<table
The Treasury’s whistleblowing options paper has attracted a varied response, some of it condemning the approach as a step in the wrong direction.
Whistleblower Australia was quite phlegmatic about the ‘Improving Protections for Corporate Whistleblowers’ options paper, stating that it was a step in the wrong direction and that the framework in which the options were presented was not best practice.
“…They are inconsistent with Standards Australia requirements and they do not address the fundamental problems of whistleblowing,” its submission stated, asserting that it “only emphasises ASIC’s [Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s] complete lack of knowledge about the nature and processes of whistleblowing”.
“It is not a productive exercise to dissect and analyse all that is wrong with the Corporations Act whistleblowing provisions while it is known that the same problems exist in other corporate and finance legislation and those problems are not being rectified,” said Whistleblowers Australia national president Peter Bennett.
The Australian Institute of Company Directors recommended that employees first utilise and exhaust the internal risk reporting mechanisms and procedures corporations have put in place. It stated that the ‘good faith’ requirement under the current whistleblower protection provisions be retained as it “provides a useful mechanism for discouraging individuals from making vexatious and fabricated disclosures”.
“The damage that corporations and individuals can suffer as a result of fabricated claims should not be underestimated,” stated chief executive John Colvin.
He added that the fact that only four whistleblowers have ever used legislative protections to provide information to ASIC does not necessarily mean that there has been a lack of reporting but could suggest that “serious corporate wrongdoing has not occurred and that the internal risk management and reporting procedures that Australian companies have implemented are working effectively”.
Insurance Council of Australia chief executive Kerrie Kelly stated, “The Insurance Council is not aware of evidence to support a perception that there is considerable corporate misconduct that is going undetected”.
Kelly stated that while members were willing to consider extending protections for whistleblowers, existing protections were extensive and additional protections would be an unnecessary compliance burden.
STOPline, however, supported the option that a whistleblower is no longer required to make a disclosure in good faith to access protection, stating that in their experience the number of fabricated disclosures would be minimal if the disclosure management process is robust, adding that those who are likely to fabricate information do not wish to be subject to a robust interview process or detailed scrutiny.
The National Institute of Accountants supported the majority of the provisions outlined in the options paper, stating that they could improve the likelihood of whistleblowers coming forward. However, it added that reforms must include appropriate education and support.
