In Whose Interest? The Need for Consistency in to Whom, and About Whom, Australian Public Interest Whistleblowers Can Make Protected Disclosures

P. Latimer, A. Brown
{"title":"In Whose Interest? The Need for Consistency in to Whom, and About Whom, Australian Public Interest Whistleblowers Can Make Protected Disclosures","authors":"P. Latimer, A. Brown","doi":"10.21153/DLR2007VOL12NO2ART216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the 1990s Australia's nine jurisdictions have passed (or, in the case of the Northern Territory, proposed to pass) public sector whistleblower legislation. The legislation, which reflects different political origins and legislative aims, is not consistent in many respects and there are few common tests across the jurisdictions. This article analyzes two issues - who the Australian whistleblower can disclose to, and who the whistleblower can make protected disclosures about. The examination of these issues indicates inconsistencies in the public law whistleblower laws enacted since the 1990s. This inconsistency is not sensible in Australia's national economy, where an employee in one State can make a protected disclosure, but an employee in another cannot make the same disclosure. This article supports the election commitment of the Rudd federal government in 2007 to introduce best practice federal whistleblowing legislation which will hopefully overcome shortcomings analyzed in this article.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2007VOL12NO2ART216","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Since the 1990s Australia's nine jurisdictions have passed (or, in the case of the Northern Territory, proposed to pass) public sector whistleblower legislation. The legislation, which reflects different political origins and legislative aims, is not consistent in many respects and there are few common tests across the jurisdictions. This article analyzes two issues - who the Australian whistleblower can disclose to, and who the whistleblower can make protected disclosures about. The examination of these issues indicates inconsistencies in the public law whistleblower laws enacted since the 1990s. This inconsistency is not sensible in Australia's national economy, where an employee in one State can make a protected disclosure, but an employee in another cannot make the same disclosure. This article supports the election commitment of the Rudd federal government in 2007 to introduce best practice federal whistleblowing legislation which will hopefully overcome shortcomings analyzed in this article.
为了谁的利益?澳大利亚公共利益举报人可以向谁和关于谁进行受保护的披露,需要保持一致性
自20世纪90年代以来,澳大利亚的九个司法管辖区已经通过了(或者,在北领地的情况下,提议通过)公共部门的举报人立法。这些立法反映了不同的政治渊源和立法目的,在许多方面不一致,在各个司法管辖区几乎没有共同的检验标准。本文分析了澳大利亚举报人可以向谁披露以及举报人可以向谁进行受保护的披露这两个问题。对这些问题的审查表明,自20世纪90年代以来,制定的公法举报人法存在不一致之处。在澳大利亚的国民经济中,这种不一致是不明智的,因为一个州的雇员可以进行受保护的披露,而另一个州的雇员则不能进行同样的披露。本文支持陆克文联邦政府在2007年的选举承诺,介绍联邦举报立法的最佳实践,有望克服本文分析的缺点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信