title IX enforce-ment and would be discouraged ifretaliation against those who reportwent unpunished,” O’Connor wrote.“Indeed, if retaliation were notprohibited, Title IX’s enforcementscheme would unravel.”

O’Connor added that minors oftendepend on teachers and coaches “tovindicate the rights of their studentsbecause they are better able to identifydiscrimination and bring it to theattention of administrators.” O’Connorwas joined by Justices John PaulStevens, David H. Souter, Ruth BaderGinsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

The decision in Jackson v.Birmingham Board of Education, No.02-1672, means that those who allegeviolations of Title IX will enjoyroughly the same right to sue forretaliation that federal law confers onthose who raise charges of racialdiscrimination in employment.

The court’s decision strengthensenforcement of Title IX at a time whenthe politics of the law are becomingmore heated.

Many supporters of the legislationhave credited it with raising the qualityand quantity of women’s athleticprograms.

The Bush administration says itfully supports Title IX, and itsupported Jackson in the case decidedyesterday. Some of the arguments inO’Connor’s opinion echoed argumentsin the administration’s friend-of-the-court brief.

At the same time, Title IX hascome under fire from critics —including such prominent Republicansas House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, aformer high school wrestling coach.

The critics take issue with federalrules that seek equal rates of participa-tion in sports between men andwomen. Fewer women are interested insports, they argue, so the only wayschools can achieve the requisite“proportionality” is by droppingpredominantly male sports, such aswrestling.

In 2002, the Bush administrationresponded with a commission to studythe impact of Title IX. Last week, theadministration enacted a version of onecommiss ion recommenda t ion ,announcing that it would allowcolleges and universities to use e-mail

surveys to gauge the athletic interestsof students to show that they areoffering enough opportunities to meetthe demand for women’s sports.

Advocacy groups favoring strictTitle IX enforcement said this wouldrelax pressure on schools to ensure thatmales and females participate in sportsat the same rate.

Supporters of Title IX hailedyesterday’s opinion as a majorstatement by the court on equitybetween the sexes.

“This decision is a slam-dunkvictory for everyone who cares aboutequal opportunity,” said Marcia D.Greenberger, co-president of theNational Women’s Law Center, whorepresented Jackson. “The court hasconfirmed that people cannot bepunished for standing up for theirrights. This protection is not justcritical for Title IX, but also for otherbedrock civil rights laws.”

But opponents of Jackson’s lawsuitwarned that the court’s ruling willopen the door to more lawsuits, forcingschool systems to divert resources totheir legal departments that theyshould be using to bolster classroominstruction.

“Litigation is costly, and it doestake up people’s time and createanimosity,” said Julie Underwood,general counsel of the National SchoolBoards Association, which representsall state school boards in the UnitedStates as well as about 15,000 localschool boards.

Underwood said that the court’sruling would permit lawsuits forretaliation whether or not the whistle-blower’s charges of sex discriminationwere true.

Those concerns were voiced in adissenting opinion by Justice ClarenceThomas, who was joined by ChiefJustice William H. Rehnquist andJustices Antonin Scalia and AnthonyM. Kennedy.

“Under the majority’s reasoning,”Thomas wrote, “courts may expandliability as they, rather than Congress,see fit. This is no idle worry. The nextstep is to say that someone closelyassociated with the complainer, whoclaims he suffered retaliation for hiscomplaints, likewise has a retaliationclaim under Title IX.”

Jackson will now have the oppor-tunity to present his case in a federal

district court in Alabama, unless hereaches a settlement with the schoolboard.

In 2003, he was given a newposition as an interim basketball coachfor the girls’ team at Ensley HighSchool in Birmingham.

“You can’t separate the studentsfrom their teacher or coach,” he toldreporters yesterday. “Whateverconditions they had to undergo, I haveto undergo, too.”

[Kim Sawyer of WhistleblowersAustralia comments: This highlysignificant decision effectively giveswhistleblowers the same protection inthe US — what is termed Title IXprotection — as those protectedagainst racial discrimination. Thisgives a lead as to the type of protectionrequired in Australia, namely protec-tion such as that offered under theRacial Vilification Act.]

WBA AGM

This year’s conference and annualgeneral meeting will be held inAdelaide, 9-11 September. See theenclosed flier for information.

Send notice of items for the AGMagenda to the National Secretary,Cynthia Kardell, at 7A CampbellStreet, Balmain NSW 2041, emailckardell@iprimus.com.au

PAGE 6 THE WHISTLE, #42, JUNE 2005

Articles

WBA – a way forward

Cynthia Kardell, Peter Bowden and Ihave had a couple of meetings thismonth in Sydney to discuss ways inwhich we could (1) establish an issue-based, more proactive stance in NSWthis year, and (2) explore ways ofshaping and conducting more nationalWBA initiatives and campaigns.

Cynthia suggested that one way toachieve focus and an “outward” WBAstance would be to find common linksbetween local or personal WBA issuesand the “core” issues established as anagenda.

