Review of protected disclosure procedures

Transcription

1 Review of protected disclosure procedures Section 60 of the Protected Disclosure Act 2012 December 2014

2 Authorised and published by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, Level 1, 459 Collins Street, Melbourne. December 2014 If you would like to receive this publication in an accessible format, such as large print or audio, please phone IBAC s Communication team on , using the National Relay Service if required, or communications@ibac.vic.gov.au For further information or additional copies, please contact: Communication unit Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Level 1, 459 Collins Street, Melbourne, 3000 Tel Also published on the IBAC website Printed by Impact Digital, Brunswick. ISBN (print) ISBN (online) Unless indicated otherwise, this work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit It is a condition of this Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence that you must give credit to the original author, who is the State of Victoria.

3 Table of contents 1 Executive summary Conducting the review Undertaking the review Review findings Consistency with PD Act, PD Regulations and IBAC guidelines Availability of procedures Suggested outcomes 6 2 Conducting the review Review scope Review approach Review sample Review tools Resources allocated to the review Review activities 11 3 Undertaking the review surveys Responses and response rates Survey results Name and size of organisation Introduction of protected disclosure procedures Persons dealing with protected disclosures Awareness and training about protected disclosures Implementation of protected disclosure procedures Effectiveness of the protected disclosure procedures Promoting awareness of the PD Act 22 4 Undertaking the review procedures assessments Procedures consistent with the PD Act, PD Regulations and IBAC guidelines Best practice models Procedures using template models Victoria Police protected disclosure procedures Organisations with no procedures in place or procedures inconsistent with legislation 30 or IBAC guidelines Organisations with no procedures in place Procedures adapted from existing WP Act procedures or interstate model procedures Procedures with significant omissions Common errors or omissions in procedures 33 5 Undertaking the review making procedures readily available Readability of the procedures Accessibility of protected disclosure information 38 6 Review findings Consistency with PD Act, PD Regulations and IBAC guidelines Availability of procedures 42 7 Suggested outcomes 43 8 Appendices 45 Appendix 1 Public bodies reviewed 46 Appendix 2 Survey questions 50 Appendix 3 PD procedures review checklist template 56

4 2 Review of protected disclosure procedures This page has been left blank intentionally

5 1 Executive summary 3

6 1 Executive summary 1.1 Conducting the review In Victoria, public bodies that can receive disclosures are required to establish and publish procedures about making, handling and notifying disclosures. All public bodies are required to establish and publish procedures about protecting people from detrimental action taken in reprisal for making a disclosure. In 2014, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) reviewed the procedures established and implemented by government and local government agencies following the introduction of the Protected Disclosure Act 2012 (the PD Act). Under section 60 of the PD Act, IBAC may, at any time, review both the procedures established by a public body under section 58 of the PD Act and their implementation to ensure that they are consistent with the PD Act, the Protected Disclosure Regulations 2013 (PD Regulations) and the guidelines issued by IBAC under section 57 of the PD Act (IBAC guidelines 1 ). IBAC also examined whether public bodies had met the requirements of section 59(4) of the PD Act by ensuring that their procedures were readily available to the public and their employees. One hundred and fourteen public bodies were selected for review. A review team was established to: conduct an initial survey of the review sample undertake a desktop review of procedures and other supporting documents interview key public body representatives, if considered necessary. Two types of public bodies are required to develop and implement procedures under section 58 of the PD Act. The first category consists of those public bodies that can receive disclosures, and make notifications to IBAC of assessable disclosures. These public bodies are required to have procedures for both making and handling protected disclosures and for protecting people against detrimental action taken by their officers. This category consists of nine departments, 11 administrative offices, the Victorian Public Sector Commission and the (then) 79 local councils. All of these public bodies were included in the review sample. This first category also includes one investigative entity, Victoria Police. Victoria Police is in the unusual position of being subject to IBAC s review, but is the only public body subject to that review which is also an investigative entity. Unlike the other investigative entities, Victoria Police also has specific investigative powers under the Victoria Police Act 2013 (Victoria Police Act) that they must use for protected disclosure complaints. The second category consists of public bodies that cannot receive disclosures, but may have disclosures made about them. These bodies are required only to have procedures for protecting people against detrimental action taken by their officers. There are a large number of public bodies in this category, and so it was necessary to select a sample for the purposes of the review. The sample needed to reflect not only the sectors in which these public bodies operate, but also the relative size of the public body and its geographic location. Since the PD Act provides for a regular review of public bodies, only certain sectors were covered in this first review. Selection was made on the basis of the number of assessable disclosures/complaints received by or notified to IBAC, as well as those sectors from which most queries have been received by IBAC about protected disclosures. On the basis of that information, the selected sectors were: universities and TAFE colleges water corporations public hospitals and health care services statutory authorities. 1 Guidelines for making a handling protected disclosures, Guidelines for protected disclosure welfare management, IBAC, June Review of protected disclosure procedures

