Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Whistle-blowers and government secrets: cui bono

By Brendan O'Reilly - posted Friday, 16 August 2019


To be fair, such "friendly" leaks generally do not extend to matters of national security. [Leaks from intelligence agencies do clearly compromise the effectiveness of these bodies vis-a-vis their counterparts in countries like Russia and China, and rightly are treated much more seriously.]

You can take with a grain of salt claims by senior bureaucrats and police that actions concerning leaks are all totally independent, and uninfluenced by Ministers. While there is a general lack of overt political influence (reflecting the separation of powers), the reality is that both the bureaucracy and the AFP (for organisational and career reasons) like to please their political masters, and share a common hostility toward those who rock the bureaucratic boat.

The stated motives of many "whistleblowers" are also questionable. While such people universally protest that they are driven only by public interest motives, the reality is often different. Many of the more prolific leakers in government departments are known to be public servants of "committed" political affiliation, who seek to embarrass a Government from the opposite camp.

Advertisement

It is also widely believed that "whistleblowers" more commonly come from the Left.

A high profile exception was the case of Godwin Grech, who sought to damage the Rudd government by leaking an e mail (subsequently exposed as a fake) to the then leader of the Opposition (Turnbull). Grech himself had a lot of personal issues.

In a democracy, it is ultimately the role of the elected government to make key policy decisions, and the role of public servants is to serve the government of the day.

There is a right way to cope with a situation, where a public servant has a conscientious objection to implementing a given policy (as part of his/her duties). A legitimate option is to draw any reasonable concerns (e.g. possible illegality) to the bureaucratic hierarchy. The difficulty is that such action is rarely welcomed, and commonly is not career enhancing. Another option is to move to a different area of government (where such conflicts do not arise). In extreme circumstances, a conscientious objector can do what Andrew Wilkie did, when he opposed Australia's involvement in the Iraq war. (Wilkie resigned in protest).

This brings us to the position of journalists.

There is a traditional European concept that there are three estates of the realm: the clergy (less important these days), the nobility (these days politicians) and the commoners. A fourth estate (the press/media) has been added since about the mid-Nineteenth century, reflecting the increasing prominence and power of the media. Journalists (with some justification) see themselves as playing a key role in informing the public concerning matters of news, opinion and general interest. They also view protecting their sources as a key consideration in doing this.

Advertisement

On the one hand, the journalists' code of ethics requires them to keep their sources confidential. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, for example, requires that "in all circumstances (journalists) shall respect all confidences received in the course of their calling". The other side of the coin is that it would appear intolerable to allow journalists to place their self-decided ethics above the law of the land. In this vein, journalistic privilege, if it exists, probably ought not extend to protecting the identity of lawbreakers or those risking national security.

In this context it is worth noting that there seems to be a widespread conviction amongst journalists that they are morally entitled to privilege in respect of the secrecy of their sources. There is a certain hypocrisy here because, firstly, journalists have very limited such privilege in law, and (secondly) journalists themselves have attacked similar claims for secrecy for other groups. (A clear example during the child abuse debate was the widespread attacks in the media on clerical pleas for the secrecy of the confessional to be protected. [The rationale assumed that sex abuse offenders, who confessed to a priest, could be "dobbed" by their confessor (under advocated compulsory reporting rules) and subsequently be brought to justice.]

So-called existing "shield laws" in reality offer very limited actual protection for journalists' sources. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) recentlywarned against legislative exemptions for journalists because "hostile actors" may exploit them. "In Australia today, journalism is being used as cover by hostile intelligence actors. This has a long history," ASIO said.

Lawyers, doctors, and priests have for centuries enjoyed a legal privilege in many countries regarding their professional consultations. The confidences of journalists, however, have very limited legal protection, despite the pleading of journalists themselves. In the last 25 years at least three journalists in Australia have been sent to jailfor refusing to betray their confidential sources to a court.

It is a mistake to think all leaks to the media are worthy and in the public interest. The industrial scale leaks of US military data facilitated by Wikileaks, and Snowden and Manning (which have verged on espionage but would be termed "whistle-blowing" by the Left in Australia) were very damaging to US intelligence. They most likely cost lives and endangered operations. Such recklessness underlines the case for opposing liberal "whistle-blowing" laws backed by unfettered journalistic privilege.

The real problem for liberties and free speech in Australia lies not in our lack of protections for whistle-blowers. Australia's excessively censorious defamation laws and Section 18c have far more serious effects on free speech and public debate. Attempts by the Left to ban persons they accuse of "hate-speech" only threatens to make things even worse.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

18 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Brendan O’Reilly is a retired commonwealth public servant with a background in economics and accounting. He is currently pursuing private business interests.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Brendan O'Reilly

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 18 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy