“All that is needed for evil to prosper is for people of good will to donothing”—Edmund Burke

TheWhistle NO. 35, OCTOBER 2003

Newsletter of Whistleblowers AustraliaPO Box U129, Wollongong NSW 2500

Andrew Wilkie, whistleblower on government Iraq policy

PAGE 2 THE WHISTLE, #35, OCTOBER 2003

Media watch

Journalists “must protectwhistleblowers”

Duncan WalkerBBC News Online, 19 July 2003

The death of Dr David Kelly hasput the spotlight back on the BBC’srefusal to name its source for thestory that an Iraqi weapons dossierwas “sexed up”.

The weapons expert had beenidentified by the government as acontact of journalist Andrew Gilliganand the main source of his story — thelatter a claim questioned by the BBCand denied by Dr Kelly himself.

Mr Gilligan made a second appear-ance before a Commons committee,which said journalists should be forcedto name sources if speaking underParliamentary privilege.

It is a demand likely to alarm manyjournalists, who are expected to honoura long-standing tradition of protectingthose who come forward with infor-mation.

No case has provoked more interestthan that of ‘Deep Throat’, who tippedoff journalists about the Watergatescandal in 1973 and has never beenformally identified.

Mr Gilligan’s refusal to name hiscontact is one of many other examplesof journalists standing by their sources— with reporters and their employersoften finding themselves the subject ofexpensive legal actions.

“Golden rule”Jeremy Dear, general secretary of theNational Union of Journalists, said“whistleblowers” must be protected asthey “will not come forward if theythink they are going to be grassed up ata later stage”.

He called on reporters not to beswayed, arguing that one of the keyroles of journalists was to exposewrong doing and bad practice by pub-lic institutions and big corporations.

“For that reason it is the goldenrule of journalism that we don’t betrayour sources and are prepared to go toprison to uphold that principle,” hetold BBC News Online.

“It is not our job to act as informa-tion providers for state institutions.They have thousands of peopleemployed to do that work.”

“No dilemma”It is a position backed by RobinAckroyd, who was ordered by theHigh Court to say who gave himmedical information about Moorsmurderer Ian Brady, which he used ina story for the Daily Mirror.

Mr Ackroyd, who won an appealagainst the decision but still faces anongoing legal battle, said: “Journalistsprotect their sources because they havea professional duty of confidence tothem.

“It is not a standpoint we takebecause we are being difficult orprecious.”

The freelance journalist saidAndrew Gilligan deserved the supportof the media and the public and thatthe Commons committee had beennaive to expect him to name names.

He said: “Journalists must standtheir ground. And they do stand theirground.

“I have never had one iota of doubtabout my own position. I simply haveno dilemma.

“I do not reveal confidentialsources of information as an overridingmatter of conscience.”

Bloody SundayLast year journalists were also forcedto protect their sources under ques-tioning at the Bloody Sunday inquiryinto the events of 30 January 1972,when 13 civilians were shot dead byBritish army soldiers. A 14th persondied later.

BBC reporter Peter Taylor refusedto reveal several republican, BritishArmy and police sources to theinvestigation.

Mr Taylor said: “My motivation issimply my wish to preserve my abilityto carry out my duties as a journalistand to protect those who have assistedme in the past.”

Under cross examination at theinquiry, former Sunday Times reporterDerek Humphry refused to reveal theidentities of two republicans.

They were the head of the BogsideIRA and a woman who was reported tobe at a hastily arranged meeting ofProvisionals when the shootings onBloody Sunday started.

Cruise MissilesBut journalists are not always able todefend their sources

Sarah Tisdall famously received asix-month jail sentence in 1983 afterthe Guardian named her as the sourceof its story about the arrival of CruiseMissiles in the UK.

She had been a clerk in the officeof the Foreign Secretary MichaelHeseltine and had passed documentson to the paper.

The paper named her after it wasordered by a court to reveal its contact.

Ms Tisdall ended up spending fourmonths in prison.

Striking a blow for truth,freedom and the anti-

totalitarian wayLeon Gettler

The Age, 1 August 2003, Business p. 2

The nature of organisations putswhistleblowers in no-win situationsdespite efforts to protect them.

It’s easy to think whistleblowers havebecome the new protected species inthis corporate governance climate.After last year’s parade of scandals,Time had three — from WorldCom,Enron and the FBI — on its cover as“Persons of the Year” and BusinessWeek said 2002 could go down as the“Year of the Whistleblower”.

The trend has continued this yearwith more businesses adopting whis-tleblower policies.

Standards Australia recently got inon the act by issuing whistleblowerprotection guidelines. The guidelines,part of a corporate governancepackage, cover such issues as inde-pendence, confidentiality and theresponsibilities of whistleblowerprotection officers and whistleblowerinvestigations officers (who, inciden-

THE WHISTLE, #35, OCTOBER 2003 PAGE 3

tally, should not be one and the sameperson).

For an organisation such asStandards Australia, it’s the closestthing it has had to a best seller — 940copies in just four weeks.

Governments too are moving toprotect those brave or foolhardyenough to blow the whistle. In the US,under section 1107 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, managers now face jailsentences of up to 10 years forpunishing whistleblowers. In Australia,whistleblowers are expected to beprotected when the Corporate LawEconomic Reform Program proposalsare finally passed into law.

In Britain, there is the PublicInterest Disclosure Act (aka the“Whistleblowers Act”). Not that thisstopped the apparent suicide of DavidKelly, the British Government scientistand UN weapons inspector in Iraq.

Dr Kelly’s fate is a reminder thatfor all the legislation and special rules,whistleblowing comes at a heavy cost.He appeared before the House ofCommons foreign affairs committeeand, in scenes reminiscent of the waydissidents were treated in NaziGermany when they were hauledbefore the courts, he was subjected toaccusatory and bullying questions.

Similarly, the scandal over JaysonBlair, the New York Times reporterwho plagiarised and invented stories,points to the real problem that whistle-blowers face: organisations haveentrenched systems of pathology thatstop truth from getting out. An internalinquiry at the newspaper found therehad been problems in 36 of the 73pieces he had written. There had alsobeen numerous warnings, includingone editor’s memo, to stop him.

The effectiveness of laws protect-ing whistleblowers is moot. No matterhow well intentioned, they can’tguarantee candour and won’t necessa-rily leave managers and regulatorswith a better grasp of reality.

The reason for this is the same asthe distinction between totalitarianismand tyranny that Hannah Arendt drewin her book The Origins of Totalitar-ianism (1951).

In tyrannical systems, she says, it’sthe rule of one — a perversion ofmonarchy — but the leader doesn’t tryreshaping the way we see the world.Totalitarianism, however, does just

that, through an omnipotent, omnipres-ent regime that crushes creativity,initiative and dissent and makeseverything subservient to ideology, nomatter how much it flies in the face ofreality. The legacy is not easilyremoved. Russia’s leader, VladimirPutin, a former KGB colonel, paystribute regularly to the wartimeheroism of Josef Stalin.

