I had the impression at the time that the government was making extroardinary demands on the work/life balance of some public servants and that was seen as a possible cause for the "leak".

A government that came to power in part due to a strong campaign by the unions on the workers rights/work life balance issue that in it's own dealings with workers appears to have little or no regard for workers is likely to spark some resentment. Rudd's comments on the issue appeared to confirm the impression that workers work/life balance was of little concern to him.

The governments handling of the fuel watch debate in the lead up to the leak was hardly open in it's representation of the advice recieved. Nothing new there for government but maybe it's about time cabinet papers were only secret where the national interest was at stake rather than political interest. As I suggested on an earlier thread perhaps protection from FOI should only apply where the both the leader of the government and leader of the opposition (or their nominated representatives) agree that the issue needs to be confidential.

R0bert

RobP
I agree with all you have written. One public servant or even a small group is powerless against the bureaucracy. A David and Goliath type scenario is possible but unlikely.

For a potential whistleblower there is also the issue of trust and perhaps an even bigger issue is access. Who can you tell without breaching your own legal obligations whether it be a security clearance, various PS Acts or the Crimes Act? Will you be able to access someone that could offer assistance without meeting the usual fob offs, referrals and bureaucratic brick walls?

Even if you are able to access a likely advocate, will they believe you, what will you need to convince them and will they be willing to instigate an investigation or to 'represent' you in confidence? Will your job be at risk? What are the potential repercussions?

You are right in suggesting the media is out of the question. It would be emotionally too difficult and there is the risk of going to jail. Ideally it would be better for agencies to have an opportunity to deal with problems in the first instance. I can understand the strong temptation to go outside the inner sanctum, because in truth this is probably the most effective way to invite scrutiny into a potentially corrupt or mismanaged agency. But it is also the scariest and most whistleblowers suffer from emotional problems due to their actions - there are usually no heroes only another victim of the system that precipitated the problem.

The trouble is in the APS most senior public servants don't want to hear about problems especially the serious ones as they might have to do something about it, much easier to diminish the complainant or the complaint by various means