This is an accurate and chilling break down of the insidious manner in which whistleblowers are treated.

I congratulate the author, and also OLO for running this feature on whistle blowing and offering an opportunity for identification and discussion of the sinister practices institutions use to silence those who try to blow the whistle.

A really excellent piece. It's not just internal whistleblowers who are treated this way. I have been fighting to get the CSa to acknowledge their own failures of process and of duty-of-care for nearly 8 years. Last year, after ignoring or refusing to listen to my complaints for years, the Ombudsman's Office did an "own motion investigation of the ways in which the CSa fails to advance fairness by its activities. The report was almost a word-for-word repetition of my own complaints.

The CSA is now undergoing a massive program of cultural change. designed to implement the recommendations of the Ombudsman. That still beghs the question of why there will be no action taken against the senior membes of the organisation who refused to respond to the exact same complaints that the Ombudsman upheld. There has been no suggestion that any of the senior management of the Agency should be held accountable for their failure to live up to their responsibilities under the Public Service Act, which allows for penalties up to imprisonment for such breaches.

As long as the Public Service is protected by its own there can be no transparency and little respect for their role.

It is telling that among the first positions advertised after the release of the Ombudsman's report were "Media Liasison Officers" and "Ministerial Liaison Officers".

I agree with briar rose.

While I've personally never been in anything
like the situation that Robina Cosser describes,
I can well imagine the awful and frustrating
situation that she describes so well.

The article reminds me of nothing less than
Franz Kafka'a 'The Trial'.

I recall reading amongst formal complaints upheld evidence is the complainant remains the one to suffer; little, if anything, happens to the one/s that the complaint is against. Those identified as corrupt and prosecuted/penalised are usually those who break the ‘golden rule’. That rule is if all the pigs have their snout in the trough no one squeals – don’t endanger the mob.

Who is in a position to act? In NSW the separation of powers seems a fiction. Without that separation who will call anyone to account for corruption/incompetence. All have bought the lie that “I am just looking after myself” rather than those values encapsulated in Servant Leadership – few remain who hold to even a vague concept of God. Many act as though the statement ‘there are no absolutes’ is true (ignoring the problem of the statement being an absolute).

If all are merely looking to self interest who then will look to public interest? If life values are purely relative with what is right to me only being right to another if they choose the same things then who has a basis for acting against corruption? Any majority choice of values can only be transitory, another time and place and decisions change.

Yes, the system can not succeed because the underlying life values of self preclude public interest. No, in the case in the article the outcome has little to do with the players, it is an outcome determined by failed life values.

I was naïve for a long time. I used to think that my department valued its own rules and guidelines – rules that its own people had come up with, and that when these rules were broken or just ignored, they’d be interested to hear about it and do something accordingly.

I also used to think that my department valued its own code of conduct, for which all staff are required to do a sort of examination to show that they have read and understood it. I thought they’d be interested in knowing about instances where senior staff broke or just ignored the code and would be supportive in doing something about it.

Well, I now know that one sure way of getting yourself offside with people and of basically skittling your career is to have a conscience and to strive to uphold the rules and, gently, via due process, try to keep others on-track as well.

I now know that the right thing to have done would have been to just ignore all infringements.

Ludwig, you have never broken the rules?

Therein lies the problem; if justice is served then who would not be punished? “I only used the Department’s phone for a private call, it’s not like I stole” or “I was only 5 minutes late, that’s no big deal”. These are all perks of the job. Or are they more?

Who in Departments does not have the snout in a trough big or small? Who gives value for money or service of any kind? Yes the system is rotten; our political masters are corrupt as they hold no values other than winning the media war and greasing the wheels of donors supporting their cause. The next level down within Public Service follows their masters’ actions and behaves in kind. No it is not a case of the big being punished, who in the system is not rorting it at some level using it to their own ends? There is no difference between petty corruption and grand corruption – all is corrupt.

As Mohandas Gandhi put it “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind”.

Until we live by life values outside ourselves the behaviours being complained of will go on, the players may change but the game continues.

You make a complaint, you are ignored.

This is repeated several times.

You eventually take your complaint to the Ombudsman.

They return the complaint to the department you complained about.

That department conducts its own investigation that you are not privy to.