The problem is that many organi-sations have systems that echoArendt’s definition of totalitarianism.It’s worth noting that Lenin was agreat admirer of Frederick Taylor, theforefather of scientific management —which gave us the time and motionstudy and, to some extent, businessprocess re-engineering. Much ofRussia’s industrialisation under theBolsheviks was influenced by Taylor’sideas, just as in the west. Scientificmanagement was all the rage in FascistItaly and Nazi Germany and, accordingto one biography of Taylor, a Germanhistorian described Adolf Eichmann as“a perfect Taylor engineer”.

It cuts the other way too. Theoperations of most organisations, forexample, are built around formalcommunication channels. Whenmanagers rely too heavily on these,there is less incentive to do it infor-mally, that is by “walking around”.This leads to a heavy reliance on rulesand procedures that censor and filterinformation.

No surprises then that the latestLEAD (Leadership Employment andDirection) 2003 survey, commissionedby Leadership Management Australia,found that business leaders were out oftouch. Similarly, a recent study byglobal organisational specialist HumanSynergistics found that most Austral-ian organisations had cultures ofblame, indecision and conformity. Asplaces that treated rules as moreimportant than ideas, they would notbe conducive to whistleblowing.

Apart from risking reprisal fromemployers, whistleblowers themselvescan damage their careers, and in manycases they lack evidence to provewrongdoing. Last week, a study fromthe New York University’s SternSchool of Business found that therewere many organisational issuesbehind silence. The most frequentlymentioned reason: the fear of beinglabelled negatively as a “trouble-

maker” or “complainer”, upsettingcolleagues and, as a result, damagingvaluable relationships.

For the person blowing the whistle,it’s almost always a no-win. Thetrouble is, they provide the earlywarning signals to prevent avoidabletrouble, including tragedies.

Much of this problem boils downto the nature of organisations them-selves. Chris Argyris, professor oforganisational behaviour at HarvardUniversity, has argued that all or-ganisations have issues that are“undiscussable”. And by definition,something that is not discussablemakes even the undiscussabilityundiscussable.

Rules, laws and standards will notby themselves transform companiesinto places in which it is safe to tell thetruth. For organisations, it takes workand discipline.

lgettler@theage.com.au

Giving bosses the bootKatherine Harding

Globe and Mail (Toronto),27 June 2003, page C1

Is the recent staff uprising at thefederal privacy commission inOttawa a sign of things to come inthe workplace?

It’s the last thing you’d expect a bunchof public servants to do: organize anoffice revolt.

But last week, more than 50disgruntled and demoralized bureau-crats at the federal privacy commissionmade a daring decision to openly rebelagainst their embattled leader, GeorgeRadwanski.

They risked their jobs — and eventheir careers — by signing a letter thatasked the privacy czar to step downwhile a government committee probedallegations surrounding his lavishexpense account and questionablemanagement practices. They leakeddetails about their boss’s allegedindiscretions to the press and politi-cians. They even protested in front oftheir Ottawa office tower wearinghandkerchiefs over their mouths tosuggest they were being gagged.

PAGE 4 THE WHISTLE, #35, OCTOBER 2003

It was a dramatic and unprece-dented workplace rebellion. But was ita watershed labour event? Areworkers, in both the private and publicsector, becoming emboldened tocollectively speak out against — oreven purge — a boss they feel is bad?

The protest in Ottawa last Friday“was very interesting. I’ve never seenanything quite like this,” says HughGunz, professor of organizationalbehaviour at the Rotman School ofBusiness at the University of Toronto.“I’m still trying to figure out what it allmeans.”

Mr. Radwanski, who resigned onMonday, has flatly denied that he didanything wrong, and even accused thecommittee of being engaged in a“horrifying smear campaign” and“witch hunt.”

Prof. Gunz said what’s strikingabout this particular event is that theseunionized employees consciouslydecided that a chorus of whistle-blowers — instead of just a solo act —would be more effective in outingperceived mismanagement andwrongdoings.

“It’s become very clear to manyover the last decade or two thatwhistle-blowers get nailed, even ifthere are official protections in place,”Prof. Gunz explained. “These workersobviously thought that there was safetyin numbers.”

He said that while this manifesta-tion of worker discontent is extremelyuncommon, the concept still exists —it’s just never been this explicit. “Isuspect we see a lot of this, but wedidn’t know what we were seeing …An awful lot of industrial actions,strikes and so on, may be ostensiblyabout wages and salaries, but are quitelikely really about a manager who isn’ttrusted or a leader who’s despised.”

In a non-unionized workplace, thisdeep-seated worker unhappiness withan employer could show up in acompany’s high voluntary turnoverrates, he added.

While it’s not impossible for a non-unionized office to stage a massuprising against an unpopular boss, it’strickier because they don’t have strong“mechanisms in place that catalyzecollective action,” Prof. Gunz said.

James Gaa, a business professor atthe University of Alberta in Edmontonwho researches ethics, said recent

events at the federal privacy commis-sion don’t necessarily prove that a newbreed of take-no-prisoners workers isevolving. However, he said that,generally, workers now have a lowerthreshold for bad leadership, especiallyin a post-Enron world.

Lynn Ray, head of the section ofthe Public Service Alliance of Canadathat represents most workers at theprivacy commission, said that eventhough the employees were brave tostand up to their boss, it was not aneasy decision for most.

Indeed, she said that even a monthago, most were terrified to talk openlyto the union about problems withintheir office.

“People are always afraid to file agrievance or make a complaint, butthis was worse than that by far,” shesaid. “This wasn’t just people beingfearful about being singled out. Peopledidn’t want to leave themselves openfor any type of repercussion.”

However, gradually a grassrootsmovement began to form in theunhappy office, which has only had aunion presence since 2001. “Soon theywent from being afraid of their shadowto rumblings about doing something,including holding a demonstration,”Ms. Ray said.

She agrees with the experts thatthis isn’t a sign that workers arebecoming more demanding or overre-acting. “This was a reaction to theirconditions. When they believe thatthere is a wrongdoing, and somethingneeds to be corrected, they will do it.”

“Our office wasn’t a militant workforce — people had just had enough,”echoed Doug Marshall, a reviewofficer in the Privacy Commissioner’sOffice who is also a union representa-tive for the Public Service Alliance.Last week, he was the one whopersonally hand-delivered the workers’infamous letter to Mr. Radwanski,which said he must step aside becausetheir office was “now in an untenablesituation” and “the object of publicridicule.”

Mr. Marshall recalled that it wasn’texactly a “high noon experience” whenhe handed the letter over to his bosslast Friday. “I told him that it was aletter from the staff. He said ‘Thankyou,’ and went back into his office andclosed the door.”

So, should other employers beworried that workplace rebellions willstart flaring up at offices across thecountry?

“If I were someone who wasmanaging ethically, maybe then Iwouldn’t be too concerned,” Prof.Gunz said. “But if I wasn’t, I shouldbe. But too often people in thosepositions often feel they are above therules.”

And it appears a boss doesn’t haveto be an outright tyrant to incite thecollective wrath of his or heremployees. Howell Raines and GeraldBoyd, former senior editors at the NewYork Times, were doomed afterrecently losing the confidence of theiremployees.

Their staff publicly and privatelyaccused them of poorly handling areporting scandal that rocked the 152-year-old newspaper after it wasrevealed that Jayson Blair, a juniorreporter, routinely fabricated articles.

They also bitterly complained thatMr. Raines played favourites withcertain reporters and editors whilevirtually ignoring others.

Earlier this month, both editorsresigned after it become clear that thenewsroom mutiny wasn’t going away.

Ms. Ray said workers will onlytake so much abuse or mismanagementbefore saying enough, and she hopes anew era is beginning for publicservants. “There was a time when theworkers were warmly welcomed tocome forward to challenge or discussideas or problems with the gov-ernment,” she noted. “But if you thinkback on the last 15 or 20 years, everytime something goes sour, the politi-cians blame the public service employ-ees. Well, if you are going to getblamed for something, then it’s betterto do nothing or just keep your headdown.”

Prof. Gaa agreed that public serviceworkers often want more out of theirjobs because they went into the sectorto help build the country. “That’s whyit’s not surprising that they wanted toget rid of the irrelevant distractionsthat were discrediting their office.”

Mr. Marshall said morale in hisdepartment has skyrocketed since thesudden departure of their boss. “We’vecollectively learned what can happenwhen we act together: that we can

THE WHISTLE, #35, OCTOBER 2003 PAGE 5

overcome the fear and isolation in theworkplace.”

In the meantime, his union willkeep lobbying the government to enactstronger whistle-blower protections forfederal employees. “They areperforming a public service … no oneshould be asked to pay with their job,”Mr. Marshall said.

Prof. Gunz said it’s probably notlikely that will happen any time soon,and he wonders whether office revoltswill become commonplace.

“The most interesting question iswhether this is a new and lastingphenomenon in the labour world,” hesaid. “Are people really prepared to acttogether and say, ‘We don’t believe inthe boss?’

“In a democracy, you can votethem out, but you can’t do that in ahierarchy. It’s the old saying:‘Democracy ends at the factory gate’.”

Natalie Allen, an associate profes-sor of industrial psychology at theUniversity of Western Ontario inLondon, agrees, saying that while thepublic servants’ protest was “impres-sive,” it’s likely not the start of a trend.

“This was an extraordinary case.The problem, in the mind of theworkers, was more clear-cut thanusual. And when it’s like that oftenpeople are prompted into action.However, if there is an element ofambiguity, then I think you aren’tgoing to see this very often.”

But she saluted their collectiveresponse and said it’s not entirelysurprising because “banding togetherreduces the amount of responsibility.

“People often don’t go along withindividual whistle-blowers in large partbecause there is often ambiguity in thecases and everybody is consideringtheir own individual fate when they doso.”

STOP PRESS

The inquest into the death of GaryLee-Rogers has been listed forhearing at the Queanbeyan CourtHouse beginning Monday 3November.

Rat on the loose hell-benton avoiding tobaccoindustry anaconda

William BirnbauerThe Age, 26 July 2003

Big Tobacco hands out harshreprisals to those who betray it. Sowhy did Frederick Gulson spill thebeans on document culling?

When Jeffrey Wigand — director ofresearch for one of America’s biggesttobacco companies — went publicwith what the company knew aboutsmoking-related disease and nicotine’saddictive nature back in 1995, thecompany tried to destroy him.

Dr Wigand, portrayed by RussellCrowe in the movie The Insider, wassued, investigated by private detec-tives, discredited in a high-poweredpublic relations campaign and called aliar.

Australia’s own insider, FrederickGulson — whose allegations ofdocument destruction were revealed inThe Age last Saturday — was wrestlingwith less threatening, but rather morebizarre, frustrations this week.

A hungry media might have beenclamouring for interviews outside hisluxury Sydney home, but inside, thewhistleblower’s family was treadingcarefully: Gulson’s two-metre petpython had escaped while he wastrying to feed it a rat. The snake hassince been caught, but the rat is still onthe run and Gulson’s four children, notsurprisingly, don’t want to sleep intheir beds.

Senior tobacco company execu-tives and their legal advisers doubtlesssee the real rat in this story as Gulsonhimself.

The former company secretary andlegal counsel of W.D. & H.O. Willsspectacularly broke ranks with thesmall, secretive group that guards BigTobacco’s biggest secrets.

His allegations about documentdestruction by British AmericanTobacco Australia Services (formerlyWills) were a bombshell, not only inAustralian smoking and health litiga-tion but also on the internationalbattleground.

Speaking from South Carolinayesterday, Jeffrey Wigand wished

Gulson well. Both Wigand and Gulsonare ex-employees of the BritishAmerican Tobacco group.

Wigand hoped Gulson would notbe punished for speaking out.

“For an attorney out of thatframework, that very tight organisa-tion, to come forward is a tremendousstatement of personal integrity,” hesaid.

“My hat is off to him. I hope thathe will not be punished; I think that’snormally what people do to that kindof person.”

Victorian Attorney-General RobHulls yesterday announced the StateGovernment would seek leave tointervene in a High Court case as aresult of Gulson’s allegations, whichwere published in The Age last week.

But why would Gulson, a wealthyman who enjoys fine food, fine wineand fast cars (he has seven, including aDeTomaso Deauville and a Maserati)— choose to shake up his comfortablelife by becoming Australia’s “insider”?

His story begins with a phone calllate last year. The Victorian Court ofAppeal had just overturned a SupremeCourt decision in favour of RolahMcCabe in her action over lungcancer, and Gulson left an unexpectedmessage for Mrs McCabe’s lawyer,Peter Gordon, asking that he contacthim.

Gordon, a senior partner in Slater& Gordon, instantly recognised thename because Gulson had beenmentioned in both the McCabeSupreme Court and Court of Appealcases, even though he had not givenevidence.

Intrigued but wary, Gordoncontacted Gulson, who told him hewas happy to talk. When they met inSydney early this year, the 54-year-oldGulson was wearing an official CIA T-shirt and had just stepped off a flightfrom Alice Springs.

Gordon did not know what to makeof Gulson, especially when told he hadbeen given the T-shirt by crew whohad landed Caribou aircraft on hisnorthern NSW property in the middleof the night. The crew, he said, wereen route to East Timor.

Gulson started drawing up hisexplosive affidavit. It underwentseveral drafts and was vetted by hislegal advisers. He worried about theimpact it might have on his family.

PAGE 6 THE WHISTLE, #35, OCTOBER 2003

A corporate lawyer for much of hislife, Gulson now operates agribusi-nesses that are the world’s biggestproducers of essential oils. He is alsoin timber production, cattle breedingand distributing Australian spices. Hehas property in the Northern Territoryproducing table grapes as well as landin NSW and in Canada, South Americaand Britain.

Gulson is no stranger to stressfulpublic battles or controversy. In thelate 1990s he was one of a group ofinvestors involved in a long-runninglegal battle with Glen Stotter, thefounder of Mainstar One, a tea tree oilproducer that had branched into “tax-effective” investments.

Last year the Federal Court backedthe Australian Tax Commissioner indisallowing claims for tax breaks oninterest charges involved in theschemes. The investments, made byabout 11,000 people, were largelyfinanced by loans provided by acompany associated with Mainstar.

Sally, his wife of 15 years, isinvolved in events management andpublic relations.

With such a hectic life, there seemslittle incentive to take on a multina-tional tobacco company — he hadworked for BAT in 1989-90: why notmove on?

Because Gulson is an angry man.He insists his views on BAT’sdocument retention policy were notaccurately portrayed in the Court ofAppeal hearing in which BAT succeedin overturning the Supreme Court’s$700,000 award to Mrs McCabe. Andhe is deeply upset that Mrs McCabe’sfamily faces the prospect of losing itshome if it has to pay BAT’s legalcosts. The rat is still loose and runninghard.

FBI clings to policy ofharassing whistleblowers

Robert NovakChicago Sun-Times, 19 June 2003

Special Agent Robert Wright of theFBI’s Chicago Division could not havebeen surprised by the bureau’s reflex-ive reaction when he called a pressconference June 2 at the National PressClub. He laid out an indictment of theFBI’s “pathetic anti-terrorism efforts.”

One week later, the bureau respondedlike Pavlov’s dog, secretly launchingits fourth investigation of Wright.

Sen. Charles Grassley, as topcongressional protector of whistle-blowers, learned of this and did notconceal his rage in a June 12 letter toFBI Director Robert Mueller. He notedthe bureau’s Office of ProfessionalResponsibility had initiated its fourthinvestigation of Wright after the firstthree inquiries found no wrongdoing.

Grassley, second-ranking Republi-can on the Senate Judiciary Commit-tee, was joined by the panel’s topDemocrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy. “Weare troubled,” said their letter, “by theFBI’s apparent haste to launch an OPRinvestigation every time an agentspeaks publicly about problems withinthe FBI.” The senators demanded abriefing on what is happening.

The FBI’s public affairs office wasnot aware of the letter until I inquiredabout it. Although Grassley and Leahyonly requested a telephone call to set adate for a briefing, the bureau’sspokesman told me it could notcomment until a letter to the senatorswas prepared.

Minneapolis Agent ColeenRowley’s whistleblowing about theFBI ignoring warnings of the Sept. 11terrorist attacks made her T i m emagazine’s co-person of the year andwon commendation from Mueller. Incontrast, Wright has faced only troublefor raising questions deeper andbroader than anything Rowleysuggested. Wright’s accusations go tothe overriding question of whether theFBI can ever be reformed as aneffective instrument in the war againstterrorism.

Grassley does not blame Muellerfor failing to transform the FBI’sinbred, secretive culture in nearly twoyears as its director. Suggesting thepersecution of Wright came withoutMueller’s knowledge, the senator toldme: “He can’t keep his eyes on every-thing.”

Apart from giving Mueller leeway,Grassley is unforgiving about theWright affair and draws broad conclu-sions from this incident. “The problemwith the FBI,” he told me, “is that itcan’t tolerate dissent.” To effectivelycombat terrorism, he said, “it’s goingto take a new FBI from the top to thebottom.” As for his request for a

briefing on the treatment of Wright, heanswered with the understatement ofthe Iowa farmer that he is: “Sometimesit takes a long time to get an answerfrom them.”

In contrast, the FBI hierarchy actsquickly when it hears whistlesblowing, as when Agent Wright metwith the Chicago special agent-in-charge in March 2001, and told him“the international terrorism unit of theFBI is a complete joke.” Within threeweeks, the OPR opened an inquiry intocharges that Wright had suppliedclassified information to an assistantU.S. attorney. “This was a patheticattempt,” Wright declared in his June 2press conference, “ … before the Sept.11th attacks, to further silence me fromgoing public about the FBI’s negli-gence and incompetence.”

The FBI would soon find out thatBob Wright is not easily silenced. InSeptember 1999, he had hired Chicagolawyer David Schippers, famed asHouse investigative counsel in theClinton impeachment. When the FBIretaliated against Wright, Schipperscontacted Judicial Watch, the conser-vative watchdog organization. The FBIhas had to face Judicial Watch’sredoubtable Larry Klayman ever since.

The 2001 investigation and twosubsequent internal probes all clearedWright, who passed a polygraph test ofcharges he leaked classified informa-tion. Nevertheless, the FBI hierarchyhas been implacable in its attitudetoward Wright. It has banned publica-tion of his manuscript, which Wrightcalls “a blueprint of how the events ofSeptember the eleventh were inevita-ble.” He describes himself as the onlyFBI agent “banned from working inthe investigation” of 9/11.

The fourth internal investigation ofWright was originally based on claimshe was insubordinate (“ … the FBIallowed known terrorists, their co-conspirators and financiers, to operateand roam freely throughout the UnitedStates.”) then tacked on charges that heembarrassed the FBI and acted unpro-fessionally. Last week, OPR agentsinterrogated Wright. Clearly, DirectorMueller has not changed the culture ofthe FBI that considers whistleblowingthe supreme sin for its agents.

THE WHISTLE, #35, OCTOBER 2003 PAGE 7

Articles and discussion

Dealing withpolitical crime

Brian Martin

Whistleblowers discover all sorts ofcrimes, from theft to perjury. Some ofthese can be called political crimes.Treason and subversion spring tomind; these are crimes against thegovernment. But there are also crimesby the government, such as politicalcorruption and human rights viola-tions. Then there are crimes in whichboth corporations and governments areimplicated together.

Making sense of all the possibili-ties and complexities is not easy.Luckily there is a new book that lays itall out, written by Jeffrey Ian Ross andtitled The Dynamics of Political Crime(Sage, 2003). Ross has been writingand editing books about crime formany years, especially about statecrime, namely crime by governments.The Dynamics of Political Crime,designed for use as a textbook, drawson his great knowledge. Here I’lloutline some key areas that aresystematically covered in the book,mentioning possible connections withwhistleblowing.

Crimes against the state are called“oppositional political crimes.” Thereare two main types: nonviolent andviolent. The nonviolent crimes includedissent, sabotage, subversion, sedition,treason and espionage. Repressivegovernments are prone to calling anyform of opposition a crime. If you’re inChina or Uzbekistan, publicly criticis-ing the government could get you aprison term or worse.

