“All that is needed for evil to prosper is for people of

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

TheWhistle NO. 38, JULY 2004

Newsletter of Whistleblowers AustraliaPO Box U129, Wollongong NSW 2500

Whistleblowers Australia Annual General Meeting11.00am (provisional time), 27 November 2004

Melbourne Unitarian Peace Memorial Church

110 Grey Street, East Melbourne, Victoria

The AGM will be followed by a conference on 27-28 November.Details will be in the next Whistle.

Tentative agenda• Introductions• Minutes of the previous meeting and business

arising• Reports of activities during the year,

including campaigns, submissions, publications,Treasurer’s report, etc.

• Strategy discussions• Election of the office bearers and ordinary

members of the national committee• Other business and close of meeting

Nominations for national committee positionsmust be delivered in writing to the nationalsecretary (Cynthia Kardell, 7A Campbell Street,Balmain NSW 2041) at least 7 days in advance ofthe AGM, namely by Saturday 20 November.

Nominations should be signed by two membersand be accompanied by the written consent ofthe candidate.

In the past, we have consulted beforehand tofind suitable volunteers. If you are interested injoining the national committee, it would behelpful to talk with one or more currentmembers. (See back page for list of WBAcontacts.)

Proxies

A member can appoint another member as proxyby giving notice to the secretary (CynthiaKardell) at least 24 hours before the meeting.Proxy forms can be obtained from the secretary.No member may hold more than 5 proxies.

PAGE 2 THE WHISTLE, #38, JULY 2004

Media watch

Stand up forwhistleblowers’ rights

Margo KingstonSun-Herald (Sydney), 18 April 2004

Why do they do it, these whistleblow-ers? Why do they dare speak out?Whether in the private or public sector,often they lose their livelihoods, andthe strain can damage their health, endtheir closest relationships and smashtheir friendships. Almost always theyare smeared, threatened and put underintolerable psychological pressure.

What do they get in return for theircourage, their defiant insistence thatone person can make a difference andmust, when faced with a choicebetween right and wrong, look thepowerful people in their world in theeye and say “No!”?

They get pats on the back fromsome of us for a little while, but in theend they’re alone with the friends theyhave left when the fair-weather oneshave gone.

Lance Collins this week joined agrowing list of public service whistle-blowers who’ve stood up for truth, thepublic’s right to be told it, and thepublic interest. Mahatma Gandhi saidthat whatever we do in the world isinsignificant, but that it is very import-ant that we do it. That’s because whenenough of us are brave enough to standup for what is right, the world willchange. And part of standing up islooking after our whistleblowers.

Unless we start doing what we canto back them, the public service will bebeyond repair. It’s our public service,in the end, and its ethics and commit-ment to the public interest are abedrock of our democracy.

Robert Menzies put it well in 1942in one of his “forgotten people”broadcasts: “Do not underrate the civilservant. He is for the most partanonymous and unadvertised, but he isresponsible for by far the greater partof the achievements sometimes loudlyclaimed by others. He provides, as awitty friend of mine once said, ’a levelof competence below which nogovernment can fall’.”

Just as ethics have collapsed inbusiness, the ethos of service and dutyis almost gone from the public service.Don’t give the government the facts,because it doesn’t want to know.Without the facts, or honest risk andeffects assessments, the Governmentavoids taking moral responsibility forwhat it does, and can safely lie to us.In return, senior public servants get“performance bonuses”, job securityand “status”. Why, they even get ontohonours lists.

Funny, isn’t it, that Collins didn’tget an official award for his work inEast Timor. Courageous, ethicalpeople who care for their country andfight for its values don’t get honouredby governments in the main. Who willhonour our democratic torchbearers?

Web diarist Peter Gellatly wrote:“All the evidence points to the publichaving a very short attention span, and,subsequent to a fast but fleeting boutof moral outrage, not really giving adamn. This lack of public support isresponsible for a dearth of overtfearless principle in the public service.The putatively courageous might beforgiven for concluding that the publicthey serve does not value, and istherefore not entitled to expect, thewhistleblower’s inevitable personalsacrifice — a sacrifice borne not justby the individual but by his/herfamily.”

Web diarist Jamie Clark quotedStanford University professor ofphilosophy Richard Rorty, whobelieves the West is becoming postdemocratic: “The progress humanitymade in the 19th and 20th centurieswas largely due to the increased role ofpublic opinion in determininggovernment policies. But the lack ofpublic concern about governmentsecrecy has, in the last 60 years,created a new political culture in eachof the democracies. In a worst-casescenario, historians will some day haveto explain why the golden age ofWestern democracy lasted only about200 years. The saddest pages in theirbooks are likely to be those in whichthey describe how the citizens of thedemocracies, by their craven acquies-

cence in governmental secrecy, helpedbring the disaster on themselves.”

How can we avoid this terribletrend? Wouldn’t it be great if we raisedmoney for a whistleblowers’ fund forour nurses in NSW who spoke outabout the decay of our hospitals; LanceCollins, who spoke out about intelli-gence services corruption; AndrewWilkie, who told us before the Iraq warthat the Government was lying; andmany others. So many “ordinary”people have turned their lives insideout for us. We need to show them it’sworth it. There could be annualawards, but there’d be ongoingfinancial support too, and hideawayhomes when the going got tough, andhelp in finding work.

The balance of power is so stackedagainst the ethical individual thatunless citizens do something to redressit, we’ll run out of whistleblowers.We’ll miss them when they’re gone.

THE WHISTLE, #38, JULY 2004 PAGE 3

Articles

Whistleblower legislationlong overdue

Edward Regan

Following on after the whistleblowersexposed inadequacies and incompetentdealings at Campbelltown and CamdenHospitals and the unbridled anger ofthe former NSW health Ministertowards the whistleblower nurses, weare now witness to an inhumane,barbaric cruelty from various occupy-ing forces in Iraq towards Iraqi prison-ers.

Whatever advantages the Alliesmay have held, their position has beenseriously eroded by the disgustingbehaviour of a minority of soldiers, butworse still the ensuing attempts tocover-up this unforgivable behaviourat a high level is corrupt in theextreme.

On a personal level, I have wit-nessed a number of senior AustralianProtective Service officers being quiteloose with the truth at my FederalCourt hearing and various appealshearings as I sought to gain justice, asyet unsuccessfully. Now we haveformer disgraced NSW Police OfficerRoger Rogerson and his wife openlyadmitting that they both perjuredthemselves before the Police RoyalCommission several years ago andmaybe are now subject to a lengthyprison sentence.

Recently, we had a very braveAustralian Army intelligence officer,Lt Col Lance Collins, blowing thewhistle, much to the indignation ofvarious Commonwealth Governmentofficials.

Surely, it is high time that the statepremiers and their opposition parties,and Mr Howard and Mr Latham at aCommonwealth level, got together andin bipartisan agreement, enact legisla-tion to protect whistleblowers bylifting the rules that effectively gagemployees from blowing the whistleon incompetent practices, ineffectiveand corrupt managers, especiallywithin the public service.

Perhaps it is long overdue for anti-vilification legislation to be alsopassed, whereby people who are

proven to have intimidated, harassed orvilified fellow employees, to have theirassets become the means by whichdown-trodden employees are recom-pensed for the failings and vindictive-ness to which they have been sub-jected.

Of course, this would includepeople who are in a position to helpsuch disadvantaged employees, yettotally ignore requests by these disad-vantaged employees for review orassistance in combatting this evilvilification and the resultant corruptcover-ups. With the ongoing exposureof liars and cheats at every level insociety and the general populationthirsting for more transparency,especially at a government level, suchlegislation is long overdue.

Request for inquiry intowhistleblowing

[Editor’s note: Longstanding memberKim Sawyer has written, on behalf ofWhistleblowers Australia, to severalfederal politicians requesting a senateinquiry into whistleblowing. This isone of his letters. Results from this

effort will be reported in future issuesof The Whistle.]

April 18 2004

Senator Bob BrownParliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600

Dear Senator Brown

On behalf of Whistleblowers Australia,I write to you to request your supportfor a Senate Inquiry into PublicInterest Whistleblowing. In particular,I request that the Greens commit tosuch an inquiry in their election policyplatform.

There are compelling reasons for anew Senate inquiry into whistleblow-ing. First, it is nearly ten years sincethe first Senate inquiry into publicinterest whistleblowing reported (inAugust 1994), and nine years since thesecond inquiry reported in October

1995. These inquiries remain the mostcomprehensive discussion of whistle-blowing in Australia, because theyexamined more than 100 cases andmany variants of legislation. We needto establish a contemporary compre-hensive database on Australian whis-tleblowing. The existing state andFederal legislative frameworks areproviding little information as to thestate of play of whistleblowing inAustralia. The data is simply not beingcollated.

Secondly, the first two Senateinquiries were conducted in the period1993-5 when there was no Federallegislation, and legislation in only onestate. Whistleblowing legislation andthe concept of protection were in itsembryonic form. It is now opportuneto revisit the issue given the existenceof Federal legislation and the existenceof state legislations. The inquiry canthen focus on the effectiveness of thelegislation.

