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

TheWhistle NO. 45, FEBRUARY 2006

Newsletter of Whistleblowers AustraliaPO Box U129, Wollongong NSW 2500

PAGE 2 THE WHISTLE, #45, FEBRUARY 2006

Media watch

Pillars of democracydepend on leaks

Laurie OakesNational Nine News, 24 August 2005

Politicians leak all the time. They feedout information anonymously to jour-nalists to advance their own interestsor damage rivals or opponents, orsometimes simply to ingratiatethemselves with people in the media.Governments frequently use authorisedleaks as part of what is called “spin.”

It gives them more control over theway policies or decisions are reportedthan simply making announcements.But, as everyone knows, hypocrisyabounds in the political world. The factthat they leak themselves does not stopMinisters and MPs getting up on theirhigh horses and angrily condemningleaks when the unauthorised disclosureof information causes them embar-rassment.

John Howard’s government wasacutely embarrassed in February lastyear when Melbourne’s Herald Sunnewspaper revealed that war veteransand their widows were about to bedone in the eye.

Recommendations from a reviewof their benefits were to be largelyignored. The veterans were to miss outon hundreds of millions of dollars. Itwas an important story and a superbpiece of journalism, based on leakedconfidential documents, including amemo from the then Minister forVeterans’ Affairs Danna Vale. Eventu-ally, Cabinet was forced to reconsider.

On this occasion, the embarrass-ment was so great that mere condem-nation of the leak was not enough tosatisfy the Government. A full-scalewitch-hunt — sorry, investigation —was launched to try to identify thepublic service whistleblower who hadrevealed what the Government was upto by leaking the documents to HeraldSun reporters Gerard McManus andMichael Harvey.

Now a senior public servant hasbeen suspended without pay and facesup to two years jail if convicted of theunauthorised disclosure of information.And the two journalists also face thepossibility of jail because they have

refused to name the source of theirstory when asked to do so in court.McManus and Harvey were acting inaccordance with the journalists’professional code of ethics in takingtheir stand, but the judge ruled itcontempt of court.

If McManus and Harvey are sent tojail, the finger of blame should bepointed directly at the HowardGovernment. The journalists weresimply doing their job. It is obviousthat, if journalists cannot guarantee toprotect their sources, the disclosure ofinformation the government wants keptsecret will become a very rare thingindeed. And that would be bad for thenation. Democracy cannot work ifjournalists only report what govern-ments want them to report. It is thethreat of leaks that keeps politicianshonest. Well, relatively honest. Theyare much more reluctant to lie or actimproperly if they know they could befound out — that there is a risk somewhistleblower will disclose it to themedia.

A society where government hastight control of the flow of information— that is, control of what the public isallowed to know — is not a democraticsociety. Leaks, and whistleblowers, areessential to a proper democraticsystem.

Whistleblowersneed support

Tony KochThe Australian,

1 December 2005, p. 14

THE role of the media in exposingcorruption or malpractice should beprotected by law, according to formerQueensland Supreme Court judgeGeoff Davies, who yesterday releasedhis report on serious problems in theQueensland public hospital system. MrDavies slams the Queensland Whistle-blower Protection Act, saying it is sorestrictive that it does not extend to aperson reporting an issue to a memberof parliament.

He points out that the legislationentitles public officers to make disclo-

sures about maladministration, officialmisconduct or negligence to “a publicsector entity” only.

“There are two significant limita-tions to this system,” Mr Davieswrites. “Disclosures must be made toan appropriate entity and only publicofficers are permitted to make disclo-sures about official misconduct,maladministration, waste of publicfunds or threats to public health.”

Mr Davies points out that a disclo-sure to a journalist attracts no protec-tion under the act.

In his investigation into the healthsystem, he also found that patients andtheir family members were unable togain the protections of the Whistle-blowers Protection Act if they wantedto make a public interest disclosure.

Mr Davies recommends that awhistleblower ought to be able toescalate their complaint if no satisfac-tory action is taken.

He recommends that the firstcomplaint should be to the relevantgovernment department, and if there isno resolution within 30 days, the actshould extend coverage for thecomplainant to take the matter to amember of parliament.

If that did not bring resolutionwithin another 30 days, he recom-mends that “the whistleblower beentitled to make a further public inter-est disclosure to a member of themedia.”

Customs warning‘a threat’ to staff

Martin ChulovThe Australian, 19 August 2005, p. 6

THE Customs service has threatenedstaff with “serious consequences” ifthey co-operate with a parliamentaryinquiry into aviation security or briefthe media about their concerns. Aninternal Customs email sent last monthwarned that staff should consider theirobligations to the protection agencyahead of a duty to publicly discloseany aspect of its performance.

The Customs Officers Associationhas said the email was a direct threat to

THE WHISTLE, #45, FEBRUARY 2006 PAGE 3

the functioning of the Joint PublicAccounts and Audit Committee, whichis inquiring into security at the nation’sair and sea ports.

“The notice is not even a thinlyveiled threat for officers to be silent,”the association says in its submissionto the inquiry.

“Why should anyone run the risk ofmaking any career-threateningcomment about operational concernswhen there is no meaningful protectionavailable and when it is clear that ACSmanagement will act against anyonewho criticises the administration?”

Association president Peter Bennettsaid staff had been intimidated by theCustoms email into not co-operatingwith the committee.

The inquiry would be severelyhamstrung in the absence of strong andfearless testimony, Mr Bennett said.

The public accounts committeelaunched its inquiry in the wake ofrevelations contained in a classifiedCustoms report published in TheAustralian in June about serious safetybreaches at Sydney airport.

The report revealed that up to 10categories of staff working at theairport were suspected of involvementin drug-smuggling, or stealing frompassengers.

It detailed illegal activity bybaggage handlers, air crew, ramp andtrolley workers, security screeners andcleaners.

Up to 39 of the 500 securityscreeners had serious criminal convic-tions, the report showed. Two of theconvictions were for conspiracy toimport a commercial quantity of drugs.

In the wake of the revelations, theHoward Government announced a$212 million security overhaul of all45 national air and sea ports.

Aviation security consultant JohnWheeler was hired to conduct a reviewof security in the most sensitive areasof domestic and international airports,which had long been suspected ofbeing hotbeds of crime.

Sir John has now left Australia towrite his report after spending onlythree weeks here.

The Australian Federal Police andCustoms internal affairs officerslaunched an intensive hunt to exposeany Customs officer who was thoughtto have been behind the leak.

Mr Bennett said yesterday thetelephone of at least one officer hadbeen tapped as part of the investiga-tion.

“Why is this person now beingchased by Customs?” Mr Bennettasked the committee.

“It was a public service,” he said.“The bloke ought to be given a medal.”

Customs last night denied it hadtried to gag the staff.

“Customs appropriately providedadvice to staff on their rights andobligations if they were consideringwhether to disclose information ormake public comment,” a managementspokesman said.

Blowing the whistle canalso blow a career

Paul K. McMastersOmbudsman, First Amendment Centerhttp://www.americanpressinstitute.org

12 January 2006

When it comes to free-speech protec-tions for federal employees, theConstitution sometimes isn’t quiteenough.

As far back as 1912, Congressbegan work to ensure that federalagency workers wanting to blow thewhistle on excesses and missteps wereprotected from retaliation. In additionto a raft of laws, Congress over theyears has laid down protections in theMerit Systems Protection Board,established an Office of SpecialCounsel for whistleblowers in trouble,and even given a new federal appellatecourt it created in 1982 exclusivejurisdiction over litigation arising fromwhistleblower cases.

Why all this concern for bureau-cratic tattletales? Because they haveserved as a constant and valuablecheck on the federal government. AsLouis Fisher writes in “NationalSecurity Whistleblowers,” a newCongressional Research Servicereport:

“Over the years, agency employeeshave received credit for revealingproblems of defense cost overruns,unsafe nuclear power plant conditions,questionable drugs approved formarketing, contract illegalities andimproprieties, and regulatory corrup-tion.”

From the top down, whistleblowershave received high praise, even frompresidents, for their service inimproving government, according toFisher.

President Jimmy Carter, in fact,proposed the Office of Special Counselto protect whistleblowers “who exposegross management errors and abuses.”

President Ronald Reagan salutedwhistleblowers and promised themprotection for reporting illegal orwasteful activities. They “must beassured that when they ‘blow thewhistle’ they will be protected andtheir information properly investi-gated,” he said. (Later, PresidentReagan turned back the first Whistle-blower Protection Act passed byCongress.)

President George H. W. Bush saidthat “a true whistleblower is a publicservant of the highest order,” and that“these dedicated men and womenshould not be fired or rebuked or sufferfinancially for their honesty and goodjudgment.”