We have in mind the idea ofnational issues which are “pushable”locally in each state, and vice-versa.For instance, workplace bullying andvictimisation, along with the new focuson workplace psychopaths, and indeedmental health and the "Soviet-stylepsychiatry" used as a tool againstwhistleblowers, particularly in thepublic sector, could realistically bebrought under the general umbrella oflocal and a national core issue.(Queensland currently has the onlylegislation on bullying).

In looking at this, we came up withthe idea of a kind of Local Action,National Goals agenda which we feltcould bring keener focus to the WBAnationally, where, at the moment, allsorts of issues are being discussed inall states with no wider or nationalWBA coordination and, moreimportantly, action where the issuewarrants it.

It was also strongly suggested thatin any WBA initiative or agenda foraction, there should be no unduepreoccupation with WBA meetings,structure or issues relating to theframework of the organisation itself —in other words, we're not here to arguewho does or should do or is not doingwhat, but how we should maintainproactivity — looking outwards,focusing on action at all times.

The three key agenda issues thatwe decided on are as follows.

1. Workplace bullying — agrowing nightmare, now on theincrease and likely to grow even moreas the government carries out its

workplace "reforms," expected afterJuly this year, all but crushing what'sleft of union protection, removingsmall businesses (how small?) fromthe unfair dismissal relations, andpushing for a scaled-down nationalarbitration and regulations on salariesand workplace conditions. It's clearthat in the "new" workplace, therestraints will be loosened and maybedone away with altogether on bullying,intimidation, misuse of psychiatryagainst whistleblowers and, indeed, theworkplace psychopaths themselves.The whole syndrome bodes ill foremployees and for anyone who blowsthe whistle from now on. Ruddock’slatest neo-con move to allow corpora-tions to sue individuals or groups for“defamation” only adds to the chal-lenge.

2. Whistleblower legislation —there are two areas in which we feelthe WBA should be researching,formulating and lobbying proactivelynow — (1) The weaknesses in each ofthe various state Protective DisclosureActs (in NSW, for instance, legaldefences for whistleblowers come intoforce only in event of litigation); (2) Astandard, national whistleblowerprotection act which covers allAustralians equally, legislatescomplete protection, genuine andthorough investigation, firm punitiveaction against bureaucratic or corpo-rate wrong-doers, and compensatoryaction in the case of proven whistle-blower intimidation. It’s clear that aCommonwealth act could only applyto civil servants (where there’s noprotective disclosure at the moment),but we feel it could cover public andprivate corporations as well throughthe jurisdiction of the CorporationsAct. It’s our view that national legisla-tion, while not covering all Austra-lians, would be regarded as a “standardsetter,” seen as sitting above thepresent system of various, differingand therefore discriminatory statelaws.

3. Honesty in government — anumbrella values-based campaign fortransparency and accountability in allsections of our society, focused on"spin" and misinformation, withhold-ing of information, dodging of respon-

sibility and outright lying by ourpoliticians, bureaucrats, businessleaders and sporting and communitybodies in Australia.

We feel this is a good start on apressing task, and we’d like to hearyour comments, suggestions andgeneral input on (1) the “core” issues,(2) whether we can achieve, or indeedare interested in achieving, a morefocused proactive national stance, (3)how we’re going to do it, and (4) howcan we coordinate a more effective,more national current affairs andinformation program — taking intoaccount the four means by whichwe've been getting the message outabout WBA and our issues so far: themedia (interviews, articles, pressconferences), our website (under majorredevelopment), special addresses topublic groups (very effective, and weneed to do much more), special WBAfunctions, including fund-raisingevents.

Any takers?All very best regardsDerek Maitland29 March 2005[See comment on back page.]

Psychiatric assessmentsforced on whistleblowers

and public sectoremployees by publicsector management

Mary Lander(member of Whistleblowers Australia)

I am pleased to advise my submissionto the Senate Legal and ConstitutionalReferences Committee on this subjectwas accepted and will be now consid-ered by the Committee in the contextof an Inquiry into the Privacy Act1988, which is expected to report by30 June 2005.

While it is one of a range ofprivacy issues to be considered anddiscussed during the course of theInquiry, the subject of forced psychiat-ric assessments will also be consideredin the context of “violations of privacy

THE WHISTLE, #42, JUNE 2005 PAGE 7

and an individual’s right to theirpersonal information.”

I was subjected to this myself inDecember 2002 after writing to thePrime Minister making disclosuresrelating to the financial losses ofMedibank Private and raising anotherissue about the unfair treatment of anemployee in the CommonwealthGovernment Department where Iwork. I demanded nothing other thanan investigation into the issues I raised.However, after my letters wereforwarded to the Department forresponse, via the accountableMinister’s office, I was forced toundergo a psychiatric assessment. I canonly have empathy for others whohave been subjected to this mostappalling, insulting and degradingform of bullying and abuse.