7 1.2 Undertaking the review All public bodies selected were provided with an online survey to complete. At the same time, they were required to provide a copy of their procedures to IBAC for review. There was a very high (94%) response rate to the survey only seven organisations did not complete it. This included three of the 15 selected public bodies and four of the 79 local councils. All 20 departments and administrative offices completed the survey. Only four organisations that can receive disclosures did not respond. Given the high rate of return, this provides a good representative sample of the views of organisations for the purposes of the review. The review team used a checklist to ensure each procedure document was assessed consistently. The review team assessed all procedures against the checklist to determine whether the procedures developed were consistent with the PD Act, the PD Regulations and the IBAC guidelines. The survey responses informed the review as to the efforts made by the organisations to implement procedures and to make them readily available to members of the public and their own staff. As it was considered that sufficient information was obtained by means of the survey and the review of procedures, the review team did not interview survey respondents or organisation representatives. However, during the course of the review, there were communications and some telephone conversations with some contact officers from organisations, in order to collect further information or to seek clarification in relation to material provided. 1.3 Review findings Consistency with PD Act, PD Regulations and IBAC guidelines Of the 114 organisations reviewed, 88 organisations met the requirements of section 60 of the PD Act by developing and implementing protected disclosure procedures that were consistent with the PD Act, PD Regulations and IBAC guidelines. The review found that 26 organisations had not met the requirements of section 60 of the PD Act because: the organisation had not developed a protected disclosure procedure (seven organisations) the organisation s procedure contained substantially incorrect information about the organisation s roles and responsibilities under the PD Act the organisation s procedure did not include essential information about the PD Act and its operation. All departments and administrative offices had procedures in place. All but four local councils had procedures in place. Of the selected public bodies, one of each of the TAFEs, hospitals and public sector bodies, had no procedures in place. The water corporations and universities all had procedures in place Availability of procedures The review team assessed organisations compliance with the requirement under section 59(4) of the PD Act by considering whether: the procedure was easy to read and understand for a range of different potential users the procedure could be easily located on the organisation s website, or their organisation s intranet. 5

8 1 Executive summary In relation to the first issue, the review team found that the majority of procedures were able to be read and understood by potential users, but there were some common problems that occurred with both the procedures that had met the requirements of section 60 of the PD Act and those that had not. These problems were: difficulties in explaining the complex requirements of the PD Act for making and assessing a protected disclosure in simple terms confusion as to who the procedures were directed to potential disclosers or protected disclosure coordinators (PD coordinators) and welfare officers. To a certain extent, these problems were alleviated in those procedures that were well-structured and organised documents containing useful diagrams and examples, and by the provision of additional explanatory material. In relation to the second issue, very few procedures were able to be located easily on organisations websites. Using the term protected disclosure to search for information usually resulted in finding relevant information, but this is not a common term in the community, compared to the use of the terms whistleblowing and whistleblower. The review found that only those organisations that had addressed both of these two issues were able to ensure that their procedures were readily available to members of the public. In relation to making information available to their own staff, the review found that organisations had made information available about protected disclosures in a variety of ways, including through their intranet, as well as through specific training courses, awareness sessions, and induction. However, only 30 per cent of organisations had attempted to measure the effectiveness of their methods of communicating the message about protected disclosures. 1.4 Suggested outcomes There is no penalty under the PD Act for failure to have procedures in place within six months of the introduction of the Act. However, the seven organisations that do not have procedures are depriving their own staff and members of the public of information that would assist them to make a disclosure about that organisation, and thus potentially receive protections under the PD Act. It is therefore suggested that these organisations be required to establish procedures by 31 March The 19 organisations with procedures in place that are inconsistent with the legislation or IBAC guidelines will be able to achieve consistency by amending their existing procedures by removing or amending incorrect information and including missing information. There are some good practice models in relation to each type of procedure that these organisations could use. All organisations would benefit from reviewing their procedures in light of the issues raised in this report. All organisations should consider whether their procedures can be simplified or made more user-friendly, and should ensure that their procedures are made readily available, particularly to members of the public. 6 Review of protected disclosure procedures