Thirdly a Senate inquiry can alsofocus on other types of legislation,which may assist whistleblowers, suchas changes in defamation laws, the USFalse Claims Act, and legislationregarding public officials. In the last10 years, there have been many newdevelopments in whistleblowinglegislation internationally. It has beenthe experience of other countries, mostnotably the United States, that whistle-blowing legislation needs to becontinuously refined. There have beenamendments to the US legislation in1979, 1986, 1989, 1994, 1998 and2001. The difference in the US is alsothat there is far more comprehensivedata collection. Similar refinement isrequired in Australia. A Senate inquirycan provide the information for thatrefinement.

Finally, and most importantly, aSenate inquiry is needed because themain problem facing Australianwhistleblowers is not legislation, butenforcement. Australian regulators aredemonstrating an unwillingness toinvestigate impropriety and to protectwhistleblowers. The unwillingness ofour regulators to use the powerentrusted in them constitutes a signifi-cant regulatory non-response. And thisnon-response is resulting in significant


costs. In evidence before the HIHRoyal Commission, an accountanttestified that he forwarded a 21 pagereport to the Australian PrudentialRegulatory Authority (APRA) morethan three years prior to the collapse ofHIH. The report showed that the netassets of HIH could easily be reducedto negative, which would leave policyholders unable to receive claims.APRA did not respond.

Because systematic statistical andcase study information on whistle-blowing cases is not being formallycollected, evidence relating to regula-tory non-response is necessarilyexiguous. Typically, I do not discussspecific cases. However, I havedecided in this letter to provide twoexamples to illustrate the problem ofregulatory non-response. In the firstcase, I have omitted the specifics tohighlight the process, rather than thecase itself. In 2002, a staff member ofa Victorian university wrote to theVictorian Ombudsman in relation to aninternal inquiry that had been con-ducted at that university. In response,the Ombudsman concluded that

“The actions of the University werereasonable in the circumstances.”

In arriving at this conclusion, theOmbudsman states that

“I have had the opportunity to discussthe issues raised with the Professor(who conducted the inquiry), andfurther consider his report in light ofthose discussions. It appears to me thatthe investigation into the matter hasbeen conducted in a reasonablemanner in assessing the allegationsmade. I am unable to discuss thespecifics of my discussions with theProfessor, however I can report that Iam satisfied that there was nodeliberate omission of key questionsthat may have compromised theintegrity of the investigation.”

The review of the Ombudsman is anexample of the regulatory responsethat most whistleblowers receive inAustralia. First, there was no formalinvestigation of the matters inquestion. The Ombudsman did notinterview the whistleblower or theirlawyer. Secondly, the review is nottransparent. The Ombudsman does not

provide a reason for his conclusion.Finally, the Ombudsman did notattempt to determine whether thewhistleblower should be protected.

The second example relates touniversity enrolments. In 2001, I wasprovided with information pertainingto enrolments at the Royal MelbourneInstitute of Technology. This informa-tion is attached to this letter. It showsthat staff were strongly advised toenrol in subjects in the University’sTAFE sector in order to close a short-fall in demand, a shortfall which wouldhave resulted in substantial financialpenalties to the University. In June2001, I referred this information to theVictorian Auditor-General, and wasassured that an inquiry would takeplace. No inquiry eventuated. Thesematters were referred by another partyto the Victorian Auditor-General inFebruary 2003 and again there was anassurance that an inquiry would takeplace. No inquiry eventuated.

The responses of the VictorianOmbudsman and the VictorianAuditor-General have a commonpattern. In both cases, there appears tobe an unwillingness to investigatepossible impropriety. This is thecommon experience of whistleblowersin Australia. Why do regulators fail torespond? The first possible reason isthat the regulators regard the matters asnot material. My view is that in thetwo cases referred to, the matters werefundamental to proper governance. Asecond possible reason is that theevidence presented is imprecise orbiased. But in both cases referred to,no formal investigation was everconducted to test the evidence. Thefinal possible reason is that theregulators do not want to investigatethe matters, because their primary roleis to protect institutions rather thanindividuals. I have come to the viewthat this is the main reason for regula-tory non-response. The reputation riskof institutions appears to be far moreimportant to regulators than theprotection of whistleblowers.

To fully understand the whistle-blowing problem in Australia, we needto understand how whistleblowinglaws are being enforced. Unfortu-nately, because regulators are notsubject to formal scrutiny, there is littleevidence on enforcement. I wouldcontend that only a Senate inquiry will

produce such evidence. I request thatthe Greens consider promising aSenate inquiry into whistleblowing aspart of their election policy platform.

Associate Professor Kim SawyerDepartment of FinanceUniversity of MelbourneParkville, Victoria 3010

Australian standard onwhistleblowing

Peter [email protected]

(member of WBA)

AS8004 is a major advance instrengthening ethical behaviour inAustralian organisations. StandardsAustralia is to be congratulated. Butit needs much more work. The keyquestion is how to ensure that it willbe effective.

The new Australian Standard,AS8004 — Whistleblower ProtectionPrograms for Entities, released 23 June2003 — is a great step forward inprotecting whistleblowers againstreprisal when they report wrongdoingby their employer or their colleagues.The standard acknowledges thatwhistleblowing does occur and thatwhistleblowers need to be protectedfrom the savage reprisals that areusually taken against them. Whistle-blower support groups will alsowelcome that whistleblowing is now alegitimate activity, and that whistle-blowers are not, as the letter to Timecalled them: “traitors to their organi-zations.” But they will argue thatAS8004, although a major advance,and to be welcomed, needs majorrework. It has several weaknesses.

Most important is whether it willwork. Enron Corporation had a 64page code of conduct proclaiming itscore values — respect, integrity,communication, and excellence —RICE for short. That corporate ethoswas plastered on company T-shirts, itsintranet, pamphlets, and paperweights.RICE was even emblazoned on a giantbanner that hung from the ceiling atEnron headquarters in Houston.Sherron Watkins, Vice President forCorporate Development, wrote to CEOKenneth Lay detailing a number of


causes for concern within the organi-sation. When everything came to lightfive months later, she even testifiedagainst him in front of a grand jury inHouston. Watkins even wrote to acolleague at Arthur Anderson, the nownear-defunct accounting company thatwas Enron’s auditor, about herconcerns. Nothing happened. AS8004,even if followed, would not haveprevented Enron’s disintegration.

Watkins had no whistleblowerprotection legislation to support her.Whistleblowers in the private sector inAustralia also have no legislativesupport. AS8004 is based on legisla-tion in the Victorian public sector,where an ombudsman is obliged toexamine the allegations. Other partiesto whom the public sector whistle-blower can go are the ChiefCommissioner of Police, the Auditor-General, the Deputy Ombudsman, theEnvironment Protection Authority andthe Victorian Workcover Authority.No private sector whistleblower canapproach any of these agencies andreceive protection. He or she haslimited protection by the AustralianSecurities and Investment Commis-sion, and the Standard should pointthat out.

We know that whistleblowers arevictimised. The Time article thatearned the letter of condemnation wason three women who went publicabout illegalities and mismanagementat Enron, WorldCom and the FBI. In2002 Time voted them Persons of theYear. Each of the women sufferedconsiderable discrimination from theirfellow employees and supervisors. It isvirtually impossible to keep secret thesource of a whistle, for the conductthat is reported is often known to onlya few people. The whistleblower iseasy to identify. Fellow workersusually treat them as pariahs, and theirbosses will follow up with a dismissal.One of Australia’s leading ethicstextbooks describes a former presidentof General Motors classifying whistle-blowing as “eroding … the loyalty ofthe management team, with itsunifying values and cooperativework.” The same book also questionsthe fairness of placing the burden ofsocial responsibility of business onindividuals. Management guru PeterDrucker says that "whistleblowing" issimply another word for "informing"

and that societies that encouragedinformers were infamous tyrannies,such as existed during the SpanishInquisition (as reported in CAMagazine, April 1999).

With opposition as strong as this,and with no protective legislation,what are the chances that a strength-ened AS8004 can better protect thewhistleblower and give a greaterassurance of being successful? Andsuccess is what we need to achieve.Research conclusively demonstratesthat ethical behaviour in organisationspays off. The organisational andpersonal relationships between peopleare more soundly based, requiring lesschecking and verification. Companieswith an ethical culture are also moreinnovative and more financiallysuccessful. Related research alsoshows that, for the same reasons,economic growth in a country isdirectly related to the degree ofhonesty and trust among its citizens(see references). This trust depends onmany factors, one of which is theinstitutional structures in a country thatpromote honesty and trust. AS8004 isthe beginning of one such institutionalmechanism.

AS8004 advocates two extrapositions: an independent whistle-blower protection officer and aninvestigations officer. Such positions,presumably part time, are a major stepforward. But no internal staff membercan be totally independent. He or shewill be dependent on the chief execu-tive or the board for their futuresuccess in the company. In addition tointernal whistleblower reportingchannels, therefore, companies need toestablish an external organisation orperson, clearly independent and withprecise and known terms of reference,to whom a whistleblower can turn.That person or organisation wouldhave the authority and the capability toinvestigate complaints, to take them tothe board, regulatory or law enforce-ment authorities or professionalassociations as appropriate. Such stepsare not that radical. Codes of ethics ofsome companies already permit suchaction. It is a much more specificstipulation than AS8004’s vaguerequirement for an “external reportingline”.