But suffer they have.According to Fisher’s report,

whistleblowers rarely have won whenthey’ve taken their cases to the MeritSystems Protection Board, the Officeof Special Counsel, or even the courts.Instead, whistleblowers routinely havefaced firing, transfers, reprimands, lossof promotion and harassment, not tomention criminal sanctions in someinstances.

A House committee taking upamendments to the WhistleblowersProtection Act in 1994 reported thatthough the act “is the strongest freespeech law that exists on paper, it hasbeen a counterproductive disaster inpractice. The WPA has created newreprisal victims at a far greater pacethan it is protecting them.”

That woeful record continuestoday.

Consider, for instance, the travailsof Sibel Edmonds, the former FBItranslator who was fired after she wentpublic with claims of security viola-tions, mismanagement and possiblespying within the FBI departmenttranslating documents vital to the waron terror.

Another whistleblower, BunnyGreenhouse, was demoted from the topprocurement post at the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers after she chal-

PAGE 4 THE WHISTLE, #45, FEBRUARY 2006

lenged the process by which a subsidi-ary of Halliburton won multibilliondollar contracts just before the war inIraq.

Similar troubles were in store forthe Army general who disputed hissuperiors’ troop-strength projectionsfor the Iraq war, the Medicare expertwho tried to tell Congress about thereal costs of new drug subsidies, andthe government climate specialist whowas disciplined for pointing out thatpolitical appointees were manipulatingglobal-warming data.

Little wonder that whistleblowersmore often go to the press, which has abetter record of protecting them thanboards, special counsels, the courts,members of Congress – or their bosses.

But even going to the press is notall that safe. The Justice Departmenthas just launched a criminal investiga-tion to track down anyone who leakedinformation to The New York Timesabout the National Security Agency’ssuper-secret monitoring of telephonecalls and e-mails from within theUnited States.

In another investigation, a specialcounsel in the Justice Department hasbeen trying for two years to find outwho in the White House leaked thename of CIA operative Valerie Plameto columnist Robert Novak. Theprosecutor was able to force somejournalists to testify before a grandjury and to send one reporter to prisonfor refusing to testify.

And the CIA general counsel’soffice has taken the first step for yetanother probe by notifying the JusticeDepartment that someone in thegovernment revealed classifiedinformation about “black site” interro-gation centers in Eastern Europe to TheWashington Post.

No one knows how many whistle-blowers who have shared informationwith journalists are looking over theirshoulders right now. For example, theTimes relied on a dozen or so currentand former government officials for itscoverage of the NSA surveillance.

Now, a prominent attorney warnsthere could be further erosion of thepress’s ability to help whistleblowersoffer information about governmentabuse, mistakes and violations of thelaw. Harvey Silverglate, who repre-sented several parties in the PentagonPapers case in the 1970s, says in a

recent article in the Boston Phoenixthat the laws and court decisions aresuch that newspapers, reporters, editorsand publishers “are at serious risk ofindictment” in leak investigations.

When laws, regulations, courts andthe Constitution itself are not enoughto protect freedom of speech andfreedom of the press, there is morethan just good government at risk.

Defence purchasinglinked to low morale

Transcript of 7.30 Report, ABC TV,4 January 2006

MAXINE McKEW: We begin tonightwith a story that questions Defencepurchases. The quality of a soldier’skit can be the difference between lifeand death on the front line, so it’shardly surprising that diggers arevitally interested in how their gear willperform. Former corporal DaneSimmonds was so concerned about thequality of some of the equipmentprovided by the Defence Departmentthat he set up a web site to discuss itsperformance.

It seems there’s a lot to discuss. Ofthe Defence Department’s $17.5billion budget, 40 per cent will bespent on clothing and equipment. Butmany of the soldiers who used the website obviously didn’t think the DefenceDepartment was getting a great bangfor its buck. The bureaucrats werestung by the criticism, and MrSimmonds says the department forcedhim off the Internet and, ultimately,out of the Army. But not before he hadreceived information about a question-able contract for winter jackets for theArmy worth $8 million. The 7 .30Report has learned that an investiga-tion by the Defence watchdog identi-fied serious flaws in the way thecontract was awarded, and nowquestions are being asked aboutwhether poor management of Defencepurchases is affecting morale andrecruitment.

Nick McKenzie reports.NICK McKENZIE: Former

corporal Dane Simmonds served twicein East Timor and once in Iraq, duringalmost 10 years in the Army.

DANE SIMMONDS, FORMERSOLDIER: My family was military,

had a great military history, and Iwanted to carry on the tradition.

NICK McKENZIE: But arguablyhis greatest battle was not overseas butwith the organisation that spendsbillions of taxpayer dollars every yearequipping the Defence Forces — theDefence Materiel Organisation, orDMO, supplying everything fromsubmarines to socks. It will spend $7.2billion this financial year. Some 40 percent of the Defence budget.

As the 7.30 Report has discovered,it doesn’t always get it right.

DANE SIMMONDS: When wewent to Iraq, we were issued a brand ofglasses that were ski goggles, nothingmore than ski goggles, but to thecivilian counterparts or to the civilianpeople that issue this stuff, they’regoggles.

What do you need ballistic gogglesfor? We need ballistic goggles becausewhen we do our room entries, whenbombs go off, we want to protect oureyes.

NEIL JAMES, AUSTRALIANDEFENCE ASSOCIATION: Thereports that we get from soldiersdeployed forward in Iraq, for instance,is a lot of them end up buying theirown ballistic goggles because theythink they’re better than the ones thesystem can procure for them.

NICK McKENZIE: The AustralianDefence Association’s director NeilJames has also been hearingcomplaints about the procurementprocess.

NEIL JAMES: There has beensome big complaints at digger levelrecently about a lot of the load-bearingequipment, particularly webbing.

DANE SIMMONDS: Whingeingabout, complaining about equipment— I did to a certain extent because Iknew that the welfare and the safety ofmy troops was more important thanbeing, you know, considered awhinger.

NICK McKENZIE: To air hiscomplaints, Dane Simmonds turned tothe Internet. In 2003, he created anonline forum to review gear andclothing provided by DMO.

DANE SIMMONDS: I started aweb site called Mil-Kit Review. It wasbased on the premise that we wouldtrial equipment by real soldiers, myselfand a couple of years.

THE WHISTLE, #45, FEBRUARY 2006 PAGE 5

NEIL JAMES: The DefenceAssociation thought the web site set upby the diggers to discuss theirequipment was a brilliant idea. It’s ourunderstanding that it was actuallystrongly supported at unit level acrossthe ADF [Australian Defence Force],including by commanding officers ofunits.

DANE SIMMONDS: Problem thatwe also got was we got information wedidn’t need, which was about therunnings of DMO and how thingsoperate there.

NICK McKENZIE: That informa-tion, although not obviously useful tobegin with, ultimately raised seriousquestions about how DMO was buyinggear from private suppliers.

DANE SIMMONDS: Informationon how tender processes are selected,how they’re written, we’ve receivedstuff from people that used to work atDMO.

NICK McKENZIE: The informa-tion pointed to irregularities surround-ing a contract for 80,000 Army combatjackets.

DANE SIMMONDS: When I firstsaw the jacket, myself and a few otherswere just, like, “What is this?! This isnot a field jacket.”

NICK McKENZIE: While DaneSimmonds and his fellow soldiers hadconcerns about the quality of theirjackets, a bigger concern was thetendering process for the jacketcontract. Late last year an investigationby the Inspector-General of theDefence Force found the tender for thejackets in 2003 breached procurementguidelines, by giving certain tenderersinside running on the $8 millioncontract. This was done by specifyingin the tender the use of a certain fabric,giving any company using that fabrican advantage over other companiesbidding for the contract.

The investigation recommendeddisciplinary action be taken againsttwo DMO employees. And raisedquestions about this man — LawrencePain, who resigned from DMO to jointhe winning tenderer.

LAURENCE PAIN, FORMERDEFENCE EMPLOYEE: It just usedto astound us where we might have aproduct that was sort of half developedand they would just say, “Yep, let’sgive ’em that. That will do.” And wewould say, “It’s not quite finished.”

NICK McKENZIE: Laurence Painwas DMO’s technical officer on thecombat jacket project.

LAURENCE PAIN: I felt veryunsure about it, because I thought wecould spend all this money and it couldbe a complete flop. Purely because wedidn’t know how, over time, the fabricwould stand up. So I was extremelynervous and I thought it was prettystupid.

NICK McKENZIE: Why did youput your name to that tender specifica-tion if you were so uncomfortable withit?

LAURENCE PAIN: That was myjob. That’s what I was asked to do.

NICK McKENZIE: Only weeksafter the combat jacket tender wasawarded, Lawrence Pain took a jobwith the winning tenderer, a move henow admits was a conflict of interest.

LAURENCE PAIN: Oh I’m sure itis and I’m sure everybody at the timethought it was.