9 2 Conducting the review 7

10 2 Conducting the review 2.1 Review scope The objective of this review was to review the procedures established and implemented by public bodies in the Victorian public sector under the PD Act. This review covers the introduction and implementation by government and local government agencies of new procedures following the commencement of the PD Act in Under section 60 of the PD Act, IBAC may at any time review the procedures established by a public body under section 58 of the Act and their implementation to ensure that they are consistent with the PD Act, the PD Regulations and the guidelines issued by IBAC under section 57 of the Act. As part of the assessment of the implementation of procedures, IBAC also examined whether public bodies had met the requirements of section 59(4) of the PD Act by ensuring that their procedures were readily available to the public, each member, officer and employee of the public body, and, in the case of Victoria Police, each member of Victoria police personnel. 2.2 Review approach The approach for this review was to conduct an initial survey completed by the review sample, undertake a desktop review of procedures and other supporting documents, interview with key public body representatives, if considered necessary, and report writing. It was not considered necessary to conduct any interviews, as explained further in section Review sample Under section 58 of the PD Act, there are two types of public bodies that are required to develop and implement procedures. The first category consists of those public bodies that can receive disclosures, and can make notifications to IBAC of assessable disclosures. These public bodies are required to have procedures under both section 58(1) (making and handling protected disclosures) and section 58(5) (procedures for protecting people against detrimental action taken by their officers). This category consists of nine departments, the 11 administrative offices, the Victorian Public Sector Commission (VPSC) and the (then) 79 local councils. All of these public bodies were included in the review sample. This first category also includes the investigative entities, the Victorian Ombudsman (the VO), Victoria Police, and the Victorian Inspectorate (the VI). The VO and the VI are specifically excluded from the scope of IBAC s review under section 60, but Victoria Police is not. Victoria Police is in the unusual position of being subject to IBAC s review, but is the only public body subject to that review which is also an investigative entity. Unlike the other investigative entities, Victoria Police also has specific investigative powers under the (then) Police Regulation Act 1958 that were incorporated into the Victoria Police Act that they must use for protected disclosure complaints. The second category consists of public bodies that cannot receive disclosures, but may have disclosures made about them, and that are required only to have procedures under section 58(5). There are a large number of public bodies in this category, and so it was necessary to select a sample for the purposes of the review. The sample needed to reflect not only the sectors in which these public bodies operate, such as education, health, and provision of essential services, but also the relative size of the public body and its geographic location (central Melbourne, suburban, regional). 8 Review of protected disclosure procedures

11 Since the PD Act provides for a regular review of public bodies, it made sense to cover only certain sectors in this first review. Selection was made on the basis of the number of assessable disclosures/complaints IBAC has received or which have been notified to IBAC, as well as those sectors from which most queries have been received by IBAC about protected disclosures. On the basis of that information, the selected sectors were: universities and TAFE colleges water corporations public hospitals and health care services statutory authorities. The following types of public bodies were chosen as selected public bodies : three universities (RMIT University (central), Deakin University (regional), LaTrobe University (suburban)) three TAFE colleges (Kangan TAFE (central), Box Hill Institute of TAFE (suburban), Central Gippsland Institute of TAFE (regional)) three public hospitals and/or health care services (Gippsland Southern Health Service (regional), Royal Melbourne Hospital (central), Southern Health (suburban) three water corporations (Yarra Valley Water (suburban), South East Water (central), Goulburn Valley Water (regional)) three statutory authorities (VicRoads, WorkSafe, Victorian Commission for Liquor and Gambling Regulation). The total number of public bodies included in the review was 114; these are listed in Appendix Review tools Several review tools were used to assist in conducting the review. The first was an online survey using Survey Monkey. It consisted of multiple choice and free text questions. A copy of the survey questions is included in Appendix 2. The survey was divided into seven sections, requiring information from the survey participants in relation to the following: 1. name and size of public body 2. development and introduction of protected disclosure procedures by the public body 3. details about PD coordinators, protected disclosure officers (PD officers) and welfare officers in the public body including their appointment, roles and responsibilities, and place in the organisation 4. Awareness and training about protected disclosure in the public body the nature and extent of training provided to PD coordinators, PD officers, welfare officers, supervisors and managers, and employees, and methods by which the public body s leaders enforce messages about protected disclosures 5. implementation of PD procedures within the public body, in particular, the development of any tools and internal processes 6. self-assessment by the public body as to the effectiveness of their policies and procedures, including an opportunity to highlight any particularly good practice and also any areas for improvement in the protected disclosure legislative regime 7. how public bodies have promoted awareness of the PD Act and their organisation s role and responsibilities under the PD Act to both their staff and members of the public. 9

12 2 Conducting the review The second tool was a procedures assessment checklist, used to assess each of the procedures in order to determine their consistency with the PD Act, PD Regulations and the IBAC guidelines. A copy of the checklist is included in Appendix 3. For those organisations that were only required to have procedures to protect persons from detrimental action, the review officers did not complete Part 1 of the checklist. Parts 1 and 2 of the checklist identified the major features of the legislation and guidance and asked for the review officer to answer three basic questions: Did the procedure contain information about each itemised feature of the PD Act and guidelines? Was the information provided consistent with the PD Act and guidelines? If the information was not consistent, in what way was it not? Part 3 of the checklist required the review officer to assess the information provided in each procedure about secure processes for receiving and managing protected disclosures, annual reporting requirements and information about training requirements. Part 4 of the checklist required the review officer to assess the usability of a procedure in terms of how accessible it was to staff and members of the public (for example, website or intranet location), readability in terms of structure, aids to understanding such as diagrams, and language used. This review was also informed by the results of two projects already conducted by IBAC. The first was the PD coordinators survey conducted by the IBAC Prevention and Education unit, evaluating IBAC s 2013 information sessions for PD coordinators and PD officers. The second project reviewed the integrity frameworks of six Victorian local councils. The project concentrated on the following elements of an integrity framework: risk management management and commitment deterrent and prevention measures detection measures staff education and training. 10 Review of protected disclosure procedures

13 2.5 Resources allocated to the review The review was led by Vanessa Twigg, Principal Legal Advisor, Protected Disclosures who was assisted by members of the IBAC Strategic Services division in developing and conducting the survey. The Principal Legal Advisor, Protected Disclosures, and IBAC legal team s legal support officer (the review team) conducted the assessment of all the procedures provided by the organisations. IBAC s Operations and Prevention Committee approved the project plan for the review, and approved the review report. Progress of the review was oversighted by a steering committee consisting of IBAC s Director Legal, the Managing Lawyer, and the Manager Strategic Policy, Planning and Research. The committee met with the review team on a weekly basis and primarily reviewed the progress of the assessment of procedures and analysis of the results. The committee checked and reviewed deadlines for completion of the various components of the review. 2.6 Review activities The review commenced in July Tailored explanation letters were sent to the head of each public body providing an explanation of the review, their organisation s role and a request to participate in the survey and nominate a contact officer for the purposes of the review. The deadline for responding to the survey was 15 August All public bodies selected were provided with an online survey to complete. At the same time, they were required to provide a copy of their procedures to IBAC for review. There was a very high (94%) response rate to the survey. When broken down by organisation type responses were provided by: 20 of the 20 (100%) departments and administrative offices 75 of the 79 (95%) local councils 12 of the 15 (80%) selected public bodies. Using a checklist to assess procedures enabled the review team to take a consistent approach to each procedure document. The review team assessed all procedures against the checklist to determine whether the procedures developed were consistent with the PD Act, the PD Regulations and the IBAC guidelines. The survey responses informed the review as to the efforts made by the organisations to implement procedures and to make them readily available to members of the public and their own staff. The review team conducted the assessment of the procedures from early September until mid-october. After consideration of the assessments and the survey responses, it was determined that it was not necessary to conduct any interviews to support the review. However, the review team did make and receive calls and s from a number of contact officers from different organisations to seek clarification and collect further information to help to inform the review. 11

14 12 Review of protected disclosure procedures This page has been left blank intentionally

15 3 Undertaking the review surveys 13

16 3 Undertaking the review surveys The survey respondents were required to provide information that would inform the review about how their procedures were developed, how they had been implemented, and what the organisation had done to make the procedures accessible to their staff and members of the public. Most of the information obtained by means of the surveys has not been independently verified by the review team. However, by undertaking the assessment of each procedure and its location on the organisation s website, it was possible to measure the accuracy of survey respondents information about the overall accessibility of their procedures. 3.1 Responses and response rates Overall, 94 per cent of organisations responded to the survey. This was a very high response rate. Only seven of the 114 organisations did not complete the survey 2. This included three of the 15 selected public bodies (which only need to have procedures about protecting people from detrimental action) and four of the 79 local councils, which can receive protected disclosures. All 20 departments and administrative offices completed the survey. Given the high rate of return, this provides a good representative sample of the views of organisations for the purposes of the review. 3.2 Survey results Name and size of organisation The demographics of the participating organisations vary considerably, and some of these differences appear to have had an impact on the organisation s ability to introduce and implement protected disclosure procedures within their organisation and make them available to their staff and members of the public. However, all of the organisations have access to the internet and websites for use in providing information about protected disclosures. In the majority of cases, the organisation has its own website, but several organisations, such the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate (Local Government Inspectorate) and the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel, have a dedicated part of another organisation s website. This creates an extra layer of difficulty for such organisations in making their procedures accessible. The numbers of staff employed in these organisations range from 20 (Office of the Governor) to 17,426 (Victoria Police). Government departments staffing numbers range from 576 (Department of Treasury and Finance) to 65,000 (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development). Local councils staff numbers vary from 64 (Borough of Queenscliffe) to approximately 1,400 people. The numbers of staff employed in councils that have the same demographic features appear to be quite consistent. For example, remote regional councils have between 120 and 200 staff; whereas inner city councils have between 900 and 1,300 staff. These ranges of staff numbers also reflect the coverage of the organisation. Victoria Police and the departments have staff in Melbourne, the suburbs and throughout regional areas; whereas councils cover very specific geographic areas, but vary considerably in population demographics, geographic location, and area (acreage) covered. Those organisations with a number of offices throughout Victoria or large regional areas face challenges in sharing information and providing training for their staff, and also the provision of information to members of the public. 2 The organisations were: Box Hill Institute, Central Gippsland Institute of TAFE, the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Banyule City Council, Casey City Council, Wellington Shire Council, and Yarra City Council 14 Review of protected disclosure procedures

17 3.2.2 Introduction of protected disclosure procedures Figure 1: Use made of IBAC s protected disclosure guidelines in preparing their procedures The PD Act required all public bodies that were in existence at the time of the commencement of the Act on 10 February 2013, to have new procedures in place within six months, ie. by 10 August Eighteen survey respondents stated that they did not have procedures in place by that time. Reasons given for this non-compliance included: (62) 58% (7) 7% (37) 35% A little A lot Some changes in staffing or lack of dedicated staff resources and conflicting work priorities for the person nominated to prepare the procedures delay caused by having to have council formal approval of the procedures at a scheduled council meeting that took place after 10 August 2013 in one case, the organisation was not aware of its obligation to prepare procedures. However, the majority of organisations had their procedures in place shortly after the 10 August deadline. As identified in section 4.2, a number of organisations still do not have procedures in place or they could not be located by the review team. Several of those organisations did not respond to the survey. One of the matters being reviewed is whether an organisation s procedure is consistent with the IBAC guidelines. Of the 106 survey respondents, 105 provided information about how much use they had made of these guidelines. 3 Approximately 93 per cent of organisations had made some or a lot of use of IBAC s guidelines (see Figure 1) 4. The majority of these organisations had found IBAC s guidelines either quite useful or extremely useful in preparing their own procedures (see Figure 2) 5. Figure 2: How useful organisation found IBAC s protected disclosure guidelines in preparing their procedures (34) 32% (7) 7% (51) 49% (14) 13% Slightly useful Moderately useful Quite useful Extremely useful 3 The total number of respondents varies throughout the report depending on the number of organisations that responded to a specific question. Respondent numbers in relation to specific questions range from 100 to 107 respondents. For questions that were only relevant to organisations that can receive protected disclosures, respondent numbers range from 83 to 95 4 Question Question

18 3 Undertaking the review surveys A large number of survey respondents also made use of procedures provided by other organisations, many from within Victoria (57%), other integrity agencies (12%) and private sector organisations (10%) 6. This is borne out by the review of the procedures where several template models were used as a basis for new procedures. Around a third (32%) of survey respondents stated that they worked with other organisations in preparing their procedures 7. The Department of Justice engaged the Victorian Government Solicitor s Office (VGSO) to prepare template procedures which were used by all the departments and the majority of the administrative offices. Comments provided by survey respondents indicated that some engaged external organisations to assist them in setting up their procedures, including law firms Maddocks and Russell Kennedy, and consulting businesses such as FOI Solutions and CT Management. Of the 34 survey respondents who prepared procedures with other organisations, 59 per cent (20 organisations) advised that they used a legal services provider or consulting business 8. Some council respondents indicated that they worked with neighbouring councils to develop procedures together, including: Latrobe City Council, Frankston City Council and Knox City Council 9 Horsham Library, Yarriambiack Shire Council and Hindmarsh Shire Council 10. Another council respondent, Moira Shire Council, acknowledged that they identified some shortcomings with their procedures and had used procedures from Mitchell Shire Council and Baw Baw Shire Council as a comparison 11. Other respondents used information obtained during IBAC presentations conducted in May/June 2013 in Melbourne and some regional areas. Information from other interstate integrity agencies, Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission and NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption was also used by at least one council Persons dealing with protected disclosures One hundred and two of 105 respondents (96%) stated that they have a PD coordinator. The majority (88%) perform the PD coordinator function in addition to other duties, while 12 per cent employ a dedicated PD coordinator 13. These organisations consisted of 11 local councils and Victoria Police, however, only Victoria Police appears to have a truly dedicated PD coordinator, as the job titles of the 11 dedicated council PD coordinators suggest that they are managers or supervisors of Human Resources (HR), Corporate Services, and Governance business units. Similarly, in organisations where the PD coordinator role was an additional duty, the people providing services as PD coordinators were often the managers of Corporate Services or HR, or in-house legal counsel. Some organisations gave this function to their manager, risk and compliance 14, or governance, and others gave the PD functions to staff who managed complaints and Freedom of Information requests 15. Five organisations stated that their Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was also the PD coordinator. This could be a problem if a disclosure was being made against the CEO. 6 Question Question Question La Trobe City Council survey response 10 Yarriambiack Shire Council survey response 11 Moira Shire Council survey response 12 Wodonga Shire Council survey response 13 Questions 3.1 and 3.2, note that 11 organisations advised that they employee a full-time dedicated PD coordinator and one advised that they employ a part-time dedicated PD coordinator 14 Eg. La Trobe City Council 15 Eg. VicRoads 16 Review of protected disclosure procedures

