Feature—Whistleblowing Reviewed
The operation of the Defence Whistleblower Scheme was reviewed by the Inspector General Division.
The present scheme replaced an earlier fraud-related scheme that was managed by the Inspector General for over 10 years. When the scheme was expanded in July 2002, its operations was to be reviewed after three years to see whether any changes were needed.
The review was also consistent with Recommendation 24 of the June 2005 Senate Committee Report, The Effectiveness of Australia's Military Justice System. This report recommended, among other things, 'that the ADF's program designed to protect those reporting wrongdoing from reprisals be reviewed regularly to ensure its effectiveness'.
The legislative basis for the scheme lies in section 16 of the Public Service Act 1999, Public Service Regulations 2.4 – 2.7 and Public Service Commissioner Directions, which require agency heads to:
- prohibit victimisation or discrimination against an APS employee because the employee has reported alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct;
- establish procedures for dealing with whistleblower reports; and
- ensure that employees are made aware of procedures and encouraged to make disclosures.
With the aim of maintaining consistency of treatment across Defence the scheme extends to all of our personnel, including contractors, through the application of Defence Instruction (General) PERS 45-5, Defence Whistleblower Scheme.
A total of 690 whistleblower allegations were made between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2006, with 178 allegations made in 2005–06. Allegations of fraud and unethical conduct account for about two-thirds of all reports made through the scheme. The remainder consists of matters such as harassment, mismanagement of resources, use of drugs, discrimination, occupational health and safety, security and assault.
A pleasing feature of the scheme is that there are relatively few vexatious allegations. This is not to suggest that all allegations are totally sound or completely accurate. Many are found, to varying degrees, to be erroneous. Many suffer from the fact they only reflect one dimension of the story. But there are only a relatively small number that could be described as genuinely vexatious, mischievous or malicious.
While the level of allegations remains high, a substantial proportion of matters reported through the scheme are not progressed to the investigation stage. Each allegation is assessed and a decision is made as to whether the allegation warrants investigation.
In many cases, an initial assessment reveals that the allegation is incapable of being substantiated because of the lack of evidence. Further, there may be little prospect of identifying a suspect and therefore obtaining a criminal conviction, a conviction under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 or a breach of the APS Code of Conduct.
Of the 178 allegations made in 2005–06, 90 proceeded to investigation, 75 were unfounded and 13 are still under consideration for investigation. 58 investigations were completed in 2005–06 resulting in the following outcomes:
- Unfounded 34;
- Administrative Action 12;
- Action under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1903 (eight guilty and one not guilty); and
- Action under the Public Service Act 1999 (guilty) 3.
Another positive feature of the scheme is the absence of virtually any reports by whistleblowers claiming that they have been the subject of some form of reprisal after making an allegation.
Conclusions
The incidence of reports suggests that Defence people have confidence in our capacity to protect their identity in the event that they decide to use the scheme to report some form of wrongdoing. The figures also indicate that there is a fair amount of confidence we will actually do something about any allegations made. There is no doubt that we have a much better picture of fraud and related matters across Defence since the introduction of the scheme.
The scheme has established itself as one of the principal means we have of gathering information about the conduct of Defence personnel and management practices, thus providing yet another level of scrutiny.
Policing
In close collaboration with the Information Systems Division, the Defence Security Authority and the Services, the Inspector General Group is presently upgrading the Defence Policing and Security Management System.
The system is a case management tool that assists Defence investigators in investigating policing and security matters. It is used by the Defence investigative authorities—that is, the Defence Security Authority, Navy, Army and Air Force Service Police as well as fraud and whistleblower investigators within the Inspector General Division. Its use is mandated in Defence Instruction (General) ADMIN 45-2, Reporting and Investigation of Alleged Offences within the Australian Defence Organisation.
The introduction of Stage 2 of the system will mean that, for the first time, Defence will have the capability to track and report on any policing or security matter from a comprehensive source.
Stage 2 will provide visibility of all of the information relating to matters being dealt with by the Defence investigative authorities. This capability has the clear potential to influence the behaviour of those people operating within the system, thus enforcing a higher level of accountability.
The Defence Security Authority has the most pressing need for an upgraded database system. Accordingly, the incident reporting system and investigation management capability will be implemented there first, around the end of 2006 or early in 2007. Following this, Stage 2 will be phased in for the other Defence investigative authorities.