Monday, October 31, 2005

Queensland Government just whistling dixie over whistleblower protection

The Queensland government have rewarded 2 QBuild security guards who blew the whistle on heavy pornography use by staff in their workplace, with confining them to home duties[for their own protection] and a psychiatric assessment.

In one incident a supervisor brought in a hard-core porn dvd into the workplace and plugged it into security monitors.

Apparently there are fellow staff who support the 2 whistleblowers, but they are now being victimised also, and the guards claim the perpetrators have not been reprimanded, but promoted.

Susan Moriarty, a Queensland industrial law consultant, said psychiatric assessment via Section 85 of the Public Service Act was used to 'victimise public service employees, especially whistleblowers.'

Monday, October 24, 2005

Whistleblowing is just tinitus for public sector

In today's Squatter, Christian Kerr of Crikey writes, on the eternal p/s whistleblowing conundrum...

10. Who's listening to the whistleblowers?

By Christian Kerr - Former independent MP John Hatton, the man who instigated the Wood Royal Commission into corruption in the NSW Police force, has cast doubt over the ability of future corruption inquiries to attract key witnesses, according to a distressing story in yesterday's
Sun-Herald. Hatton says the “abject failure” to guarantee the safety of whistleblowers is among the most serious issues facing modern law enforcement.“His comments follow the publication of Sympathy For The Devil, an account by former crooked detective and Royal Commission ‘supergrass' Trevor Haken of his decision in the mid-1990s to blow the lid on NSW police corruption,” The Sun-Herald reports. “Haken's revelations were pivotal to the success of Mr Wood's inquiry but he says he lives in fear of his life and regrets having ever ‘rolled over'.”Haken was featured on ABC's Australian Story a fortnight ago. He worked under cover for nine months, obtaining irrefutable taped evidence against other high-ranking police officers and criminals.“Since going on side with the royal commission, I don't have a life,” he told the ABC. “I would have been far better off not going on side with the royal commission and holding the line with other members of the New South Wales police force. Even if I had gone to jail, it would probably have only been for a couple of years and not the life sentence that I've got now. I just think if you do the crime, do the time.”Hatton says the role of protected witnesses is more important than ever but little, if anything, is done to ensure potential informants come forward with confidence.“There has to be an obligation on senior law enforcement officers, enshrined in contracts, to protect the interests of whistleblowers where they are shown to have acted in good faith,” he told the Sun-Herald.
###


Anyone who watched the Australian Story interview with Trevor Haken, probably would have been tempted to consider it a rather severe case of sour grapes on the part of the disgraced former corrupt Sydney detective.

While the program did summarize some of the typical experiences whistleblowers have after a public interest disclosure, it really didn't focus much on Haken's own corrupt and criminal acts which were to the detriment of the average Jo/Joe. It was those corrupt acts which subsequently led to the PIC utilizing their heavy coercive powers to get the corrupt detective to rollover on his corrupt colleagues, for merely what he thought at the time would be getting away 'scott-free'.

However the ethical distinction needs to be clear, a whistleblower volunteers information on corrupt activities for the greater good & frequently does so at the cost of their livelihood, health and family, whereas a rollover witness, is coerced into giving information merely for their own personal advantage and Haken falls into the latter category and was merely bemoaning his fate.

The diligent effort by journalists such as Kerr, highlight the case for the protection of whistleblowers, some of the more notable ones being Simon Illingworth - who ran the internal investigations branch of Vicpol, in St Kilda, and was threatened by corrupt cops he was investigating; and Deborah Locke, a savvy former Sydney detective, who found herself on the inner circle of Sydney's corrupt detectives and who then legitimately blew the whistle[as opposed to rolling over- a la Haken] on the corrupt dealings abounding in her workplace, and whose testimony, was pivotal in the Wood Royal Commission.

Whistleblowers are martyrs to good conscience and the greater good.

Sadly, it is just not in the best interests of the executive public sector to protect whistleblowers - quite the contrary, if whistleblowing is encouraged and supported, decades-old established networks of corruption, which have seen unconscionable acts go unpunished and corrupt leaders rise to positions of influence, could fall.

There is huge potential for recent inept Whistleblower/Public Interest Disclosure bills to be seen as slick and heavily spun suppression carrying the capacity for the legislation to stifle public interest claims.

The bills have been proposed in each state of Australia and in some cases, have become legislation, with amendments already proposed to counter short falls in public sector transparency embodied within the legislation.

The so called 'whistleblower' legislation also now makes it a criminal act - with up to 5 yrs gaol, for a journalist to receive confidential public sector documents which can prove allegations of corruption against any or all employees in a public sector department.

This is despite the fact that it is ridiculous to suggest a whistleblower discloses corrupt activity within his own corrupt department, but for the whistleblowing public servant to do otherwise under the current legislation, is now a criminal act.

Expert information on whistleblowing, the classic Australian tragedy is available... here...

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Visions of Gibson and Blogging Blues

It seems like something's in the air at the moment.

Courtesy of the Saintly one, a cyber-reality check.

The extension of freedom of speech and cyber-reality in this world of pandemics, wars, criminal and drug subcultures, thieving multi-national conglomerates and concrete jungles, stands to become a great escape.

At this rate William Gibson will knock off Nostradamus as the worthy soothsayer of note.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Recess

Due to an unforeseen circumstances, TDM will be taking a brief recess for another 10 days. See you on the 22nd, same Magnet time, same Magnet channel...

Monday, October 03, 2005

Bombers indiscriminate in killings

The bombings in Bali on Saturday, clearly contradict claims by convicted Indonesian-based terrorists that they are 'striking out against the U.S.A', with a predominance amongst the dead - yet again, of Balinese Hindus. Casualties indicate that the intent to murder is indiscriminate and a racially driven motive is merely a ruse for the spilling of innocent blood.

Amidst the resultant emotionally turbulent climate in the blogosphere there is a combination of both deafening silence and condemnation. Any media coverage is a double edged sword, with the need to keep the public informed only providing acknowledgement to the perpetrators of terror, and their minions.

Saturday, October 01, 2005

Suspending accountability

Sir Ian Blair writes..."a chief officer of police should be able to suspend... [the part of the] Police Reform Act 2002 which requires us to supply all information, "

"This investigation will be rigorous but subordinate to the needs of the counter-terrorism operation. "

Head of the IPCC[special investigations] described the whistleblowing of pivotal revealing documents[photographs of Mr Menezes' body dressed in a state contrary to the Met's public statements] as an embarassment which damaged the public's relationship with the police.

Sir Ian Blair, goes on to explain that similar legislation should be afforded to his crack unit as is extended to the armed services under the rules of engagement. Evident in his letter is a delaying tactic to the investigation in order to retrospectively amend legislation governing the culpability of officers involved in shootings.