19 Only 38 organisations had any reference to the PD coordinator role in the position description for the person currently responsible for that function (including 28 local councils, eight departments or administrative offices and two selected public bodies) 16. Figure 3: Person or unit responsible for the welfare of the discloser % 70 67% Of the 102 organisations that have a PD coordinator, 40 per cent do not have any other protected disclosure officers, while a further 24 per cent have only one other person who could handle reports of wrongdoing in their organisation % 53% The survey also asked organisations to indicate who in the organisation is responsible for providing welfare assistance for disclosers, and allowed organisations to select multiple options. In response, the 105 organisations who responded to this question identified a range of officers in the organisation (see Figure 3) % 20% The majority of organisations use their HR department (67%), PD coordinator (54%) and/or an employee assistance or counselling service (53%) to provide welfare services. The people or units used to provide welfare services for disclosers were also largely the same persons or units who looked after people who become the target of detrimental action 18. Welfare services for persons who were the subject of the disclosure also tend to be provided by HR (72%), or an employee assistance or counselling service (55%) % Human Resources PD coordinator EAPs or other counselling service PD officer Line manager/supervisor Other specific manager Decided on case-by-case basis Peer support/mentoring network 10% 9% 16 Question Question Question 3.7, 97 per cent of organisations advised that the person or unit responsible for providing welfare assistance for persons who are the target of detrimental action is the same as the person or unit who assists disclosers 19 Question

20 3 Undertaking the review surveys Awareness and training about protected disclosures Organisations were asked to provide information about the training provided in relation to protected disclosures, namely, who provided the training and to whom it was provided, allowing for multiple options. Fifty-two of the 83 respondents (63%) advised that their PD coordinators attended formal, targeted training provided by IBAC in May/June The next most popular types of training for PD coordinators were informal on-the-job training (52%) and formal training provided by external consultants (31%). In addition, a number of organisations noted that they attended other IBAC forums at which protected disclosures were discussed and/or accessed information on IBAC s website. A number of organisations stated that their PD coordinator received multiple forms of training, including 16 who attended IBAC training and received on-the-job training, and 11 who attended IBAC training and training provided by external consultants. Seven organisations had not provided any training for PD coordinators. Two of these organisations were selected public bodies that could not receive disclosures (Monash Health and La Trobe University), one was a department (EPA) and the remaining four were local councils (West Wimmera, Moira, Gannawarra and Frankston councils) 20. Organisations ensured that PD coordinators received training in a number of ways: including it on an annual compliance/governance training program checking on IBAC training opportunities as part of induction or handover from one officer to another. In terms of protected disclosure training for managers and supervisors, 34 per cent of respondents advised that they provided informal/on-the-job training about protected disclosures, 30 per cent advised that they provided formal training in-house, and 25 per cent advised that no training had been conducted for managers and supervisors. 20 Question Question Question Review of protected disclosure procedures In terms of protected disclosure training for general staff, 35 per cent of organisations advised that they had not provided training on this topic to their staff at all, while 32 per cent advised that they provided formal training in-house 21. In relation to training staff and managers about managing welfare of disclosers or a person who might be the target of detrimental action, 40 per cent of organisations advised that no training was conducted (including 29 local councils, seven departments or administrative offices and five public bodies), formal training in-house was provided for a smaller proportion (17%), and informal/on the job training on this topic was similar to training given about protected disclosures specifically (31%) 22. Organisations were asked to provide information about the ways in which messages about protected disclosures were reinforced by their senior management. As shown in Figure 4, staff newsletters or internal publications were the most popular channels for reinforcing protected disclosure messages (43%) followed by staff meetings (24%). However, around one-fifth of organisations (21%) advised that their organisation s leaders did not reinforce protected disclosure messages in any way (including 16 local councils, four departments or administrative offices and two public bodies). Figure 4: Methods of reinforcing messages about protected disclosures used by organisations % % 24% 21% 20% 10% 8% Staff newsletters/internal publications Staff meetings No reinforcement All-staff s Intranet/internet Other Training 7%