NICK McKENZIE: Ultimately,Lawrence Pain only lasted a few weeksin his new job but says he is aware ofseveral DMO employees who resignedto work with other defence contractors,seemingly with few qualms fromDefence management.

The Inspector-General’s investiga-tion was not limited to the question-able tender, or Lawrence Pain’sresignation from Defence. Thewinning tenderer was apparently alsoauthorised to use a cheaper fabric thanoriginally specified, to make thealmost 160,000 jacket cuffs but theprice of the $8 million contract was notchanged. And the Inspector-General isnow trying to recover what it says isthe cost differential. Some estimatesput the amount involved at up to250,000 taxpayer dollars.

The winning contractor refused tocomment on the allegations. TheDefence Department would notrespond to questions about this moneyeither, stating the jackets were workingwell, and further comment would beinappropriate at this time.

LAURENCE PAIN: There wasalways a political angle rather than thisis what we need to do, let’s get on withit and do it.

DANE SIMMONDS: It’s got tocome down to the almighty dollar.

NICK McKENZIE: What’s alsotelling is that when questions were first

raised about the combat jacket projectin late 2003, an internal investigationapparently found nothing wrong.

DANE SIMMONDS: I think thatwhen DMO investigated itself, theyrealised that, hey, we’re in the shithere, we’re in the poo here, and theyhave to — what do we do? What’s theaction? Do we say that we’ve donesomething wrong or do we try andcover it up as best we can? I think theytried to cover it up as best they could.

R O B E R T McCLELLAND,O P P O S I T I O N D E F E N C ESPOKESMAN: It needs the Auditor-General to actually come in and gothrough the place with a fine tooth-comb, quite frankly, to look at theirtendering processes, their policies inrespect to officers obtaining employ-ment with private agencies.

NICK McKENZIE: On top ofdisciplinary action, the Inspector-General has also recommendedchanges to the way the DMO clothesand equips the Army.

ROBERT McCLELLAND: I’mconcerned that the lack of scrutiny mayopen up that tendering process toabuse, if not potential corruption,which becomes particularly significantif it affects the basic kit, the basicequipment that our diggers have.

NICK McKENZIE: The Inspector-General’s investigation brought littlejoy to Dane Simmonds, who sayspressure from DMO was behind hisdecision to leave the Army.

DANE SIMMONDS: I received aphone call late at night from a seniorranking person that said “Close theweb site now.” And I asked why, andthey said, “Do you want to keepserving or do you want to go? You cankeep running the site but you can nolonger be in the Army.” I had — as Isaid — wife and children to thinkabout, and I thought, you know, whatdo I do?

NICK McKENZIE: In late 2003,the Defence Minister, Robert Hill, toldParliament that his department hadadopted “an educative approach andwas working with Dane Simmonds toaddress concerns raised by his website”. But Dane Simmonds saysDMO’s only concern was shutting himdown.

DANE SIMMONDS: I guess whenit directly involves you and you’re sopassionate about your government and

PAGE 6 THE WHISTLE, #45, FEBRUARY 2006

your country, that’s when it hurts, andthat’s when it really, you know, hurtsdeep.

NICK McKENZIE: Late today theDefence Department issued astatement saying it had informed DaneSimmonds of its concerns that his website may have breached regulationsregarding public comment.

NEIL JAMES: Certainly, as Iunderstand it, some of the things thatwere done to him and some of thethings he was threatened with, Ithought were unacceptable. If I hadbeen his commanding officer Iwould’ve been screaming blue murder.

N I C K McKENZIE: DaneSimmonds walked away from his website in early 2004 but not before itsimpact had been felt. A restrictedbriefing note to the Chief of the Armyin mid-2004 states: “...an informationoffensive to counter criticism ofcombat clothing and field equipmentby Internet sites, the media and anincreasing number of soldiers.”

The Army has also stepped upefforts to encourage soldiers to use itsinternal system, known as RODUM, toreport on defective or unsatisfactorymaterial. But a leaked Army reportstates: “The chain of command and thesoldiers believe that submittingRODUMs is a waste of time. TheRODUM system is not functioning.”

And the idea of a forum forcomplaints refuses to die. Serving andformer soldiers, including elite SASmembers, are running a new web siteto review gear.

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Ifdiggers aren’t satisfied with their basicequipment, aside from the performanceconstraints, they’re all factors thatresult in discontent perhaps leaving theDefence Forces itself, in a time whererecruitment and retention is very mucha live issue.

DANE SIMMONDS: Soldiersappreciate their comfort, they will stayin longer. I mean, it’s — you know,I’m not the only one to have left theArmy in recent times, and you’ll findthat many soldiers leave the Armythese days because it is an extremelyhard life.

NICK McKENZIE: And those whostayed in will best be able to judge thequality of their jackets, as they spendwinter in places like Iraq and Af-ghanistan.

Cover-up in intelligenceLance Collins and Warren Reed

[The authors are former Australianintelligence officers with a deeppersonal knowledge of cover-ups andwhistleblowing. This is an extract fromtheir book Plunging Point: IntelligenceFailures, Cover-ups and Conse-quences (Fourth Estate, 2005), pp.263-271 (footnotes omitted), used bypermission of the authors. Readersmay like to order the book for theirlocal libraries.]

THE PRINCIPLES OF COVER-UP

There is nothing that an intelligencesystem pursues with more vigour andmalevolence than a cover-up. Almostuniversally this takes the form of‘blowtorching’ the individual. It is acalculated act, and one seen to be asimportant as the need to contain arogue computer virus before it infectsthe rest of the network. This process isattended by precision, ritual andmeticulous choreography. Its keyprinciples are:

• Make a deliberate decision to coverup.• Select a seasoned government ormilitary fixer to be the instrument.• Shoot the messenger — the truthmust never be revealed — exceptfragments that support the cover-up.• Lie big, lie often and lie doggedly —and never diverge from the script.• Let some truth out — in the sameway that the insurance industry makessome payments: because if it didn’t,the industry would lose its viability.• Appoint the right judge, investigatoror ‘stacked’ committee.• Contain initial damage in the publicperception.• Buy time so that the public profile isovertaken by other events.• Use clever timing to minimize theimpact of public announcements.• Deny information to the truth-teller,imposing burdens of time, energy andexpense in forcing them to useFreedom of Information legislation.• Deflect the responsibility.• Identify scapegoats.• Engage in ritualistic cosmeticsurgery. What you cannot cover up,

turn into a virtue by releasing partialtruth.• Enlist ‘useful idiots’ to do the dirtywork, i.e. compliant or unwittingprofessionals who, once fed an appro-priate line, will ‘find’ or producecorroborating evidence.• Go to extreme lengths to portray anyleaked documents written by the truth-teller as nullities.• Return to status quo ante as soon aspossible.

TECHNIQUES OF COVER-UP

And if Gilligan had never made thatreport — if Dr Kelly hadn’t bravelytold him what he did — there’s anawful lot we wouldn’t know todaywhich we ought to know about: theway government behaves, aboutTony Blair himself and the peoplehe puts around him, and about theway they have now in this countrymanipulated all public servants towork in their interests — includingthe security services. — GR E G

DYKE, BBC DIRECTOR G ENERAL,2004

So the sorcerer seeks to isolate andneutralize the individual, at the sametime that a disinformation campaign isconducted to win public support for theperpetrators.

And the symptoms of cover-up andblowtorching within an intelligencesystem are overwhelmingly visible —secret meetings, huddles, denial ofaccess, the intimation that ‘somethingimportant is up’. All this is part andparcel of the operation to get someone,and appears as ‘normal’ in this world.In the end, the treatment of an exposedtraitor and of a truth-teller are thesame. Both constitute a threat to theestablished order.

Here is how this world looks fromthe blowtorcher’s point of view:

The overriding priority — maintainfirm political controlIn dealing with a likely outbreak oftruth, it is vital to ensure that no actionis taken unless under clearly definedpolitical direction. Given the sensitiv-ity of such cases, this often requiresorchestration at Cabinet level, withclose monitoring from the PrimeMinister’s Office, or if in the UnitedStates, from within the White House.Always consider the chance of

THE WHISTLE, #45, FEBRUARY 2006 PAGE 7

invoking a ‘you scratch my back, I’llscratch yours’ arrangement with theOpposition — which may logicallyfear that any broad-ranging inquiry, inexamining the backdrop to the currentproblem, will uncover misdeeds on thepart of earlier governments.

The relationship between intelli-gence and political power is the sameas between patient and dentist. In this,a patient reclining in the chair at adentist’s surgery watches nervously asthe practitioner prepares to examinehis teeth. As he leans over, suddenlythe patient reaches out and grasps thedentist by the testicles, saying beguil-ingly as he does so, ‘Now, we’re notgoing to hurt each other, are we?’

