1. Whistleblowing and Protected Disclosures Research Findings and Implications… A J Brown Professor of Public Policy & Law Centre for Governance & Public Policy Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. Director, Transparency International Australia. NZ State Services Commission, Wellington 5 May 2014

2. Queensland Government Crime & Misconduct Commission Queensland Ombudsman Office of Public Service, M&E Griffith University New South Wales Government NSW ICAC NSW Ombudsman University of Sydney Western Australian Government Corruption & Crime Commission WA Ombudsman Public Sector Standards Commissioner Edith Cowan University Australian Government Commonwealth Ombudsman Australian Public Service Commission Charles Sturt University Transparency International Australia Victorian, ACT & NT Govts Ombudsman Victoria NT Comr for Public Employment ACT Chief Minister’s Dept Monash University Australian Research Council Whistling While They Work: Enhancing the Theory & Practice of Internal Witness Management in the Australian Public Sector www.griffith.edu.au/whistleblowing

3. Integrity Agency Survey (Practices & Procedures) n=16 Integrity Casehandler Survey n=82 Integrity Agencies General Agencies WWTW - Quantitative Research Employee Survey WAQldNSWCth 30463838573 Agency Survey (Procedures) 11825323427 Total no. of public servants surveyed – 23,177 Total responses – 7,663 (33%) Case Study Agencies 153444Selected 8720282415Volunteered Managers (n=513) Casehandlers (n=315) Internal Witness Survey n=240 n=828 Procedures Assessment 17528316056

4. http://www.griffith.edu.au/whistleblowing http://epress.anu.edu.au/whistleblowing_citation.html

5. Former Head of Forex, National Australia Bank, Luke Duffy arriving at court for his committal hearing, 22 March 2005. Photo: Sydney Morning Herald. Sentenced to 2.5 years jail (minimum 16 months), 15 June 2005.

6. NAB corporate affairs manager Robert Hadler has confirmed the rogue trading was uncovered y a whistleblower. "The initial investigation was revealed by a colleague on the trading desk in our trading floor in Melbourne,“ Mr Hadler said. "He reported that to senior management; [a] thorough investigation was launched and we worked out the full extent of losses and have reported it immediately to the market, and to the regulators and the police." Despite being uncovered by a whistleblower, Mr Hadler says the bank's systems would have detected it in due course. "The trades were unauthorised and not properly recorded and that's why they weren't picked up in the first instance by the systems," he said. -- ABC News Online, 14 January 2004.

7. Table 2.13. Relative importance of employee reporting (means) p.45 Casehandler & Manager Q14, Integrity Casehandler Q9 How important do you believe each of the following is for bringing to light wrongdoing in or by your organisation/public sector organisations? 1=not important to 4=extremely important (a) Case- handlers (n=285) (b) Managers (n=410) (c) Integrity Casehandlers (n=70) aRoutine internal controls (e.g. normal financial tracking, service monitoring) 3.24 3.26 bInternal audits and reviews 3.193.063.27 cManagement observation 3.363.303.17 dClient, public or contractor complaints 2.942.973.09 eReporting by employees 3.423.303.51 fExternal investigations 2.662.592.94 gAccidental discovery 2.452.372.36

8. Some key findings Prevalent – at least 12% of public employees reported public interest wrongdoing outside their role in 2 years. Important – the single most highly valued source of information about wrongdoing in the public sector. Not always mistreated – 25-30% public interest whistleblowers reported mistreatment by management and/or co-workers. Difficult, stressful – c.43% high stress, 62% some stress. Much higher risk in some situations. Unmanaged, under-managed processes in a large proportion of organisations.

9. Only 5 out of 175 federal and state agencies had ‘reasonably strong’ procedures measured against the Standard

10. State of reform - Australian whistleblowing legislation JurisReformOriginal1. Effective system & oversight 2. Public disclosure 3. Effective remedies CTH +20131999?2?21 ACT2012199421NKTW VIC201220014?MissingNKTW WA2012200332NKTW NSW2010-11199413NKTW QLD *2010199422NKTW TAS200920022MissingNKTW NT--20082MissingNKTW SA *2014?1993MissingNKTW Corps Act*???2004Missing NKTW * Some private sector coverage + Not whole public sector covered NKTW: Not known to work

11. If I observed wrongdoing, I would feel personally obliged to report it to someone [in my organisation] Dis- agree Neither / can’t say / [DK] Total agree AgreeStrongly NZ state sector (2013) (n=13,394) 4.010.0 87.0 100 51.036.0 Aust public sector (2008) (n=7,530) 3.317.7 79.0 100 57.121.8 Australian population (2012) (n=820) (Newspoll) 6.113.8 80.1 100 39.041.1 Some comparisons New Zealand state sector (2013) Australian public sector (WWTW) (2008) Australian population (employees & org members) (Newspoll) (2012)

12. Some comparisons Management in my organisation is serious about protecting people who report wrongdoing Dis- agree Neither / can’t say / [DK] Total agree AgreeStrongly NZ state sector (2013) (n=13,395) 15.045.0 40.0 100 28.012.0 Aust public sector (2008) (n=7,459) 16.350.6 33.2 100 29.14.0 Australian population (2012) (n=820) (Newspoll) 13.837.4 48.8 100 30.618.2

