One of the unique features of the Freedom of Information Index is that it incorporates the situation for whistleblowers in the evaluation of the FOI system of study. This is necessary, in my view, to get a complete picture of the flow of information in a country or organisation.
The most common whistleblower is a public servant with a strong sense of fairness. He or she may be privy to information that has a high public interest. One of the best examples is the case of the former Australian customs official, Allan Kessing. He tried for months to interest the department in a report regarding the security at Sydney airport. In desperation he contacted a journalist. The story was published and led to much needed up-grades of security. Kessing lost his job and was taken to court by the Australian Government under Section 70 of the Federal Crimes Act. The Act states:
Disclosure of information by Commonwealth officers
(1) A person who, being a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, except to some person to whom he is authorized to publish or communicate it, any fact or document which comes to his knowledge, or into his possession, by virtue of being a Commonwealth officer, and which it is his duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person who, having been a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, without lawful authority or excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him), any fact or document which came to his knowledge, or into his possession, by virtue of having been a Commonwealth officer, and which, at the time when he ceased to be a Commonwealth officer, it was his duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
Kessing did not go to jail, but ended up paying close to A$40 000 in legal fees.
Similar draconian acts exist in several Commonwealth countries and are the clearest example of the culture of secrecy that has been such an integral part of the Westminster system of government. ('Has been' because even the United Kingdom has FOI now. How well it works in practice remains to be seen. It was fully operational in 2005.)
This can be juxtaposed with the Swedish "civil servants' right to public speech" where they are offered extensive protection. A Swedish government department is, for instance, prohibited by law to investigate a 'media leak'.
An important part of protection for whistleblowers are the so called shield laws for journalists. Such laws enable journalists to refuse to name their source in court proceedings. Currently there are only a handful countries with effective shield laws for journalists.
All of the above are important points to consider when you assess an FOI system to capture the full picture of the flow of information.
It should be pointed out that all of the above deals with public servants only. The situation for corporate whistleblowers is a separate, complex, and at times, desperate matter.
