Perceptions Index for 2006, which scored Finland, Denmark and New Zealand as the world's least corrupt countries, and placed Iraq, Myanmar and Somalia at the opposite end of the spectrum. 17 II PUBLIC SECTOR WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION LAWSMany jurisdictions have passed legislation to protect public sector and sometimes private sector employees who make public interest disclosures.

No abstract

Digital currency is a ‘disrupter’ of financial services and currency markets, and as such presents new regulatory challenges. International regulatory responses to digital currency range from being largely ignored in some jurisdictions to being banned in others, with most jurisdictions charting a middle course of ‘wait and see’ while attempting to deal with pressing issues (such as taxation liability and potential money laundering and terrorism financing issues). This article explains digital currency, its benefits, its problems, its risks and the regulatory response so far. It analyses the extent to which the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, the national securities regulator) may or may not have regulatory power and jurisdiction under existing Australian law, and the role of other relevant regulators and institutions. It concludes that digital currency may well be a ‘financial product’ under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 763A (though many suppliers/issuers of that product will be website operators located outside Australia). If it is a financial product, ASIC would also have jurisdiction over issuers and markets that trade in that product. This conclusion could easily be fortified by legislative confirmation; however, it is suggested that ASIC should in all events test its powers to determine whether any legislative change is needed. Regulation by ASIC would add to recent moves to deal with digital currency by the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). In all cases, this article argues that the time has come for Commonwealth regulation of digital currencies by ASIC as the relevant regulator. This would then trigger the obligations set out in the Corporations Act and the ASIC Act, including Australian Financial Services Licensing, Australian Market Licensing, standards of efficiency, honesty and fairness, disclosure provisions, possible market offences and corporate regulation generally. The suggested jurisdiction of ASIC would build on its existing role as well as the roles of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ATO and AUSTRAC.

<p>Since the 1990s Australia’s nine jurisdictions have passed (or, in the case of the Northern Territory, proposed to pass) public sector whistleblower legislation. The legislation, which reflects different political origins and legislative aims, is not consistent in many respects and there are few common tests across the jurisdictions. This article analyses two issues - who the Australian whistleblower<br />can disclose to, and who the whistleblower can make protected disclosures about. The examination of these issues indicates inconsistencies in the public law whistleblower laws enacted since the 1990s. This inconsistency is not sensible in Australia’s national economy, where an employee in one State can make a protected disclosure, but an employee in another cannot make the same disclosure. This article supports the election commitment of the Rudd federal government in 2007 to introduce best practice federal whistleblowing legislation which will hopefully overcome shortcomings analysed in this article.</p>

Examines the status of regulation and protection of whistleblowers in Australia, focusing on intermediaries and their advisers in financial services. Outlines the ambivalence of the legal system as far as whistleblowers are concerned, and the considerable risks they take, with examples of victims; case law is scanty. Points out the limited nature of protection in specific legislation, which is limited to four states and the ACT; but finds some protection in financial services legislation, including the Corporations Act 2001, the Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988, the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987, and the Trade Practices Act 1974. Makes some recommendations for encouraging continued whistling in the interests of an informed market for financial services, and cites UK and US legislation for comparison.