Misunderstanding or Misdirection?: Whistleblower Protection in Queensland

In his report into corruption in Queensland, Fitzgerald listed whistleblower protection as a necessary part of a strong governance regime. "What is required is an accessible, independent body to which disclosures can be made, confidentially (at least in the first instance) and in any event free from fear of reprisals." It was one of the reforms studied by the Electoral and Administrative Review Committee, the report of which resulted in the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 (WPA). The need for whistleblower protection was supported by all sides of Parliament. The Premier, Wayne Goss, in his Second Reading Speech on the Public Sector Ethics Bill , said that that Act and the WPA would form a package with the former outlining required behaviour and the WPA encouraging staff to report wrongdoing. The WPA was subsequently passed and has remained virtually unamended for over a decade. Such consistency is either an indication of skilled drafting and effectiveness or the fact that the Act has been neglected. It is the hypothesis of this paper that the latter is the case. This hypothesis will be tested by examining the sincerity and diligence with which the Act has been treated during, and following, its passage.