13. Some comparisons If I reported wrongdoing to someone in my organisation, I am confident something appropriate would be done about it Dis- agree Neither / can’t say / [DK] Total agree AgreeStrongly NZ state sector (2013) (n=13,395) 21.027.0 52.0 100 36.016.0 Aust public sector (2008) (n=7,459) 18.432.9 48.7 100 43.55.0 Australian population (2012) (n=820) (Newspoll) 18.426.9 54.5 100 34.320.5

15. Range of inaction rates by jurisdiction

16. A Key Metric: How many don’t report? Figure 2.4. Inaction rates (very/extremely serious) Mean 28.6% nationally Fig 2.4 p.49

17. Agency rankings AgencyBAMPNECFDOLGKHI Procedures comprehensiveness 211081231561451113-79 Indicator Survey1 results: 1. Attitudes to reporting 219126310541114138157 2. Awareness of legislation 421736111358910151412 3. Awareness of policies 512106347912813151411 4. Whistleblowing propensity 312684579101311141512 5. Trust in org response 324111712815659131014 6. Inaction rate (serious) 113647148510123911215 7. Knowledge of investigation 759124111236131081514 8. Treatment following report 167351129141013481215 Sum of ranks 2631404448526366697578799297100 Overall ranking 123456789101112131415 Designing research to be operationalised Whistling While They Work – Australia Overall ranking of case study agency performance

18. Second report: Whistling While They Work - A good practice guide for managing internal reporting of wrongdoing in public sector organisations P. Roberts, A. J. Brown & J. Olsen, 2011 http://epress.anu.edu.au/ whistling_citation.html Elements of an organisational whistleblowing program: http://epress.anu.edu.au/ whistling_citation.html 1.Organisational commitment 2.Encouragement of reporting 3.Assessment and investigation of reports 4.Internal witness support and protection 5.An integrated organisational approach

19. Vandekerckhove, W., Brown, A. J., & Tsahuridu, E. (2014, in press). ‘Managerial Responsiveness to Whistleblowing: Expanding the Research Horizon’, in Brown, A. J., Lewis, D., Moberly, R. & Vandekerckhove, W. (eds), International Whistleblowing Research Handbook, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. [Ajzen, I. 1991. ‘The Theory of Planned Behavior.’ Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, December, 50(2): 179–211.] The Next Project Australia, New Zealand?, United Kingdom? Studying managerial responses to whistleblowing Possible approaches #1, #2, #3…

20. What do you think would be the best way for you to respond to the following events, if they happened to an employee you are dealing with who has reported wrongdoing? 012 Take no action/ Wait and see if problem Advise/ consult senior mgrs or external agency Counsel the staff or mgr involved Manager level (n) a) Co-workers cease to associate with the employee at work 1 st & 2 nd (279) 14.022.663.4 100 More senior (248) 8.518.972.6 100 Total (532) 11.320.467.3 100 b) Co-workers begin spreading rumours about the employee 1 st & 2 nd (279) 1.525.173.5 100 More senior (248) 0.025.874.2 100 Total (532) 0.825.573.7 100 c) A manager makes negative comments about the employee’s personality 1 st & 2 nd (279) 3.249.847.0 100 More senior (248) 1.635.163.3 100 Total (532) 2.542.954.7 100 d) A manager plans to refer the employee for psychiatric assessment 1 st & 2 nd (278) 5.476.318.3 100 More senior (245) 9.861.827.3 100 Total (528) 7.669.822.5 100 Table 13.1: Manager Preparedness to Intervene (%) Source: ‘Whistling While They Work’ project, Manager Survey, Q44. Vandekerckhove, W., Brown, A. J., & Tsahuridu, E. (2014, in press).

21. What training have you had about how to deal with cases where employees have reported wrongdoing? 1 st and 2 nd level managers More senior managers Four item scale (a-d) (0-8) No particular training/ missing Mean5.645.98 N8444 Informal / on the job training Mean5.876.18 N134119 Professional training Mean5.776.24 N6185 Total Mean5.786.16 N279248 Table 13.4: Level of Relevant Training Source: ‘Whistling While They Work’ project, Manager Survey, Q22. Vandekerckhove, W., Brown, A. J., & Tsahuridu, E. (2014, in press).

22. Figure 1. Multi-level Whistleblowing Model Whistleblower Job demands, control, support Neuroticism, conscientiousness Position, tenure, gender WB incident type, experiences and expectations Whistleblower-Manager Relationship Duration, trust, communication Manager Leadership style Job demands, control, support Neuroticism, conscientiousness Position, tenure, gender WB incident type, experiences and expectations Outcomes Whistleblower: satisfaction, engagement, strain, turnover Supervisor: satisfaction, engagement, strain Organisation: performance, policy change Organisation Culture and Climate Trust, vigilance, courage, empowerment, credibility, accountability, options and safety climate Brough, P., Brown, A J, Vandekerckhove, W., Lewis, D., Smith, R. (2014). ‘Encouraging Courage: Effective Managerial Responses to Whistleblowing’, Australian Research Council Discovery Project Application, March 2014.

23. The Next Project: Research Needs & Aims? 1.Provide reliable indicators of organisational and jurisdictional success (or challenges) in managing employee reporting of wrongdoing 2.Begin to provide efficient longitudinal data on performance; 3.Extend across jurisdictions and sectors for better comparative lessons; 4.Extend focus onto organisational rather than individual behaviour in responses to perceived wrongdoing and its reporting: Managerial responsiveness: The range of ways in which managers respond to whistleblowing, The criteria that should be used to evaluate the appropriateness of those responses, and The attributes, predictors and factors that may determine or influence those responses; including individual, contextual and regulatory factors.