https://michaelwest.com.au/whistleblower-persecution-the-cost-of-ignoring-those-who-dare-speak-out/

QUOTE BEGINS

Whistleblowers everywhere act for reasons of conscience and integrity. They are vital to protect our society against corruption and power abuse, yet they are often persecuted for speaking out. Whistleblower Tony Watson reports from experience.

Whistleblowers are compelled to speak out, most often against their own organisation, in order to maintain their self-respect. “How could I keep my head up, and look people in the eye, if I kept quiet?”

But it is that very sense of self-respect that is targeted and hurt by the retaliations of the organisation they expose. It is precisely why humiliation makes such an effective tool. Driven by their own moral compass, whistleblowers are portrayed as unstable, money-seeking grubs.

C. Fred Alford, in his book Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organisational Power, calls this the “nuts and sluts” strategy: The key organisational strategy is to transform an act of whistleblowing from

an issue of policy and principle into an act of private disobedience and psychological disturbance.

As well as gaslighting, shunning, marginalising and ostracism, there are rumours, questioning the employee’s performance, threats, harassment, reprimands, demotions, forced transfers, assignment to trivial duties, dismissal and blacklisting. The fate of a whistleblower is unattractive and lonely.

As a society, we sense that whistleblowing matters and that the cost of ignoring whistleblowers could be huge. All too often, when there is a scandal or disaster, it transpires that it could have been avoided or mitigated if someone who knew of it spoke up, or if their message had been heeded when they did speak up.

Timely, then, is a report by the UK Whistleblowing Charity Protect, released early February. The charity’s report, The Cost of Whistleblowing, analyses three UK disasters that unfolded largely after whistleblowers had raised concerns. They are the Post Office Horizon Scandal, the multiple deaths of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital, and the collapse of construction giant Carillion.

Most whistleblower scandals share a basic timeline. Financial costs are incurred before and after someone blows the whistle and fall into three broad categories: Unavoidable, Avoidable, and Fallout. Unavoidable Costs precede the whistleblower and are incurred irrespective of any action by the company. These costs are not included in the figures below. Avoidable Costs are incurred because the whistleblower is ignored.

Fallout Costs follow the scandal becoming public and are associated with investigating the failings that caused it.

In all three instances, the figures are large. £178m for the Post Office Scandal; £39m for the Hospital Scandal; and £209m for the Carillion Collapse. In the case of the Post Office, aside from the financial costs, ignoring the whistleblowers resulted in wrecked lives, false convictions, and suicides. In the Hospital Scandal, seven babies were killed.

MWM has published a series of stories about whistleblowers in Australia.

We could add and then analyse our own scandals to this sorry list. Robodebt is a good example. Several staff raised concerns about the unlawful and unfair nature of the scheme, as aired in the Royal Commission. But none triggered the necessary responses and legal protections. As Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes observed in her final Report:

“The disastrous effects of Robodebt became apparent soon after it moved, in September 2016, from the last part of the limited release, involving around 1000 recipients, to sending out 20,000 notifications per week. In December 2016 and January 2017 the media, traditional and social, were saturated with articles about people who had had demonstrably wrong debts raised against them, and in many instances heard of it first when contacted by debt collectors.

“The human impacts of Robodebt were being reported: families struggling to make ends meet receiving a debt notice at Christmas, young people being driven to despair by demands for payment, and, horribly, an account of a young man’s suicide…

“What was, in fact, clear was that there were a number of senior departmental officers who did not understand the online compliance system or its effects. To compound that problem, when people like [whistleblower] Ms Taylor raised legitimate concerns, which in substance reflected the reality of what was occurring to those subject to the system, they were, effectively, ignored.”

How much did this debacle cost us?

Viktor Frankl’s words have become the whistleblower’s creed: “What is to give light must endure the burning.” But it should not be so.

Whistleblower stories can be depressing: their experiences are traumatic, their treatment by big corporates is grossly unfair, and their efforts are often in vain. And yet, there are a few hopeful signs. First, whistleblowers and the role they play are getting more airtime. Naming a problem is an important step in addressing it.

Second, although disillusioningly slow, the Government has promised better whistleblower protections. Even symbolic political promises can reflect underlying societal expectations. And just last week, four independents, Andrew Wilkie, Helen Haines, Jacqui Lambie and David Pocock, introduced a Bill into Parliament to establish a Whistleblower Protection Authority.

Third, more whistleblowers and their supporters are sharing their stories. Across the globe, there are organisations springing up to help and support whistleblowers, such as the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC).

The sharing of information and experiences and offers of support are indicative of a better future.

It can’t come soon enough.

QUOTE ENDS