AS8004 also needs to tighten itsdefinition of what is reportable

conduct. To ask a whistleblower toreport “conduct which may causefinancial or non-financial loss to theentity or otherwise be detrimental tothe …entity” reflects the public sectorsource of the standard. Whistleblowingon any waste and mismanagement inthe public sector is of benefit to us all.Placing the same requirement on theprivate sector will encourage frivolouscomplaints. The reporting of problemswithin the corporation needs to beconfined to activities that are illegal orclearly not in the public interest. Thatway, and with suitable external protec-tion, a public spirited employee of HIHor FAI might have spoken out againstthe wheeling and dealing that markedthose debacles in Australian corporatehistory, well before thousands ofpeople lost their savings and theirinsurance protection.

Another area where AS8004 needstightening is in its encouragement towhistleblow on unethical conduct, orother seriously improper conduct.What is unethical conduct? Orimproper conduct? Peter Druckerwould complain that whistleblowingitself is unethical. Is large scaledownsizing unethical? Is meetingextortion demands in many ThirdWorld countries unethical? Tighterdefinitions are needed to guide boththe whistleblower and the investiga-tions officer. AS8004 suggests usingthe Australian Standard on Codes ofConduct as a guide (AS8002). Thisstandard does provide guidelines,which could well be incorporated intoAS8004, but even then, there are manyweaknesses in AS8002. The major oneis that it does not have any externalmeans of rectifying a wrongdoing.Recent examples in Australia showthat relying on internal correction of anethical problem is ineffective. Weakcodes have resulted in damage andsuffering to clients, falsified researchgrant applications, nepotism inrecruitment, promotion and dismissal,and bribery to achieve preferredtreatment of clients. A code of ethicsneeds to be specific to the company, tothe industry in which it operates, andto the obligations of the professionaldisciplines that comprise its staff, but italso needs to be enforceable.

In summary: AS8004 on whistle-blowing is a major step forward, as isits companion standard AS8002 on


codes of conduct, developed at thesame time. Standards Australia is to becongratulated. They are only firststeps, however, and both documentsneed to be expanded to further definewhat unacceptable conduct is. Thewhistleblowing standard also needs tointroduce more rigorous and independ-ent steps to ensure that whistleblowersnot only can speak out without repri-sal, but that institutional and corporatemechanisms are established that ensurethat their speaking out is acted on.

ReferencesMarc Orlitzky, Frank L. Schmidt andSara L. Rynes, ‘Corporate social andfinancial performance: A meta-analysis,’ Organization Studies,Volume 24, Number 3, 2003; JoshuaDaniel Margolis and James PatrickWalsh, People and Profits? TheSearch for a Link Between aCompany’s Social and FinancialPerformance (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,2001); Paul J. Zak and Stephen Knack,‘Trust and growth,’ The EconomicJournal, Volume 111, April 2001.

Police reform in NSW:Paul Herring’s story

Derek MaitlandMedia Officer, WBA

Think back to the spring of 2000, andyou may remember, as I do, that it wasnot just the triumphant aftermath of theSydney Olympics but also yet anothertime of high drama, blood-letting andconfusion within the much-belea-guered New South Wales PoliceService.

It was confusing because if youweren’t privy to what was going on inthe highest echelons of the force, youcould only sit back and wonder if, inthe wake of the damning Wood RoyalCommission into police corruption andmaladministration, the service wasn’ttearing itself apart completely.

Commission Peter Ryan, enlisted atgreat expense and fanfare fromEngland to administer and reform theservice in the wake of the Woodinquiry, was suddenly under threatfrom the force and the Carr Govern-ment “out on a limb,” as his situationat that time has since been described.

Supt. Ken Seddon, the man Ryan hadbrought from England too, to set up anew intelligence-based crime man-agement unit covering the areacommands, was just as surprisinglyunder attack — he was given the boot,and his chief colleagues either fired orsuspended.

Then Ryan himself was fired by theCarr Government’s political hatchet-man, Michael Costa (“Where the helldid he come from?” you may haveasked), whom I recall now as steppingin and taking control of the wholeaffair with about as much subtlety as ashaven-headed, heavily bespectacledBrahmin bull crashing purposefullythrough a picket fence.

Then Ryan was replaced by KenMoroney, a man who’s put thecommissioner’s uniform and bootsback into the commissioner’s chair andwho, to many minds, is exactly whatwas needed after all the intrigue andbloodshed — the comforting look-alike of an uncomplicated, benign,true-blue Aussie desk sergeant headingthe force.

It was left to the resulting Maltainquiry — a probe that lasted 70 days,interviewed 52 witnesses, producedseven thousand pages of transcript,cost the NSW taxpayer $8 million andthen concluded that no-one was guiltyof anything — to leave observers likeme with the same questions I’d startedout with: What the hell is this allabout? What’s been going on?

Had there been a backlash orcounter-attack against efforts to reformthe badly tarnished service? It certainlylooked that way, with Ryan andSeddon gone and Seddon’s landmarkCrime Management Unit demolished.

But if you talk to whistleblowerPaul Herring, one of the chief instiga-tors of reform and a chief victim of thewhole shabby episode, suspended andvirtually out of work for the past threeand a half years as a result of it, the“Malta Affair” was more to do withmanagement conflict and behaviourthan straight-out wrong-doing. And it’sproduced the disturbing scenario of atraditionalist, military-style organiza-tion refusing to adopt modernmanagement concepts and practicesand preferring instead to retain a styleof command based on discipline and,in some cases, fear. All of which doesnot bode well, as you might imagine,

for the fight against police maladmin-istration and corruption.

Paul Herring found himself in thevanguard of management reform whenAssistant Commissioner ChristineNixon (now Commissioner of thecorruption-plagued Victorian policeforce) enlisted him in 1995 to examineconflict management in the NSWservice in the wake of the Wood royalcommission. He was eminentlyqualified for the job: he’d been in thepolice force from 1977 to 1990, andhad then spent five years in the privatesector as a corporate manager and PRconsultant before returning to theservice.

Together with Terry O’Connell, a“guru in restorative justice,” and JimRitchie, formerly with ASIO and nowlecturer in ethics at the NSW PoliceAcademy, Herring began work on aproject which was aimed at a completesea change in the way the policeservice runs itself. The team, called theConflict Assistance Group, got to workwith what Herring describes as a“group dynamics discipline to resolveand heal conflict, which was more wellknown in community work but whichwe’d adapted as a police model.”

Herring says it wasn’t an easyprogramme to push in the policeservice — “It made certain peopleaccountable for inappropriate behav-iour,” and he explains the sort ofentrenched management attitudes itwas up against.

“We were trying to pioneer animprovement in relationships in policemanagement, trying to implement afair and decent process and, signifi-cantly, stop workplace bullying. Butwe faced a very authoritative, obedi-ence-related organisation that doesn’tallow much room for innovation,creativity or flexibility.”

The group based its work on the 10key reforms recommended by theWood royal commission, and itschilling observations on policemanagement — basically that it was aninward-looking management charac-terised by fear and intimidation, withofficers too scared of the people abovethem to say what was on their minds.

Says Herring: “Many officers wereworking in isolation. Crime fightingwas suffering. When you get cops whofear the police station more than the


streets, you can see what the damage isgoing to be to the system.”

“When you consider that the NSWpolice service is virtually a majorcorporation, a $1.6 billion-a-yearbusiness, you have to find the rightpeople to run it, and to run it properly.”

It was Commissioner Ryan’s UKprotégé, Ken Seddon, who in 1998gave the programme its biggest boost.Seddon had seen how well a modellaunched with the Shoalhaven police,south of Wollongong, had worked, andafter a formal presentation by thegroup, Herring says he saw it “as themissing link to what he was trying todo in crime management in the field.”

Herring says Seddon went to Ryanand “tried to sell him the idea that itshould be integrated with his owncrime-busting programme.” He saysRyan’s response was not just curious,considering he’d been given the job ofrebuilding and reforming the damagedservice, but bluntly indicative of theresistance that was building in theservice by that stage. “Ryan toldSeddon: ‘Beware of that group’,” hesays. “The commissioner didn’t likeTerry O’Connell or Jim Ritchie.”

However, Seddon stuck to hisguns, and managed to convince Ryanthat the scheme would work, and thetwo programmes — his own crime-busting effort and the managementgroup’s behavioural change process —were amalgamated under a new CrimeManagement Support Unit.

Two years later, by mid-2000, itwas clear that the groundswell ofopposition within the force tomanagement behavioural change wasnot going to be overcome. “We had thefeeling that senior commanders in thefield had been got at — they werereticent, to say the least,” Herringrecalls. And by then it wasn’t just theprogramme that was getting stone-walled, but personalities too, particu-larly Ken Seddon.

“Cops hate change. They hatechange of any kind,” Herring says.“Especially from someone fromEngland.” And the frustration that thegroup felt at that time — “a constantrollercoaster of expectation andemotion,” as Herring puts it —exploded dramatically in an incidentthat he attributes to Jim Ritchie. “Wewere told: ‘There are just a few badapples opposing the programme’.

Ritchie retorted: ‘No. It’s the wholebarrel that’s rotten’.”

In October 2000, the wholestruggle came to a head. First, JimRitchie decided to go public on theresistance and antagonism within theforce. Then Paul Herring decided totake the whole affair to the PoliceIntegrity Commission. On the day hewent there, Ken Seddon called a mediaconference to expose what he termed“corrupt processes of management”within the police. Then Jim Ritchieheld a press conference of his own.

As in most whistleblower cases, thepolice hierarchy struck back, and hard.Ryan sacked Seddon and Ritchie. PaulHerring was suspended from duty, andhis salary cut by $30,000. Thecommissioner then instigated anInternal Affairs probe into his, and theteam’s, travel expenses. “Ryan’s wordswere: ‘Get dirt’,” he charges.

