Whistleblowers should be protected and financially rewarded: Australian Parliamentary report, Financial Services Minister
Attitudes towards whistleblowers are quite polar: some view them as traitors and threats, others champion an ideology that those who report abuse or misconduct should be able to do so safely and perhaps even be compensated for losses. But is paying bounties for such acts going too far, or justifiable?
"whistleblower protections remain largely theoretical with little practical effect in either the public or private sectors"
- Australian Parliament joint committee report
- image by geralt, CC0 Creative Commons pixabay
In recent years corporate Australia has been the stage for a spate of scandals where whistleblowers who disclosed misconduct, fraud or corruption were sometimes sacked, demoted, or persecuted. One such, Jeff Morris, not only lost his career at the Commonwealth Bank after he disclosed allegedly inappropriate conduct, he also lost his family and received death threats.
An Australian Parliamentary joint committee report into whistleblower protections not long ago released has recommended the establishment of a Whistleblower Protection Authority with the power to investigate allegations and financially reward whistleblowers.
"Exposing the bank's misconduct has taken a serious toll on Mr Morris," Financial Services Minister Kelly O'Dwyer said. "His anonymity was not protected, he was subject to death threats, he lost his job and in the end he lost his whole family."
O'Dwyer announced plans to introduce a bill later in 2017 which aims to improve protections for whistleblowers, including "US bounty-style reward system as an incentive for whistleblowers" if the whistleblowing results in a successful prosecution. The new powers proposed in the report's recommendations included:
- whistleblower support and anonymity
- assessing merit of allegations
- conducting criminal &/or other investigations
- communicating case status and development to whistleblowers
Under the proposed system, financial rewards for whistleblowers would be a proportion of any penalty imposed under successful prosecutions. The reward amount would be determined by a court, assess the degree of contribution the whistleblower's information made towards the prosecution, and whether there was an appropriate and accessible internal whistleblower system within the organisation.
"I believe strongly that no-one should be worse off for blowing the whistle on misconduct and that all whistleblowers should have greater access to compensation if they suffer a detriment as a result of the whistleblowing."
- Kelly O'Dwyer, Financial Services Minister
However, a financial incentive may lead to an increase in frivolous or spurious accusations. The Financial Services Minster acknowledged that a bounty system may be "counterproductive", "deter people from coming forward at an earlier stage", "reduce the opportunity to detect malpractice early".
"For example, individuals may only be willing to raise a concern when there is proof of a breach and certainty that a monetary reward will be available."
"a reward system could encourage greater levels of nuisance reporting to regulators, leading them to a waste of resources checking claims that lead nowhere"
- Financial Services Minister Kelly O'Dwyer
The lifeblood of a healthily functioning democratic society is the free flow of unadulterated true and factual information upon which decisions can be made with informed consensus. How we treat those who take personal risk for the benefit of others is a powerful indicator of the innate cultural nature of society.
What do you think, traitor or patriot? Benefactor or bounty hunter?
Is this good policy, or unwise folly?
I look forward to your comments and perspectives, why not join the discussion and STEEM ON!!
^vote and resteem. Considerable effort has gone into researching, testing, graphics capture/edit, and formatting for this article.
I don't disagree, but is there such a society that exists today?
Seems to be a slippery slope. When divulging such information that exposes corruption, it's a great tool. When it puts operatives and civilian lives at risk, then it's not.
I just don't see a good way to go about it. Also, who gets to decide?
Anyway, great write-up. Plenty to think on.
Good question. It's certainly been an ideological goal and philosophical debate for many centuries, it forms part of the basis upon which the democratic system was founded, but we are still striving for such a society today, and for how much longer?
It is true that dissemination of sensitive data can endanger those to whom the information relates, but it doesn't need to be publicly released in order for their to be a safe means of raising the matter of concern without prejudice or persecution.
About what, the release of information/allegations, the final assessment of its legitimacy? I don't understand the context of your question.
Great points, this is the kind of discussion that needs to happen openly and often.
By "who gets to decide," within the context of:
Layer upon layer of safeguards and representative members seem to breed bloated bureaucracies. Trimming the fat could still provide the safe means you speak of, however I doubt the chances of that happening.
Simply put, who watches the watchers.
I agree, critical thought (which your post certainly requires!) and discussion need to happen. These are difficult topics and in my estimation missing between the general public and those chosen to undertake the task.
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 :)
Whistleblower protection is something that needs to be enforced worldwide. It's ridiculous that you can be prosecuted for exposing crime.
While it cannot be assumed that anything divulged is automatically credible or fit for public dissemination, I agree completely that there should be secure, private mechanisms for submission with impunity to impartial parties of information that can then be evaluated for legitimacy and import.
Thanks for your reply, if you want to help the discussion grow please consider resteeming.
Congratulations it's beautiful @neuromancer . Must feel great - that is a lot of work!
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by neuromancer from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews/crimsonclad, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
@OriginalWorks
The @OriginalWorks bot has determined this post by @neuromancer to be original material and upvoted it!
To call @OriginalWorks, simply reply to any post with @originalworks or !originalworks in your message!
To enter this post into the daily RESTEEM contest, upvote this comment! The user with the most upvotes on their @OriginalWorks comment will win!
For more information, Click Here!
Special thanks to @reggaemuffin for being a supporter! Vote him as a witness to help make Steemit a better place!
Thanks for the perfect post! @neuromancer
@neuromancer got you a $9.4 (4.0%) @minnowbooster upgoat, nice! (Image: pixabay.com)
Want a boost? Click here to read more about @minnowbooster!
This post recieved an upvote from minnowpond. If you would like to recieve upvotes from minnowpond on all your posts, simply FOLLOW @minnowpond
These types of measures are all pretty much designed with people on a high level in mind. That is the problem. The rank and file in a large corporation are pretty much dismissed and dumped into that 'spurious allegations' category if they do come forward, even when they are on to something. Furthermore, for one of the lower-downs to even get police or authorities to listen to what they are saying is virtually impossible. The lower-downs often know when something is wrong, and can provide a pointer to it (such as a series of irregular transactions that act as flags), but the authorities only listen if someone with status speaks, or if they have copies of the company's accounting records.
In addition, a lot of these company heads have protection within the system that is supposed to be looking into these things. Political connections, police connections, etc... . No one will take the word of some unimportant underling over theirs. And then, that underling faces all the retaliation that big name whistle-blowers do, and has zero protection. In addition, their efforts go nowhere, and so it is all for nothing.
Been there, done that, and seen how it really works. I think one of the reasons authorities fear 'frivolous accusations' and make all sorts of excuses in order to refuse to implement measures is because they don't want the little guy stepping forward and actually being taken seriously. Thus, they continue to protect the system and their part in it.