Civil Liberties Australiaspacer
 

By Bill Rowlings, CEO of Civil Liberties Australia

sml-sq-qui-tam-payouts-usAustralians might soon be paid money for blowing the whistle on crooks ripping off the government and Australian taxpayers.

In a move long promoted by Civil Liberties Australia, crossbench senators engineered recently a deal that could see ‘Qui Tam’ law passed in Australia in 2017.

Qui Tam is basically a legal action which encourages whistleblowing around government waste: people are rewarded with a share of the money saved, or the fines imposed, when they highlight corrupt or fraudulent behaviour by suppliers.

Writing in Fairfax online, Matthew Knott and Georgia Wilkins said the government had agreed to introduce stronger whistleblower protections for both public and private sector workers in a deal with Senate crossbenchers to secure support for one of its double dissolution trigger bills.

A parliamentary inquiry, due to report in the middle of 2017, will examine whether the bounty system that operates in the USA should be introduced in Australia. In 2016, the US government paid almost $5 million to a former BHP Billiton employee for raising concerns about alleged corruption at the mining giant.

In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission can reward whistleblowers by giving them a share of a fine extracted from a company, with payouts often reaching many millions of dollars.

Instead of being rewarded, private sector whistleblowers in Australia currently have few protections and take large risks in speaking out. They are usually ostracised at least, and frequently lose their jobs and their careers. http://tinyurl.com/jmahu5w

See also:

http://www.cla.asn.au/News/qui-tam-do-we-need/

http://www.cla.asn.au/News/change-culture-encourage-whistleblowing/

Qui Tam: In common law, a writ of qui tam is a writ whereby a private individual who assists a prosecution can receive all or part of any penalty imposed. Its name is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, meaning “[he] who sues in this matter for the king as well as for himself.” – Wikipedia

Print Friendly
Facebooktwittermailby feather

  One Response to “Blowing whistle might be profitable”

  1. The Commonwealth of Australia is a common law country and should be able to do writs of Qui Tam without legislation. First in time best in law…

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


Commenting ...our policy

We welcome comments, for alternative views and to generate debate. We check comments before they are published, to make sure they are on-topic, family-friendly and in keeping with our publishing principles. To make sure your comments are published, please...

  • stay on topic
  • leave out swear words and bad language
  • be careful not to libel or defame any body
  • do not be -ist: (race, age, sex, etc)
  • avoid posting someone else's copyright material, and
  • concentrate on the factual more than the emotional (though there's room for both)
If your comments stray from these principles, they may not be posted, or may be edited to remove bits we find offending or inappropriate.

If you see something in a comment that you think is objectionable, please let us know your reasons.

We usually post comments at the bottom of articles, with a link off the Home page as well. But we may use them elsewhere, or as a separate article (we also reserve the right to not post them at all, at our sole discretion). See also our Terms of Use and Privacy policies links below.

(required)

(required)

Join