In my case the managers whosubjected me to this were implicatedby the disclosures I made and controlboth the whistleblowing and grievanceprocess in the Department. Despite myexhaustive and fruitless attempts tohave this matter dealt with by Authori-ties and three threats against myemployment to date, I am still perse-vering despite it all.

Despite the fact I was cleared of thefalse charge of psychiatric problems bythe psychiatrist I was forced to seeunder duress, having been suspendedfrom duty until such time as I agreedand asked nothing other than “Did youwrite this letter to the Prime Minister”before they subjected me to this, I donot take it lightly at all.

If there are others who have beensubjected to forced psychiatric assess-ments, under similar circumstances,either as State or CommonwealthGovernment public sector employees, Iwould be interested in hearing fromthem. Perhaps collectively we can helpto make a difference and bring an endto this insidious form of bullying andabuse.

You can help. If you are interestedin sending me a one-page overview ofyour case and an outline of the circum-stances under which you were forcedto undergo a psychiatric assessment,you may be able to help make a contri-bution to this campaign to bring an endto this appalling practice.

The information will naturally betreated in confidence, however,opportunities may arise where the

information can be used to support thiscampaign and it would be useful interms of providing examples. Youhave my assurance that such informa-tion would not be forwarded to otherparties (being appropriate authorities)without your consent and withoutassurances from those authorities thatyou will not be victimised as a result ofhaving provided the information.

Should you wish to respond, pleaseforward your one-page overview to meat mary.wba@ozemail.com.au

Please put “I was forced to undergoa psychiatric assessment” in thesubject heading.

WBA submission on NTwhistleblower bill

Peter Bowden

Whistleblowers Australia (WBA)recently prepared a submission to theNorthern Territory Department ofJustice on its proposed Public InterestDisclosure Bill.

Members of WBA who helpedwith the submission included PeterBennett, Cynthia Kardell and KimSawyer.

The Northern Territory‘s proposedbill is among the more comprehensiveof the state and territory acts. Whistle-blower protection laws that have beenpassed in state after state have seen anincreasing series of protections beingput in place. WBA, however, believesthat legislation in any state, includingthat proposed for the Northern Terri-tory, needs to go much further.

WBA sees three key objectivesbehind any whistleblower act.

1. The first and the overriding issue isthat whistleblowers need to know thatthey will be protected, not victimised;and that their disclosures will betreated as being ‘in the public interest’.The legislation designed to prevent theunexpected negative treatment thatthey receive from their colleagues andemployers needs to be strengthenedeven further

2. They have to know that the careerrisks that they are taking and theostracism they are experiencing willresult in the wrongdoing being investi-gated and the wrongdoer being

punished. Many whistleblowers aredismayed that after surviving theirwhistleblowing ordeal, denials andcover-ups have enabled the wrongdoerto escape punishment.

3. Third, whistleblowers need to behelped. Whistleblowers are ordinarypeople, unskilled in the law, anduncertain about how to prevent illegalor immoral actions. They need help inworking their way through their act, inknowing how and to whom theyshould complain, and in using the actto protect themselves.

Role of the Ombudsman

WBA advocates a number of legislatedchanges in emphasis and responsibili-ties for the whistleblower agency forachieving these objectives:

1. The main method is establishing astrong, pro-active whistlebloweragency, either separately or as adedicated branch of the ombudsman’soffice, designed to actively support andprotect genuine whistleblowers. Thecurrent legislation, even the mostprogressive, assigns the ombudsman apassive rather than an active role. Thewhistleblower, if his or her complaintis not investigated, has to take it to theombudsman, not vice-versa. If he orshe is victimised, the whistleblowerhas to respond, including seekinginjunctions, or other forms of relief.The ombudsman will not stop it. Thispassive role for the ombudsman hasthe negative result that although mostacts, including that of the NorthernTerritory, make reprisals a criminaloffence, virtually no office in Australiahas used this legislation. The onus isagain placed on the whistleblower.

2. A more positive stand from theOmbudsman’s office is advocated, inconsultation, support and training topeople involved in whistleblowing,including assistance to the whistle-blower. This training and adviceshould be widely available -— tomanagers and administrators through-out the public sector, to consultantsand trainers in industry and govern-ment, to trade union officials and evento academics who teach in this orrelated fields.

PAGE 8 THE WHISTLE, #42, JUNE 2005

3. The ombudsman’s office should beaware of the whistleblower’s com-plaint from the outset, and on thecircumstances surrounding the disclo-sure. WBA considered whether thecomplaint should be made directly tothe ombudsman, instead of thewhistleblower’s employing agency, butdecided that such an approach wouldcreate an excessive workload for theombudsman, and would also relievethe employing agency of the responsi-bility for its own internal ethicalbehaviour. The ombudsman, however,would be informed and would followup to ensure that the agency resolvedthe issue and did not cover up thewrong-doing

Whistleblowers Australia also urgedthat the Northern Territory introduce aWhistleblower Protection Act for theprivate sector, for the current proposalonly covers the public sector. It alsoadvocated a False Claims Act, a US actwhich is indisputably the most effec-tive of all whistleblower acts.

