On Why Leakers Are Essential To The Public Good
For obvious reasons, people in positions of power tend to treat the leaking of unauthorised information as a very, very bad thing. But, the history of the last 100 years has been changed very much for the better by the leaking of unauthorised information.
For obvious reasons, people in positions of power tend to treat the leaking of unauthorised information as a very, very bad thing, and – to maintain the appearance of control – they will devote a lot of time and energy into tracking down and punishing those responsible. Just as obviously, the history of the last 100 years has been changed – very much for the better – by the leaking of unauthorised information. The obvious examples include:
(a) the Pentagon Papers that revealed (among other things) the secret US saturation bombing of Cambodia
(b) the 'Deep Throat' leaks of criminal presidential actions during the Watergate scandal that helped bring down US President Richard Nixon
(c) the leaked Panama Papers documents that revealed the techniques of systematic tax evasion rife in offshore tax havens
(d) the thousands of secret US diplomatic cables leaked by Chelsea Manning that revealed the covert methods used by the US to influence the foreign policy decisions taken in dozens of countries
(e) the NSA leaks by Edward Snowden that exposed a number of US and British clandestine and illegal spy operations
(f) the Cambridge Analytica mis-use of personal data scandal, which came to light via leaks by former CA employee Christopher Wylie to journalist Carole Cadwallader at the Observer.
Closer to home, one need only mention the public good served by the numerous investigations conducted by journalist Nicky Hager. Hager's work has regularly put to good use any number of tip-offs and shared insights from a large number of highly motivated leakers, whistle blowers and informers who had inside knowledge of matters affecting the public, but without the public's knowledge or approval. Even the anodyne Operation Burnham inquiry ended up by vindicating the Hit & Run book written by Hager and co-author Jon Stephenson .
Point being, journalism would not be able to function without a thriving ecosystem of leaking and whistle-blowing, informants and tip-offs. This unofficial and unauthorised sharing of information provides a vital counter-balance to the media's dependence otherwise, on official sources and p.r. machines.
Why does it seem necessary to revisit the ancient and honourable history of leaking? Unfortunately, we seem to be in the throes of another witch hunt led by Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche – to find and to punish the public servants responsible for recent leaks of confidential information to the media.
One can't be entirely sure of the science, but it seems likely that the leaks of unauthorised information are a direct and proportionate response to the bull-dozing of the democratic process by the coalition government. When urgency is being taken to crush pay equity and to ram through regulatory reform that has serious constitutional implications…then it seems inevitable that people with access to sensitive information will do all they can to alert the public, and to block the path of the bulldozer.
Does leaking undermine the public's faith in institutions and the political process? Hardly. Currently, David Seyumour and his coalition cronies are doing a pretty good job of that, all by themselves.
Does it help to make a distinction between 'leaking' and 'whistle-blowing?' Not really. Call it whistle-blowing and the revelations gain a sense of virtue, in that the information can be argued to be something that the public needs to know, but has no legitimate means of finding out.
This balance between unauthorised revelations and the public good surfaced again just before Budget Day, when – on the grounds of commercial sensitivity – the courts blocked RNZ's publication of a leaked document about education policy.
The court action was controversial, and with good reason. Whenever public money is involved, surely secrecy driven by 'commercial sensitivity' should be the very rare exception and not (as tends to be the case) the default position. Moreover…the government can hardly cry foul. Routinely, successive governments have drip-fed policy revelations to the media before Budget Day, in order to achieve the maximum amount of political coverage. Sauce for the goose etc.
Subsequently, a Public Services Commission memorandum warning of an imminent crackdown on public servants found to be leaking information was itself leaked to the media, by persons unknown. While widely condemned, some of those recent leaks have had a silver lining. The revelation for example, that the Police would no longer investigate shoplifting offences involving amounts below $500 aroused the fury of some retailers, and quickly led to a Police backdown. In that case, the leaking of Police information led directly to a better policy outcome. More of that, please.
Spot The Dfference
One supposed difference between leakers and whistleblowers is that whistleblowers are supposed to first raise their concerns with their bosses – such that public disclosure then becomes the last resort, rather than the first step.
Hmm. In the real world, telling your superiors that you have deep moral misgivings about a policy they are managing is likely to be a career-damaging step, if not a direct path to dismissal. Contractors who want their contracts renewed would be well advised to keep their mouths shut, and/or to leak information in ways that cover their tracks.
For obvious reasons, there seems to be no political appetite for strengthening the protections available to whistleblowers. Even the Public Service Association has been careful to condemn leaking under any circumstances. PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons reminded public servants that they are obliged to carry out the policies of the government of the day, even if they personally disagree with them.
Really? Being chided by your union to play by the rules is IMO, symptomatic of a wider problem: which has to do with the erosion of public service neutrality and the related tradition of public servants offering frank and informed advice. No doubt, the ongoing politicisation of the public service is more serious under some Ministers than others. Point being thorough: leaking is a symptom of the subversion of public service autonomy, and cracking down on it is likely to cloud our understanding of its causes.
Basically….by limiting the motivation to one of personal objections held by individual public servants, the PSA did not address the more complex cases where a public servant – by helping to enact policies likely to result in harm – may feel morally compelled to disclose the relevant information. In which case…as mentioned, the whistle blowing procedures offer them little in the way of practical self-protection. Surely, transparency in government should not require martyrs.
