2. Whistleblowing Practices Across Selected Countries

The succeeding discussions have two parts. Part 1 is a case study of two laws in Australia. It is primarily intended to familiarize policymakers and researchers on the structure, elements, and substantive provisions of a sample legislation primarily designed to encourage whistleblowing against corruption. Part 2 is a comparative analysis of the key features of whistleblowing laws of six countries (Australia, Japan, South Korean, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States). It aims to widen the knowledge base related to approaches to promote whistleblowing.

2.2.1 Case Study on the WPA of 2001 of Victoria, Australia

Structure of the Victorian whistleblowing legislation. Victoria has one of the most recent and comprehensive laws on whistleblowing. Several elements can be identified from a closer examination of this sample law (see also Table 14 for details), to wit:

• Purposes of the policy;

• Definition and scope of a protected disclosure;

• Whistleblower's protection;

• Whistleblowing channels and procedures;

• Support structures for, and programs to promote, whistleblowing;

• Safeguards against false disclosures.

Table 14

Structure of Victorian Whistleblowing Legislation

Purposes of the policy. The policy aims to encourage any person to blow the whistle against improper conduct of public officers and public bodies/organizations. To encourage whistleblowing, it provides protection to whistleblowers and other persons who would suffer retaliation for making a public-interest disclosure. It also mandates the Ombudsman or appropriate public bodies to investigate all public-interest disclosures.

Definitions. The legislation contains definitions of important terms such as "corrupt conduct", "detrimental action", "public body", "public officer", "relevant Minister", etc. It also contains provisions excluding certain persons or bodies from the coverage of the law.

Whistleblower. It defines a whistleblower as any "natural person" who can make a disclosure about an improper conduct committed by a public officer or public body. The whistleblower has to show in his/her disclosure that the public officer or public body "has engaged, is engaging or proposes to engage in improper conduct" or "has taken, is taking or proposed to take detrimental action".

Whistleblower's protection. The law establishes several mechanisms to protect whistleblowers. It provides for the legal immunity of a whistleblower from criminal, civil or administrative actions or defamation suits. It also assures that no breach of legal or professional requirement for maintaining confidentiality occurs when one makes a public-interest disclosure. It also provides 1) legal remedies for retaliatory actions in the workplace, 2) defines acts of reprisals and makes them an offense punishable by not more than two-year imprisonment, and 3) gives whistleblowers the right to apply for an injunction before the Supreme Court to stop a reprisal. It also treats as offense acts of persons that reveal the whistleblower and the subject of his/her public-interest disclosures.

Whistleblowing channels. For a disclosure to be treated as a public-interest disclosure, it must go through appropriate channels. In the Victorian statute, a whistleblower has to report corrupt or improper conduct of a member of a Municipal Council, the Chief Commissioner of Police, and the members of the police force to the Ombudsman. When the disclosure relates to a member, officer, or employee of a public body, it must be reported to that public body. The statute also covers politicians. When a certain disclosure relates to a member of a Legislative Council, it must be reported to the President of that Council. When a disclosure involved a wrongdoing by a Member of Parliament (MP), it must be disclosed to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

Form of disclosure. Disclosures can be done orally or in writing. They must also follow the prescribed procedure for making a public-interest disclosure. Anonymous disclosure is allowed, with certain disadvantages. For example, the law does not require the Ombudsman to notify an anonymous whistleblower regarding the Ombudsman's actions in relation to his or her disclosures.

Handling disclosures. The law requires the Ombudsman and other public bodies to determine within a reasonable period of time whether a disclosure qualifies as a "public-interest disclosure". For the Ombudsman, the law does not set specific time frames. For public bodies, however, the law requires only 14 from its determination that a disclosure is a protected one to notify the whistleblower.

Support structures. The whistleblowing law treats the Ombudsman as a very important support structure for policy implementation. It mandates the performance of certain responsibilities of support structures. For example, it requires the Ombudsman to investigate all public-interest disclosures. It also mandates the Ombudsman to prepare guidelines to be followed by all public bodies in their handling of public-interest disclosures. It is required to monitor the public bodies' implementation of whistleblowing procedures as well as monitor progress of investigations conducted by public bodies and the Chief Commissioner of Police. There are exceptions to the Ombudsman's duty to investigate disclosures. Among these are disclosures that are considered as "trivial" and "frivolous". Other public organizations are also treated as support structures.

Support programs. The Victorian statute requires the Ombudsman and public bodies to give annual reports to Congress on the implementation of the whistleblowing policy. The annual report must contain the current whistleblowing guidelines; the number and types of disclosures made to the Ombudsman during the year; the number and type of determinations made by the Ombudsman; the number and types of disclosed matters investigated and referred to public bodies, the Chief Commissioner of Police, and the Auditor-General.

2. Case study on the Whistleblower's Protection Act of 1994 of Queensland

Queensland became one of the first state governments in Australia to adopt a whistleblowing legislation (Groeneweg 2001). Its Whistleblowers Protection Act (WPA) of 1994 emerged as the political system'ss response to the massive corruption in the Queensland public service in the late 1980s up to the 1990s.

