Case study one

The following issues are covered in case study one:

1. What is the correct process for making a public interest disclosure?
2. Can a discloser go to the media?
3. What advice should the PID officer give to a potential discloser?
4. After a disclosure has been made what ongoing advice should the PID officer give to a discloser?

Part one

John Smith has worked for the Department of Generalities for 6 years as an investigations officer. In this time he has heard whispers of senior management taking bribes from the industry the department regulates. He has noticed that some complaints are dealt with more leniently than others.

Recently, while attending a work social function John witnessed his Branch Manager accepting a large amount of money from an industry leader who was then under significant investigation by the department.

In the week following John heard that the Branch Manager abruptly discontinued this investigation.

John is concerned that improper conduct has been occurring over a long period of time and wants to make a public interest disclosure. He goes to see his Director and makes a public interest disclosure.

Six months pass and John is concerned that his complaint has not been dealt with. He rings the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner’s PID Advice and Referral Line on 1800 355 835 to complain. This is the first time John has sought advice about the PID Act.

Analysis

John has not followed the process set down in the PID Act for making a public interest disclosure. John must make his disclosure to the PID officer for the Department. His Director is not the PID officer and is not able to receive disclosures of public interest information. As a consequence, John does not have the protection provided in the PID Act and is exposed to the risk of detrimental action.

John's director should have advised him to seek advice from the department's PID officer about making a disclosure.

This way John would have been fully informed of his rights and obligations under the PID Act. When making the disclosure it would have been best practice for John to use the PID Lodgement Form.

There may be another proper authority for John to make his disclosure to. If his complaint involves an offence under State law then he can also make his disclosure to a police officer or the Corruption and Crime Commission. He can ring the OPSSC PID Advice and Referral Line on 1800 355 835 to get the name of the PID officer at the CCC.

Part two

Same factual background as part one, but this time John goes to see the relevant PID officer for advice prior to making the public interest disclosure.

At this meeting the PID officer provides John with a copy of the Thinking of Making a Public Interest Disclosure and advises that John should read this to ensure he fully understands the process and consequences of making a disclosure. He suggests that John take some time to consider the brochure and asks him to make another appointment with him should he wish to proceed.

After reading the brochure John is still keen to proceed. He meets with the PID officer again. At this meeting the PID officer highlights that John must believe on reasonable grounds that the information he has is or may be true. John realises that he can’t substantiate the whispers but can complain about what he saw at the work social function. He decides to proceed with making a disclosure about this.

The PID officer reads Part 2 E(1) Advice to Disclosers of the Commissioner’s guidelines to John. John states that he understands his rights and obligations once he makes a disclosure. John and the PID officer complete the PID Lodgement Form.

The PID officer is aware that John and the Branch Manager, Marcia, have not always seen eye to eye and she wonders whether this is the reason John has made the PID.

Two months later the PID officer provides advice to John about the action that will be taken.

A month later John wants to hurry things along and decides to go the media and talk to them about what he saw Marcia do.

Analysis

The PID officer advised John that he must have reasonable grounds to believe the information he has is or may be true, and that false or misleading disclosures attract a penalty. John then decided to confine his disclosure to an event he witnessed.

The fact that John and Marcia have not always seen eye to eye is not a relevant consideration when the PID officer undertakes her assessment to determine whether John’s information is public interest information. It is important that the PID officer remain impartial. Whilst it is possible to refuse to investigate a disclosure if the PID officer considers that the matter is vexatious, the discloser’s intent or motive does not preclude a matter being public interest information. The PID officer should complete the PID Assessment Form when assessing the disclosure.

The PID officer correctly provided advice to John within the required three month timeframe of the action that had been taken or was proposed to be taken in relation to his disclosure. In addition once any investigation into a disclosure is complete a final report must be provided to the discloser.

John was advised by the PID officer at the time he made the public interest disclosure that he would forfeit the protection given by the PID Act if he discloses information otherwise than in accordance with the Act eg. if he provides information to the media. In addition to losing protection under the Act, John may have committed an offence if he disclosed information that might identify or tend to identify anyone as a person in respect of whom a disclosure of public interest information has been made. This offence carries a penalty of $24,000 or two years imprisonment.