The Northern Territory is the lastof the states and territories to providelegislation to support whistleblowers.Australia, however, still has nonational act. It is the only Englishspeaking country to be without suchlegislation.

FOI: foiled in QueenslandDon Eldridge

Associate editor of The Whistle

The resignation of David Bevan,Queensland’s Information Commis-sioner, has resulted in a retreat fromthe idea of open, democratic govern-ment. The recent political dominanceof Labor, under premier Peter Beattie,has resulted in a government trying tostifle all opposition, all criticism, andin many cases succeeding.

An important part of this campaignis to stop people from finding out whatis going on. A notorious example ishow any document “tabled” in Cabinetcannot be accessed under Freedom ofInformation (FOI) legislation. Thisallows bungling, cost blow-outs, andthe like to be kept secret. But since noteverything done by government can bepresented to Cabinet, people still canuse the FOI “loophole” to discover

embarrassing information.One way to plug this “loophole” is

to frustrate people trying to gaininformation. William De Maria, at theUniversity of Queensland, says thelatest statistics show that in the 2002-03 period, 146,069 requests forinformation under FOI were blocked.Can this be equated with democraticgovernance?

With Bevan’s resignation, Beattiesaw another way to plug the“loophole”. It was quite simple. InFebruary 2005 the position of FOICommissioner was advertised. Theapplicants were interviewed and ashort list of four names submitted to aselection panel. One of the applicantswas Greg Sorensen, Deputy Informa-tion Commissioner, described as beingfearless, honest, and the finest FOIofficer in the country.

Of the four short-listed, Sorensencame last. The panel instead choseCathi Taylor, a woman with littleexperience in FOI matters and no legaltraining. Her qualifications consist ofworking for various Labor departmentsand politicians over the years, as wellas being married to EducationQueensland’s director-general. (Lateradvertisements for FOI officers inother departments, paid less than halfwhat Taylor earns, insist applicantsmust have law degrees, etc., whichwould preclude Taylor.)

To observers, such as journalists att h e Courier-Mail, this unusualoutcome suggested Beattie was puttinga loyalist in a position where poten-tially damaging FOI requests could bestymied. In order to protect govern-ment, it would not be necessary inevery case to frustrate FOI applicants.For example, warning governmentbeforehand that someone would betrying to get information on a certainsubject could provide time to devise aplausible explanation, or shred theevidence, as already has occurred.

Smelling something wrong with theselection of Taylor, journalists begansniffing around. What they found wasdisquieting. One member of theselection panel, and the most seniorpublic servant involved, Leo Keliher,director-general in the Premier’sDepartment, also had been Taylor’sleading referee. At some stage heceased being Taylor’s referee butapparently continued to play a role in

the selection process. This alone callsinto question the legitimacy of whatwent on. On top of this, the panel’schairwoman and Taylor were personalfriends.

John Uhr, lecturer in politics andgovernment at ANU, felt the involve-ment of the Premier’s director-generalwas not an honest way of doing things,as choosing an FOI Commissioner issupposed to independent of govern-ment.

The journalists wondered howsomeone with minimal experiencecould be chosen for such a high-leveland important position. It reeked ofcronyism. It turned out the normalselection criteria for the position werewatered down. Instead of needing realabilities, applicants merely had to havea capacity to acquire these abilities.Anyone reading this article could haveapplied for and got the job, providedthey had the right connections.

On her first day in office, Taylorfired Greg Sorensen. In 2004, DavidBevan and Sorensen had releaseddetails of a government handout to theBerri company, details Beattie wantedkept secret. So here was Beattie’srevenge. And here is where democracywent down the drain.

Taylor and Beattie tried to denySorensen had been Deputy Commis-sioner, nor was he being fired. He was,they claimed, only a temporary FOIofficer and would return to beingdeputy ombudsman. These denialswere shown to be absurd after theCourier-Mail published governmentdocuments showing Sorensen asDeputy Commissioner.

Early in her new job, Taylor wasseen attending a $300 one-daybeginner’s course set up to introducejuniors to the basics of FOI. TheCourier-Mail gleefully reported this asTaylor trying to learn what she hadbeen hired to do. Taylor responded bysaying she was “vetting” the course, tosee if it was suitable for officers underher control. Since her background inFOI is minimal, it is hard to see howshe is competent to assess the course;under the circumstances, the Courier-Mail version seems more plausible. Aswell, the Courier-Mail reported thatFOI staff were appalled they had beenput under such an inexperiencedleader. (Taylor quickly advertised foran assistant, with a law degree of

THE WHISTLE, #42, JUNE 2005 PAGE 9

course, to take over Sorensen’s roleand advise her about legal niceties.)

