Protected Disclosures Act 2000 | |
---|---|
New Zealand Parliament | |
| |
Royal assent | 3 April 2000 |
Commenced | 1 January 2001 |
Administered by | State Services Commission |
Status: Current legislation |
The Protected Disclosures Act 2000 is a piece of New Zealand legislation regarding the disclosures, in the public interest, of serious wrongdoing (sometimes called 'whistle-blowing'). The Act promotes the public interest by setting out procedures to be followed when making a disclosure, and provides protection to employees who make disclosures, in accordance with the Act.
A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), also known as a confidentiality agreement (CA), confidential disclosure agreement (CDA), proprietary information agreement (PIA), or secrecy agreement (SA), is a legal contract or part of a contract between at least two parties that outlines confidential material, knowledge, or information that the parties wish to share with one another for certain purposes, but wish to restrict access to. Doctor–patient confidentiality, attorney–client privilege, priest–penitent privilege and bank–client confidentiality agreements are examples of NDAs, which are often not enshrined in a written contract between the parties.
Classified information is material that a government body deems to be sensitive information that must be protected. Access is restricted by law or regulation to particular groups of people with the necessary security clearance and need to know. Mishandling of the material can incur criminal penalties.
A public interest defence is a defence in law that allows a defendant who disclosed classified or protected information to avoid criminal or civil liability by establishing that the public interest in disclosure of the information outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional. In a per curiam opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken".
Public-interest immunity (PII), previously known as Crown privilege, is a principle of English common law under which the English courts can grant a court order allowing one litigant to refrain from disclosing evidence to the other litigants where disclosure would be damaging to the public interest. This is an exception to the usual rule that all parties in litigation must disclose any evidence that is relevant to the proceedings. In making a PII order, the court has to balance the public interest in the administration of justice and the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of certain documents whose disclosure would be damaging. PII orders have been used in criminal law against large organised criminal outfits and drug dealers where the identity of paid police informants could be at risk.
Proposition 59 was an amendment of the Constitution of California that introduced freedom of information or "sunshine" provisions. It was proposed by the California Legislature and overwhelmingly approved by the voters in an initiative held as part of the November 2004 elections.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (c.23) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that protects whistleblowers from detrimental treatment by their employer. Influenced by various financial scandals and accidents, along with the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the bill was introduced to Parliament by Richard Shepherd and given government support, on the condition that it become an amendment to the Employment Rights Act 1996. After receiving the Royal Assent on 2 July 1998, the Act came into force on 2 July 1999. It protects employees who make disclosures of certain types of information, including evidence of illegal activity or damage to the environment, from retribution from their employers, such as dismissal or being passed over for promotion. In cases where such retribution takes place the employee may bring a case before an employment tribunal, which can award compensation.
Public Interest Disclosure Act is a stock short title used in the United Kingdom and several Australian jurisdictions for legislation that is intended to protect whistleblowers:
The Scottish Charity Regulator is a non-ministerial department of the Scottish Government with responsibility for the regulation of charities in Scotland.
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act is a United States federal law that requires certain financial institutions to provide mortgage data to the public. Congress enacted HMDA in 1975.
County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301 (2009), was a case before the California Courts of Appeal dealing with the ability of a local California agency to limit the disclosure of, or require license agreements for, public records and data requested under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).
The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act came into force in Canada on April 15, 2007. The Act creates two distinct processes: a disclosure process and a reprisal complaints process. It also creates two new bodies: the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC) and the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal.
United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.
The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada is one of the Independent Oversight Offices created as part of the Canadian Federal Accountability Act. The Office investigates wrongdoing in the federal public sector and helps protect whistleblowers, and those who participate in investigations, from reprisal. Harriet Solloway is the current Commissioner, named on September 27, 2023.
Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case which holds that the disclosure of signatures on a referendum does not violate the Petition Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 is an Act of the Parliament of India which provides a mechanism to investigate alleged corruption and misuse of power by public servants and also protect anyone who exposes alleged wrongdoing in government bodies, projects and offices. The wrongdoing might be in the form of fraud, corruption or mismanagement. The Act will also ensure punishment for false or frivolous complaints.
The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012 is an Act of Congress designed to combat insider trading. It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on April 4, 2012. The law prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading by members of Congress and other government employees. It confirms changes to the Commodity Exchange Act, specifies reporting intervals for financial transactions.
Whistleblower protection in Australia is offered for certain disclosures under a patchwork of laws at both federal and state level. Eligibility for protection depends on the requirements of the applicable law and the subject matter of the disclosure. Not all disclosures are protected by law in Australia. At federal level, whistleblowers face potential imprisonment for making disclosures about certain subjects, including national security and immigration matters.
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy, including abortion, are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers, typically run by Christian non-profit groups, challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech. After prior reviews in lower courts, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, asking "Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment."
The German Law on the Protection of Trade Secrets, or Trade Secrets Law in short, serves to protect business secrets against unauthorized acquisition, use, and disclosure. The law implements the Directive (EU) 2016/943 on the Protection of Trade Secrets in German law. It replaces the right to secrecy, which was previously regulated in §§ 17-19 of the Act Against Unfair Competition.