When is wrongdoing not wrong?

Do we, or more specifically does the Government, want to tolerate wrongdoing in its workplaces and only go after ‘‘serious wrongdoing’’? The Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill currently before a select committee only protects disclosures of ‘‘serious wrongdoing’’, as defined in it. So it answers ‘‘yes’’ to my opening question. I would have thought it should be a rhetorical question, where ‘‘yes’’ is not a possible answer.

Implicit in this bill, as in the existing act, is that blowing the whistle on wrongdoing that is not ‘‘serious wrongdoing’’ is not worthy of this statutory protection. That is, you are fair game for the bullies or power wielders in your workplace if you tell a tale on them and what they have been doing amounts only to wrongdoing, but not ‘‘serious’’ wrongdoing. (There are, of course, personal grievance proceedings, but that addresses how you’ve been subsequently treated, not the underlying wrongdoing.)

No wonder the current act has been poorly utilised. People fear that if they do the right thing and out the wrongdoing, they and their careers will be the collateral damage.

They are more than often uncertain whether the ‘‘serious’’ threshold has been crossed, so keep their mouths shut. Or use other routes, like going to the media or Opposition politicians if they feel they won’t be identified.

I experienced instances of this in our department, and know that it was the major barrier to potential whistleblowers.

One of the stated purposes of the bill is to allegedly clarify what ‘‘serious’’ wrongdoing means, presumably primarily for the benefit of potential whistleblowers. The Explanatory Note says this:

■ Both organisations and disclosers are confused about when to use the act.

■ The bill clarifies the definition of ‘‘serious wrongdoing’’.

Staff are uncertain rather than confused. And the ‘‘clarification’’ is only by extension to corrupt acts, not by attempting to explain what the ’’serious’’ threshold means in practice.

Compare the definition with the current one, and I challenge you to find any significant change, let alone any clarification. As it stands, the bill is little more than a waste of Parliament’s precious time.

Both new and old confuse the situation by using sub-categories that involve, for example, assessing whether there is a ‘‘serious risk’’ to public health or safety, or ‘‘gross’’ negligence. Judges would find that difficult. Try doing it at work without being able to talk to anyone about it!

But the bottom line is that people know wrongdoing when they see it. Why shouldn’t there be an easy and safe way to surface that?

The classic case during my time was of a senior colleague directing that assistance be given to family members interacting with our agency. Staff knew it was wrong, but were unsure it was ‘‘serious’’. So instead of using the act, they used a backdoor and anonymous method to surface it.

And, by way of example, would it have been less serious if it had only been a frontline staff member, rather than a senior manager? It would still have been wrongdoing and should have been capable of being surfaced safely.

Potential whistleblowers will still be faced with the same unnecessary and perplexing hurdles in deciding whether they will be protected if they blow the whistle:

■ What is a ‘‘serious’’ risk to public health, public safety, or the environment?

■ What is a ‘‘serious’’ risk to the maintenance of the law?

■ When is something ‘‘grossly’’ negligent?

I imagine that officials advising the select committee will roll out the old ‘‘floodgates’’ argument about this – that extending the coverage of the act will open the floodgates to torrents of disclosures, and/or that there will be high numbers of them that are made for ulterior motives.

But isn’t that just an acknowledgement that wrongdoing is rife in government circles? And that there will be no guaranteed safe way of drawing attention to it? And anyway, the bill already says that to gain protection, a disclosure must be made in good faith.

So I advocate a simple change – all wrongdoing should be able to be surfaced via a Protected Disclosure. Otherwise, why bother progressing this bill? And while they are at it, the committee could get rid of that tongue twister of a name, and rename the bill the Whistleblowing Bill . . . Just saying!

The bottom line is that people know wrongdoing when they see it.