RE: Whistleblowers should be protected and financially rewarded: Australian Parliamentary report, Financial Services Minister
This is a very interesting article about the impact upon a whistle blower's life of raising red flags to benefit others. Kelly O'Dwyer suggests a mechanism might be appropriate to prevent whistle blowers suffering unduly for attempting to limit repercussions to customers or the general public as a result of unfair practices. Personally, in this instance, I think Ms O'Dwyer is dreamin'. I can't see any society anywhere rewarding a whistle blower. Bureaucracies don't like their policies, institutions or institutional practices being questioned. It creates paperwork, taxes mental energy and takes away from the daily routine of paper filing, data entry and box-ticking. But it is a nice thought. Maybe there is a need for other organisations to step up to the plate to assist the whistle blower. Organisations like Amnesty International and Wikileaks already perform this function, but perhaps it needs expansion. However, I can foresee several potential obstacles to this. Unfortunately, protecting whistle blowers can be extremely political. For instance, what if I said it might be a nice gesture to somehow support Reality Winner, for drawing people's attention to information the State had about Russian interference in the election? How would people react to supporting the whistle blower in this instance?
Writing this reply confirms my suspicion that any support agency would, by the nature of the causes it chose to defend, reveal that bleeding heart agencies tend to be left wing.
Is it just my imagination, or is our society becoming more polarised between left and right wing, and increasingly extreme in its affiliations? What are the underlying causes and where might this lead? Is it a good, or a bad, thing? Is it a result of news choice?
In the past, a newspaper broadsheet aimed at the general public, and relying primarily upon advertising for its revenue, had to present news that was balanced, or risk alienating the readership its advertisers might want to influence. Is the decline of quality broadsheets one reason for the seeming rise of extremist views? To answer the question you pose, @neuromancer, I think it is an unworkable policy, to reward the whistle blower through a government-endorsed mechanism, but that's why ngo's exist - to provide assistance beyond the ambit of government. It's an imperfect world, but we made it and we make it, every day, by the decisions we take - what we do and what we neglect to do. Thank you for posting, it was very thought-provoking.
Your comment was quite a detailed reflection on the topic, sorry for taking so long to reply but I haven't had enough steemtime to do it justice.
This is true, and exactly why the legislative changes proposed call for legal framework and an independent body to carry out these functions, as well as providing the discrete channels of reporting and investigation. Similar mechanisms and bodies already exist for enforcing and investigating compliance with standards and policies relating to safe work practices for the construction and engineering industries, or for harassment and misconduct, as examples. The proposed whistleblower measures ask for the grant of additional confidentiality and investigation among other things (too long to go into here). Even so, the details of disclosed secrets could alone narrow the possible actors down to a few or just one, potentially making anonymity a very difficult matter.
And you can bet a brass monkey that those who stand to be negatively impacted by such mechanisms of disclosure will bring to bear all the political influence, favour, and pressure that they can before this proposal is tabled in parliament for discussion and vote.
Also true, however, while these organisations are not likely to reject a submission where human rights and freedoms are at stake they are much less concerned about an organisation obfuscating the fact that they are contravening standards, practices, regulations, or legislative rule established by law, whether it be embezzling money or acting against clients' interests or misuse/misappropriation of funds for personal gain, etc et al. The laws, regulations, standards, etc are in place, but enforcing them and investigating breaches can be made... 'complicated'. Those who assist with information or evidence need some means of submission through which act they will not come to harm. Discretion is the frontline defense (but not the last) for the individual, and the organisation need not choose to support a particular matter, the evidence, once substantiated, would in most cases be simply referred to the relevant body State or Federal Police, Regulatory Commission, Licensing Body, for pursuit as a matter of contravention of law. The legal entities, police, commissions and courts already exist, the proposal is to provide a discrete means of evidence/information submission and protecting those who use it, not create a whole new entity for functions that currently exist.
Not your imagination at all. There's a confluence of factors contributing to this, and a large number of opportunists exploiting it for whatever purpose they see fit; the world is a complicated place with a lot of conflicting/competing private and political interests, some people are predisposed to stereotypes, many are time poor, many are concerned with guaranteeing their way of life continues amidst a host of threats real or perceived, and just about everyone is suffering from some level of information fatigue from minor to extreme. It's in every humans' best interest to calm down and try and expand knowledge of facts and each other, to be less predisposed to the reactionary practices that are increasingly being engaged, but because of a lack of time or inclination or resources many rely on prefabricated views and opinions a lot of which are meant to goad an emotional response rather than a rational and considered one. Sic transit gloria mundi. There's a very real risk of becoming trivial and destructively indifferent in life.
"I am not responsible for the flood." said the raindrop. The world needs enduring cultural change, not explosive outburst, there's enough explosive conflict already, but the former requires a lot more work to delve and participate, the latter is a conditioned state that's being permitted by humanity, either by ignorance or apathy.
Absolutely true, life is a dialogue, a continuous work in progress.
Thanks for such a considered response.
Love your response, especially, "I am not responsible for the flood," said the raindrop. I personally blame Rupert Murdoch for a lot of what's wrong with the media today :) But people continue to buy The Daily Telegraph et al :)