Don’t dither: take immediatebureaucratic actionDeal immediately with the ‘crisis’ as itunfolds. Seek immediate assistancefrom allied intelligence services.Remember 1994, when a number offormer ASIS [Australian Secret Intelli-gence Service] officers went publicwith their complaints about thatservice — MI6 [the British equivalentservice] quickly sent an advisor toAustralia to help handle the matterefficiently and effectively. No effortshould be spared in endeavouring to‘turn the thing around’. It is essentialthat the ‘story’ be changed from one ofthe system being at fault to one of thetruth-teller being to blame. Also, putthe word about that the truth-teller hasbeen singled out as the offender.

If an official investigation isinvolved, and the investigation reportreveals the unpalatable truth, have thereport reviewed and discredited by anoutwardly respectable apparatchik. Ifnecessary, have the report declaredinvalid, on some technical, legal orother spurious grounds. Make the‘nullity’ public.

Language and labelsUse judicious language. This is crucialin smoothing over the troubled waters,and in bringing ambiguity into publicperception. After all, language definesthought. In the courtroom hearings andmedia debates where your system willburn the individual, words define therules and meaning of arguments. So besure to portray the truth-teller in a poorlight. Their intellectual and moralcurrency must be debased without

delay. Insinuate that the victim has anulterior motive, one other than the‘national good’ or the public’s need toknow. Apply derogatory labels.Demonize the person taking theprincipled stand. Familiar labels are‘whistleblower’ and ‘leaker’ — theyhave plenty of negative connotations.Also, the target is to be commonlyreferred to as being ‘disgruntled’,‘junior’, ‘without access’ and‘emotionally unstable’.

Isolate the truth-teller in thecommunity — use the word ‘disloyal’.Remember, no matter how badlyanyone’s treated, they should nevertalk, and specifically not to the media.Tell everyone this, particularly thetruth-teller, their colleagues, friendsand acquaintances.

The first public utterances youmake about a truth-teller should be thatthey are ‘on stress leave’ or ‘undergo-ing counselling’. The target will accuseyou of ‘harassment’ — but continuewith your ‘support’ pursuant to astanding ‘duty of care’. Remember thatthe target is ‘tired and obsessed’.Psychiatric assessment and treatmentare required for his/her own welfare.Choose the medical specialist you trust— there’s the need for securityclearances and all that. The target, itwould seem, was not always inherentlyunstable, but ‘just couldn’t take theheat in the kitchen’. It’s really tragic,of course — these people were oftentop performers, but things simply getthe better of them. Now she/he has, forwhatever reason, lost their objectivity.

Isolate and overload the victimDon’t forget that truth-tellers havetheir supporters within the system. It’simportant to identify these peoplespeedily, and divide them. Subversionand blandishments will work. Thetarget truth-teller can be stood down,marginalized, denied access to vitalevidence and information. Whereverpossible, shift the burden of proof ontothat individual’s shoulders. They aregenerally obliged to use their ownresources, including time and money,while you and yours have the fullcoercive and financial power andcoffers of the state at your disposal.Hold vital information and evidenceclose, withhold it from the victim, andcarefully and selectively cull anythingelse — don’t think of the law.

Great care must be taken when thevictim gives evidence to a ‘watchdog’body. They should not be permitted tohave a lawyer or corroboratingwitness/note-taker present. You, on theother hand, work at least in a pair. Thispits the word of one individual againstour two or more in any subsequentindependent investigation.

By your direct and indirect actionsnow, there will be an impact on thetarget’s family and friends, with social,psychological and administrativedimensions. The target’s children willblame him/her because they areharassed at school; the target’s friendswill be interrogated by the securityservices. And the administrativeconsequences will include falteringmortgage and school fee payments,mounting legal and medical bills, andso forth.

Above all, the process must b edragged out. And compensation mustbe denied — or at the very leastdiscounted, for their having g o n epublic. Whatever anyone says, this wasa stuff-up more than a conspiracy.Remember that.

Initiate witch-hunt without delayBullying is good. Immediately deployyour security apparatus against truth-tellers. Their revelations pose immi-nent danger to national security. Ifnecessary, say, ‘It’s so secret that wecan’t tell you, though we dearly wishwe could.’ Cover up with lightningspeed, but make sure the witch-huntsthemselves are protracted and wellresourced.

Jenkins and Kelly [Australian andBritish intelligence officers put underenormous pressure and who apparentlycommitted suicide] were regrettable,but when investigating a person ofinterest consider the remarks of asenior official in the AustralianDefence Security Agency who wasoverheard by one of his deputies:‘Wimp. Serves him right. Supposed tobe a professional intelligence officer.Couldn’t even stand up to a bit ofinterrogation.’

Here’s the warning — transgres-sion will not be tolerated.

Spin the media quickly, effectivelyand constantlyIt is vital to have the media, as well asselected ‘think-tanks’ and academics,

PAGE 8 THE WHISTLE, #45, FEBRUARY 2006

on side as soon as possible. Make likea sorcerer — manipulation of themedia is absolutely vital to turning thebroader society against the victim. Inthat vitriolic aftermath of the ‘sexed-updossier’ and Dr Kelly scandal inBritain, Lord Hutton took theGovernment’s position on virtually allmatters, remember? The inquiryeffectively damned the BBC andexonerated the Government. So takeheart. Both the Chairman, GavinDavies, and Director General of theBBC, Greg Dyke, were obliged toresign after the release of the HuttonReport.

Selective leaks are most important— to counter any public sympathy thatmay arise for the truth-teller. Themajor focus of any government’smedia campaign must be to get thetruth-teller’s story off the front pages.Replace it with a more benign, even ifnot favourable, ‘big item’. Ourgovernments and heads of the intelli-gence and security services have beenremarkably successful at this — ashave all of us within ‘model’ democra-cies.

Graydon Carter, editor-in-chief ofthe US magazine Vanity Fair hasdescribed how bad news is invariablyreleased late on Friday afternoon.

Time and timingFollow standard practice — obfuscateso that issues are not resolved. Sooneror later they’ll be replaced in thepublic consciousness by more recentevents. Also, carefully choose thetiming of any public release of infor-mation which the Government findsunpalatable.

Alan Ramsey, a veteran Australianjournalist, once usefully described thisprocess of denial in an intelligencebungle as follows:

Two days ago — on the last day ofthe parliamentary year — theDefence Minister, Robert Hill,released a one-page statement[revealing] … In other words, thePrime Minister’s letter was wrong.His letter eight months ago, on thisone point, was a fabrication, not byhim but by his ‘advisers’ …Someone had deliberately switchedoff the intelligence database. Hilldid not tell this to Parliament beforeit shut down for Christmas, even

though he’d known for nine daysthat Howard’s letter had misledeveryone. Nor did our PrimeMinister bother to go into Parlia-ment and confess the ‘mistake’. Sowho switched off the database,denying its material to army intelli-gence, and why? Hill did not say.Instead, his statement said,wondrously ... ‘The Secretary [ofDefence] is pursuing legal andadministrative issues.’ Good forhim. But who did it? And who toldthe Prime Minister what was clearlya lie? And what has John Howarddone about it? Bugger all, it wouldseem … Bury them under theChristmas Tree.

This grave example is worth studying,for it uniquely involved the incumbentInspector General for Intelligence andSecurity directly contradicting themethodology and findings of hisimmediate predecessor. The Minister,though, dismissed the cover-up,claiming that while the initial investi-gation was, ‘comprehensive it was notexhaustive’. The Government hasnever had to take remedial action.

Appoint an ‘independent’ front manwho can be seen to fix the problemAt least a semblance of impartiality isrequired for you to assign this individ-ual who will need to handle thefollowing tasks with dexterity.• The issue must be generally ‘flick-passed’ between instruments in orderto delay and confuse the target, as wellas the media and the public.• Inquiries should be carefully timed tomaximize political advantage, i.e.ignore or delay calls for a royalcommission.• Terms of reference are to be cleverlyprescribed.• The selection of witnesses forhearings can usually be drasticallycurtailed.• The list of legal advisors from whichtruth-tellers can select their counselshould also be severely restricted.• In camera hearings are favoured atevery turn.• Only a narrowly focused ‘publicreport’ should be released, so that thestatus quo is reinforced. This publicreport must, inevitably, reveal some ofthe truth in order to maintain thecredibility of the ‘independent checks

and balances’. In contrast, a hefty‘internal report’ — to be used insidethe bureaucracy and only by ourtrusted confidantes — is to beproduced, though its contents are neverto be publicly alluded to. It may, to adegree, seek to address the need forreform. But at the same time, we’lloften use it on the quiet, as a means ofdenigrating the victim.• An inquiry may recommend furtherinvestigations, which are aimed atexamining issues ‘not within the termsof reference’. This valuable techniqueoften diffuses accountability and limitspublic condemnation of the findings ofthe earlier process.