Since Taylor had worked with somany Labor departments and individu-als, she could not get involved in anyFOI matters dealing with them.Anything to do with EducationQueensland also was out of bounds,due to her marriage. As oppositionpoliticians pointed out, taxpayers werepaying a full-time salary for a part-time Commissioner. Taylor replied shewould not take a personal role in anymatter involving personal Laborfriends or Labor departments in whichshe had worked.

This was not a “core” promise.Shortly after taking office, Taylor saidshe wanted a “hands-on” role inattending to a request for informationfrom one of her previous workplaces,the Department of Premier andCabinet.

The above situation caused FredAlbietz, the FOI pioneer in Queen-sland, to say that with limited FOIexperience, and no law degree,Taylor’s appointment was a gravemistake, as the position demands notonly much experience, but also anappreciation of the finer points of law.

Australia’s leading expert in FOImatters, Rick Snell, senior lecturer inlaw at the University of Tasmania, andeditor of the FOI Review, has saidQueensland’s high reputation in FOImatters has now been tarnished. Fromfar-off Ireland the same criticism isheard. At University College Cork, alecturer in FOI, Professor MaeveMcDonagh, related how Queensland’sFOI legislation was once considered aworld leader, and often cited in Irishcases. McDonagh expressed surprisethat Greg Sorensen had not beenallowed to continue his work.

More comments come from Profes-sor Ken Wiltshire, at the University ofQueensland. He said Labor is puttingits supporters into positions of powerin many areas once felt to be free ofpolitical influence. He named Laborinterference in the Office of Governor,the Queensland Parliamentary Service,the ombudsman, the auditor-general,and the judicial system.

Wiltshire says the Chief Justice,Paul De Jersey, has been for some timewarning the public of the danger inpolitical interference in appointmentsto the judiciary. The record shows

there has been a bias in selectingmagistrates, leading to mishandledcourt cases and low staff morale asexperienced officers see people withless experience, but with contacts tothe Labor Party, promoted above them.

As far as whistleblowers areconcerned, these are not happy times.When staffers at the QueenslandTransport Department alleged wide-spread corruption (you can get anofficial, valid driving licence withoutknowing a word of English), there wasan internal inquiry. The people allegedto be corrupt not surprisingly foundthemselves not guilty of any wrong-doing. Peter Beattie found nothingwrong about this.

At the John Tonge Centre, whichdoes forensic work for the police,mismanagement has been pervasive. Ithas been taking far too long to getthings done. Some people charged withcriminal offences have been releasedrather than prosecuted, due to delays ingetting evidence to court. Yet whenstaff at John Tonge tried to alert thepublic to these problems, they werethreatened with prosecution. Laborleader Beattie did not come out insupport of the workers.

When Beattie himself was accusedof corruption, in offering a large sumof money to the Palm Island Council ifmembers would attend a function, hehad little to worry about, even though aSydney solicitor felt there was a strongcase against him. The AttorneyGeneral quickly decided his mate wasinnocent. The Crime and MisconductCommission (CMC) also decidedBeattie had done nothing wrong.However, this merely shows howpeople now are afraid for their careers.The expert hired by the CMC to lookinto the matter said Beattie probablyhadn’t offered a bribe, but recom-mended an official investigation bemade of the matter. This has beenignored.

Several government departmentsopenly have warned their staff theywill be prosecuted if they divulgedetails of alleged corruption. Anyworker who feels something is wrongshould bring it to the attention of theirsupervisor, not the Courier-Mail. (Thisdoesn’t sound like a smart thing to do,career-wise.)

At the time of writing this article, alarge, ugly scandal is brewing in

Bundaberg, where an overseas doctoris claimed to be responsible for manyhospital deaths. Efforts in the pastfailed to get something done, as Laborpoliticians ridiculed the whistleblow-ers. Thanks to one courageous nurse,Toni Hoffman, who refused to besilenced, “Dr Death” had to flee thecountry. Beattie and his cronies, whomight have saved lives had theylistened, show little in the way ofremorse. The Health Minister refusesto resign. Bye-bye to the WestminsterSystem of accepting responsibilityalong with the chauffeured limousines,lavish lunches, and long overseasjaunts.

Institutions set up to protect thepublic are being politicised by agovernment riddled with mismanage-ment and, at times, corruption. Theopposition parties are divided and lackcredibility; every word they utterseems to be negative. It is fortunate westill have newspapers with peoplewilling to dig up the dirt and publish it.

I could have filled this article withreferences, but instead chose a narra-tive form. Aside from personalopinions, the information I used comesfrom newspapers. I am in debt toMalcolm Cole, Ryan Hefferman, DesHoughton, and Hedley Thomas, all ofthe Courier-Mail, and Sean Parnell, ofThe Australian. Let us hope politiciansnever get the power to suppress inves-tigative journalists.

