|
 PM's staff on hand to track cabinet leaker
By Chris Merritt, Legal affairs editor - The Australian Business
May 28, 2008
THE federal Government fell into line with the Howard government's approach to leaks yesterday by making the resources of the commonwealth available to find the person responsible for Tuesday's front-page lead story in The Australian.
The Prime Minister's department has been made available tohelp track down the person who leaked a letter showing a deep split within the Government over its FuelWatch price monitoring scheme.
Before last year's election, Kevin Rudd promised whistleblowers in the public service he would introduce "best practice" laws to give them legal protection. At the time, he said Labor would break "the code of silence that has developed after 11 years of the Howard government".
In the leaked letter, Resources Minister Martin Ferguson warns that the FuelWatch scheme will fail working families as well as crush small business and tarnish Kevin Rudd's economic reform credentials.
The Government's response to the leak was revealed yesterday by Special Minister of State John Faulkner, who is responsible for developing the Government's promised laws to protect whistleblowers in the public service. He is also responsible for reforming Freedom of Information laws.
Senator Faulkner told the Senate estimates committee yesterday that the leak was a matter for Mr Ferguson's department to follow up.
Mike Murdoch, who is deputy secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, said that if Mr Ferguson's department needed assistance, then PM&C would be able to help.
Mr Ferguson's spokesman last night sought to distance the Government from the offer of help to track down the leak.
"It is a decision for the department and, as I understand it, they are considering their position," Mr Ferguson's spokesman said.
The Government's response to the leak was criticised by Irene Moss, who produced last year's Right To Know report that identified flaws in whistleblower laws.
"They should have let this one go through," Ms Moss said.
The affair also drew a sharp rebuke from former Australian Secret Intelligence Service agent Warren Reed, who was one of the chief critics of excessive secrecy under the Howard government.
"It has not taken them long," Mr Reed said. "I don't think they have any real commitment to whistleblower protection - its largely rhetorical."
Senator Faulkner's spokesman said the Government had been examining whistleblower protection laws.
But Mr Reed said that if there was a genuine commitment to protecting whistleblowers, the Government would have unveiled new laws by now and would have apologised to convicted whistleblower Allan Kessing.
Mr Kessing, a former Customs officer, was prosecuted and convicted under the Howard government for leaking Australian reports that revealed weak security at the nation's airports, subsequently reported in The Australian. Mr Kessing denies leaking the reports.
In October last year, then Opposition leader Kevin Rudd said Mr Kessing's conviction was one of the reasons a Labor government would introduce "best practice" laws to protect whistleblowers.
"Access to government information and decision-making are keys to a healthy and vibrant democracy," Mr Rudd said.
"It also means that members of the community can obtain reasonable access to government records and documents that affect their lives."
Ms Moss said whistleblower protection laws were "a dog's breakfast". "If you really believe in whistleblower protection it is not that painful to enact effective laws," she said.
Effective whistleblower laws would provide a benchmark for determining which leaks were legitimate and which disclosures were mere mischief-making, Ms Moss said.
Under the Commonwealth Crimes Act, all public servants who make unauthorised disclosures risk criminal penalties. There is no defence for leaks that are made in the public interest.
Last month, a spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the Government would not interfere in Mr Kessing's pending appeal. A decision on whether to oppose the appeal would be made independently by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
|