So, there you have it. That’s how it’sdone.

THE WHISTLE, #45, FEBRUARY 2006 PAGE 9

Articles

A PUBLIC APOLOGY

The Council of the University ofNewcastle apologises to you, DonaldNicholson Parkes, and regrets that thismatter was not put to rest many yearsago.

The University acknowledges thatthe PhD candidature of Coral Bayley-Jones (deceased 2002) was thesubject of concerns raised by DrDonald Parkes from 1983 to thepresent. The University acknowledgesthat the candidature of Coral Bayley-Jones and the awarding of the doctoraldegree were problematic and arecontentious. The University acknowl-edges that Dr Parkes has been diligentand has persevered in bringing hisconcerns to the University throughoutthat period. Whilst the University hasreceived legal advice that it should notformally revoke that degree, theUniversity has, upon the Vice-Chancellor’s recommendation, takensteps to ensure that the doctoral thesisis not to be available for academic orother reference.

The University acknowledges thatin 1988 and 1992 its Council resolvedto hold a public inquiry into all aspectsof the Bayley-Jones candidature, itssupervision and its examination. TheUniversity also acknowledges that in1995 you were advised by the Univer-sity’s then Secretary that the publicinquiry would be held. The Universityregrets that it failed to conduct thatpublic inquiry and now apologises forthe distress its past decisions havecaused. The University now extendsthe thanks you deserve for wishing onlyto maintain the highest standards of theUniversity in which you have two higherdegrees and at which you were avalued academic member for 28 years.

In view of the above, the Universitynow offers an unreserved apology toyou. The Apology is a public apologyand will appear, in full, in Universitypublications (including UniNews andCetus) and will be published by theUniversity in full in The NewcastleHerald.

T. Waring, ChancellorN. Saunders, Vice-ChancellorThe University of NewcastleDated 2 September 2005

The apology & the familyOlga Parkes

As a long-time member of Whistle-blowers Australia I am pleased to beable to provide for The Whistle theApology made to my husband, Dr.Don Parkes, by the Council of theUniversity of Newcastle. It relates toevents that took place at the Universityof Newcastle over a 20-year period —1985-2005. Don left the Universitynine years before the usual retirementage, under duress.

Don was a senior academic with aninternational reputation in his fieldwhen the issue which is the subject ofthe Apology began in 1985. Hispersistent efforts to right a wrong werealready being described in The Bulletinmagazine in September 1986 as “asustained attempt to defend academicstandards.” He continued along thatcourse for a further 19 years.

This is a complex and quiteincredible story, involving universitiesin Australia and UK, and does not lenditself to a brief overview. Anyoneinterested can find many of the detailson the Federal Senate websitewww.aph.gov.au/senate under thesection List of Senate Committees,Employment, Workplace Relations andEducation, Completed Inquiries 1999-2002 — Universities in Crisis. Don’ssubmission is No. 320. After 2002there was still quite a bit of water to gounder the bridge.

Although it cost him his career andgave our family twenty troubled years,Don finally won his victory foracademic integrity. He has receivedwarm congratulations from colleagueshere and overseas who have followedthe course of events over the time.Their support and their letters to theUniversity of Newcastle expressingtheir deep concern have been muchappreciated by Don. And by ourfamily.

There is inevitably a personal,family side to whistleblowing. Mostwhistleblowers have a partner and/orfamily watching their story unfold, andalthough the detail of each whistle-blower case is peculiar to that situa-tion, the impact on families, I suggest,

would be quite similar. For instance,when the issue first emerges oneassumes that it will be quickly sortedout. When it is not, one can findoneself in a Kafkaesque world whereanswers to serious concerns are notforthcoming.

In almost every issue of TheWhistle there are stories indicatingwhat whistleblowers can expect, and Ifound these warnings to be true. Powerstructures close ranks against thewhistleblower and he/she becomesisolated in the work environment.Social networks fall away. I also feltisolated.

Life changed in our family. Futurecareer hopes lay in tatters and Don waspreoccupied with a problem caused byothers, while at the same time trying toget on with his academic work. It washard to live a normal life and I found itchallenging to keep home and familystable in those circumstances, or tofind energy for my own interests. Inthe early days our three daughters werequite young. It was difficult to shieldthem from our worries, which theywere in any case too young to fullyunderstand.

I recall that our youngest daughter,so upset by her understanding of herfather’s situation, got on the phone totwo different Vice-Chancellors andhad her say. I didn’t try to stop her, nordid I listen to what she said, but Iadmired her for it. She told me that oneach occasion she was reassured thather father was in the right and every-thing would soon be sorted out. But itdidn’t happen.

This wasn’t the only manifestationof distress in our youngest child, whowas by nature happy-go-lucky. Shebegan to have nightmares about herfather being in danger and at one stagetook to her bed, not well with some-thing doctors couldn’t identify. Sheeven spent a couple of days in hospitalfor tests to find a physical cause. Butnone could be found. She recoveredafter a few months, but much later, atHSC time, she absolutely refused toconsider going to university.

If I have a few thoughts based onmy experience to pass on to otherswho are also determined to see anissue through, they would be as

PAGE 10 THE WHISTLE, #45, FEBRUARY 2006

follows. Whistleblower families areput under severe stress, and this canaffect health sometimes. Unlessfamilies are 100% behind the whistle-blower, and entertain not a singlelingering doubt as to one or otheraspect of the matter, relationshipscould break down totally, so everyoneneeds to be strong. Never let go of theknowledge that you are right, are nodoubt known to be so, and are speak-ing out in the public interest.

Document everything and keep allrecords safe. Although difficult, pleasetry not to let your issue overwhelmyour life. Don’t put yourself at unnec-essary risk. If the “appropriatechannels” don’t progress the matterwithin a reasonable time, considergoing to the media; good journalistsare a great help.

Although in many instances legalhelp will be invaluable, and certainlywithout lengthy legal negotiationsthere would have been no unreservedpublic apology for Don, actually goingto court is not necessarily the way togo. Those who oppose you have a lotat stake, and are probably well able tofund a defence. They won’t just rollover because you are right. Courtprocesses could take years of your lifeand the shirt off your back.

Be prepared that even a “good”resolution to your issue is likely to beonly relatively so. It cannot make upfor all you have lost, and your sadnessand anger will not just go away. Thedamage has been done and that painfulepisode, whether long or short, willalways be part of your life.

Yes, it’s a tough road, but never-theless, I would like to state myadmiration for all those who speak outin the public interest. They are trulythe good and the brave in our society.

Involvement of theDeputy Crown Solicitor

Perth in protection ofcriminality

Keith PotterLife member of WBA

The Costigan Royal Commissioninquiry was closed down abruptly afteridentifying the “Goanna” as thegodfather of crime in Australia. The

report addressed the Bottom-of-the-Harbour taxation fraud. Some 7000companies were involved. The schemecost honest taxpayers billions ofdollars. (Mr Kerry Packer admitted tobeing the Goanna but denied anywrongdoing. The Attorney-Generalcleared him and apologised.)

Procrastination and prevaricationby senior lawyers of the Deputy CrownSolicitor’s Perth office allowed thescheme to continue for a decade untilresponsibility was transferred else-where. (An informative account by theAustralian Institute of Criminology isavailable via http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/lcj/wayward/ch9t.html.)

The AIC paper also reports that aprostitution service was being adver-tised via an official telephone servicethat was billed to the DCS Perth office.This was a further embarrassment forgovernment.

The same DCS lawyers responsiblefor the above mentioned debacles alsoprotected senior Perth based quarantineadministrators who were protectingvested shipping interests.

The AIC report does not mentionthat a bulk prostitution booking at theFremantle waterfront was unwittinglyfrustrated by a routine quarantineoperation, notwithstanding attemptedintervention by a corrupt element ofthe quarantine administration. Nordoes it make any reference to possiblemotivation by the DCS office toprotect these offenders.

After two senior quarantineadministrators got themselves into anirretrievable situation that permanentlycompromised the Commonwealth,DCS lawyers advised them closely inthe ensuing cover-up. This involvedpersecution and discrediting of theSenior Quarantine Inspector forWestern Australia, Bill Toomer, with aview to inducing his resignation ordismissal.

Bill exhausted every availableinternal avenue for redress, includingnotification to the Minister, withoutsuccess. The Whitlam government wasactively encouraging public servants topublicly expose bureaucratic wrong-doing. Bill complied and was smartlycharged with making false and unau-thorised statements to the media. Thecharges were drafted by the same DCSlawyer who was central to the first fouryears of delay in prosecuting promot-

ers of the bottom-of-the-harbour taxscheme.

The quarantine administrationpromptly found Bill guilty andrecommended penalty of dismissal formaking false statements to the media.