21 Figure 5: Provision of tools to assist PD officers to assess possible protected disclosures received by the organisation Local councils Departments and administrative offices Selected public bodies Count % Count % Count % Yes, tools are available to help assess possible protected disclosures No tools are available Not applicable, not an organisation that can receive disclosures Total Implementation of protected disclosure procedures As shown in Figure 5, half of the local councils and a fifth of the departments and administrative offices stated that they have tools to assist their PD officers in the assessment of protected disclosures. While they do not have the authority to receive protected disclosures, one of the selected public bodies involved in the survey advised that it has tools to help its coordinator assess protected disclosures 23. One local council also advised that it did not think it was an organisation that could receive disclosures in response to this question 24. The most common tools developed were: checklists, decision trees, flow charts (prepared in-house or by external providers), and specialised complaint forms. All of these tools complemented the procedures already developed by the organisation. In one case, Mildura Rural City Council has a number of user-friendly documents a fact sheet, a notification checklist, protected disclosure checklist and a protected disclosure complaint form, as well as a protected disclosure policy, but it does not have a protected disclosure procedure 25. In another example, the City of Greater Geelong developed a brochure on protected disclosures that was distributed to all staff with their payment summaries in July They also made this brochure available at all customer service centres for community information 26. Brimbank Council conducted training on protected disclosures that had included a quiz Bendigo Kangan Institute 24 Hume City Council 25 Mildura Rural City Council survey response to question 5.1 and information provided to IBAC via (TRIM IN/14/8671) 26 City of Greater Geelong survey response to question Brimbank City Council survey response to question

22 3 Undertaking the review surveys When the organisations that can receive disclosures were considered separately (local councils, departments and administrative offices), 57 of 92 respondents (63%) advised that their organisation completes written assessments for all reports of wrongdoing that could constitute an assessable disclosure. 28 Overall, 25 per cent of organisations advised that they have developed or introduced tools to assist managers and staff to provide welfare support to disclosers or persons who are the target of detrimental action, far less than the 50 per cent of organisations who had developed assessment tools. When broken down by type of organisation, 33 per cent of the selected public bodies, 26 per cent of departments and administrative offices and 23 per cent of local councils advised that they had developed or introduced welfare tools. 29 The City of Stonnington s response indicated that they used the same tools as they would do for any bullying situation. They considered that confidentiality is paramount which is why [Human Resources] is involved, and also saw such training as part of respect in the workplace training 30. Several organisations took a similar approach; using their existing employee assistance program to provide support 31. Survey respondents who can receive disclosures were also asked whether there had been any differences in the number of assessments they were receiving under the PD Act as compared to the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2002 (WP Act). Seventy-one per cent of survey respondents indicated that they were making about the same number of assessments, while four per cent were making more assessments and 14 per cent of organisations had made fewer assessments. 32 Monash City Council advised that they had only ever received one disclosure under the WP Act 33, while other organisations, such as Maroondah City Council and Mildura Rural City Council, indicated that they had never received any disclosures under the WP Act and had not received any so far under the PD Act Effectiveness of the protected disclosure procedures Organisations were asked to assess the effectiveness of their policies and procedures by rating how well they had assisted the organisation in receiving and assessing a protected disclosure 35, or in providing welfare to people who are the target of detrimental action 36. They were also required to provide a free text response as to why they had given such a rating. 28 Question Question City of Stonnington survey response to questions 4.6 and Darebin City Council, Department of Treasury and Finance response to question Question Maribyrnong City Council, Wyndham City Council and South Gippsland Shire Council survey response to question Survey responses to question 35 Question Question Review of protected disclosure procedures

