12. Project findings: an agenda for action

In this book, new research has revealed that far from being rare, whistleblowing is a relatively common and routine activity in a majority of public sector agencies. Part 1 of the book showed that in the four jurisdictions studied, on a conservative estimate, 12 per cent of employee survey respondents had acted as public interest whistleblowers in their organisation over two years. Even if often problematic, whistleblowing is a natural feature of public sector life.

The research also showed that, contrary to the bleak picture of whistleblowing as a crisis in which every whistleblower is destined to suffer for their experience, a majority of officials who reported public interest concerns—on average, at least 70 per cent—regarded management and colleagues as having treated them either the same or well as a result. There remains another side to both these stories. In some agencies and circumstances, the incidence and seriousness of reprisals are very much greater than this average and, even when direct reprisals are not involved, whistleblowing often involves stresses, tensions and problems for individuals and organisations alike. At least as many public officials who observe wrongdoing also continue to choose not to report, citing lack of confidence in the management response and in management support.

Nevertheless, the research shows that it is far from inevitable that whistleblowers need suffer for their experience or that, when employees make disclosures, nothing will be done. The organisational and social importance of whistleblowing is well recognised in many public agencies. This new picture of whistleblowing provides public sector managers with good reason to invest in strategies for encouraging staff to blow the whistle on perceived wrongdoing within their organisation, in ways that will enable them to be better managed and will help lead to more positive outcomes.

Part 2 of the book has shown the need for this greater institutional investment. In the jurisdictions studied, major challenges remain to be overcome before it can be said that all that can reasonably be done, is being done to manage whistleblowing productively. Many public agencies have actively grappled with the issue of how to encourage staff to disclose perceived wrongdoing and even the difficult issue of how to protect staff from reprisals should they do so. There remain, however, substantial differences in outcomes depending on the circumstances in which wrongdoing is seen and whistleblowing occurs. Some organisations are encouraging and managing whistleblowing more successfully than others. Agencies that make more credible efforts are achieving more positive results and are therefore showing the way for the development of best practice; but their relative success confirms that many more systems are patchy and are missing out on achieving more positive outcomes.

This chapter draws together the major lessons of the research, for what can and should be done to improve current approaches to whistleblowing in the Australian public sector—within individual agencies and at a whole-of-government level in the jurisdictions studied. As outlined in Chapter 1, these conclusions are drawn from the research to date as a whole—including the results of the empirical surveys conducted across the participating agencies, assessment of the comprehensiveness of agency procedures, comparative analysis of the different legislative regimes in place and the researchers’ assessments of the relationships between these different elements of governments’ overall responses to whistleblowing. While there are variations between jurisdictions and agencies in the extent of some challenges, there are also major challenges that exist right across the board. This chapter focuses on action to address these major challenges.

The first part of the chapter summarises some main lessons and challenges from the research to date, for those ultimately responsible for the management of whistleblowing. These include case-handlers and other managers responsible for the internal integrity systems of agencies, chief executives and senior management and governments as a whole. The discussion highlights the importance of the internal processes by which agencies respond to and encourage whistleblowing and the important role of individuals within these processes. It also highlights the evidence that many agencies are currently making insufficient institutional efforts to actively address the management of whistleblowing, even when subject to statutory requirements.

The second part of the chapter draws on these lessons to state 10 key findings from the research, identifying priority areas for action. In summary, the research shows a particular need for:

More detailed recommendations regarding current and prospective best practice in agencies are the subject of a further, second report from this project. The final part of this chapter briefly outlines some of this continuing analysis, along with areas for future research.