Bill appealed on the ground ofinnocence. The regular magistratedeclined to hear the case. It was heardby a magistrate who was not a lawyer.The way in which the charges weredrafted, coupled with proceduresdirected by the magistrate, obliged Billto prove his innocence. The hearingwas public.

To make the charge of falsity stick,the Crown presented expert witnesseswho testified that the Quarantine Actand Regulations had become unneces-sarily restrictive. Bill was refusedleave to present expert witnesses whowould testify to the contrary. Quaran-tine legislation was consequentlywatered down.

The magistrate reduced the penaltyof dismissal to demotion. The quaran-tine administrators transferred him toQuarantine Inspector, Port Hedland,which had no involvement in grainship inspection. This did not com-pletely honour the quarantine adminis-trator’s witnessed and formally filedassurance to the shipping lobby thatBill was being removed from involve-ment in ship inspection, but didappease the vested grain shippinginterests who moved initial vexatiouscomplaints against Bill. When thegoing got harder, a wider and moreinfluential shipping lobby took over. Itconspired with the quarantine admin-istrators to ensure that the officiallyfiled record of the quarantine adminis-trators’ commitment was compliedwith completely.

The DCS office continued toadvise the quarantine administrators inthis further endeavour. Every furthereffort was directed to honouring of thatcommitment. The modus operandi wasnakedly directed to discrediting anddismissing Bill, and/or inducing hisresignation or retirement. Theseunsuccessful attempts includedsuspension from duty for nearly a yearon the grounds of mental ill healthunder recommendation for medicalretirement, and an attempt to set himup for a damages action by the ownerof a small vessel which, if successful,would justify dismissal. To avoid the

THE WHISTLE, #45, FEBRUARY 2006 PAGE 11

trap Bill partially disobeyed a carefullyplanned telephone instruction, but wasnot charged with disobedience on thisoccasion.

The latter attempt continued afterinquiry into Bill’s case by Commis-sioner Paul Munro of the (Combes)Royal Commission on AustralianGovernment Administration. Munro’sreport criticised the disciplinary andmedical procedures involved. TheCommission formally recommendedindependent outside inquiry to ensurejustice for Bill (Recommendation No181). Prime Minister Fraser approvedoutside inquiry but no such inquiryeventuated.

Instead there was a public serviceinquiry that whitewashed the situationat further expense to Bill and to hisonce excellent reputation. Witnesses tothe public service inquiry includedthree of the five DCS lawyers involvedin Bill’s case, but not the officer whodrafted the disciplinary charges. Thepublic service inquiry was obviouslyaware that the quarantine administra-tors’ officially filed commitment toremove Bill from involvement was acrucial factor, but did not ask the DCSlawyers related questions. Nor did itspublic report mention that commit-ment, or that the filed record of it wasavailable.

Without valid justification theinquiry recommended that Bill’s futureduties should not involve ship inspec-tion. This was included at the depart-ment’s request. He was transferredfrom Port Hedland to a speciallycreated overclassified position at theMelbourne Airport where his subordi-nate staff routinely alternated betweenship and aircraft inspection.

He remained officially barred fromship inspection after extensive “fullinquiries” by a Promotions AppealCommittee chaired by myself in1978/9 unanimously reported hiscompetence in ship inspection to beoutstanding. His appeal against thejunior and most inadequately experi-enced Health Surveyor from AliceSprings was disallowed unanimouslyby the Central Promotions AppealCommittee in Canberra. The quaran-tine authority got the man it wanted forToomer’s former job of SeniorQuarantine Inspector for WA — a manwho couldn’t do the job.

In 1982 the Attorney-Generalrefused me permission to disclose toToomer’s lawyers what I had learnedabout his case in the course of mypublic service duties.

The accusation that Bill was anincompetent inspector followed hisrefusal of instruction to reintroduce along obsolete ship inspection practicethat was intimidatory of ship inspec-tion staff and incapable of honestapplication. He said it was not possibleto make any usefully accurate estimateof numbers of rats on a ship. The DCSat the outset of moves against Billobviously knew that this was the cruxof the accusation; he volunteered thisknowledge to the public serviceinquiry. He also admitted that he was“not happy” with the nature of thedisciplinary charges drafted by hissecond in command.

The quarantine authority persistedwith its bogus ship inspection practiceuntil 1989/90 when it was the earlyfocal point of a 40-day hearing by theAdministrative Appeals Tribunal. Theauthority’s own expert witnessesrejected the practice as unworkable.The Tribunal upheld Toomer’s appealfor amendment of departmentaldocuments that accused him ofincompetence and attacked hischaracter and mental health. TheTribunal also sharply criticised theCrown for persisting with an obviouslyuntenable defence.

His lawyers consequently filed adamages action against the Common-wealth. Government lawyers exploitedlegal technicalities to prevent a hearingon the merits.

Toomer estimates that the 33-yearcover-up has cost taxpayers more thansix million dollars. Others think itprobably cost double that amount.Successive governments continue torefuse parliamentary recommendationsthat he be compensated, and refuse toprovide valid explanation.

One such recommendation was in1989 by the Minister then responsiblefor quarantine. The government optedinstead for an obviously uneconomicand unlawful inquiry whose unsignedreport whitewashed the matter morecomprehensively than any previousinquiry.

The Crown Solicitors’ office waspart of the Attorney-General’sDepartment when this matter started in

1973. It became a separate authority inrecent years.

Much more has to be done to haltthe ever escalating incidence ofcriminal governance.

What to do whenyou’ve been defamed

Brian Martin

Being the target of scurrilous gossip isno fun. Will suing for defamation help— or make things worse? Are thereother options?

Barry* [name changed] was a vic-tim of gossip at work. It went beyondthe usual comment and speculation.His mates said Barry was on cocaineand abused his own children. Theheavy workplace atmosphere wasgetting to him. What should he do?

Mary* moved to a small town andwas befriended by Charlotte. Marythen found out that Charlotte wassaying one thing to her, another toMary’s husband Fred and yet anotherto neighbours. The suspicions tooktheir toll on Fred, who left town for awhile. Charlotte offered to help Maryand Fred sort things out, at the sametime telling others about hostilitybetween the two of them. Mary didn’tknow where to turn.

Nearly everyone has been thesubject of gossip, within families,ne ighbourhoods , workp laces ,churches, you name it. Most gossip isharmless, and some social scientiststhink it plays a valuable role in bindinggroups together.

But sometimes it gets very nasty.Victims of malicious gossip feel underassault. It seems like the whole worldis condemning or laughing at them. Inthe worst scenarios, damagingcomments can lead to arrest, forcedpsychiatric treatment, removal ofchildren, or suicide.

What should a gossip victim do?Ignore it? Confront the perpetrators?Threaten to sue for slander?

Sometimes the attacks are public.Abdul,* a shopkeeper, was accused offraud in the newsletter of a localcouncil. He went to a solicitor whosaid that it would cost ten to twentythousand dollars to mount a legal casefor defamation, with no guarantee ofsuccess.

PAGE 12 THE WHISTLE, #45, FEBRUARY 2006

Anyone contemplating launching adefamation suit had better have plentyof money and not be worried aboutlosing a swag of it. As well as beingexpensive, suing for defamation is alsoslow and plagued with technicalities.Furthermore, it may not restore yourreputation.

Prominent Sydney solicitor JohnMarsden discovered this to his regret.Channel 7 broadcast two programmesin 1995 and 1996 accusing him ofbeing a paedophile. Marsden sued fordefamation from a solid financial baseand plenty of legal expertise. Althoughhe eventually won in court, many yearslater, the process was a nightmare forMarsden. His reputation was furthersmeared through weeks of damagingtestimony. He stated that “It’s probablytotally ruined my life and my health.”

Aboriginal leader Geoff Clark,after being accused in 2001 in The Ageof having raped four women in the1970s and 1980s, decided not to sue.Similarly, when damaging rumourswere spread about Mark Latham inmid 2004, he avoided the courts andinstead made a public statement,asking only that his family not betargeted.

To get a handle on how best torespond to defamatory comments, it isuseful to examine the dynamics ofinjustice in other arenas. In 1991,thousands of people joined a funeralprocession to Santa Cruz cemetery inDili, East Timor, then occupied byIndonesia. Troops, who had accompa-nied the march, suddenly opened firewithout warning, killing hundreds ofmourners.

Most atrocities do not generatemuch outrage, but this one did. Thereason: western journalists werepresent and the massacre was capturedon videotape. As a result, the massacrebackfired on the Indonesian govern-ment.

Perpetrators commonly use fivemethods to prevent this sort ofbackfire: cover up the deed, denigratethe victim, reinterpret what happened,use official channels to give theappearance of justice, and intimidateopponents. All these methods wereused in the Dili massacre: Indonesianofficials tried to prevent images aboutthe events getting out of the country;they denigrated the East Timorese;they produced false stories about

responsibility for the events and aboutthe number of people killed; they setup official inquiries that whitewashedthe perpetrators; and they arrested, beatand killed East Timorese independencesupporters.