Purpose. The statute aims to "promote the public interest by protecting persons who disclose unlawful, negligent or improper conduct affecting the public sector; danger to public health or safety; and danger to the environment". ¹

Protected disclosures. The statute gives special protection to disclosures about unlawful, negligent, or improper public sector conduct or danger to public health or safety of the environment.² Since the protections are very broad, the law contains a number of balancing mechanisms designed to focus the protection where it is needed and make it easier to decide whether the special protection applies to a disclosure. The whistleblowing policy also ensures appropriate consideration is given to the interests of persons accused in the disclosures.

Like in Victorian model, the protection extends to a "public-interest disclosure", which is special type of disclosure defined in terms of the 1) the person making the disclosure, 2) the type of information disclosed, and 3) the appropriate entity to which the disclosure is made.

Whistleblower's protection. Unlike in the Victorian model, however, the Queensland scheme distinguishes between two types of whistleblowers: public officers and anybody. To be entitled to protection, public officers must make disclosures relating to official misconduct, maladministration, or matters that involve danger to public health or the environment.

The legislation focuses on protecting "public-interest disclosures" than solely on the person making the disclosure. Nevertheless, the person making such "public-interest disclosure" enjoys certain rights and protection. For example, under Part 5, Division 2 of the statute, a whistleblower making a public interest disclosure has legal immunity from criminal, civil or administrative cases. Part 5, Divisions 3 to 5 of the law makes it unlawful to cause, attempt or conspire to cause detriment to any person who has made a "public-interest disclosure". Such actions are declared as reprisals, which are considered unlawful under civil and criminal laws.

Part 5, division 6, of the statute requires public sector entities to establish reasonable procedures to protect their officers from reprisals. Public officers who have existing rights to appeal against, or to apply for a review of, disciplinary actions, appointments, transfers or unfair treatment, can use these rights against reprisals.

The law emphasizes the need to preserve the confidentiality of the whistleblower's identity and subject matter of his disclosure. It penalizes any public officer who record or disclose confidential information acquired through involvement in the law's implementation.

Whistleblowing procedures and channels. Under Part 4, Division 2 of the statute, a public interest disclosure must be made before an appropriate public sector entity or persons. This requirement, according to the Act's general explanations, ensures that "public interest disclosures are made to the public sector entities that have responsibility or power to take appropriate action about the information disclosed or to provide an appropriate remedy". In addition, it also ensures that "unfair damage is not caused to the reputations of persons against whom disclosures are made by inappropriate publication of unsubstantiated disclosures".

The appropriate entities need to keep proper records about "public-interest disclosures". This is because of the statutory requirement for public bodies to submit an annual report to the legislature containing information on the disclosures received and official actions undertaken to address them.

The statute also requires appropriate entities to notify the whistleblower about the actions taken on their disclosure and the results of such actions.

Support structures. Public service employees enjoy an additional right to request the Public Service Commissioner for work transfer to remove any danger of reprisals. The Industrial Commission or the Supreme Court can grant injunctions against cases of reprisals against whistleblowers.

Safeguards against false allegations. To encourage genuine whistleblowing, the statute declares it as an offense for any person to intentionally give false or misleading information as a "public-interest disclosure".

2.2.3 Comparative analysis of the purposes of whistleblowing legislation

Table 15 below shows that a common purpose of whistleblowing legislation is to protect whistleblowers from retaliation and any disadvantageous treatment. In principle, these laws acknowledge the value of whistleblowers in promoting the public interest, protecting the integrity of the public service, and preventing wrongdoings in government.

Table 15

Purposes of whistleblowing legislation across countries

(Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States)

Reference documents: Japan's Whistleblower's Protection Act; South Korea's Anti-Corruption Act of 2001 Amended by Act No.7612 on July 21, 2005 ; Whistleblower's Protection Act of 2001 of Victoria, Australia and the Whistleblower's Protection Act of 1994 of Queensland, Australia; New Zealand Protected Disclosures Act of 2000; United Kingdom's Public Interest Disclosures Act of 1998; United States Whistleblower's Protection Act of 1989;

Whistleblower's protection and mandating state action are two common themes of the academic literature that are also stamped in whistleblowing legislation. The establishment of support structures and procedures is also prominent as a purpose.

Higher goals inspire the purposes of these laws. For example, in Japan, Australia and New Zealand, the whistleblowing laws are directed towards the goal of promoting the public interest. In South Korea and the United States, the whistleblowing laws are designed to prevent and eliminate wrongdoings in the public sector.

Whistleblowing laws in Australia and New Zealand aim to facilitate disclosures of wrongdoing by creating new organizational cultures that make it easier for employees to blow the whistle against observed wrongdoings.

South Korea's whistleblowing legislation, the Anti-Corruption Act of 2001, creates a mechanism for reporting disclosures and protecting the persons making the disclosure from retaliatory actions. In general, its aims are to rid the civil service and society of corruption. It prohibits certain forms of wrongdoing and provides a Code of Conduct for Public Officials. Mandating whistleblowing as a duty of public officials, it also aims to promote honor and integrity in the public service.

