United against corruption - corruption clues

These graphics are courtesy of the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) in Western Australia. My employer (forever to be anonymous) reposted on LinkedIn where I decided to both comment and download the graphics.

Questions need to be asked, does the workforce not declare corruption because they are unaware that it is going on or because they realise corruption is occurring and choose to do nothing? From an organisational level, the leadership then needs to analyse why wrongdoing isn't being reported.

There is protection for staff under the Public Sector Disclosure Act 2003, an Act is a law that has provisions to maintain the confidentially of the reporter. Part 3 [Protection] Section 13 deals with immunity incurs no disciplinary action (i) to be dismissed (ii) have services terminated (iii) breach of secrecy or confidentiality (iv).

This is where corruption begins - a lack of leadership. This may be due to weak management practices with Part 3 [Protection] Section 14 dealing with threats of detrimental action against the reporter.

A person must not take or threaten to take detrimental action against another because of a public interest disclosure with a penalty of $24,000 fine or imprisonment of 2 years (1).

Furthermore, (2) a person who attempts to commit an offence (a) or incites another person to commit an offence (b) also faces a $24,000 fine or imprisonment of 2 years. That's not a penalty to be taken lightly.

My original comment on the LinkedIn page addressed workplace culture "The culture of the organisation is determined by the worst behaviour the leadership is willing to accept. Supporting and protecting whistleblowers sends a clear message that corruption cannot be tolerated in state government organisations".

Further examining Part 3 [Protection] Section 15 deals with a person takes or threatens to take detrimental action commits an offence commits an act of victimisation that may be dealt with as a tort (1). That means proceedings against the perpetrator or employer may be taken in tort (2) with a tort being a civil wrong.

The act of victimisation may be dealt with the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 under Section 67 Victimisation and that is something an employer would be loathe to do especially if the media is present.

The costs to the organisation financially are an important consideration along with the reputational damage along with the destruction of senior management careers so they would be well advised to (apart from the obvious ethical reasons) do all they can to prevent corruption.