These methods had worked in thepast, but the video evidence escapedcensorship and led to a huge increasein international support for the EastTimorese independence struggle.

These same five methods ofinhibiting outrage from injustice canbe found in many other arenas,including censorship, unfair dismissal,torture, war and genocide. So whatabout being the target of false, mali-cious, defamatory comments? The keyis to counter each of the five methods.

Cover-up, the first method, isstandard practice in rumour monger-ing. The “sniper” verbally savages youto others but is friendly to your face,thereby reducing the risk of beingcalled to account. Targets of slandershould try to expose the perpetrators.Jocelynne* heard that a colleague wasspreading rumours about her. Sheapproached the colleague and, in anon-confrontational manner, explainedwhat she’d heard. The colleaguedenied being responsible — but therumours stopped.

The second method is denigrationof the target. Of course, critical anddemeaning comments can cause othersto think less of a person — that’s theessence of defamation. But beyondthis, the person can be further devaluedby how they respond, for examplebecoming angry and abusive orbreaking down in despair. By appear-ing aggressive or pathetic, the targetmay seem to deserve the abuse.

To reduce the risk of furtherdevaluation, targets should do every-thing possible to be and appear properand above board. That means beingpolite and as level headed as possible,and especially not responding withcounter-abuse. Good behaviour high-lights the injustice of abusive attacks.

The third method is reinterpretationof the event. Perpetrators may say thatthey are telling the truth or just passingon what they heard. They will denythat their statements have any mali-cious intent. Sometimes they claim it’sall just a joke.

Patricia* ran a small business. In atelevision broadcast, the business was

inadvertently linked to shady practices.The television station refused to run acorrection, so Patricia prepared a shortand sober account titled “The truthabout our business,” complete withreferences to supporting documents.She posted it on the business’s websiteand gave a leaflet to customers untilmemory of the broadcast had faded.

Often one of the most effectiveresponses to defamatory comments isto ignore them or laugh them off. Thissends the message that the issue is notimportant, encouraging others to loseinterest.

Suing for defamation, or even justthreatening to sue, is seldom a goodidea, even ignoring the expense, effort,time and uncertain outcome of going tocourt. When you are a victim of unfaircomments, you may receive sympathy,but in suing you become the attacker.Threats and suits are frequently used tosuppress free speech.

Worst of all, defamation suitsseldom restore reputations. In theworst scenarios, as experienced byJohn Marsden, they can furtherdamage your reputation. Often theydrive critical comment underground,making it harder to respond.

The fifth method of inhibitingoutrage from injustice is intimidation.Defamers sometimes threaten targetsthat any attempt to respond will be metwith reprisals, ranging from loss offriendship to dismissal, or even adefamation suit! The most effectiveresponse is to refuse to be intimidatedand, if possible, to expose the threat.

In summary, when you aredefamed, ignore it if possible and geton with your life. If the attacks are toodamaging or persistent, try to exposethe perpetrator. Present your ownperspective in a calm, rational andfactual fashion. Avoid courts like theplague. Don’t be intimidated. Try tobehave as if you’re not affected.Finally, behave honourably.

Jill* was attacked on an email listby an engineer. She contacted him andasked for a retraction. He refused andthreatened to invoke professionalethics codes against her. Jill ignoredthis and sent a short, factual responseto the email list. In reply, the engineersent a vituperative email to the list, butJill ignored it. She knew fromcomments she received that it was hiscredibility that had suffered.

THE WHISTLE, #45, FEBRUARY 2006 PAGE 13

Draft Minutes of the 2005 WBA Annual General Meeting

Adelaide SA

At 9.15 am on 11 September 2005

1. Chaired by J Lennane, President.Minutes taken by C Kardell, NationalSecretary.

Jean Lennane

2. There were 21 attendees, includingvisitors, as follows: J Lennane, CKardell, F Perera, P Bowden, BMartin, C Crout-Habel, J Pezy, GMcMahon, P Bennett, C Adkins, BPassamonte, J Pezy, K Lamba, AMorgan, M Bawden, S van de Wiel, KSawyer, B Dawson, S Pezy, M Pezyand R Sullivan.

3. Apologies were received from: DMaitland, G Turner, M Vogt, CSchwerin, L O’Keeffe, K Potter, CPelechowski and P Sandilands.

4. Proxy received from G Turner.

5. Previous Minutes AGM 2004.J Lennane referred to the previousminutes published in the January 2004edition of The Whistle, a copy of whichhad been made available to all thosepresent. There being no amendments,the previous minutes as published wereaccepted as a true and accurate record.

Proposed: B Martin. Seconded: PBennett. Carried.

6. Business arising: nil.

7. Election of Office Bearers.

J Lennane, nominee for the position ofNational President, stood aside forBrian Martin to proceed as initialreturning officer.

Position of National President

Jean Lennane, being the only nominee,was elected unopposed: she served asreturning officer for the remainingpositions.

Cynthia Kardell took the opportu-nity to thank Jean for making such asterling effort in relation to the GaryLee-Rogers inquest and brieflyrecalled some of the more eventfulmoments, like the comments made bythe NSW Deputy Coroner and later, bythe representative of the NSW Policeat the meeting of the Internal WitnessAdvisory Council, who it appears havea far less complimentary view ofJean’s leadership than the members ofWBA.

The meeting joined Cynthia inapplauding Jean for the example sheprovides for the members and whistle-blowers everywhere.

Executive Positions.

The following nominees were electedto the National Executive unopposed.

Vice President: Peter Bennett [ACT]Junior Vice President: Kim Sawyer[Vic]Secretary: Cynthia Kardell [NSW]Treasurer: Feliks Perera [Qld]National Director: Greg McMahon[Qld]

National Committee Members (6).

The following nominees were electedas ordinary members of the NationalCommittee unopposed.

Brian Martin: International DirectorGeoff Turner: CommunicationsDerek Maitland: MediaShelley PezyMatilda Bawden:Stan van de Wiel

J Lennane congratulated the incomingmembers, noting that the continuingcommitment of talented, professionaland strongly motivated memberswanting to contribute could only augurwell for the organisation.

She noted that J Pezy and PBowden, as the incumbent presidentsof the SA and NSW Branches respec-tively, were also part of the Commit-tee. Further, that Peter Bowden wouldretain his responsibility for education.

8. Position of Public Officer.

J Lennane advised the meeting thatVince Neary was prepared to continuein the position of Public Officer, ifrequired. She thanked Vince on behalfof WBA for his willingness to con-tinue in the position.

J Lennane asked the meeting tonominate two members to sign anauthority prepared by V Neary, tolodge the required annual fee with theNSW Department of Fair Trading.

Motion moved by B Martin tonominate J Lennane and C Kardell soto do. Carried.

Matilda Bawden

9. Treasurer’s Report.J Lennane tabled a financial statementprepared by F Perera for the periodending 30/6/05. Feliks briefly statedthe details as follows:

Income: $4,500[Subscriptions, Donations & Interest] Expenses: $5,072.97

PAGE 14 THE WHISTLE, #45, FEBRUARY 2006

[Whistle production ($2,295.3),networking etc ($1,135.50) and AGM($1638) costs] Excess of Income over Expendi-ture: $572.97 Debit

Balance Sheet at 30 June 2005. Accumulated Fund BalanceB/fwd: $7,756.46 Less excess of expenditure overincome ($572.97) Accumulated Fund C/Fwd$7,183.49

AssetsBook account $236.20Balance at Bank $7,183.49

J Lennane called for the Treasurer’sreport to be accepted as a true andaccurate statement of accounts.

Moved: G McMahon. Seconded: PBennett. Carried.

Business arising.

1. Brian Martin asked whether WBAshould fund the expenses of speakersat interstate or overseas conferences,for example, Peter Bennett, who is torepresent WBA at the OECD Confer-ence in Beijing in 2006.

Peter Bennett raised the financialdifficulties faced by most members ineven attending the AGM, for examplethe WA members. He suggested weconsider a ‘contribution’, to be ‘toppedup’ by the member. Cynthia Kardellthought financial assistance should beconfined to overseas travel, as therotation of the AGMs could effectivelyshare the load in terms of the AGMs.Peter Bowden thought the solutioncould lie in an assessment of thebenefit to the organisation. JeanLennane encouraged members toconsider attending conferences,because of the opportunity to network,to maintain a presence for WBA andfor reasons of professional develop-ment. Brian Martin reminded themeeting of the current financialdemands made on the organisation, forexample, booklets, The Whistle,networking and AGM costs and thatthis question had to be considered inthe overall context of whether wecould generate more income. GregMcMahon calculated the monthlyexpenditure at $500 per month: heproposed we set up a subcommittee to

devise a list of priorities and look atthe possibilities of raising the revenueto fund them. Seconded by B Martin.Carried.