Again, the question begs: why didCommissioner Peter Ryan, the mancharged with restoring the NSW force,behave the way he did? Herring attrib-utes it to ego and inflexibility. “Ryanwas a pretty sharp criminal investiga-tor, but he also gave the distinctimpression of being a megalomaniac,besotted with his own importance. Healso knew nothing about creativemanagement, and was out of his depthwhen it came to changing the policeculture and behaviour.”

Astonishing as it may seem, PaulHerring was suspended from his job —still employed but forced to stay athome — for a full three and a halfyears. And most of the time was spentfighting off the service’s attempts tosmear him and find a legitimate reasonto kick him out altogether, and rallyinglegal support to challenge the suspen-sion, meanwhile working for Meals onWheels and as a driver for a nursinghome.

“I tried to get the ICAC to investi-gate the case, then the NSW Ombuds-man, then tried to get it raised in StateParliament,” he says. He vividlyrecalls going through the sort oftrauma that most whistleblowers suffer— a lack of support from hiscolleagues within the police hierarchyleaving him with a “sense of a lack ofself-worth” and a frustration that gaveway to bouts of depression and ragethat almost destroyed his marriage.

When the Malta Report came out inNovember 2002 it recommended thathe be reinstated on his original salary.But nothing happened. Instead, theCommissioner gave notice of a second“disciplinary inquiry” into the alreadyflimsy allegation that he’d been rortingtravel expenses.

But by this time, Paul Herring hadhad enough. He launched a SupremeCourt action involving breach ofcontract. It was also at this time that hecontacted Whistleblowers Australia,and received great sympathy, adviceand support from President JeanLennane and other members.

In March this year, just as his casewas about to come up in the SupremeCourt, there was a sudden move formediation by the police service. Thesettlement, reached on March 10,agreed to his return to work, and itcame as a complete shock consideringthe three long years that had lapsed bythen.

As Herring says: “I asked them:‘Why has it taken three and a halfyears to come to a decision that you’vejust made in half an hour?’”

But his crowning triumph camewhen Supt Peter Gallagher phoned himand offered him a job. Gallagher hadbeen commander at Orange whenHerring’s management behaviourmodel was tested there. He’d beenimpressed by a resulting reduction inlocal crime.

After the Supreme Court settle-ment, Gallagher was instructed toreview Herring’s file. He rang Herringto tell him he’d found nothing in hiscase to substantiate suspension, wastherefore lifting it and offering him ajob in employee management under hiscommand at Hornsby Police Station.

His wife, Jacqui, recalls: “Paul gotoff the phone and cried for three orfour minutes. He just sobbed. He’d gothis sense of himself, his faith inhimself, back at last. It’s terrible whatruthless people can do to you, whatthey can rob you of.”

Now back at work, Paul Herringhas found that things have changedsomewhat since the bloodbath thatculminated Commissioner Ryan’sreign. And they’ve changed somewhatfor the better. “What’s happened sinceI was pushed out is that a lot ofdisgruntled mid-level officers havegone. We’re left with a lot more


young, enthusiastic officers whogenuinely care about people andmaking a difference.”

And this was all Paul Herring wasafter in the first place. As he says: “Inessence, the police service is a corpo-ration, and our customers are thepeople of New South Wales. And theydeserve the best police service we cangive them.”

Misconduct at UNSW

Amanda Chang

[Editor’s note: In the January issue ofThe Whistle, Derek Maitland wroteabout the case of Margaret Love, amanager at the Education TestingCentre (ETC) at the University of NewSouth Wales (UNSW). This article, onthe same general topic, arrived underthe apparent pseudonym “AmandaChang.” I checked the contents with aknowledgeable person. As well, Iinvited comments from the Director ofCommunications at UNSW, butreceived no reply. The article has beenedited for expression.]

ETC was in the headlines in 2001 forits management practices in earlieryears. Several damning independentreports, such as one by the NSW AuditOffice report in November 2001,recommended thorough reform. Anequally critical Ombudsman’s reportwas not published but attracted furtherdamaging headlines affecting thereputation of UNSW and the wholeAustralian higher education sector.

The continuing saga of misconductallegations against UNSW staff showsno sign of ending. Following investi-gations some years ago into misman-agement at ETC, recommendations forreform were made by the NSW AuditOffice, the Ombudsman and theIndependent Commission AgainstCorruption. The then Vice Chancellor,John Niland, made a commitment toimplementing the recommendedreforms. However, according to ETCstaff I spoke to last year, this did notinfluence the UNSW culture, oraccepted strategy, of “lying, cheatingand covering-up.” Subsequentmanagement decisions at ETC only

make sense in the light of this covertagenda.

The Independent CommissionAgainst Corruption (ICAC) ran aworkshop in August 2002 on Degreesof Risk, A corruption risk profile of theNSW university sector. It used ETC asan example as follows.

An example of what can go wrongif monitoring and oversight areinadequate is exemplified inrecent findings by the AO [AuditOffice] and Ombudsman inrelation to the management of theEducation Testing Centre (ETC)at the University of New SouthWales (UNSW). Problems at theETC were found to be serious, oflong standing, and, despitecomplaints about them, not actedon by the University. … The AO’smost recent report, in November2001, concerned the EducationalTesting Centre at UNSW. TheAO’s opinion was that there wereshortcomings at several levels,including:• Detecting and investigatingproblems that had existed forseveral years, yet remainedundetected• The corporate oversight of thecentre, from high level oversight,for example, identifying anddocumenting management of thefinancial and other risks, tospecific personnel issues, forexample, the structure of positiondescriptions, and,• Management within the Centre.In short, not only did “all thefindings point to a serious lack ofmanagement controls, properaccountability and managementpractices with the ETC” … Morespecifically the AO found seriousinadequacies in the way theUNSW:• Monitored the Centre’s perform-ance• Documented the Centre’s budgetprocess, and,• Oversaw the activities of theCentre, including its businessdecisions.

ICAC has been advising UNSW on thehandling of misconduct issues,particularly on the Professor BruceHall case, which has been continuing

in parallel with the ETC issues, and isbeing handled by the same individuals.

The issue is the self-regulation ofworkplace conduct in Australianhigher education. Self-regulatedworkplaces have come under criticismfor the tendency to cover upwrongdoing. Michael Bradley, writingfor the Sydney Morning Herald on 15March about psychotherapists andsexual misconduct, commented oninternal investigations: ‘The CatholicChurch’s preference for a similarapproach of “in-house” investigationwas roundly blamed for spawning theculture of secrecy, deception andintimidation after a 2002 investigationin which 1200 American priests,shielded for decades by their col-leagues, stood accused as sexualpredators.’

The UNSW response to thescandals involving ETC was to transfercontrol to a wholly owned UNSWcompany, NewSouth Global (NSG),from 1 July 2001. The previousfailures were personalised and theprevious management was blamed, notfor management performance, but forfailing to cover up by getting rid of anytroublemakers before the issues wentpublic. NSG appointed Kerry Hudsonas acting General manager in mid 2001and the search for a replacement forProfessor Jim Tognolini, the thenDirector of ETC, was undertaken. Thehead of ETC is a high profile positionliaising with state departments ofeducation, private school organisa-tions, schools throughout Australia andthe full range of international schoolseducation stakeholders, particularly inNew Zealand and Singapore. The headof ETC represents UNSW in a sensi-tive and important field of schoolseducation and has a high media profileright down to being often quoted onschool websites and in publications.

In November 2001, Dr AlanBowen-James was chosen to be ETC’snew General Manager, with thedecision made by Professor JohnIngleson, CEO of NSG, and KerryHudson. The choice was controversial,and immediate written complaintswere sent to Professor Ingleson. DrBowen-James had an unfortunatereputation based on his professionalmisadventures. In 1992 (27 [NSWLR]457), in a unanimous NSW Supreme


Court finding, the judges said of DrBowen-James:

Referring to the false statementsmade by the appellant in hisapplications for positions thedeputy chairperson and laymember said: … ‘His response tocross-examination was one ofevasion, shifting his ground and,we are quite satisfied, lying on hisoath.’ when referring to previousMedical Tribunal hearings, andfurther found that ‘Thisassessment of his evidence whichdepended upon established falsityin statements made by him and hisresponses in cross-examination isunchallengeable.’

The three Supreme Court hearings inregard to Dr Bowen-James case didnot alter the medical tribunal findingthat Dr Bowen-James was guilty ofsexual misconduct, and he was struckfrom the register of medical practi-tioners.

The ETC staff objecting to theappointment of Dr Bowen-James wereconcerned about his suitability. Onestaff member I spoke to suggested that“abuse of workplace power was acontributor to the previous ETCproblems and it made no sense toappoint a person who had a provenrecord of workplace sexual misconductand dishonesty”. Professor Inglesonand Kerry Hudson, on the other hand,were impressed by Dr Bowen-Jamesand he was working behind the scenesuntil an extended hand-over process,and took up the full-time generalmanager role on 1 July 2002. Theappointment of Dr Bowen-James wasquickly followed by the appointmentof his close colleague AlexanderRoche to a key information technologymanagement position at ETC. Earlierin 2002 Mr Roche had conducted anindependent review of the ETC ITsection which was very critical, andmade some recommendations forreform, including the recruitment oftwo senior IT professionals to lead theETC IT effort. The second high levelappointment to the ETC IT section wasChris Mountford, another closecolleague of Dr Bowen-James.