You are called to several meetings at which point you are told the correct procedure for complaints to be made in the future.

Ombudsman’s office finally calls you to say you were correct that there had been bad practice and that the case is closed.

You have no idea what has happened only that what you complained about continues to happen.

There are further meetings where you are told in many different ways to never talk about it outside the department.

After more meetings where it is suggested you have witnessed a “tragedy” counseling is suggested as well as a need for time off and a suggestion that you are angry and that others may no longer see you as part of the “team”.

After denying the need for either counseling, support groups or time off the time off is imposed anyway and then an official review is suggested and implemented.

Strange questions are asked during the review and you can see the beginnings of a classic set up which will result in dismissal.

The “tragedy” you witnessed is experienced by other team members who after watching what has happened to you decide to be very quiet.

Even with legal training it is mostly impossible to beat the system. The following update into the Climategate emails is being met with precisely the “bureaucratic defense mechanisms” as identified in Robina’s article

Written by John O'Sullivan- Climate Change Dispatch. November 19, 2010

“Some of us with legal training smelt a rat when the investigation was first entrusted to Norfolk Constabulary. Why was this case, potentially the biggest international criminal fraud of all time palmed off onto plodding country constables?

But then it got worse! Almost immediately it was announced that ‘aiding’ Norfolk’s ‘finest’ was a secretive private police unit, the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET). Yes, you read that right- a private police unit was in on the act. Now why would this be, we may wonder?

And where the hell was the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) when required? The SFO are mandated under law to take over any fraud case where more than £500,000 is involved and/or there’s an international dimension. Moreover, unlike the SFO the NDET were under no obligation to abide by the Freedom of Information (FOIA) Act. Like Jones, they got a green light from the authorities to play fast and loose with the evidence and then get away with it.

So throughout the coldest winter for 30 years progress in the investigations froze as completely as the weather. With no SFO in the picture (publicly accountable) and ACPO and NDET not accountable, being totally exempt from freedom of information laws (FOIA) this investigation is going nowhere fast.

Norfolk’s plodders and the secretive NDET, maintaining a clandestine line of communication with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) another private and unaccountable clique, had a clear run to implement the cover up. It’s lasted a year so far - can they go the full distance? Such is the woeful state of British justice today.”

I also agree with Briar Rose's comment. However it is important to note that the control environment flows down from the top and many (all?) government agencies operate on personality.

The last mentioned problem always existed to an extent, but soon worsened following the devolution of powers from the Public Service Boards to the heads of agencies (particularly regarding recruitment, selection and the creation of positions) and the expansion of political appointments.

The changes wrought by both sides of politics to make the public service more 'responsive' (read as politically sensitive) and the corporatisation that put to rest the final vestiges of public service neutrality, independence and the traditional policy focus on overall community benefit (and an enduring community benefit at that).

What I am endeavouring to say is that whether they wanted it or not, the federal and State public services are now expected to be proactive in protecting their 'masters', ie., the government of the day. Ministers haven't been slow to side-step their ministerial accountability, throwing it to their departments and contractors too.

All of that makes it very awkward for public servants where the underlying direction of policy that is being implemented is contrary to what the government (and probably the opposition too) is informing the public. Migration and health provide examples.

It isn't that whistles aren't being heard, rather that the ministerial accountabilities that were crucial controls of the Westminster System of government have been lost. Although public servants are subject to strict codes for their behaviour, what worth are these where the overall system does not reward and more likely punishes such ethics as old fashioned, irrelevant and probably dangerous?

However, if it is a small consolation to whistleblowers, anyone who asks an awkward question, be it a staff member or 'client' (never 'citizen', that could imply some rights), can just as easily be labelled as 'aggrieved' (read as a troublemaker) and be shunted along the same path.

spindoc, there's a difference between
whistleblowers and conspiracy theorists.
Admittedly, the advent of the Internet
has blurred the difference somewhat,
at least to those credulous souls who
are predisposed to find nebulous wrongdoing
where it doesn't exist.

<< Ludwig, you have never broken the rules? >>

Paul, what ARE the rules?

The code of conduct is supposed to be the rule book. Then there are other rules on top of that and of course there is the law behind it.