Governments adopt a doublestandard: spying or advocating foryour own government is laudable,whereas spying or advocating for anenemy government is treason.

Whistleblowers inside governmentare at great risk of being labelledtraitors. The laws against publicservants speaking about their work canmake whistleblowing, or even justcasual comment, a political crime,though these laws are rarely enforced.Andrew Wilkie, who resigned from theOffice of National Assessment and

criticised government use of intelli-gence, could easily have been chargedwith a political crime.

The second type of oppositionalpolitical crime is the violent sort,commonly called terrorism or assassi-nation. If you are a member of aterrorist organisation and decide toblow the whistle on your comrades,that’s taking a real risk! For whistle-blowers who are not terrorists them-selves, the bigger risk is being labelleda terrorist. It’s like being called atraitor, but even worse.

So much for crimes against thestate. Far more interesting, in manyways, are crimes by the state, conven-tionally called “state crime.” Rossgives five main types.

The first type is political corrup-tion, which “usually includes acceptingor soliciting bribes (i.e., usually moneyor some other economic benefit, like agift or service).” The reason that this isa political crime is that “The citizen’strust has been violated,” with citizensbeing the ultimate victims. The threemain groups involved in politicalcorruption are politicians, police andgovernment regulators, but others suchas judges can participate too.

Political corruption is damaging topublic trust because it means that thepeople who are passing and enforcinglaws are the ones who are breakingthem. If you’re being framed by thepolice, who are you going to ring forhelp: the police?

Most political corruption is coveredup by perpetrators and by codes ofsilence that operate among occupa-tional groups such as police. Occasion-ally there are scandals, with individu-als being exposed and convicted, butoutsiders seldom know for surewhether a real criminal has beenbrought to justice or whether a dissi-dent or witness has been framed.

Whistleblowers are of crucialimportance in exposing politicalcorruption. Even more importantly, ifmany officials are potential whistle-blowers, this increases the risk ofexposure and reduces the incidence ofcorruption in the first place.

The second type of state crime isillegal domestic surveillance, such aswhen government agents listen in on

telephone conversations or interceptemails without proper approval. Rosssurveys the history of illegal govern-ment surveillance in Britain, Canadaand the United States. Rather thanbeing an aberration, this sort of sur-veillance “has been an ongoing organi-zational policy and practice indemocratic states and, in some cases,has been sanctioned by heads of state.”No doubt illegal surveillance bygovernments occurs in Australia, butwe hear little of it due to secrecy andthe danger to anyone who might speakout about it.

Ross’s third type of state crime ishuman rights violations. This brings tomind torture and extrajudicial killingsin third world countries, but it alsogoes on under systems of representa-tive government. Unlawful beatings bypolice and prison officers are humanrights violations, and there is plenty ofevidence that they have occurred inAustralia. Many would say thatAustralian government detention ofasylum seekers is a violation of humanrights. Another crime in this categoryis war crime, which could includelaunching a war in violation of inter-national law. Witnesses are essentialfor exposing and prosecuting humanrights violations, and whistleblowershave a key role to play.

The fourth type of state crime isstate violence, which includes torture,deaths in custody, police riots, policeuse of deadly force, and genocide. Ofthese, Ross notes that “deaths incustody and police use of deadly forceare the most prominent in the advancedindustrialized countries.” Whistle-blowers have a key role to play inexposing such crimes. A few whistle-blowers, especially those who arepolice or prison officers, are targets ofstate violence.

Ross’s fifth and last type of statecrime is state-corporate crime, a typeof behaviour “committed by individu-als who abuse their state authority orwho fail to exercise it when workingwith people and organizations in theprivate sector.” In Australia, this sortof crime is being facilitated by thepractice of contracting out governmentservices to private enterprise. As usual,whistleblowers have a crucial role to

PAGE 8 THE WHISTLE, #35, OCTOBER 2003

play in exposing this sort of statecrime. Jim Leggate, one of Whistle-blowers Australia’s four whistleblow-ers of national significance, revealedthat a Queensland government depart-ment had a policy of nonenforcementof mining regulations, costing thetaxpayer a billion dollars in lostrevenue and allowing massive envi-ronmental damage. Ross says that“The potential for further harmsresulting from these relationships[between private and public sectors] isalarming, particularly considering thatregulatory law aimed at controllingprivate corporations is today beingscaled back while corporations areincreasingly transcending nationalborders both in production and inadvancing the consumption of theirproducts.” It would not be surprising,therefore, if whistleblowing about thissort of crime becomes more important.

The Dynamics of Political Crimeconcludes with the statement “As longas there are states and power differen-tials, political crime will exist.” Itsounds like there will be a need forwhistleblowers for some time yet.

Whistleblowingand dissent

An email exchange involving PeterBowden, Cynthia Kardell, Brian

Martin and Geoff Turner

Background: Jean Lennane wrote apaper titled “What happens to whistle-blowers, and why,” published in KlaasWoldring (ed.), Business Ethics inAustralia and New Zealand: Essaysand Cases. Melbourne: ThomasNelson, 1996, pages 51-63. Membersof Whistleblowers Australia havegiven copies of this paper to numerouswhistleblowers.

The opening paragraph of Jean’spaper reads as follows:

“Whistleblowing is defined in theUS Whistleblower Protection Act 1989as occurring when a present or formeremployee discloses information ‘whichthe employee reasonably believesevidences a violation of any law, rule,or regulation, or gross mismanage-ment, a gross waste of funds, an abuseof authority, or a substantial andspecific danger to public health orsafety.’ An alternative, shorter defini-

tion is ‘principled organisationaldissent.’ This is a clear and convenientway of looking at the issue, and alsopoints out parallels between whistle-blowing and older versions of what isbasically the same activity.”

Peter Bowden is a member ofWBA and describes himself as “someodd academic sticky-beak.”

Cynthia Kardell is national secre-tary of WBA and president of theNSW branch.

Brian Martin is internationaldirector of WBA and a member of thenational committee.

Geoff Turner is a member of theWBA national committee and aninformation technology expert.

———

~26 July 2003Dear Cynthia and Geoff,

Cynthia gave me on Tuesday nighta copy of Jean Lennane’s paper,suggesting we put it in the new, about-to-be-revised web site. This email is torecord my concerns with this. In thefirst page, she says that the US Whis-tleblowers Protection Act covers:

“… violation of any law, rule orregulation, or gross mismanagement, agross waste of funds, an abuse ofauthority, or a substantial and specificdanger to public health or safety. Analternative, shorter definition is‘principled organisational dissent’.”[emphasis added]

My problem is primarily thisdefinition of whistleblowing as dissent(which is why I have copied this emailto Brian, for his web site is on dissent).I believe that if someone disagrees, forgood reason, with something that thegovernment or a private organisationhas done, they should make as big afuss as possible. March up & down, etcetc. But that is not whistleblowing.