23 Sixty-two per cent of survey respondents considered that their policies and procedures had helped them to some degree (either a lot, some, or a little) in receiving and assessing protected disclosures and 30 per cent considered that their policies and procedures did not assist them at all 37. In additional comments, the majority of respondents noted that their policies and procedures had not yet been tested on the basis that the organisation had not received any disclosures (more than 50 organisations). Of those who considered that their policies and procedures had helped to some degree, reasons included that their procedures were clear, comprehensive and assisted with the task of assessing potential protected disclosures 38. Fifty-nine per cent of survey respondents considered that their welfare policies and procedures had helped them to some degree (either a lot, some, or a little), while the remaining 41 per cent of respondents considered their procedures to be of no help at all 39. Survey respondents provided similar reasons as to why their welfare procedures were or were not useful. Many organisations had not had to deal with any welfare issues or cases of detrimental action. One council stated that their procedures had been of a lot of assistance to them in dealing with welfare issues because unfortunately the discloser can be their own enemy disclosing their issues to other parties who are involved then you have to try and limit any possible effect from their behavior 40 [sic]. Survey respondents were also asked to nominate whether there was any aspect of their procedures that they considered to be good practice or particularly innovative. 41 Respondents nominated the following practices: Ballarat City Council indicated that it has some wellness and HR support services that are considered to be leading HR practice in staff welfare EAP counselling 24/7, allowing staff to access a counsellor of their choice, assistance to relocate staff to another worksite or modification of duties 42 Brimbank City Council has developed an e-learning module (scripted and developed in-house) for all staff/major service contractors (both a general version, and a version for supervisors and above that covers how to take a disclosure) 43 City of Manningham has provided greater awareness training for leaders in their organisation 44 The Department of Justice s guidelines have been used as the basis of guidelines throughout the public sector 45 The Department of State Development, Business and Innovation (DSDBI) drew on the expertise of IBAC to increase knowledge within its organisation 46. Survey respondents were also asked to provide any recommendations for improving the PD Act, PD Regulations or IBAC guidelines. This material will assist IBAC in reviewing its own materials. In order to identify problems that organisations may have had in developing or implementing procedures, survey respondents were asked to nominate whether they considered there were any major obstacles they had faced in achieving necessary improvements. 37 The remaining eight per cent (who were all public authorities) advised that the question is not applicable, as they are not an organisation that can receive disclosures 38 Moonee Valley City Council, Hobsons Bay City Council survey responses to Question Question City of Stonnington survey response to Question Question Ballarat City Council survey response to Question Brimbank City Council survey response to Question City of Manningham survey response to Question Department of Justice survey response to Question DSDBI survey response to Question

24 3 Undertaking the review surveys Survey respondents could choose any or all of four options or nominate another obstacle not provided in the list. The majority of the 103 respondents who answered this question (69%) stated that there were no major obstacles, 17 per cent agreed with the proposition that they had had difficulties in understanding the PD Act, PD Regulations or the IBAC guidelines, and four per cent stated that they had a lack of confidence in the protections available to disclosers under the PD Act 47. Seventeen respondents provided information about additional obstacles, eight of which noted that resourcing was an issue. Some of these responses were: the challenge of devoting resources to an issue which is important but does not need an immediate response from a rural council that has not yet received any disclosures 48 a lack of a dedicated full-time resource the Department of Human Services (DHS) and Department of Health nominated that the PD coordinator is the sole person responsible for promoting protected disclosures and awareness. This person works for Department of Health and is one staff member (providing services to 14,500 staff) who performs that function as part of a wider role 49 Indigo Shire Council is a small council (approximately 130 full-time employees) and indicated that it was difficult to meet all governance requirements and there was one person managing multiple roles 50 Victoria Police have complexities in dealing with protected disclosures that can be made under both the PD Act and the Victoria Police Act, as well as being the only organisation in Victoria that can investigate protected disclosure complaints against itself 51 there is a poor level of understanding amongst Victorian public sector employees about what the term protected disclosure means. By contrast, the term whistleblower is more generally understood Promoting awareness of the PD Act The final section of the survey assessed each organisation s compliance with the requirements of section 59(4) of the PD Act to make their procedures readily available to staff, clients and members of the public, and to give the organisations an opportunity to examine how effective their means of communication have been. Three organisations advised that they have not made the procedures available to staff. 53 Of the 103 organisations that have, the most popular choices of media to make procedures readily available to staff by organisations were promotion through the organisation s intranet (79%), new or updated internal policies and procedures (77%), and other internal communications such as newsletters, s, frequently asked questions (FAQs) (57%) 54. Other communication methods included conversations in team meetings 55, briefings by managers when the procedures had changed 56, a general awareness session at a senior leadership meeting, and directors and councillors training provided with the assistance of an IBAC training officer Question Mount Alexander Shire Council survey response Question DHS survey response Question Indigo Shire Council survey response Question Victoria Police survey response Question Office of Living Victoria survey response Question One further organisation did not respond to this question 54 Question South Gippsland Shire Council survey response Question Wodonga City Council survey response Question Yarra Ranges Shire Council survey response Question Review of protected disclosure procedures