The new IT effort required anentire additional team later in 2002 andPRONTO, the new software solution,

was born. The previous reviews hadbeen critical of the previous majorsoftware project known as MARPbecause of cost over-runs of millionsof dollars, delays and shortfalls oncapability. The PRONTO project wasthe result of the UNSW reformprocess, and featured in the 2002 NSGAnnual Report. The NSG AnnualReports are all gloss and no substanceso it is no surprise that the PRONTOproject just disappeared from the 2003Annual Report. The project wasabandoned in 2004 as a total loss. Noover-runs, delays and shortfalls — justa total loss of millions of dollars. DrBowen-James resigned suddenly inNovember 2003 and Alexander Rocheand Chris Mountford resigned in May2004.

Dozens of complaints to ProfessorIngleson about Dr Bowen-James andthe new management team were madefrom November 2001 until the lastdeparture. The total financial loss toETC, NSG and UNSW cannot becalculated because all efforts toimplement the recommended financialreforms were abandoned in favour ofmore flexible financial reportingarrangements. The financial informa-tion on ETC is in the NSG AnnualReport: nothing. There is apparentlystill no meaningful internal manage-ment information for ETC managers,which was a major issue in theprevious reports. The 1.5 millionstudents entering the SchoolsCompetitions run by ETC have no ideawhere the $6 fee per entry has gone,and neither apparently does UNSWmanagement.

In a letter to the UNSW Counciland the NSG Board on 4 September2003, Peter Curtin, the ETC ServicesManager, raised a number of seriousissues including financial reporting.The ‘strictly confidential’ letter fromMr Curtin was published by DrBowen-James, with a rebuttal, thefollowing week. The document wassubsequently emailed around the worldto all interested parties, and I receiveda copy. The allegations were nothingless than that the managers of ETCwere intentionally misleading the NSGBoard and UNSW Council. When Ilast spoke to Mr Curtin he hadreceived no reply to his letter but wassubject to a “frantic campaign ofretribution”. Mr Curtin was expecting

to be a “forced redundancy in a shamrestructure” in November 2003.

The complaints from ETC staffwere backed up by deterioratingperformance at ETC, and even theUNSW student newspaper was in onthe ‘Scandal at UNSW’ in March 2003(Tharunka, volume 29, issue 2). Thecommitment of UNSW management tothe support of Dr Bowen-James wasabsolute and he was given protectionand immunity from any form ofcomplaint, for an extended period. DrBowen-James delegated this privilegeto a selected few at ETC. The protec-tion of UNSW staff extends to thepayment of ‘hush money’ that isexchanged for deeds of release.

The deeds of release used byUNSW give complete protection toUNSW staff from any legal recoursefor workplace misconduct or, it wouldappear any unlawful activity whatso-ever. By signing one of these deeds,the victim releases and discharges theUniversity from: (1) any rights,demands, claims, actions, suits,complaints or proceedings that eithermay now have, have had in the past ormay either now or in the future haveagainst the University; (2) anythingrelated to the subject matter of thedeed. The victim is gagged: they arenot to make any adverse statement,publicly or otherwise, about theuniversity or any of its officers.

UNSW is a financial and legalgiant with no need of protection fromlegal action by individuals. Themisconduct of UNSW staff, which thedeeds seek to cover up, can only beimagined. These are the same sorts ofcontracts used by churches to cover upfor the sexual predators in the clergy.The deeds of release are routinely usedby UNSW and are a major expendi-ture. The Commonwealth Governmentfunds universities, so ultimately it isthe Minister of Education, Dr BrendanNelson, who is responsible for thedeeds used at UNSW. The issue ofmisconduct in higher education isescalating, and any intervention willneed to come from the Common-wealth.

The need for reform of thehandling of misconduct allegations inuniversities has been recognised,especially in relation to the Bruce Hallissue at UNSW. Vice-Chancellor RoryHume resigned over the issue early in


2004 and there are apparently at leasttwo more inquiries underway, makingat least six in total so far, if you don’tcount Supreme Court hearings. Theissue has been mishandled by anymeasure and all sides acknowledge theneed for a better system. In the SydneyMorning Herald on 19 April, ProfessorJohn Dwyer was quoted as saying“The minute these things come to lightthere should be an independent bodyset up to look at them in a way that’sfair to all parties.”

The system of privilege, immunityand cover-up at UNSW is contrary tothe rights of the thousands of otherstaff and students, including the largestpopulation of international students inAustralia. Ending the workplacecultures of ‘secrecy, deception andintimidation’ is necessary for thecontinued international success ofAustralian higher education.

Whistleblowers AustraliaMedia brief - April 15, 2004

Deaths of conveniencePossible homicides in which police are

suspected of being involved

NEW SOUTH WALES

1. Gary Lee-RogersGary worked for the APS, a branch ofthe AFP, as a training officer. He wasin email and other contact with WBAfor about a year before he died, as awhistleblower who was being victim-ised and threatened within the APS,including being charged with criminaloffences and receiving threats to hislife. His problems began after he madea report, as part of his APS duties, onsecurity failings at Sydney Airport. Hewas later told by an anonymousinformant that he had “tripped overevidence of drug importation throughSydney Airport, involving the oldCommonwealth Police Network.” Hetold Internal Affairs of the AFP onSeptember 26, 2002, shortly before hedied, that he’d been badly beaten by afellow officer (and gave the officer’sname). Earlier he had told WBA that ifhe was found dead it wouldn’t besuicide but murder by this officer orother APS colleagues.

On October 1 he was found dead inhis flat, having been dead for severaldays. Police are reported initially tohave given the cause of death asmassive bleeding from a rupturedstomach ulcer. The autopsy dismissedthis. In the first week of the inquest,lawyers for the Crown Solicitor’sOffice seemed to favour a self-admin-istered overdose of insulin as the causedespite the lack of supportingevidence. In a detailed critique of theinvestigation into Gary’s death and theevidence and conduct of inquest thusfar, Dr Jean Lennane concludes: “WithGary’s inquest half over, many, manyunanswered questions remain. Mostmay never be answered.”

2. Roy ThurgarThurgar was shot in his car inRandwick in May 1991. His case iscurrent because Gary Nye, who wasframed for his murder, sued variousNSW bodies and police for damagesfor wrongful arrest, maliciousprosecution and false imprisonment. InDecember 2003 Nye was awarded$750,000 in exemplary damages, of atotal of $1.3 million.

There was never any question ofsuicide by Thurgar, but he was due togive evidence to an ICAC inquiryabout drugs in jail (where he was aregular resident) and other allegedpolice/criminal relationships. That partof the inquiry collapsed with his death.Our informant on this is an ex prisonofficer who was to give evidence at theinquiry too, but lost his job and hisdriving licence within a week ofblowing the whistle. He subsequentlymoved interstate. ICAC is currentlylaunching another inquiry into drugsand other contraband in a particularjail, but concentrating on one verylow-level operation and individualrather than the large-scale, high-leveldrug trafficking to and from our jails,that Thurgar was about to expose.

3. Ex-Sergeant Hazel l , fromCaringbah area. He apparently gaveevidence to the Wood RoyalCommission, resigned around then;and died of a stab wound to the heartaround October 2002. According to anarticle in the Daily Telegraph therewere no fingerprints on the knife, andhis wife insisted it wasn’t suicide, thathe was killed because of his evidence

to the Royal Commission. JeanL e n n a n e raised the case withAssistant Commissioner PeterWalsh, and says he “was obviouslyvery well aware of the case, but said hecouldn’t discuss it as there was to bean inquest.”

4. Arron Light went missing inSeptember 1997. He was a key witnessin a court case the following week re apaedophile ring (’Circle of Friends’)connected with Dolly Dunn. The casecollapsed with his disappearance. Hisskeleton was found wrapped in a tarpin March 2002 by workmen clearing ablock of land in Sydenham. He’d beenstabbed at least six times. His murderis still being investigated by theHomicide Squad and Newtown police.A detective sergeant we spoke to thereseemed genuinely concerned that theprime suspects (whose case could notbe prosecuted without him) wereapparently getting away with it, andwhile Arron’s case doesn’t really fitinto the “deaths of convenience” thereis concern about possible policeinvolvement after the fact if not before(e.g. disclosing his whereabouts to theaccused paedophiles).

5. North coast, Port MacquariemurdersA State Crime Commission task forceYandee was set up in 1996 (report inDaily Telegraph 24.8.96) to investi-gate eight such murders, but it doesn’tseem to have gone anywhere. Large-scale drug-growing and dealing seemsto be behind all the deaths.

5a. Mack TownsTowns, a 73-year-old, lost a lot ofmoney in an alleged scam run byDetective Inspector Bob Williamsand a local solicitor. Towns also hadinformation on other drug-relatedmatters in the area. He was allegedlythreatened by Williams (there are tapesin existence relating to this), who toldhim he’d be “the next to be murdered.”Towns was subsequently known to beheading for Sydney, to blow thewhistle on Williams. His body,severely decomposed, was foundmonths later, near Berowra Waters.The cause of death was not ascer-tained. The coroner said Towns died ofnatural causes. His widow Thelma saysthe clothes he was found in were such


that he would never have voluntarilyleft the house in them — apparently hewas a very snappy dresser, and veryparticular about his appearance. Shethinks he was murdered, though notnecessarily by Williams.