But, general practice reveals that the rules ain’t the rules and that something else applies. You’ve basically got to very carefully sus out what is and isn’t accepted practice.

So, all too often, you can actually be breaking the rules very frequently while just upholding accepted practice. To this extent, yes I have broken the rules…. and if I hadn’t, I would have been placed at a disadvantage.

For example, when on fieldwork, we basically work for all of the daylight hours and then often into the evening. When you are out there, you want to maximise your efficiency. But our rule book says that we can’t work more than ten hours in a day in the field. If you decide that you are going to only work ten hours, you’ll soon run into strife with your colleagues. So, you work all day long and you mark only ten hours on your timesheets and give two or three hours of your time each day as voluntary, or I should say; forced ‘voluntary’ input!

That’s just one of many examples, which in itself doesn’t amount to much. But when there is a whole culture that is significantly different to the stated and often reinforced rules, then it can get a bit hard to cop... and awfully frustrating to sort out where you really stand.

So, if one breaks the rules while upholding accepted practice, do they then forego the right to complain about those who break the rules in a serious manner? Absolutely not.

Spindoc, don’t get mad get even. But how?

Turning up to vote at Forton (Lancashire) I chatted to the staff manning the polling station who expected a busy day as it was sunny, more were going to turn out to vote – the weather determined the result! We spend our time complaining about our rights but ignore our responsibilities. Are we alive to serve or be served?

One can complain about the SFO, NDET and ACPO and their failure to act – and at face value a clear failure in meeting their duties. But why should they behave differently?

In a democracy we have the power to choose those who will govern. Our choices are governed by our self interest. Climategate is but self interest from UEA, CRU and IPCC. If I can vote according to my self interest why can’t that CABAL act according to theirs?

If laws are an expression of common intent and that intent is self interest wherein lies the capacity to preclude any actions? Power of force that reflects what may be agreed from time to time – certainly no underlying eternal values.

Climategate and all such ills are a symptom not the disease. Philosophy posed the questions: Who am I, What is the nature of society, and What is the relationship between the 2?

If life is about self interest then government will bend to placating those interests, which will include those whose actions we see as corrupt. Power will be the commodity of impacting on events, and power will serve the interests of those holding it alone. Get power or get used to it.

If life is about values outside ourselves then act according to them; vote according to the values and make clear to the elected representatives they will be held to account against them. But be warned, the judgement exercised against Climategate will be exercised against oneself for the petty corruptions of self interest one pursues.

What are life’s values and what are my responsibilities?

Ludwig, I’d suggest line up with the rest for doses of medicine not avoid raising the issue of concern – mea culpa. Working in emergencies it becomes transparent how many snouts are in the trough – many a new car is paid for on overtime. One of my postulates was the rule of corruption – if all the pigs have their snouts in the trough then none squeal.

I am arguing look to life values to think through this issue.

“Philosophy posed the questions: Who am I, What is the nature of society, and What is the relationship between the 2?”

If life is no more than eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die then get over corruption – it is just one group taking that maxim to its logical conclusion. Find a way in on the act or miss out. Accept power is the arbiter of what eventuates.

Alternatively, in theological terms the question is commonly put as ‘is there a God?’ If that is the case how does it work out in relation to behaviour in the world?

The modern world acts as though it has disproved God. It now faces the existential nightmare, nothing endures and nothing matters. “Human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we beat out tunes for bears to dance to, when all the time we are longing to move the stars to pity.” Flaubert, Gustave, Madame Bovary, pt.1, ch.12.

If there is no God suck it up, get over it and get on with it. For in an existential and nihilistic world what passes for rules is but a passing expression of opinion with access to power being but a temporary reprieve.

If there is a God find out what God expects and act accordingly, but as Rabbi Avikah put it as part of the Kabballah any request for change must be based on “May you desire to start with me”.

There is a bigger game afoot.

Some tips: 1) Join a whistle-blower support group and discuss strategy based on advice from experienced operaters.
2) Send your disclosure in a PDF format that cannot be converted to gibberish.
3) If you are not happy with the way the original investigation was handled, follow the official appeal process to its conclusion.
3) Still not satisfied? Seek advice from your support group on where to go from here: Options may include, blogging it, disclose it to a reputable invistigative journalist or wiki leaks?.

