From Bernard Collaery to David McBride, the evidence shows Australia’s whistleblower framework punishes disclosure while shielding executive power, writes Nigel Carney.
Reflecting on his own prosecution and by oblique reference to the trial of Witness K, Bernard Collaery made a point that cuts to the heart of Australia's whistleblowing dilemma.
Australian courts proceed on a foundational assumption: that the executive arm of government will, at all times, act lawfully, ethically, morally and in the public interest. This assumption is not merely philosophical; it underpins judicial deference, statutory interpretation, secrecy regimes and the limits placed on what may be tested in open court.
That assumption becomes untenable when the executive is the wrongdoer itself.
In the Timor-Leste espionage affair, the Australian executive authorised covert acts that advantaged corporate interests while violating the sovereignty and foreign rights of a newly independent nation. When those acts were later exposed, it was not the decision-makers who were placed in the dock, but those who revealed them.
This is the dilemma at the core of Australia's whistleblower framework. Laws designed to protect disclosures presume a good-faith state. Courts presume a lawful executive. Oversight mechanisms presume ethical governance. But where the executive is influenced by corporate power, foreign interests or strategic convenience, those presumptions collapse —...
Footage of a drone strike on a building has been shared on social media with false claims it shows a recent Iranian attack on Bahrain. But it actually predates the recent conflict in the Middle Eas...