Bob Williams died last year, andwas given a full police funeral.Assistant Commissioner Peter Walshwas a friend of Williams and AreaCommander during the period inwhich Williams was linked withunexplained deaths in the region.

5b. Victor NoakesNoakes, a 62-year-old bushman fromWauchope , was another anti-drugwhistleblower allegedly threatened byD.I. Bob Williams. Noakes disap-peared from his property in 1987. Hisbody has never been found, and he’sthought to have been dumped at sea, orin the Pappinburra state forest, wherethe body would probably have beeneaten by wild pigs. His niece has toldone of our contacts in the area she’sconvinced Williams murdered him.

5c. Russell LawrenceLawrence, a 35-year-old self-employedwindow maker, informed police aboutdrug cultivation in the area, and hisinformation apparently led to “twolarge drug crop seizures.” He was shotdead in May 1988 after being lured toan isolated farm on the pretext ofdoing restoration work, and was one ofthe cases reopened by task forceYandee in 1996. There was noquestion of his death being anythingbut murder; but it has never beensolved.

5d. Vijay SenSen was also an anti-drug informer,and according to information thatMack Towns gave our informant inthe area, he had also been threatenedby Bob Williams. He was stabbed todeath in 1995. George Wilson wassubsequently found not guilty of thekilling on grounds of mental illness;and does indeed seem to have beenpsychotic at the time. The questionremains open, however, on whetherWilson’s delusions were fed by anyoneelse, convincing him that Vijay Senwas danger to him and should bekilled.

6. Graham Rogers

Rogers, a prisoner in a Sydney jail,wrote to Professor Tony Vinson at theUniversity of NSW in April 1987informing him about the prevalence ofheroin smuggling and use in thejail. Professor Vinson, in good faithpassed the information to the NCA(National Crime Authority). The NCAinformed the NSW Department ofCorrective Services, in an open letter,that it wanted to interview Rogersabout his allegations. Rogers wasjumped in the prison yard and injectedwith a lethal dose of heroin. He is alivetoday because of the quick action ofprison officials.

7. Mick DruryDrury, a NSW Police officer and closeassociate and co-whistleblower ofDebbie Locke, whose evidence onpolice corruption and misconducthelped spark the Wood Commission(see her book Watching the Detec-tives). Drury was shot through thekitchen window of his home in 1984.He was seriously wounded, butsurvived.

VICTORIA

Ray Hoser’s books, Victoria PoliceCorruption (volumes 1 and 2) are thesource for most of the following cases.Ray was in court again on April 15,trying to defend charges of contemptof court arising out of their publica-tion. Hoser did not confine himself toallegations of police corruption, alsociting instances of allegedly corruptbehaviour by various members of thejudiciary. This led to his being chargedwith the ancient offence of “scandal-izing the courts,” subsequentlychanged to the more modern “con-tempt of court.” The books, like AvonLovell’s Mickleberg Stitch in WA (seebelow), were also effectively banned inVictoria, where the Attorney-Generaltook the unusual step of writing tobooksellers warning them not to sellthem.

The books list 40 fatal policeshootings in Victoria from 1982to1998, confirming Victoria’s leadover the rest of Australia. They alsodetailed the irregularities within theDrug Squad that are now suspected tobe at least partly behind the “gangwar” killings, before this misconductbecame widely known.

The “official” police shootingsinclude the following questionablecases.1. Walsh St killings of two policeconstables Steven Tynan and DamienEyre on October 12, 1988. A verymurky case, allegedly involving otherpolice. Never solved.

2. Graeme Russell Jensen shot deadin his car on October 11, 1988. Therewere allegations that police subse-quently planted a gun in his car. Eightofficers were eventually charged withvarious offences relating to the deathand its investigation; but the prosecu-tion was seriously flawed, evidencemissing, and they were acquitted.

3. Wade Smith shot dead in his car bypolice on April 6, 1998. The officersclaimed he had fired at them, but thiswas not proved. Locals believed thekilling could be a payback for theshooting of a police officer in the areatwo years earlier.

Other Victorian mystery deaths

4. Jennifer Tanner, shot twice in thehead with her husband’s rifle in 1984.Police treated the death as suicidedespite the near-impossibility of herhaving inflicted all her wounds herself.After much family and public pressure,her husband’s brother, Denis Tanner,was found by the coroner of the secondinquest to be the person who had shother. However the DPP said in 1999that Tanner would not be charged. Thedeath of transsexual Adele Bailey, alsoallegedly connected to Tanner, remains“open” according to her inquest in1999.

5. Melbourne underworld figure MarkMoran , shot dead in an unsolvedexecution-style murder, was said onthe “4 Corners” program of March 8this year to have received large quanti-ties of drugs through the VictoriaPolice drug squad’s unauthorisedControlled Chemical Deliveriesprogram. The presence of his youngchildren at his killing significantlybreached the normal code of under-world shootings.

6. Jane Thurgood-Dove, shot dead infront of her three children in herdriveway on November 6, 1997. A


Victoria Police senior constable wasthe prime suspect, allegedly having “anobsession” with the married victim,and having hired two hitmen to do thejob when she refused to leave herhusband. Potential witnesses receiveddeath threats. The case remainsunsolved.

7. Decomposing body of J o h nWilliam Kovacs found hanging over apump pit in the Melbourne under-ground on March 17, 1994, his armstied behind his back with a dog chain.He was known to have blown thewhistle on a police officer withcriminal connections, and to havesubsequently received death threatsfrom police. Documents went missing;the coroner made a finding of suicide,despite the threats, and the extremephysical difficulty of performing sucha feat.

8. In March 1996, Stephen Oh andJeremy Wong were handcuffed andshot dead in an apartment in Spring St,Melbourne. They had gambling anddrug trade connections, and had beenrecruited by Victoria/AF Police toinform on a Malaysian drug syndicate.There were suggestions that corruptVictoria drug police had informed thesyndicate that the victims were aboutto blow the whistle. Case unsolved.

9. Jenny McNabb, her death possiblyrelated to the notorious Maryboroughrapes, in which there were up to 50women raped by police (13 of them)over several years. Jenny was founddead in April 1998, having choked onher own vomit. The coroner decidedshe’d died of natural causes. She hadallegedly initially engaged in consen-sual sex with Maryborough police, andfeatured in photos of sexual activitywith on-duty officers on policepremises. It’s alleged that police gang-raped her after she refused further sexand that she received death threatsafter she complained about the attack.

10. Cassandra Ogden, a Melbourneuniversity graduate, found dead in bedin a National Crime Authority safehouse with a plastic bag over her head,a rope around her neck and a notebeside her bed. She died just a fewhours away from a quasi judicialhearing by the NCA into a drug

importation racket operated by herclose friend and former high schoolmaths teacher, Peter Cross, the son ofa former NSW Supreme Court judge,and, according to a written statementby Cross, the former Melbourne LordMayor, Irvin Rockman. CassandraOgden’s death (despite the rope aroundher neck) was ruled a suicide. PeterCross subsequently refused to giveevidence against Irvin Rockman, andthe head of the NCA’s investigativegroup, Chief Superintendent CarlMengler, wrote a reference in supportof Cross that resulted in him servingonly five months in jail.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

1. David Millard Millard, a farmer, was charged by SApolice in 1986 with cultivation of alarge cannabis crop, and was subse-quently an NCA witness in relation toothers involved in the cultivation. Hefell in front of a goods train at11.30pm on September 7, 1987.Following two post mortem examina-tions, police attributed the death tosuicide. A Victoria police spokesper-son said no further details would bereleased.

2. George OctapodellisOctapodellis was an NCA witnesswhose evidence resulted in the convic-tion and imprisonment of OperationNoah chief, Inspector Barry Moyse, in1988, the arrest of 11 others and theinvestigation of a further 56 includingthe SA Attorney-General, C h r i sS u m n e r , and a number of seniorpolice. Octapodellis was found dead inSydney from a lethal injection ofheroin. The then Minister for Justice,Senator Michael Tate, stated in theSenate a few days later that the heroinover-dose was self administered. TheCrown’s case against all persons whohad been charged, or were underinvestigation, collapsed.

3. Tony GrosserIn 1991, Grosser gave SA police, Qldpolice, the AFP and the NCA details ofallegations of his uncle, Military Policeofficer Robert Grosser’s involvementwith the Romeo mafia family in theimportation of drugs on militaryaircraft through the RAAF base atAmberley in Queensland. He gave

details of the importation of containerloads of cannabis via the port ofBrisbane by the Romeo family; detailsof the involvement of AFP officersflying light aircraft in and out of NorthQueensland trading weapons forcannabis; details of the involvement inmurder of a former SA policemanturned SA politician; and a warning ofa planned mafia organised bombing inSA prior to the bomb blast that killedNCA police officer Geoff Bowen, theofficer responsible for the arrest ofBruno “The Fox” Romeo. TonyGrosser subsequently received deaththreats, and in 1994 there was a policeraid and siege of his property inNuripoota. A member of the SA StarForce shot him in the back of the head,and in turn was seriously wounded.Grosser survived and is now serving aterm of 18 years for the attemptedmurder of the Star Force officer whoshot him, notwithstanding forensicevidence that the officer was shot by apolice colleague - not by Grosser.