Erin Brokovich on PG&E, memarching against the Third Runway atMascot, many thousands of peopleagainst this war. Or the refugees. Orthe law that says I have to wear aseatbelt. That is dissent.

I would like to keep whistleblow-ing for ensuring that people are honest,for stopping corruption or for thethings mentioned in the US Act.Whistleblowing is one of the majortools for bringing ethical behaviourinto organisations. I believe it unwise

to dilute it. Or to get too many peopleoffside by a definition that they willnot agree with. I, for instance, believethat one should march, wave banners,go to the media, get an enquiry and ifthe enquiry says OK, I can still protestbut the public servant responsible hasto implement it. No choice. Otherwiseour whole system of democracy is atrisk. I don’t want a country where thepublic servants can decide whetherthey do or do not implement a decisionof government. If they don’t like it,quit and then march up and down. Butit is not whistleblowing. […]

Cheers for nowPeter

———

27 July 2003Peter,

I do not understand it the way youhave. Whistleblowing is part ofdissent. There are all sorts of dissent.

By “organisational” I understand itto mean “within an organisation”.

By “principled” I take it to meanthat speaking out is done from aposition of principle.

If people disagree with what anorganisation is doing, that activity maybe policy oriented or it may be wrongor criminal conduct. In which case,one’s dissent may be activism orwhistleblowing. I think the key is thatthe conduct complained of is not in thepublic’s interest, particularly as mostacts include a reference to gross wasteand mismanagement, which may notbe wrong or unlawful so much as ineptand stupid. If it is in the public interestto have public monies spent wisely andprudently, then dissenting (by speakingout, putting in a disclosure or going tothe press etc) may become whistle-blowing. An abuse of authority plainlycomes within whistleblowing territoryas does the public health threat.

The USA law permits disclosuresin those areas as all have a strongpublic interest component. If theorganisation is doing something aginthe public interest than it is in thepublic interest to put the dissentingview out there. That is, blow thewhistle.

Jean has simply coined a phrase orgrab-bag to pull it all together.

Anyway, that’s my tuppence worthfor the moment. Your turn.

Cynthia.

THE WHISTLE, #35, OCTOBER 2003 PAGE 9

———

4 August 2003Cynthia:

I don’t think there is any differencebetween us. But I am far from sure.

I am not against dissent — I mustmake that quite clear. This letter is aletter of dissent. And one on principle.But I am strongly against describingcommon and necessary forms ofdissent as whistleblowing. I do notbelieve, for instance, that dissentagainst policy decisions which areopenly arrived at, and discussedpublicly, can be described as whistle-blowing. If a person disagrees withthese decisions, I support their right todissent against them in any waywhatsoever. I only believe that it is notin our interests for this dissent toreceive any WBA support activity.Also I believe this issue to be quiteimportant.

Having said that, and set out myseveral reasons below, I must say thateven if everybody disagrees with me, Iwill continue to support WBA and domy bit for them. My reasons are:

1. Whistleblowing is to correctwrongdoing. Whistleblowing is one ofthe strongest mechanisms possible tobring strengthened ethical practicesinto our social institutions, i.e. pre-venting FAIs, HIHs, Enrons, politicaland public service cover-ups, politi-cians and their lies, researchersfalsifying their results, etc. This objec-tive of increasing organisationalprobity through strengthened whistle-blowing practices is one objective thatI would want to work towards. Inshort, I want to concentrate onreducing deliberate wrongdoing.

2. Not all dissent is againstimmoral or unethical acts. Whistle-blowing, therefore, should be confinedto revealing activities which areunethical, illegal or immoral. Illegalactions are clearly and easily identi-fied. Unethical or immoral actions,however, can be open to dispute, andcan often be argued. I use a definitionthat says on balance, an unethicalaction will harm somebody, or do thema wrong. Many, but not all, dissentstories meet this definition, Those thatdo not are my concern. Such exampleswould be difficult to define in legisla-tion, or to set in a procedures manualfor public servant use. I can live

comfortably, however, with thewording of most whistleblowerprotection acts. Using Jean’s words forthe US Act: whistleblowing is “aviolation of any law, rule, or regula-tion, or gross mismanagement, a grosswaste of funds, an abuse of authority,or a substantial and specific danger topublic health or safety”. The arguabledefinition is mismanagement, but forme the NSW Act provides a soundguideline: “Contrary to law … unrea-sonable, unjust, oppressive or improp-erly discriminatory … based wholly orpartially on improper motives”. Everyone of those actions is unethical, ableto be clearly identified as such.

3. We can disagree with manygovernment decisions. So, if a policydecision is made which someonedisagrees with, that policy decision hasto be clearly unethical or illegal(among other things) for the dissent tobe classified as whistleblowing.Disagreeing with the decision onprofessional grounds is, for me, notwhistleblowing. If the decision wasmade as a result of an independentinquiry then I find it difficult to believethat the decision would be unethical inany respect. If the person is a publicservant responsible for implementingthat decision, then s/he has to imple-ment it. No more arguments. Any othersystem would be constitutional anar-chy. If the person is outside thesystem, then they can jump up anddown forever, or until successful. Iwould even support them if I thoughtthey were in the right.

4. But that is not whistleblowing.I could in no way call this jumping upand down whistleblowing. Nor can Ieven dream up legislation under thecurrent acts that would encompassproviding support for this type ofdissent. In fact, I think attempting towiden the definition of actions whichobtain legislated whistleblower supportto include policy dissent is likely to doour cause more harm than good.

5. Budget allocations alwaysgenerate dissent. The other point ofargument, apart from policy decisions,is the budget process. Governments donot tax us enough to right all thewrongs of our society. They have tomake choices. Sometimes thesechoices will be, in strict terms, unethi-cal, in that they cause harm, or do notcorrect harm already incurred.

Examples are budgeting provision thatprovides alternative and cheapermedical or health services, increasedclass sizes, delays in correcting trafficblack spot conditions, failure toimplement prison reform, hospitalunder staffing, etc. Disagreement, evenmassive dissent, on these issues, all ofwhich are matters of principle, orethical issues, are fundamental aspectsof our society. I have been consulting,teaching and writing on the policyformulation and budgeting process,and the dissent, discussion and dis-agreement that should be part of theprocess, for many years now and neveronce considered it as whistleblowing.And I am concerned that if we say it is,we will put offside many genuinepublic servants who do their best todecide what is the best interests ofsociety. We will also put offside manypublic servants and academics whoteach planning and budgeting proc-esses and who have invested vast sumsof money into finding a better processthan we have at the moment.

6. Private sector whistleblowingcan only be against wrongdoing. Ifwe include dissent under whistle-blowing we also have problemsdeciding how we handle the privatesector, unless we define it as onlyblowing on or expressing dissent overillegal or clearly identified unethicalactivities. Dissent from inside on whata company does — on its policies, orproducts for instance — will not bepossible, unless those things are clearlyagainst the law.