B Martin, P Bowden, G McMahonand F Perera to comprise the subcom-mittee.

2. Greg McMahon asked whetherWBA should consider updating thepamphlet titled ‘Whistleblower casesof national significance’. Meetingdetermined the subcommittee coulddeal with this issue.

10. REPORTS

Report from the President

Jean had earlier reported in openingthe AGM on her activities, includingher involvement in the Gary Lee-Rogers affair and that there was everyindication that the NSW Policeappeared to be turning away from thegood reforms it had put in place sincethe Wood Royal Commission. Here,Jean confined herself to the ongoingcampaign of the Friends of CallanPark, and the scandal of the increasingnumbers of sick and homeless people,who are turning up in our gaols. Indoing so she reminded the group that awhistleblower’s work is never doneand pointed to the now discredited butunremedied Richmond Report (thesubject of her first whistleblowingefforts).

Jean urged members to considerother options to get hold of sensitivedocuments; for example, the Greenshave twice got a motion through theUpper House to get sensitive docu-ments, to good effect.

Report from the ACT

Peter Bennett provided an update, inlieu of a formal report. The Moombagas pipeline story is continuing togather momentum and is proving to bewell founded. Peter has acted as gobetween for the whistleblower. TheAustralian Securities & InvestmentCommission and the relevant Ministerhave been informed, a good investiga-tive journalist is involved and so far,the whistleblower continues to beanonymous to all those that matter.

ACT involvement in the Universityof Canberra and Sports Commission

story continues. An application to theAdministrative Appeals Tribunal hasproduced bucket loads of documents,mostly subject to claims of profes-sional privilege, which they are in theprocess of challenging.

Mary Lander has been ill and nother usual productive self. He urgedmembers to keep her in our thoughts.

Report from Queensland

Greg McMahon reported on theirinvolvement and formal submissionsto:(1) The Tony Morris Inquiry into theactivities of Dr Patel aka Dr Death.Morris, who was famous for hisinvolvement in the well knownLindeberg case, was removed forshowing ‘ostensible’ bias and replacedby former judge Davies QC.(2) Inquiry into the ‘Shreddergate’affair (the shredding of documents inthe Lindeberg case) chaired by MPBronwyn Bishop. The Police Commis-sioner recommended the circumstanceswarranted further inquiry by thePolice.

The Whistleblowers Action Groupmade a joint nomination of GregMaddox, CEO in Premier Beattie’soffice, and Nathan Moore as Whistle-blower of the Year.

Shelley Pezy

Report from South Australia

John Pezy provided an update on ayear of steady work, including theirpreparation for the AGM. He contin-ued to mentor Angela Morgan, whose

THE WHISTLE, #45, FEBRUARY 2006 PAGE 15

story had been the subject of previousAGMs and, only recently, he hasbecome involved with anothermember, Jenny Fox, who has got astudent pressure group going in theKing’s Baptist Grammar School saga,which was proving effective.

Report from Victoria

Stan van de Wiel reported, tongue incheek, that the Victorian Police havedetermined that Victoria is ‘crimefree’. Stan is not holding his breath. Heis assisting a WA guy, Jan Ter Horst,who has been jailed for contempt. LoriO’Keefe has settled a couple of mattersthrough mediation. They are support-ing a whistleblower lecturer fromMonash University in relation to a‘super bug’ scare and Stan continues toprogress some outstanding issues in hisown matter.

Kim Sawyer updated the meetingon the current shenanigans at theUniversity of Melbourne, ongoingcorruption in the Police Force and hiscontact with a whistleblower in theprison system, who has been compro-mised by the Minister for Police.

Report from New South Wales

Cynthia Kardell

Cynthia Kardell reported that PeterBowden had taken over as NSWBranch President: she remained theconvenor of the Tuesday Care &Sharing Meetings, which continue tobe blessed by the fortnightly atten-dance of Derek Maitland and Peter.

The NSW Branch had been busysupporting whistleblowing throughoutthe year; for example Jean is aregularly reported in newsprint and onthe radio, Cynthia has done a few radiointerviews, and Derek has managed toget into print on a couple of occasions.

Jean, Debbie Locke and Cynthiacontinue to urge the NSW Police tostay on the straight and narrow,generally and in relation to individualmatters that come to our noticeprivately and in the press, in ourcapacity as members of the PoliceIWAC Council.

Jean and Debbie have made anoutstanding contribution with the GaryLee-Rogers inquest, which they thinkis not over yet (until the fat ladysings!).

Peter put in his own submission tothe parliamentary review of the NSWwhistleblower act, the ProtectedDisclosures Act NSW 1994. Cynthiadid a submission on behalf of theBranch. The developing issues appearto be ‘what constitutes a protecteddisclosure’ and whether there shouldbe the opportunity to bring a ‘civilclaim’. Cynthia urged the committee ofinquiry to establish a Public InterestDisclosures Agency (PIDA) to receive,lodge (on behalf of the whistleblower)and monitor disclosures and to be ableto injunct those employers thatthreaten dismissal and/or retaliation. APIDA would distance the whistle-blower from the disclosure and hasslethe investigative agencies and employ-ers and others. Cynthia also urged thecommittee to draft up our own FalseClaims Act to allow for qui tamactions in NSW. [A qui tam action is alegal action brought by an individualon behalf of the government.]

Report from International Director& Editor of The Whistle.

Brian Martin reported he continues tobe in contact with the UK group,Freedom to Care. He reported therewas not a lot being done to bring thegroups from each country together, butthat ‘net’ contacts between students,academics, whistleblowers and othersare growing exponentially, which canonly be a good thing.

Brian made the usual editor’slament! Brian wants more contribu-tions for The Whistle. He reported that

some of the most popular articles onhis website were the ones aboutdefamation. They are relevant to WBAbecause of the article titled ‘Deaths ofConvenience’ in the July 2004 issue ofThe Whistle, which is the subject of acomplaint from former SeniorAssistant Commissioner Walsh, whohas alleged it is defamatory. [See page16 in this issue.]

Finally, Brian asked the meetingwhether they would allow their namesto be published in the draft minutes inThe Whistle. All agreed.

Jean thanked all present for making theAGM a memorable one. She askedthem to show their appreciation for theSA Branch.

Meeting closed 12 noon.

STOP PRESS: the 2006 AGM will behosted by Queensland.

Greg McMahon

PAGE 16 THE WHISTLE, #45, FEBRUARY 2006

Whistleblowers Australia contacts

ACT: Peter Bennett, phone 02 6254 1850, fax 02 62543755, 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 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: Feliks Perera, phone 07 5448 8218,feliksperera@yahoo.com; Greg McMahon, phone 07 33787232 (a/h) [also Whistleblowers Action Group contact]

South Australia: Matilda Bawden, phone 08 8258 8744(a/h); John Pezy, phone 08 8337 8912

Tasmania: Whistleblowers Tasmania contact: IslaMacGregor, 03 6239 1054

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.

Apology to Peter Walsh

BackgroundPeter Walsh threatened a defamation action against TheWhistle because of two sentences in the July 2004 issue. Asdescribed at some length in the November 2005 issue, Inegotiated with Mr Walsh over an apology. This is theagreed final form. — Brian Martin, editor.

Apology to Peter WalshTwo sentences appeared on pages 10 and 11 of the July2004 issue of The Whistle (No. 38) in relation to mattersinvolving Mr Peter Walsh, Senior Assistant Commissionerof the New South Wales Police, now retired.

Concerning the sentence on page 10, none of thefollowing possible imputations has any basis: that MrWalsh had knowledge of impropriety; that he hadknowledge of misconduct; that he deliberately refrainedfrom comment so as not to expose the NSW Police or itsthen Commissioner to embarrassment; that he covered upimpropriety or misconduct in relation to the circumstancesinvolving the death of former Sergeant Hazell; that he wasinvolved in perverting the course of justice or defeating theends of justice; that he engaged in any of the above in orderto protect his position as Senior Assistant Commissioner ofthe NSW Police at the time and to ameliorate any publicitydirected at the NSW Police.

Concerning the sentence on page 11, retired SeniorAssistant Commissioner Peter Walsh was not a friend ofBob Williams during the period referred to in the articlecontaining the two sentences or at any other time.

The Whistle is informed by Mr Walsh that he has at alltimes acted with integrity and honesty in the execution ofhis duty whilst a serving member of New South WalesPolice.

The Whistle regrets any embarrassment to Mr Walshcaused by incorrect statements or imputations in the July2004 issue.

The Whistle unreservedly apologises to Mr Walsh for anyhurt suffered by him as a result of incorrect statements orimputations published in The Whistle in July 2004.

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 07 5448 8218, feliksperera@yahoo.com