Blowing the whistle onfascist trends

Derek MaitlandMedia Officer,

Whistleblowers Australia

In 1968, when I crawled out of theVietnam War to join the big anti-wardemonstrations in London, “fascist”and “fascism” were terms that Iinstinctively ignored and left to theanarchists and extreme leftists whoslugged it out at the barriers with thepolice.

Because of its apocalyptic associa-tion with Nazi Germany and thehorrors of Hitler’s reign, fascism was aword that thinking people thoughtcarefully about before using in thecontext of that time. Even the institu-tional savagery and complete disregard

PAGE 10 THE WHISTLE, #42, JUNE 2005

for human rights of the US “defence offreedom” in Vietnam, even though the“mil i tary- industr ia l complex,”supported by much of the US politicalstructure, was another term that wasendemic of that time, it was difficultfor a lot of people to associate it allwith fascism as we, in those post-World War II years, had learned toperceive it.

Even in the years after that,Richard Nixon was simply a politicalcrook who was unmasked and dealtwith by ultimately solid and unassail-able democratic ideals. MaggieThatcher’s ultra-rightist despotism, herdeclaration that “there’s no such thingas society,” and, among other things,her open and fervent support for one ofthe world’s most vicious post-warmilitary despots, General AugustoPinochet, seemed to be generallyregarded as nothing more sinister thanBritish free speech and democracy atwork.

Even George W. Bush’s overtpresidential power grab in 2000,underscored as it was by one ofAmerican history’s most blatantelectoral fiddles, left many observerswith the feeling that, well, theAmericans have done it again. Anotherscandal on the way to the WhiteHouse.

Looking back now on those times,and key events that have happenedsince, I can quite clearly see the steadyprogression toward, let’s say, thethreshold of that much-denied state —fascism — that those developmentssignified. And yet, even today, I stillhave to work my mind and tonguearound that word to write it or utter it— perhaps more fearful now that,having accepted that we are indeedliving under fascist, or neo-fascist,governance, it may already be too latefor us to roll it back.

I also fear that what it means forus, as Whistleblowers Australia Inc,and whistleblowers generally, is thatwe’re going to be thrust right into thefront line of moves to halt the system-atic erosion of democratic and societalprinciples; and, of course, we’ll paydearly for it. Perhaps more than everbefore.

I guess my own real awakening tothe new political reality began when Iwas filming in London in 2001, at thetime when anti-globalisation protesters

were in pitched battle with securityforces protecting the Group of Eightconference in Genoa. RupertMurdoch’s Sky TV News, which is onthe same political wavelength as hisinfamous Fox News in the US, invitedthe eminent left-wing politicianAnthony Benn to comment on theGenoa violence.

Benn made what I immediatelysaw as a considered, sensible andilluminating view of what washappening. Taking the radical fringeviolence aside, he said, this was anexpression of much wider genuine fearand anger at the fact that we are nowbeing governed not by our own politi-cal representatives but “unelected,faceless corporate power” pursuing itsown political and economic agenda.

The Sky News interviewer, a girl inher twenties, rudely cut him off.“Thank you Mr Benn,” she interjected.“We all know where you’re comingfrom.” And that was that.

That “unelected, faceless corporatepower” holds the political reins today,here in Australia and in most otherdeveloped capitalist societies. It’sknown as neo-liberalism, or neo-liberaleconomics, in which the corporateworld, aided, abetted and, indeed,served by the political structure, isimposing virtually unrestrained freemarket fundamentalism on us —turning us, in fact, from citizens of asociety into cynically manipulatedproducer-consumers of a quitedifferent “society” entirely: aneconomy.

Neo-liberalism decrees that free,unrestrained market forces will solve,in a basic supply-and-demand fashion,most if not all of society’s problems.Moreover, its key principle virtuallyreinstates the extreme “master-servant”inequity of the early IndustrialRevolution — that the captains ofcapitalism, the owners and investors,should be entitled to optimum,maximum profitability and every lastcent of return on their investment, anddecide themselves, without arbitration,how much their workers shouldreceive.

Apply this simplistic principle towhat’s happening in Australia today,and it explains why, for example, ourmajor corporations are consistentlymaking huge, record profits, whileconsistently “downsizing” their

workforces. Why the government isconsistently slashing budgets for socialservices and welfare — to the point ofserious social and infrastructuralabuse, suffering and dislocation — andat the same time positioning itself todrive the last nails into the coffin ofunionism and collective bargaining.

It explains why Attorney-GeneralPhilip Ruddock is preparing legislationto be introduced after the governmentassumes Senate control in July whichwill allow corporations to sue ordinarycitizens for “defamation,” with theobvious implications and ramifica-tions. Why dozens of environmentalgroups have already had their tradi-tional government funding slashed sothat they can’t “use taxpayers’ money”to criticise and protest against corpo-rate wrongdoing.