7. Internal whistleblowing canonly be against wrongdoing. I alsodon’t see very clearly how we set upan internal whistleblower system whenthe dissent is with a policy decision ora budget appropriation. I believe thatwithin the next decade we will seeinternal whistleblowing systems set upin most corporations and agencies. Ifully support this approach (although itneeds safeguards) and believeWhistleblowers Australia should getinvolved in it (as has the Britishwhistleblower NGO). Such internalsystems work now reasonably success-fully when it is illegality that they arefingering. I don’t see how they wouldwork if they were also to includedissenting on policy issues, or budgetallocations, no matter how principled.Speculating, there may be one day an

PAGE 10 THE WHISTLE, #35, OCTOBER 2003

administrative mechanism to re-examine policy or budget decisions ifthere was disagreement in the imple-menting agency, but that day is a longway off, if it ever comes.

8. Responding to public inquiriesis not whistleblowing. Most consult-ants and all investigative inquiries usethe evidence of internal people to maketheir analysis and come up with theirrecommendations. The inquiry investi-gating a train accident, for instance, istold by insiders what were the possiblecauses. The inquiry does not havesecond sight. The inquiry on thereasons for possible water shortages inNSW uses insider information. Peopleinside the organisation are only toowilling to tell an outsider what iswrong; neither they nor the inquiryconsider it whistleblowing. Nor arethey ostracised.

9. Whistleblowing information isfrom inside. This paragraph restatesthe first point in another way. Whistle-blowing is from inside the organisa-tion. I believe we all agree on that.Jean’s article gave reasons why whis-tleblowers are attacked and I think allof them were based on the whistle-blower being inside. If we are toprevent some of the excessive corpo-rate and public sector wrongdoing ofthe last year or two, we have to make iteasier for insiders to blow the whistle,and find legislation that gives themeven greater support than at present.Those inside are usually the only oneswho are aware of the wrongdoing.Support for them has my overridingpriority.

I guess everybody realises that thisemail is a statement of dissent. Idisagree with the National President,the NSW president (I think) and theacademic guru (that’s you, Brian).This statement is also a matter ofprinciple, for I believe that it is not inthe interests of increasing ethicalbehaviour to include under this banneran activity that many such as me, andmost public servants, will say willcreate misunderstanding, complicatelegislative improvement, and whichthey believe to be a separate issue. ButI do not believe this letter is whistle-blowing, even though I feel the issue isimportant and in the interests of devel-oping more effective whistleblowinglegislation and support system.

[…] I may be utterly wrong ofcourse and if I am, will willingly admitit. I do not think so, but it is possible. Ithink Jean’s article is a very good oneincidentally. It is only defining whis-tleblowing as principled dissent that Idisagree with.

That all said, I am still a loyalmember of WBA even if everybodydisagrees with me. But until convincedotherwise I will only fight on issuesthat I consider are clear wrongdoing —unethical or illegal. Disagreement onmy part with policy or budget deci-sions openly and honestly arrived atbut which I believe are wrong, will seeme parading, or writing letters to theHerald, but if I am an insider I wouldnot consider this as blowing thewhistle.

Cheers.Peter

———

6 August 2003Hi Peter, Brian and Cynthia,

Not having been copied on all thediscussion, I’m not sure if I’ve got allthe arguments, but here's my 2¢-worth.

I think I agree with Peter’s pointabout the strict definition of whistle-blowing and that it does not includedissent. Whistleblowing, strictlyspeaking, must involve the revealing ofsome information that someone istrying to keep quiet, and does notinvolve mere disagreement.

I disagree (with Peter) that thewhistleblower has to be inside theorganisation in question. I can’t thinkof a reason why an outsider shouldn’tbe referred to as a whistleblower ifs/he reveals corruption (say) within anorganisation. A citizen may, forexample, blow the whistle on policetaking bribes to green-light drug-dealing in an area. That, to me, iswhistleblowing.

Having said all that, I think thatperhaps there should be some room forflexibility in what we are willing todeal with. Perhaps there are someissues that are not, strictly, whistle-blowing ones, but involve the publicinterest and may not be of interest toany other NGOs, but are worthy ofsome support and/or action. Thisdoesn't mean that we should try toinclude/cover these other issues in thedefinition or in legislation, though.

I hope this makes some sense.

Regards,Geoff

———

6 August 2003Dear Peter,

Your comments on whistleblowingare fascinating and informative. Iappreciate the effort you’re taking todevelop and express the ideas.

For scholarly purposes, to define aterm in a certain way is quite properand I have no trouble with that. Thereare various definitions of whistle-blowing by different academics and inmy own writing I regularly refer toseveral different definitions.

Terminology for WhistleblowersAustralia is a different matter. Wecan’t easily control the ways words areused, for example by journalists whoin turn influence popular usage.

As a concept I don’t even like theterm whistleblowing very much,having long used “suppression ofdissent” as a better way to hone in onwhat’s significant, namely to focus onwhat and who are causing the problem.But due to the widespread use of“whistleblowing”, I have capitulatedand adopted this term.

Back to Whistleblowers Australia.My concern is what we do in practicewhen people approach us. Do we try todecide whether they are “really”whistleblowers or do we accept allcomers, or what?

Our introductory leaflet says “Thegoal of Whistleblowers Australia(WBA) is to help promote a society inwhich it is possible to speak outwithout reprisal about corruption,dangers to the public and environmentand other vital social issues, and tohelp those who speak out in this wayto help themselves.” I think this coversboth whistleblowers in your sense,Peter, but also some dissenters in yoursense.

In practice, those who can speakout without reprisals are scarce amongour members. They are not ourprimary concern. Many dissenters fallinto this category.

For example, peace campaignersmight be called dissenters from thestandard military model. Some wouldsay that the recent invasion of Iraq wasboth illegal and immoral, so thatspeaking out against it might be said tobe a form of whistleblowing. Regard-

THE WHISTLE, #35, OCTOBER 2003 PAGE 11

less of what this is called, though,peace campaigners are unlikely tocome in large numbers to WBAbecause few suffer reprisals forexpressing their views, and in any casethey have their own networks ofsupport. (It might be useful, though, toshare insights between WBA andpeace groups.)

I am wary of excluding any groupfrom WBA’s ambit. For example,some people who are not employeesseem to fit the conventional whistle-blower model, such as volunteershelping a welfare organisation, ormembers of a feminist collective. Yetdissent within such groups can lead toreprisals.

If we say who can and can’t cometo WBA meetings, join WBA or writefor The Whistle, for example, wepotentially create all sorts of problemsinherent in making invidious compari-sons. I don’t think dissenters (in yoursense) are a very big proportion of ourclientele. There may well be largernumbers of people who, on a detailedinvestigation, some of us might decideare neither whistleblowers nor dissent-ers, but perhaps people with a grudge,with even a few criminals tossed in.Cynthia has found it effective to treatall who arrive the same. Those who areneither close to being whistleblowersnor being sympathetic to whistleblow-ers usually find little that serves theirpurposes, and drop away.