Some whistle blowers do have the last laugh. Wilke springs to mind.

<< I am arguing look to life values to think through this issue. >>

Paul you seem to be stating the obvious. Of course we should look at the whole picture.

Before you become a whistle-blower or before you do your duty to try and uphold the rules or accepted practices, you need to ask yourself a few questions:

What does your boss or your employer want? Do they want managers who ignore the code of conduct and cause staff to become disaffected and inefficient as a result or do they want a set of rules that everyone knows applies and applies equally to all, so that everyone knows where they stand and can be sure that they can operate efficiently under?

Is there possibly corruption in the higher echelons? Is there some other hidden agenda? Is the whole hierarchy really based on personalities above all else?

Will I be commended or frowned upon if I do what the code of conduct implores us to do: to report infringements?

What will the likely end result? Will the rules be clearer and better adhered to? Will my department or institute be better for it? Will my career and work relations be better for it? Etc.

In short: what are big values for your employer, organisation and yourself? And how do they fit into the sort of action that you are thinking of taking?

All of these aspects need to be carefully considered.

Trouble is: just as you so often cannot really know where you stand with the rules, you often can't really be sure what the end result of positive actions might be or how those actions might be accepted by various people.

Reading this made me cry ...it is practically word for word what has happened to me.
To this date nothing has changed ...except me.
Here I am now ...unemployed, abandoned by the unions, a reputation that I could have never thought possible when I began my 'whistle-blowing". I have no confidence in myself and have had to have counselling but I will never get over the way I have been treated. All because I loved my work and cared about my colleagues.
Anyone that has been through this and managed to come out the other end undamaged would be unique.

Yes it is not just confined to public servants as Cornflower suggests. As a former public servant, I witnessed citizen's be fed all manner of BS in regard to their complaints or queries. It is all about protecting the masters, not only the political masters, but the senior echelons of the Public Service - it is a mutal parasitic arrangment. Empire builders and whistleblowers go together like oil and water.

Many public servants forget their primary aim is to 'serve' not to 'command'. Much of the experience I had was related to a 'spin versus reality' situation, due to pressures to be 'seen to be doing something' other than acutally doing it and lots of taxpayer money spent on the facade. A Clayton's approach, if you like.

The only way to reverse the experience of whistleblowers it to make approaches to the media lawful in the case of public interest if the internal process is proven to be inadequate. The Ombudsman is probably the best outlet although issues of jurisdiction can limit scope.

APS Security Clearances are more about one's suitability to 'access' information rather any emphasis on integrity as if an ability to keep a secret does more to recommend you than a desire to 'serve' the citizenry. No organisation will ever be perfect but the problems within the APS are systemic and changes to APS Codes of Conduct mean ZIP if it is all talk and no action; or if repercussions of disclosure may lead to imprisonment.

The experience of the author is not uncommon. The impacts of whistle blowing are carried for a long time. I had cause to deal with other whistleblowers (or complainants) in the course of my work and observed how little attention was paid to their claims; the primary objective being to either refute the claims (often mocking or diminishing the complainant) or to find ways to cover up wrongdoings. Words like 'vexatious', 'malicious' and 'shrill' or comments like "poor old...still going at it" are often used to demean the complainant.

Many people give up because it is all too hard.

In the industry I work in, the health industry, there are few whistleblowers.

With nursing, we do tend to correct each other, and report serious problems. Usually these are unpleasant situations, but they have to be done if patients have been affected.

At the other end of the scale, if the problem involves a Doctor, the buck usually stops with the powerful Australian Medical Association, and there it meets a brick wall!

It would have to be a very serious and widespread problem indeed for myself or many of my colleagues to take that lot on.
The ones that were brave enough to take on Doctors generally lost their jobs and their minds!

The public service only protect 'their own' if employees put their heads down and do not speak up or protest when 'wronged' themselves, or do not stand up for another person or situation that requires addressing, in some situations ranging from theft, fraud, unethical behaviour to bullying.

I learned the hard way twice over 17 years.

It cost me two years on the first occasion as a contractor during 1998 and 1999 making one comment about a re-knowned snake in the grass who cost a great deal of misery to victims over many years in addition to deliberate incompetence and blame gaming to many staff members [lies stated to new gullible Managers].