We’ve seen how the Tasmanianlogging giant Gunns, with the supportof John Howard and the decidedlyrightist state Labor government, isalready jumping the gun on Ruddockand suing Greens leader Bob Brownand others to shut down fierce envi-ronmental opposition to its activities.

Is this powerful, mutually suppor-tive ideological alliance of governmentand big business, together exercising“stringent social and economiccontrol” and eroding individual rights,fascism? There are many who areinsisting so these days, that neo-liberaleconomics is in fact “fascist”economics, bent on what Dr DavidMcKnight, senior lecturer at theUniversity of Technology, Sydney,refers to as an “unrelentless expansionof an industrial system aimed atgenerating products to satisfy aconsumerism which, past a certainpoint, substitutes for other meaningand value in people’s lives.”

In his book Rethinking Right andLeft, published this year, Dr McKnightdescribes neo-liberalism as the “24/7economy,” with “policies that reign atthe cost of social responsibility,” and aculture that’s “lean and mean, based ona shrunken moral universe wherecompetitiveness and self-interest rule… a society dominated by commercialvalues and, increasingly, onlycommercial values.”

Coincidental to this has been therise among political commentators —not here in Australia, but certainly inEurope and the USA — of the term

THE WHISTLE, #42, JUNE 2005 PAGE 11

“post-democratic era.” Taken in itssimplest definition, this is where weare now, and we’ve got here byallowing our governments suchsecrecy and lack of accountability thatthey’re able, in concert with theirpowerful corporate masters, to denyus, the people, a role in the decision-making process that we’re entitled toas citizens of a democracy.

This, of course means that our onlyaccess to vital information and policythat we, by rights, should be privy to isvia whistleblowers; and it explains to agreat extent the welter of high-levelpolitical and military whistleblowingthat’s been going on lately, not tomention the way the term itself hasnow become common in our newspa-per headlines.

We can see further evidence of thepost-democratic era in the way theHoward government has effectivelypoliticised the public service anddefence services, the people we pay torun and defend our country. What itmeans, apart from the political lying,misinformation, lack of accountabilityand lack of responsibility that this veilof secrecy has produced, is that ourrole as a national whistleblowersupport and activist group will becomeeven more vital to the defence ofdemocracy in the future.

How have we allowed ourselves toreach this awful state of affairs? Well,John Howard showed us how when hefocused his campaign on fears aboutinterest rate rises in the 2004 election.Remember the so-called “MoralMajority?” Well, now we’ve got theCompliant Majority — an electorate sodeep in personal and household debt— in excess of $700-billion at lastcount — that it now has no votingflexibility: it must, for its own sake,support any policy that guarantees thatinterest rates will not rise more thantwo points, let alone go through theroof.

And what has encouraged and,indeed, manipulated and guided thisalarming debt-ridden materialism?Neo-liberal economics, of course; ourpoliticians in consort with thecorporate sector.

This compliance is also, I think,turning a moral blind eye to the otherdisturbing policies and trappings thatpoint to fascism, by any other name,these days. Think of fascism as we’ve

learned to picture it. Then think ofdetention centres, children behindbarbed wire; possibly dozens of casesof mentally ill people being locked inthese centres and maximum securityprisons; a mentally disturbed Austra-lian citizen illegally and quite secretlydeported — and claims there may havebeen more.

Think of the 22 or more pieces ofanti-terrorism legislation that PhilipRuddock has pushed through parlia-ment when, as the ex-senior intelli-gence officer and whistleblowerAndrew Wilkie has claimed, theexisting legislation was quite capableof protecting Australians from attack.

Think of the compliance, on amassive scale, that’s allowed subjectslike torture and “rendition” —outsourcing this vile crime to othercountries that freely practise it — tobecome part of our daily news andinformation fare, with no evidence ofmass, widespread, vociferous opposi-tion.

Think of detention without trial.Think of prisoners being shipped aboutthe world to hide them from humanrights scrutiny.

Think what’s going to happen tothe “Bali Nine,” if they’re not justfound guilty of drug trafficking butsentenced to death. Our federal policewill have effectively “rendered” themto capital punishment under Indonesianlaw when they could have quite safelyand efficiently nabbed them at theairport on Australian soil.

Dr David McKnight certainlyimplies that neo-liberalism is a stepdown the road to fascism. He describesit as the “ugliest side” of conservatism— neo-conservatism, as it’s called —which can be “a virulent nationalismand hatred of foreigners. Its war-likeroots predispose it to militarism andthe rule of the physically strong.

“We are reaching the point wherethe process … is conflicting with thedeepest human needs. It is reducingethical values to matters of economiccalculation. It is commodifying allhuman relationships and, perhaps mostdangerous of all, it is bumping upagainst the physical limits of theplanet.”

We’re not the only nation with aCompliant Majority, of course.According to Richard Heinberg, ajournalist and educator at the New

College of California, the sameelectoral compliance put George W.Bush in the White House in the“stolen” election of 2000.