4. Geoffrey BowenBowen was a South Australian NCAofficer who was involved in thesuccessful prosecution in WesternAustralia of a member of the Romeomafia family for drug trafficking inApril 1993. Tony Grosser (see above)tried to warn police and the NCA oftalk of plans for a bomb attack on “thepiggies” by mafia-connected criminals,but nothing was done. Bowen waskilled by a letter-bomb in the AdelaideNCA office a year later. Therefollowed the rapid (and wrongful)arrest of Dominic Perre, who waslater released. The case is stillunsolved; the inquest on Bowen heardno evidence on the Romeo connection.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

1. Andrew PetrelisPetrelis, a young drug trade informant,applied for and was given policeprotection and relocation under a newidentity to Queensland in May 1995, toensure his safety and ability to testifyin a drug prosecution later. His newidentity was accessed by policeofficers Murray John Shadgett andKevin Davy just before he left forQueensland, and he died of a heroinoverdose there on September11, 1995.He had told his parents before leaving


Western Australia that if he werefound dead, he would not have killedhimself, but would have been given thechoice of a needle or bullet. The death,and the matter of unauthorised policeofficers accessing his new identity,have been the subject of a number ofinvestigations, most recently by theWA Police Royal Commission, but thecase remains unresolved. Shadgett,who had had a number of problemswith unauthorised access to policerecords, retired on medical grounds in2000.

2. Don Hancock and the GypsyJoker leaderSenior WA police officer DonHancock featured prominently in theMickleberg case, in which twobrothers were allegedly framed for abullion theft in 1982. (See AvonLovell’s book The Mickleberg Stitchfor details. Avon’s allegations weresubsequently confirmed by the policeofficer, Lewandowski, who helpedHancock do the stitch; but the bookwas effectively banned in WA formany years; every police officercontributing financially to the ban bymoney collected from their pay by thepolice union.)

Hancock, a registered gold dealer,owned a number of properties, includ-ing the pub, in the town where heretired after reaching the rank ofSuperintendent in charge of theCriminal Investigation Branch. In early2000 there was an altercation in thepub with some Gypsy Jokers, whowere evicted by Hancock and arelative. Later that night the Jokerleader was shot dead at the Jokers’campsite by an unknown person.

The Jokers appear to have assumedthe killer was Hancock. A number ofhis properties were serially blown upin the next few months, then some timelater Hancock himself was killed by acar bomb. The Joker eventuallycharged with the murder of Hancockand his (male) passenger was acquittedlast year; the original shooting hasnever been solved.

QUEENSLAND

Pasquale Barbaro — Mafia Il Princi-pale, reputed to be one of the six mostpowerful men in the mafia inAustralia, with control over the ACT,

NSW and Victorian regions. Barbarooffered to give the NCA details ofseveral unsolved murders, in exchangefor money. After a failed attempt onhis life in April 1989, he refused todiscuss the matter further with policeexcept to say that if he talked he could“make some policeman very famousand very dead.” On March 18, 1990,Barbaro was stabbed in the shoulderand then killed with a single shot to thechest.

TASMANIA

1. Joseph GilewiczGilewicz, shot by police 1991, was thesubject of a Commission of Inquiry in2000, which left a number of mattersunresolved, including whether pressureover alleged, unrelated offences, hadbeen applied to a key police witness tochange his evidence.

2. Ronald Frederick JarvisAn associate of Gilewicz, Jarvis wasalso shot, and it was widely rumouredthat the police were involved, includ-ing one of the most senior, high-ranking officers in the TasmaniaPolice. The case remains unsolved.

3. Plumstead familyMrs Plumstead, her de facto partnerand two children were killed in a housefire in Dodges Ferry on December 29,1996. Her husband was in jail at thetime, and he allegedly “had a lot on alot of people” including police.Volunteer fire brigade officers whoattended, including a police fireinvestigation officer, thought the firehad been deliberately lit. The fireinvestigation officer was transferredout of that police department when heinsisted the fatal fire should be investi-gated. It never was.

Report: the second weekof the inquest into the

death of Gary Lee-Rogers

Jean Lennane, WBA PresidentApril 2004

The inquest resumed on Monday 19thApril 2004, and closed at lunchtime onFriday 23rd. Again it hasn’t finished,and is set down for a further week

from Monday 18th October, inQueanbeyan. Don’t bet on its finishingthen either, but we can hope.

It was a very interesting week,though pretty stressful. Sitting all day,day after day, in a windowless air-conditioned courtroom, concentrating,taking notes, and juggling vast andincreasing amounts of paper (environ-mentalists really need to look at thenumber of trees killed daily to supportthe legal system) is not much fun. Itwas made worse by brief glimpses ofthe perfect autumn weather we were allmissing outside.

Conduct of the second weekThere were significant changes in theway the second week ran, comparedwith the first week last November. Wehad asked the Coroner, through theCrown Solicitor’s office, if Whistle-blowers Australia (WBA) couldbecome a party to the proceedings. Shehad, understandably, been reluctant toallow that at this late stage, but verykindly offered me the opportunity toquestion the witnesses anyway, afterthe four barristers (counsel assisting,and those representing the NSWPolice, the Australian Federal Police,and Gary’s family) had done their bit.This achieved the same result,probably a lot more efficiently. Notthat I had all that many questions toask, as Mr Saidi, assisting the coroner,seemed to be doing an excellent job ofcovering most angles this time; thefamily’s barrister covered most of therest.

We also established at the end thatWBA (specifically me and policewhistleblower ex-detective DebbieLocke) can have access to the exhibitsat Glebe; that we will again be given acopy of the transcript; that we will getaccess to the records of Gary’s mobilephone, and investigations into whetherit has indeed been destroyed or is stillbeing used (promised for the hearingweek, but delayed for some reason);that Bob May’s statutory declarationon a crucial email from Gary will beincluded; and that I can give evidenceon relevant aspects of whistleblowing.

So far, so good; but read on.

Witnesses in the second weekIn my opinion these were considerablymore relevant than in the first week, inthat there were only three ‘character


assassins’ out of a total of eighteen orso; and one, called at our instigation,who gave a very positive and impres-sive character reference; plus ChristinaSchwerin, who appeared on Friday,and managed to get Gary’s workqualifications and experience properlyon the record at last.

Most of the other witnesses werehighly relevant to the question ofGary’s physical and mental health nearthe time he died — rather more helpfulI would have thought in elucidating‘the cause and manner of death’ thantwo rivals with Gary for a woman’saffections who gave evidence ‘against’him. One of them gave evidence aboutalleged events in 1988! This included alot about how Gary stalked thegirlfriend the witness later married,saying the affair with Gary was onlyon his side. However thanks toChristina Schwerin’s liaising withGary’s mother, the family’s barristerwas able to produce a passionate love-letter from the woman to Gary, whichwould seem to disprove that claim atleast. But the relevance of it all escapesme, even if it could ever be possiblefor any lover to give objectiveevidence about a rival.

Suicide?The relevant witnesses between thempainted a distressing picture of a verysick man discharged prematurely fromhospital and pretty much left to die.The mental health team, as is sadlynow usual in NSW, seem to have spentfar more time talking about Gary thanwith him; as is also usual, the onlyhelpful person who actually saw himafter his discharge on 21 September2002 was a police officer sent roundtwo days later to check on his welfareby the mental health team. When hegot no response at first, he had a lookto see where he could break in if hecouldn’t raise Gary, in stark contrast tothe mental health worker who finallygot round to visiting after Gary wasdead and, when he couldn’t raise him,just put his card in the door and wentaway.

In his statement, Mr Pratt had saidhe couldn’t remember the date he hadvisited, but did so “on the Thursday orFriday, the exact day is recorded in themental health notes.”

The mental health notes in factrecord the date as 30th September,

which was a Monday, nine days afterGary’s discharge on Saturday 21st, andwhen he had probably been dead atleast three days. The coroner askedsome very pointed questions, about‘But what support did he have? ’ ,suggesting that a home visit to checkthat his surroundings and he himselfwere OK, given that he’d been veryanxious about leaving hospital; that hehad food in the fridge and seemed tobe eating it, could have been a goodidea; and why the police were sent outto check on him after a phone-callfrom a concerned friend on 23rdSeptember rather than the mentalhealth team going. Answer — it’spolicy, OH&S, I wouldn’t like to go onmy own. Coroner — but you’d said hewas safe to go home!

Despite the lack of care from themental health team, and Gary’sdepression and suicide attempts (all ofwhich are more accurately described assuicidal gestures), the consensus ofnearly every witness, including thevery professional and impressivepsychological profiler, was that suicideis unlikely to have been the cause ofdeath.

I agree.

Accident or natural causes?There are now however a number ofpossibilities for death from naturalcauses. Gary’s final admission toQueanbeyan Hospital from 5-21September, although precipitated by asuicidal gesture, was complicated byhis recurrent pancreatitis; he had hisgallbladder removed as part of thetreatment for that on 17 September.His treating doctor had erroneouslysaid in his statement that Gary was nolonger on insulin when he wasdischarged, but in fact he was, thoughhis need for insulin was expected todecrease as his pancreatitis improved.He had been on insulin, off and on,only since June 2002, i.e. 3-4 months,and had an admission to hospital inJuly when his requirement abruptlydecreased when his pancreatic functionimproved, leading to a life-threateningdrop in blood sugar levels.