The second occasion during 2006 standing up to another re-knowned previous Offendor who targeted the lower tiered employed public servants of a certain department.

Some of these victims were younger people, some middle aged and of both genders.

Many perpetrators do not discriminate with age or gender.

As I informed Belly this year, I would have loved being a Union Rep standing up for the rights of others; however I have done this quietly on quite a few occasions for people it has affected significantly; again this year for a Hairdressing girlfriend. After hours upon hours of admin prep work, most victims give in, drop their complaint [when the public service drag the cases out], trying to get on with their lives yet most sadly, dealing with the after affects/side affects.

As I did during 2006.

Mmmmmm....Merry Christmas to those who sat on the sidelines and did nothing for my incident four years ago...experiences make a victim stronger and time heals for most people.

By the way I should in all fairness state, that there are quite a few departments who do effectively and fairly deal with corruption inside their own departments along with effective management of bullying and following through on allegations. Two departments a few years ago not only addressed, followed through and dealt with crime reported, they allowed the media and in so doing, put the cases up for public awareness.

When people state 'the public service'; just realise that not all departments secretaries and general managers turn a blind eye to allegations or claims made. There are many public servants I have worked with over many years who possess morals and values and the courage to investigate and fully follow through on misconduct using external staff, agencies and the police.

The cases I mentioned were with one reknowned department that many people have complained about over the years. To date, I doubt if their Secretary, heirachy, procedures, human resource management staff and practices have changed at all.

Isn't it interesting that no one has a positive tale to tell about the way our senior servants manage complaints made to them?

I hand-delivered a complaint to the CSA over 4 months ago, addressed to Geoff Mutton, the Chief Operating Officer. The complaint was to do with an incident in which I was threatened by one of his staff with having a false entry made on my file if I did not "cooperate". Of course, I immediately severed the connection and the false entry was duly made and still remains on the file, despite my having provided evidence that it is false and registering a complaint about the threat via email within 30 seconds of hanging up

I have still not received any response to my complaint, which is a serious matter involving a breach of the Crimes Act - "Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence".

I do not believe that Mr Mutton's lack of response is appropriate for such a serious offence. In fact, I believe Mr Mutton is very well aware that his staff routinely breach the Crimes Act in this way and is involved in an active cover-up of the breaches. That in itself is a breach of his responsibilities under the Public Service Act and should be enough for his boss, Phillippa Godwin, to sack him.

Anyone like to take a bet on that happening?

we are unique
As you write, it is important and fair to acknowledge there are also good people in the APS who do follow up on complaints (or at least try). It is easy to become cynical after a time and lump all public servants and departments in the same impotent basket, which is equally unfair.

One high profile department was in the news a while back in regard to the way management negotiated its pay reviews using threats to block back dating of a pay rise to ensure everyone signed off on the new agreement. This is common. One department I worked (not the whistleblowing one) was known throughout to be one of the worst for allowing bullying to run rampant and unchecked. And where attitudes to duty of care and service delivery is limited to purely an economic rationalist approach. There was absolutely no interest in actually delivering the 'service' and everything was done to distort the figures and concerns raised about staff shortages were diminished and demeaned.

Suze I have had nurses, doctors, surgeons etc treat me horribly – lied to direct questions, cause me pain and a lot of distress. Just about everyone I know has a story about hospital mess ups and the mean staff.

Nope it wont happen Anti. Same with the government department I deal with, they review their policies only – which is often a surprise when you were told that there wasn’t an existing policy to begin with. Maybe they reviewed their non-existent policy policy.

Nothing changes and it is quickly learnt how useless lodging complaints are, which I guess they depend on in government to keep the public quiet.

And like Jullibean and Winner, if you work for who you make a complaint about you quickly learn that payback’s a bitch with a long memory. They casually will destroy your life, career, etc etc.

Pelican, you have perhaps missed my second post stating in all fairness every Department differs and there are staff who do follow through on allegations. Refer above Antiseptic's post.

Table the issue with your Local Member in Parliament Antiseptic.

we are unique
I saw your second post WAU, and I just wanted to second your thoughts. :)