The rest seems pretty obvious. Yes, media outlets do need to be agreeing among themselves about a common response to any significant government crackdown. After all, media outlets enjoy'news break' benefits from the information leaked to them. For that reason alone, there is an obligation to protect sources by with-holding any identifying information, however it has been obtained and whatever threats get leveled at the outlets that publish leaked information.
Other countries have gone further down that road. Yet the risk is that in the name of finding and punishing leakers, the ability of the Fourth Estate to carry out its watchdog role will be compromised. If so, public servants and journalists would not be the only casualties of ant crackdown conducted by the government.
Henry Thomas, ace whistle blower
Here we have a bulldozer and a whistleblower, both at once. The cane reeds (aka 'quills') that ancient bluesman Henry Thomas blew into – on his classic tracks like 'Fishin' Blues' and 'Going Up The Country' – belong to an Afro-American tradition dating back to the pre-Civil War era. Here's Henry Thomas doing 'Bull-Doze Blues' a track that later became a hit for 1970s blues revivalists Canned Heat, quills and all.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Repeal Of UK Vagrancy Act Marks Major Step Toward Ending Criminalisation Of Homelessness And Poverty: UN Experts
GENEVA (17 June 2025) – UN experts* today welcomed a decision by the United Kingdom to repeal the Vagrancy Act, a law that has long criminalised homelessness and rough sleeping in England and Wales, by Spring 2026. 'This is a long overdue, highly commendable step,' the experts said. 'The decision to repeal the Vagrancy Act signals a shift away from criminalisation and towards a rights-based approach to homelessness and extreme poverty.' 'Nobody should be penalised for not having access to a home. Punishing a person for having no home or shelter is also cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, prohibited under Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,' the experts said. First introduced in 1824, the Vagrancy Act permitted police to arrest individuals for sleeping rough or begging in public spaces. It has been a blueprint for similar legislation in other countries, and a tool of colonial rule and oppression. To this day, many of these laws remain in force. 'Homelessness is not a crime, but a failure of States to guarantee the right to adequate housing. The police should fight crime and assist persons in distress, not penalise people living in the street due to circumstances beyond their control,' the experts said. 'The United Kingdom's action sets an important precedent. Other States, especially those former British colonies which still have a version of this law on the books, should follow suit and dismantle these outdated systems that punish the most vulnerable for conditions the State has failed to address,' they said. The experts called on States to invest in long-term solutions, that ensure access to affordable housing, security of tenure, decent employment, urgent and adequate healthcare, education, and social protection, rather than treating homelessness as a criminal matter. In a recent landmark study, the experts called on States to review laws and policies that penalise people for living in poverty or homelessness. They remain ready to assist States in implementing rights-based strategies that ensure the right to adequate housing for all.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Film director stabbed to death in her London home ‘for diamond Rolex'
A film director was killed in her home in a stabbing that British police fear may have been carried out to steal her diamond Rolex watch. Jennifer Abbott, 69, was found with stab wounds at her house in Camden, north London, on June 13. She had last been seen
1News
3 days ago
- 1News
Trump to depart G7 early amid Israel and Iran conflict
President Donald Trump is departing the Group of Seven summit in Canada, leaving a day early due to the intensifying conflict between Israel and Iran. 'President Trump had a great day at the G7, even signing a major trade deal with the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Keir Starmer,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on social media. 'Much was accomplished, but because of what's going on in the Middle East, President Trump will be leaving tonight after dinner with Heads of State.' World leaders at the Group of Seven summit in Canada scrambled today to find a way to contain the conflict between Israel and Iran, with US President Donald Trump warning that Tehran needs to curb its nuclear program before it's 'too late'. The US president said Iranian leaders would 'like to talk' but they had already had 60 days to reach an agreement on their nuclear ambitions and failed to do so before an Israeli aerial assault began four days ago. 'They have to make a deal,' he said. Trump: 'Everyone should evacuate Tehran!' ADVERTISEMENT Today, Trump warned ominously on social media: 'Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!' The summit's host at the Rocky Mountain retreat, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, said the world was looking to the G7 for leadership at a 'hinge' moment in time. 'We're gathering at one of those turning points in history,' Carney said. 'The world's more divided and dangerous.' British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz held an hourlong informal meeting soon after arriving at the summit to discuss the widening conflict in the Mideast, Starmer's office said. And Merz told reporters that Germany is planning to draw up a final communique proposal on the Israel-Iran conflict that will stress that 'Iran must under no circumstances be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons-capable material'. Trump, for his part, said Iran "is not winning this war. And they should talk and they should talk immediately before it's too late'. Asked what it would take for the US to get involved in the conflict militarily, Trump said, 'I don't want to talk about that'. It's unclear how much Trump values the perspective of other members of the G7, a group he immediately criticised while meeting with Carney. The US president said it was a mistake to remove Russia from the summit's membership in 2014 and that doing so had destabilised the world. He also suggested he was open to adding China to the G7. ADVERTISEMENT Trump also seemed to put a greater priority on addressing his grievances with other nations' trade policies. He announced with Starmer that they had signed a trade framework on Monday that was previously announced in May, with Trump saying that British trade was 'very well protected' because 'I like them, that's why. That's their ultimate protection".
