Governance Institute calls for ‘one-stop’ shop for whistleblowers
Governance Institute has called for a stand-alone, ‘one-stop-shop’ Act for corporate whistleblowers, saying that regulator-specific provisions across many pieces of legislation will not provide the best protection for those exposing misconduct.
In a submission lodged with Treasury today, Governance Institute says the whistleblower provisions in the Corporations Act are very narrowly focused and require whistleblowers to have a detailed understanding of whether the misconduct they are reporting is covered by corporate law or could relate to competition, tax, workplace health and safety, bribery or corruption or industrial relations, all of which are covered by different legislation and regulators.
Governance Institute also argues that a whistleblower should be protected, irrespective whether the regulator or agency they initially approach refers the allegation to another body to investigate, claiming disclosures within the corporate sector should not be confined to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) or the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
“We do not believe that a whistleblower should be required to have a nuanced knowledge of legislation to know which regulator or law enforcement agency they approach to qualify for protection. It is a strong disincentive to making disclosures if employees or concerned members of the public feel that they require legal advice before making any such disclosure,” says Governance Institute chief executive Steve Burrell.
“A stand-alone Act that covers disclosure of any sort of misconduct — not just financial misconduct — and that provides protection regardless of which regulator the whistleblower discloses to is what we need. Australia should follow the lead of the United States and United Kingdom where there are general provisions for allegations of misconduct made in good faith, and which do not attract retribution. This is a much better option than one which mandates the same provision in multiple pieces of legislation,” Mr Burrell added.”
Governance Institute also believes that it is important to distinguish between protecting the whistleblower who has acted in good faith and any subsequent action taken. “If a whistleblower talks to a regulator such as ASIC or a law enforcement agency which believes it is not the appropriate body to investigate the allegation, that regulator should be able refer it to the appropriate body,” Mr Burrell added.
“Whistleblowers should have protection providing it concerns disclosure of potentially illegal activities that ASIC or another regulator or law enforcement agency can investigate. Nor should disclosures of unlawful activity be confined to ASIC. Importantly, if this cross-referral recommendation is accepted, it is critical that the whistleblower has the same confidentiality protection they had when they first made the disclosure.
“Regulators and policy-makers have quite rightly homed in on the important link between a good corporate culture and ethical corporate conduct. A robust and independent whistleblowing process that makes employees feel comfortable about fearlessly reporting wrongdoing is a critical asset in building the kind of positive, ethical culture that supports strong corporate outcomes,” Mr Burrell concluded.
For further information contact Viv Hardy on 0411 208 951 or Steven Burrell on (02) 9223 5744 or 0407 708 485.
About Governance Institute of Australia
Governance Institute of Australia is the only independent professional association with a sole focus on whole-of-organisation governance. Our education, support and networking opportunities for directors, company secretaries, governance professionals and risk managers are second to none.