“If one were to pinpoint themoment of death of American democ-racy,” he writes, “it would likely be atthat failure, in December 2000, of theAmerican citizenry to respond. As longas there are elections, someone will tryto rig them. But when people stopcaring if elections are rigged or stolen,then elections themselves cease tohave any meaning.

“This extraordinary assertion is notmerely an expression of partisanbitterness over the rightward drift ofAmerican politics. What is happeningnow is of far more historical andstructural significance than a tempo-rary shift in the relative power of the[two] parties. Disturbing signs point tothe ongoing emergence of a fascist-style dictatorship in the US.”

So, what can we do? We inWhistleblowers Australia Inc cancertainly strengthen and focus theessential role we play in the supportand preservation of a truly free society.We as Australians can ally ourselveswith what Dr McKnight calls a “newmoral vision, a values-based politicalmovement … that can validly drawfrom the [best] ideals of liberal,conservative and socialist theories andfrom religious philosophies.

“These ideals involve a societymeeting human needs which includebut go beyond the material where-withal of life. They include justice,fairness, equality [and] the valuing ofhuman lives, in both the public rationalworld and in the private world ofemotion.”

PAGE 12 THE WHISTLE, #42, JUNE 2005

Whistleblowers Australia contacts

ACT contacts: Peter Bennett, phone 02 6254 1850, fax 026254 3755, whistleblowers@iprimus.com.au; Mary Lander,phone 0419 658 308; mary.wba@ozemail.com.au

New South Wales“Caring & Sharing” meetings We listen to your story,provide feedback and possibly guidance for your next fewsteps. Held every Tuesday night at 7.30pm, PresbyterianChurch Hall, 7-A Campbell St., Balmain 2041.General meetings are held in the Church Hall on the firstSunday in the month commencing at 1.30pm. (Pleaseconfirm before attending.) The July general meeting is theAGM.Contact: Cynthia Kardell, phone 02 9484 6895; messages02 9810 9468; fax 02 -9418 4431 ckardell@iprimus.com.auWebsite: http://www.whistleblowers.org.au/Goulburn region: Rob Cumming, phone 0428 483 155.Wollongong: Brian Martin, phone 02 4221 3763.Website: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/

Queensland contacts: Feliks Perera, phone/fax 07 54488218; Greg McMahon, phone 07 3378 7232 (a/h) [alsoWhistleblowers Action Group contact]

South Australian contacts: Matilda Bawden, phone 088258 8744 (a/h); John Pezy, phone 08 8337 8912

VictoriaMeetings are normally held the first Sunday of each monthat 2.00pm, 10 Gardenia Street, Frankston North.Contacts: Stan van de Wiel, phone 0414 354 448; MervynVogt, phone 03 9786 5308, fax 03 9776 8754.

WhistleEditor: Brian Martin, bmartin@uow.edu.au, phones 02 42213763, 02 4228 7860. Associate editors: Don Eldridge, IslaMacGregor, Kim Sawyer. Thanks to Cynthia Kardell andPatricia Young for proofreading.

WBA: the future

The emails between members of Whistleblowers Australia’snational committee have been running fast and furious. Afeud? Not at all. The vigorous discussion has been aboutfuture directions for WBA. Peter Bowden, Cynthia Kardelland Derek Maitland set the ball rolling by writing adocument proposing that WBA focus on three areas:workplace bullying; whistleblower laws; and honesty ingovernment (See page 6). This triggered a range ofresponses.

One of the issues covered is the nature of WBA. Shouldwe remain a voluntary organisation whose baseline activityis providing information and support to individualwhistleblowers, or should we be seeking external fundingand becoming a more focussed, professional organisation?There are arguments on both sides.

Another issue is websites (see the two addresses in thecolumn to the left). Should we be offering a news service ofwhistleblowing stories? Or is this a waste of effort and notvery relevant to most of the people who approach us?

Not everyone agrees on a single direction. To someextent, initiatives will depend on the efforts of those whowant to take them. The most encouraging aspect of thediscussion is the openness to dialogue. If we can maintainthat, we are doing better than most of the organisations thatexpel their whistleblowers.

There will be more on this in future Whistles.

See the enclosed flier about WBA’s AGM, and thenotice on page 5.

Whistleblowers Australia membershipMembership of WBA involves an annual fee of $25, payable to WhistleblowersAustralia, renewable each June. Membership includes an annual subscription to TheWhistle, and members receive discounts to seminars, invitations to briefings/discussion groups, plus input into policy and submissions.

If you want to subscribe to The Whistle but not join WBA, then the annualsubscription fee is $25.

The activities of Whistleblowers Australia depend entirely on voluntary work bymembers and supporters. We value your ideas, time, expertise and involvement.Whistleblowers Australia is funded almost entirely from membership fees, donationsand bequests.

Send memberships and subscriptions to Feliks Perera, National Treasurer, 1/5Wayne Ave, Marcoola Qld 4564. Phone/Fax 07 5448 8218.