Blowing the Whistle

There is a curious debate raging, in anti corruption circles, as to the value of whistle blowers and associated ‘protective’ legislation; curious, because most legal jurisdictions specifically require witnesses to report illegal activities.

Opponents of strong whistle blower protective legislation argue that whistle blowing can be abused for personal reasons, and no doubt the process is, but that is hardly reason to throw the baby with the bathwater.

We are not talking third world economies here either, this applies to all bureaucracies, public and corporate, everywhere.

A recent report from Australia’s NSW Police highlights the issue in an organisation which has been turning itself inside out to conquer a long culture of corruption in its ranks.

A Confidential research into internal witnesses [whistle blowers] in the NSW police force found officers who complained about corruption were harassed by senior police.

The report, prepared for NSW Police, shows officers who complain about corruption are being denied promotional opportunities, transferred against their wishes and given menial jobs.

This is despite specific provisions, above other legal provisions, requiring NSW police to report corrupt activities on the force.

But the situation is by no means limited to Australia or to the police. Protective legislation can only work if there is a genuine will to root out corruption. That is a difficult objective when many of those in positions to oversee protection are also in positions of privilege and potential gain from corrupt activities.

However, even if there is no involvement in actual corruption, there is still the tendency to for managers to protect their colleagues and the overall reputation of their areas of responsibility.

Managers, public and corporate, are not going to go out looking for ‘damaging’ issues; either are they going to welcome revelations of corruption.

While lawmakers continue to debate whistle blower legislation they might also consider these realities.

• Whistle blowing, legally, is not simply a personal choice, it is a requirement.
• The law, on its own, will not protect whistle blowers.
• Lawmakers must lead the way by being fully transparent themselves.
• The ‘organisation’ must be distanced from the behaviour of its associated individuals in corruption cases.
• Perhaps the term whistle blower should be ditched (along with all the other negative epithets) and the legal reality of informing on illegal activity be properly recognised.

Above all, it is time we really learned that there is no value in shooting the messenger. If we are to make inroads against corruption, it is time to be mature about the way allegations are dealt with.