He was still depressed whendischarged, and quite possibly noteating properly or regularly, or able tomonitor what could have been widelyfluctuating needs for insulin; alsopossibly, in a state of physical pain and

despair, bingeing on alcohol (he wasnormally teetotal, but had occasionalsuch episodes) in reckless disregard ofthe danger to his pancreatitis and bloodsugar stability. This suggests twodefinite possibilities that could havecaused his death, possibly assisted byalcohol: diabetic coma, or hypogly-caemic coma (high or low bloodsugar).

Gary was also said to have hadvery occasional epileptic seizures,from around 1998. This seems never tohave been fully investigated (it couldhave been related to his sarcoidosis —see below). He was not at any stageprescribed anti-convulsants. Thiscreates another possibility, albeit notvery likely — suffocation during aseizure.

Gary also had a relativelyuncommon condition, sarcoidosis,which mainly affected his lungs, butalso probably caused his pancreatitis.(The autopsy missed it altogether —did the pathologist look?) It is ofunknown cause, affects internal organswith areas of inflammation, and istreated with corticosteroids, usuallyprednisolone. Gary had been on thisfor a while a few years earlier, beingre-started on it several months beforehis death, in doses of up to 25mg/day.This raises a fourth possibility, adrenalcrisis, which occurs when someonewhose adrenal glands are no longerproducing the cortisol we need to keepalive, because they’ve been on a highenough dose of artificial steroids forlong enough to suppress their ownproduction, stops taking them. Gary inhis state of poor physical and mentalhealth could indeed have done this, butit’s unlikely the amount of prednisonehe’d been on would have produced thateffect.

Unless it turns out to be homicide,we are unlikely ever to know for surewhether or not any of the aboveactually killed Gary — one of theproblems exacerbated by his body notbeing found for several days afterdeath. It does however raise thequestion — what on earth were theythinking of, to discharge someone sosick, to live in a flat on his own, withno help or support for his life-threat-ening, mutually exacerbating, physicaland mental problems? (His doctorcould not remember whether pressureon beds was a factor in the decision to


discharge him, but said in Queanbeyanthat is very often the case.)

Homicide?This is the only way we will ever knowwhat happened — if it was homicide,and if the perpetrator has a crisis ofconscience, or someone in the knowblows the whistle. An investigativesolution now seems unlikely, in viewof “The deficiencies identified in thisinvestigation … results of a failure tofollow sound investigative practices,investigation management, inexperi-ence on the part of the investigator,Crime Manager and lack of communi-cation.” (from 8-page statement of DIPeter Bailey, Crime Manager for theMonaro Local Area Command,appointed 17 February 2003.)

I’ve written previously about theunfortunate mis-filing and destructionof Gary’s mobile phone, potentiallycrucial evidence of the threats andother harassment Gary claimed he wasexperiencing, also of course of whoand where they were coming from.There seems to be a problem gettingfull records from the telephonecompany, which could also show a lot,and evidence likewise that the phone isno longer in use.

Debbie Locke and I managed to geta look at some of the exhibits, thoughwith some difficulty. A thorough lookwithout time and other pressures willbe most valuable. I’m sure theCoroner’s court takes better care of itsexhibits than Queanbeyan policestation used to do. (Those procedures,as well as investigations, have accord-ing to evidence from senior officersnow been sorted out.)

Photos of the death scene do notlook like suicide — or a natural death.There are also a few possible anoma-lies, such as what appear to be blood-stained fingerprints on the blade of theknife found beside the bed, althoughthe knife was said to have no prints onit when examined for them in Sydney— an odd finding anyway, as Garymust have handled the knife if no-oneelse did. There also appear to bebloodstained fingerprints on thepillowcase behind his head —presumably eventually taken away,unexamined, to be washed by Gary’sfriend who cleaned up the flat someweeks after his death.

The overall impression of theinvestigation thus far, and of theevidence given to the inquest, is of alack of attention to any evidence thatcould shed light on whether there wereany suspicious circumstances in thecause of Gary’s death.

We didn’t discover till well into theweek’s hearing that the police officerin charge of sorting out the witnessesfor the inquest is none other than JohnMoore. He was an inexperienceddetective constable at the time he was,most unfairly, put in charge of thispolitically highly sensitive investiga-tion. He is now a uniformed sergeant.It seems a most unfortunate conflict ofinterests, to have the person responsi-ble for what is acknowledged to havebeen a deficient investigation involvedin any way in sorting out what is to beput to the Coroner. And before anyoneclaims that I am saying or implyingthat Moore is corrupt, I’m not. WhatI’m suggesting is that being human,and having in his investigationeliminated homicide, he might have anunconscious bias against evidence thatcould prove he was wrong. This wouldapply to anyone in such a situation.

WBA’s alleged misconductMr Saidi, having, with Mr Shevlin,found WBA’s website, told me he willbe waiting with keen anticipation forthis report to appear there; adding thathe doesn’t want to be defamed again.As I pointed out to him, criticism is notdefamation, and it would be mostunfortunate if those serving ourcommunity through their work in thecourts were to feel they have to beabove being criticised. He and MrShevlin (S/S) certainly didn’t seem tofeel any inhibitions in criticising us,for a series of alleged instances ofmisconduct during the hearing — up to2 per day, from Day 2 onwards. Thesewere:

1. Sitting on relevant evidence,then springing it on them. This wouldindeed be wrong but, as we were ableto show, the items in question were allincluded as attachments to ChristinaSchwerin’s statutory declaration, givento them before the inquest opened inNovember.

2. Talking to John Moore, as weunderstood Mr Saidi in a longishlecture the night before aboutobserving and respecting protocol, had

told us was the appropriate way to goabout sorting out witnesses. Turnedout we were not supposed to talk toanybody in what apparently is an areain the court set aside exclusively forpolice. Why Mr Saidi had suggestedwe should talk to Moore remains amystery. Perhaps we misunderstood?

3. My report on the hearing inNovember, as published in The Whistleand the website. Someone showed thatto the Coroner, who became unhappyabout aspersions cast on S/S as being aslur on her own integrity, which wasfar from my intention. My opinion ofthe Coroner and the job she’s doingwas, and remains, very favourable. Shehas certainly been extremely helpful toWBA.

4. Looking at exhibits without firstgoing through S/S to get approval fromthe Coroner. We had understood theprocedure, since the Coroner had givenus permission to access the exhibits,was to do so through her assistant, whowas to be present while we looked atthem. We were doing this when S/Stook exception to it. The Coronersubsequently re-stated our previousunderstanding.

5. The Coroner objected to theinclusion of a case she had found to besuicide, in our list of ‘Deaths ofConvenience’. The objection is well-founded, and I have removed that casefrom our list.

6. The most heinous instance ofalleged misconduct arose from themistaken belief that we had taped aconversation outside the court whentrying to mend some interpersonalfences. Nothing worth taping, I wouldhave thought, and it would of coursehave been completely pointless; butthe possibility seemed to cause a greatdeal of angst.

I’m not claiming for a minute that S/Sintended it as such, but from thereceiving end the series of accusationsfelt rather like bullying, which atypically paranoid whistleblower mightthink was aimed at discouraging usfrom participating. Not being paranoid(yet!) I’m more inclined to think itarose from our presence beingdisturbing, distracting and disruptive tothe normal routine, despite our bestintentions and efforts to fit in.Hopefully we’ll all be more comfort-able with it all, come October.


Whistleblowers Australia contacts

ACT contact: Peter Bennett, phone 02 6254 1850, fax 026254 3755, [email protected]; Mary Lander,phone 0419 658 308; [email protected]

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 are held in the Church Hall on the firstSunday in the month commencing at 1:30 pm. (Pleaseconfirm before attending.) The July general meeting is theAGM.Contact: Cynthia Kardell, phone/fax 02 9484 6895;messages phone 02 9810 9468; [email protected]: 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

VictoriaMeetings 2.00pm the first Sunday of each month, 10Gardenia Street, Frankston North.Contacts: Christina Schwerin, 03 5144 3007,[email protected]; Mervin Vogt, 03-97865308, [email protected].

WhistleBrian Martin, editor, [email protected], 02 4221 3763,02 4228 7860; Don Eldridge, Isla MacGregor, Kim Sawyer,associate editors. Thanks for Cynthia Kardell and PatriciaYoung for proofreading this issue.

Ray Hoser’s letter to The Bulletin

Nine years I ago I published a book detailing corruption inthe Victoria Police. I was jailed a year later.

Five years ago I published the two books, Victoria PoliceCorruption and Victoria Police Corruption - 2. Totalling1536 pages, these books were best-sellers before theBracks government ordered the books seized from shops,threatened to jail booksellers and charged and convictedme of contempt of court. The alleged contempt was to bringthe police and legal system into disrepute.

Congratulations to your magazine for finally discoveringthe reality of police corruption in Victoria.

My claims are vindicated at last.Hopefully your journalists will follow the investigative path

I went along five years earlier and find that the corruptiongoes beyond the drug dealing cops and on to their politicalmasters in the two major political parties, including the partyhacks they appoint to key judicial posts who aid and abetthe corrupt police in return for protection and illegal favours.

The rot is systemic and extensive and won’t be solved bya few soothing media releases by Steve Bracks and hiscronies.

My next book detailing yet more police and politicalcorruption in Victoria is due out shortly.

That is unless I get shot dead in the meantime.

Yours FaithfullyRaymond Hoser488 Park RoadPark Orchards, Victoria, 3114Phone: 03 9812 33 22Mobile 0412 777 211

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.