Australian Standard On Whistleblowing
Australian Standard AS 8004-2003 Whistleblower Protection Programs for Entities is a competent document. It sets out structural and operational elements to a whistleblower protection regime within any entity, be it in the public sector or the private sector.
These elements are explained. They are supported by a fifteen (15) point checklist .
The Standard has been strongly supported by whistleblower groups because it incorporates the “Sword and the Shield” policy adopted jointly by Whistleblowers Australia (until 2017) and Queensland’s Whistleblowers Action Group for the protection of whistleblowers in organisations.
Inter alia, the Standard recommends that entities establish both a Whistleblower Investigations Officer (the Sword function) and a Whistleblower Protection Officer (the Shield function).
The Standard links to other Australian Standards as follows:
- AS/NZS 4630 – Risk Management
- AS 8000 – Good Governance Principles
- AS 8001 – Fraud and Corruption Control
- AS 8002 – Organisational Codes of Conduct
WARNING: The Standard was withdrawn in 2015, and has not been replaced.
This is a concern because one of the most effective arguments put to government in influencing the design of Federal Government legislation is the statement that the legislation does not align with the Australian Standards. The major point of misalignment is the failure of government to separate the Sword and Shield functions.
The Offices of Ombudsman in most jurisdictions in Australia have sought to be the administrator of whistleblowing legislation, to the disadvantage of whistleblowing, it is proposed. This is because these Offices are part of the Sword function of corruption control.
Proponents of the Ombudsmans’ cause in this regard have sought a review of the Australian Standard and membership of the committee conducting any review.
QWAG advocates the establishment of a Whistleblower Protection Authority separate from the Ombudsman and any Crime Commission or Integrity Commission in each jurisdiction, in compliance with the Australian Standard 8004-2003.
As per the Standard, the Whistleblower Protection Authority would have nothing to do with the investigation of the wrongdoing disclosed by the whistleblower – that would remain the province of the Ombudsman and any Corruption Commission. The Whistleblower Protection Authority would be concerned solely with the survival of the whistleblower. This is because, if the whistleblower survives, so too does the disclosure. The disclosure thus protected maintains the pressure upon the Ombudsman and the Crime Commissions to meet their responsibilities to address the wrongdoing disclosed.
The malady with fighting corruption in Australian jurisdictions is that the whistleblower does not survive, the disclosure loses profile, and the corruption is not addressed. Put bluntly, the Ombudsman and any Crime Commissions or similar Sword watchdogs may more easily fail in their Sword function to fight corruption when controlling the field alone, without the whistleblower protected by a Shield organisation keeping the Sword organisations under pressure.
The pressure that falls upon the Ombudsman and any Crime Commission in current circumstances is performance pressure, and failure in their Sword function can cause them to fail their Shield function of protecting the whistleblower as well.
Clearly, if the whistleblower goes away (does not survive), then the performance pressure upon the Ombudsman and any Crime Commission is also relieved or goes away. If the whistleblower does survive behind the Shield organisation, the pressure remains upon the Ombudsman Office and the Crime Commissions to wield their Sword at the corruption, and not wield their Sword at the whistleblower.
The loss of the Australian Standard, or the loss of the Sword and Shield Policy element in any revision of the Australian Standard, will be a retrograde step for whistleblower protection frameworks in Australia.