Last week Freya Newman pleaded guilty to accessing restricted records at Whitehouse School of Design in Sydney.

As is now well known, Frances Abbott, a daughter of Australia’s prime minister Tony Abbott, received a $60,000 “chairman’s scholarship” to the School. She had studied there between 2011 and 2013.

Newman was a part-time librarian at Whitehouse. She accessed records on the school’s computer system which revealed that Frances Abbott had received the scholarship and blew the whistle. She was later prosecuted for accessing the records and will be sentenced on 23 October.

There are several aspects of the matter which should concern the public. They can be boiled down to these: protection, privacy and political influence.

It is a matter of concern that whistle blower legislation is not adequate to protect the disclosure. If Newman had been working in a government organisation and had made an equivalent revelation from public service records, she would likely have been able to claim whistle blower protection. But not for revelations about the workings of a private school.

The second matter for concern – perhaps the main matter – is the tension between legitimate expectations of privacy on the one hand, and the importance of uncovering hidden political influence on the other. There is no doubt that the Whitehouse School of Design is free to bestow favours on anyone it chooses. Equally, there is no doubt that Frances Abbott is a private citizen, not a politician. If there were no other relevant facts, it would be hard to justify public revelation of the scholarship: in any event, it would not likely have interested anyone.

But Frances Abbott is a daughter of the prime minister. At the time she received the scholarship, her father was leader of the opposition and was chasing the prime ministership vigorously, and the chairman of the school, Les Taylor, has personally donated to Tony Abbott and other members of the Liberal party. Taylor also told The Guardian at the time the scholarship was revealed that he had personally recommended Frances for the scholarship. Along with her mother and her sister, Frances Abbott was deployed publicly by her father during the election campaign in 2013. Indeed, the scale of Abbott’s use of his daughters for political advantage was unprecedented in Australian politics.

It is not unreasonable to wonder whether Tony Abbott should have disclosed the fact of the scholarship. If he had been given $60,000 with which to pay the school fees, there is no doubt he would have had to disclose it as a benefit. The fact that the benefit was given by way of a scholarship does not alter the substance of the matter. Any parent who has paid school fees would see that. And any person who has seen Australian politics in action would see a $60,000 benefit as relevant to the performance of a politician’s functions.

It is difficult to escape the thought that giving Frances a scholarship worth $60,000 might have attracted Abbott’s favour in a way that was helpful to the school. It is difficult to avoid wondering whether a student equally talented but with no political connections might have received a similar scholarship. According to the school’s website, the school “does not currently offer scholarships to gain a place”. So what was going on? Is it completely coincidental that the chairman granted a scholarship to someone who just happened to be a daughter of a very senior politician? Is it possible that Tony Abbott remained unaware of the scholarship, and remained blind to any sense of gratitude to the chairman or his generosity?

Of course these things are possible: but they do not seem likely. And if it is the fact that the scholarship was granted with a view to political favour, then the public interest is powerfully served by its revelation. But it seems unfair that the person who served the public interest by bringing the facts to light should be punished for it.

For drawing attention to a matter of genuine and legitimate public interest, Freya Newman deserves our thanks, not punishment.