You’ll realise this isn’t a definitivestatement, but I hope it clarifies whereI’m coming from.

Best wishes,Brian

———

8 August 2003Peter,You are correct. There is not muchdifference between us.

Disagreeing about policy is notwhistleblowing. Exposing false statis-tics (say) which are the basis of apolicy could be whistleblowing. But itdoes not help to go on at length aboutthe exclusions. I think that my dis-agreement with you (if that is what itwas) is more to do with my personalinclination and experience that dwell-ing on definitions has never reallyhelped. So, ignore my irritablepedantry, for the moment, heh.

I think that any definition should beas inclusive as possible. That is, abroad framework within which towork. So, put pen to paper, my dear. Iam sure it will be okay, in the wash-up.

I look forward to reading the draft.Cynthia

———

13 August 2003Cynthia

[…] About the disagreeing aboutpolicy not being whistleblowing — Ithink it is important, mainly becausewe will look ridiculous, and possiblyget some genuine people offside if wecall principled dissent as whistleblow-ing. Jean’s article and definition “Analternative, shorter definition [than theUS definition of illegality, grossmismanagement, etc.] is ‘principledorganisational dissent.’ This is a clearand convenient way of looking at theissue …”

“Principle” she defines by“concepts such as ‘truth’, ‘justice’, ‘thepublic interest’, or God.”

That definition implies that thestudents rattling the police barriersabout student fees the last time Iwalked through the quadrangle werewhistleblowers. They were certainlyprincipled, they were part of theorganisation, and they were dissenting(I agree with them. Increased fees havecaused social injustice). But it isridiculous to describe them as whistle-blowers. I wrote a letter to the paper —I am employed by a university — I amnot whistleblowing.

Cheers for nowPeter

———

17 August 2003Brian,

My email program sometimesplays tricks on me. I only came acrossyour email of 6th August (commentingon my long email to you and Cynthiaand Geoff) when I was searching backthrough for another entirely differentemail. I think the machine downloadssome emails during the middle of thenight and does not tell me. I had notintended to ignore you, and appreciatethe time you took to reply.

I agree with most of what you say.I agree with “suppression of dissent”as being key to whistleblowing

I agree with the objectives of WBAbeing to “help promote a society inwhich it is possible to speak outwithout reprisal about corruption,dangers to the public and environmentand other vital social issues, and tohelp those who speak out in this wayto help themselves.”

I am also with you most of the wayin being “wary of excluding any groupfrom WBA’s ambit”, although withreservations. I personally don’t want tofight everybody’s battles, and I don’tthink WBA should. But as you said,they tend to exclude themselves.

I am also with you in that “somepeople who are not employees seem tofit the conventional whistleblowermodel”, provided they have informa-tion that would otherwise not be madepublic.

Where I do disagree is speaking outagainst well publicised and legiti-mately arrived at policy decisionsbeing defined as whistleblowing. I amnot saying that we stop them going toCynthia’s meetings, nor that we refuseto hear them. Or even stop me march-ing alongside them (but as me not as awhistleblower). And if we write abook, I would exclude these people.

This means that I accept theobjectives of WBA as stated as above,but as a whole, not broken up, i.e.speaking out about corruption and vitalsocial issues without reprisal. But thespeaking out on vital social issues thatdo not concern you and where there isno reprisal is not a whistlebloweractivity And those who use thecompany’s or agency’s time andresources to speak out or where theyshould be implementing the decision,get no support from me.

Geoff put in a good 2¢ worth. Ithink it was about 20¢. I agree with allhe said, and back down on the whistle-blower being inside the organisation.But they have to have information thatotherwise would not get out.

I think the difference between usBrian is that I put more emphasis oneliminating corruption, wrongdoing,etc. whereas your emphasis is on theright to dissent.

Peter.

PAGE 12 THE WHISTLE, #35, OCTOBER 2003

Whistleblowers Australia contacts

ACT contact: Peter Bennett, phone 02 6254 1850, fax 026254 3755, email whistleblowers@iprimus.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 7:30 p.m., PresbyterianChurch Hall, 7-A Campbell St., Balmain 2041.General meetings held in the Church Hall on the firstSunday in the month commencing at 1:30 p.m. (or come at12:30 p.m. for lunch and discussion). The July generalmeeting is the AGM.Contacts: Cynthia Kardell, phone/fax 02 9484 6895, ormessages phone 02 9810 9468; emailckardell@iprimus.com.auWebsite: http://www.whistleblowers.org.au/Goulburn region: Rob Cumming, 0428 483 155.Wollongong: Brian Martin, 02 4221 3763.Website: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/

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

South Australian contacts: Matilda Bawden, 08 82588744 (a/h); John Pezy, 08 8337 8912

Victorian contacts: Christina Schwerin, 03 5144 3007;Mervin Vogt, 03-9786 5308.

Western Australian contacts: Avon Lovell, 08 9242 3999(b/h); John White, 08 9382 1919 (a/h).

WhistleBrian Martin, editor, bmartin@uow.edu.au, 02 4221 3763,02 4228 7860; Don Eldridge, Isla MacGregor, Kim Sawyer,associate editors

Producing The Whistle

Producing The Whistle relies entirely on volunteers, likeeverything else in Whistleblowers Australia. Here’s how theprocess works.

For the front page, I like to use graphics when available.You will have seen Kevin Lindeberg’s cartoons on the coverof some recent Whistles.

The first main section is “Media watch.” The highest prior-ity goes to short pieces that are relevant to members. Iprefer to have at least some Australian items but it is goodto have some foreign stories too, for perspective.

I see some suitable articles from the media myself but relyheavily on others to send me relevant items. Don Eldridgeand Christina Schwerin have been the most regular helpersin this. Having electronic versions is a great help becausescanning or typing out articles is tedious and introduceserrors. Normally I have far more media items than can beincluded, so it’s a matter of picking a selection.

The next main section is usually “Articles and reports.”Basically this means longer original pieces by contributors,often WBA members. The maximum length per contributorper issue is about 2000 words.

Then there is a section on “Correspondence and WBAbusiness.” (In this issue, this section is combined with thearticles.) This includes letters to the editor plus things likeWBA minutes and AGM notices.

Letter and article writers can help by checking every detailin what they write, such as spellings of names, the exactwords in any quote and the accuracy of claims. Sendingelectronic versions makes things a lot easier.

After I get the text of an issue ready, it is proofread,typically by Cynthia Kardell and/or an anonymous sup-porter. Printing is arranged by Patrick Macalister. Afterprinting, posting is done by the NSW branch, coordinatedby Cynthia Kardell. Proofreading, printing and posting cantake 4 to 6 weeks.Brian Martin

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.