2.2.4 Comparative analysis of protected disclosures

The core of any whistleblowing legislation is the definition and scope of "protected disclosures". The review of whistleblowing laws reveals that the concept of protected disclosure varies from country to country. Table 16 provides a comparative analysis of the statutory provisions on protected disclosures.

Table 16

Definition and scope of protected whistleblowing

(Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States)

A protected disclosure can be aimed at calling the attention of the authorities on certain wrongdoings that need to be addressed. It is also initiated out of the desire to have certain wrongdoings investigated by the authorities. In some laws, a protected disclosure is made in order to gain protection for certain disclosures of observed wrongdoing.

There are several elements of the various definitions of a protected disclosure. The definitions are made with reference to the one who reported the information (whistleblower), the subject of the disclosure, and such other qualifications and exceptions that function as safeguards against false testimonies. The other element, which is discussed in detail in the succeeding section, is the prescribed destination or route of the disclosure.

Whistleblower. The whistleblower can be an employee of a public or private organization. The whistleblower could also be a public official or employee, which is the focus of some of the whistleblowing legislation. Some laws encourage anyone to blow the whistle against a wrongdoing.

Subject. This is the most common aspect of a protected disclosure. Basically, a protected disclosure enumerates the forms of wrongdoing, which, when reported by a person, would entitle him or her to state protection and support. Information concerning abuses of public power for personal gain is a common scope of a protected disclosure in the country legislation surveyed. Among the acts covered by a protected disclosure are 1) acts of dishonesty; 2) public officer's action that amount to breach of public trust; and 3) influencing another public officer to commit a corrupt or illegal act. Individual and organizational practices that endanger people's lives or damage the environment are also covered in many definitions and scope of a protected disclosure.

Some definitions of protected disclosures focus on uncovering corruption. For example, in South Korea's Anti-Corruption Act of 2001, the main purpose of defining a protected disclosure is to uncover corrupt activities in the public sector. As such, the definition of a protected disclosure includes

• Any act of a public official to seek gain for himself or any third party by abusing his position of authority or violating acts and subordinate statutes in connection with his duties;

• Any act causing damage to the property of any public entity in violation of acts and acquiring, managing, or disposing the property of the relevant public entity, or entering into and executing contract to which the relevant public entity is a party.

The whistleblower's reasonable belief of the existence of a wrongdoing is adequate in determining a protected disclosure in some countries. In the United States, for example, a "protected disclosure" is the "disclosure of any information that an employee reasonably believes evidences a violation of law, rule or regulation, a gross waste of funds, gross mismanagement, an abuse of authority, or a significant and specific danger to public health or safety". It is significant to highlight that "a disclosure need not prove ultimately accurate in order to be protected; it is enough that the person making it is acting in good faith and with an objectively reasonable belief in its accuracy".

In the United Kingdom, the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) of 1998 protects a broad range of disclosures. These include any disclosure which, within the "reasonable belief" of the worker making it, tends to show that a criminal offense is being, has been, or is likely to be committed; that a person has failed, is failing, or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which that person is subject; that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur; that the health or safety or an individual has been, is being, or is likely to be endangered; that the environment has been, is being, or is likely to be deliberately concealed.

Qualifications. Certain qualifications and exceptions further clarify the concept of a protected disclosure. In the whistleblowing laws surveyed, reporting a wrongdoing in "good faith" is one of these qualifications. Another is the whistleblower's reasonable belief that the information disclosed is likely to be true. The positive aspect of whistleblowing is also highlighted as a qualification of a protected disclosure. In Japan, for example, a protected disclosure must not be made to gain "illegal benefits", cause "damage to someone", or to attain an "illegal objective". A matter subject of a legal professional privilege is not considered a protected disclosure in some Australian states, New Zealand, and United Kingdom. Matters concerning national security or the military are excluded from the scope of the whistleblowing legislation.

Safeguards. Safeguards against false testimonies are not an inherent part of the definition of a protected disclosure. However, they further elucidate the concept of protected disclosure by highlighting activities that do not deserve state protection. In Japan and Australia, whistleblowers are required to make an effort not to damage the legitimate interests of the public and others (Table 17).

Table 17
Safeguards from false and malicious whistleblowing

In South Korea, a whistleblower is obliged to report in good faith and will be penalized for disclosing false information. To ensure responsible whistleblowing, the Anti-Corruption Act imposes punishments for whistleblowers making false claims. The punishments may range from imprisonment for not less than one year to not more than 10 years.

5. Comparative analysis of whistleblower's protection and rewards mechanisms

Whistleblower's protection. Table 18 shows some of the mechanisms for protecting whistleblowers, to wit:

• designated public authority's obligation to protect the welfare of whistleblowers;

• protection from job termination for making a protected whistleblowing;

• penalties for those who cause any disadvantageous treatment of whistleblowers;

• right of whistleblowers to avail of legal remedies to prevent retaliation;

• giving preference to whistleblower's request for work transfer;

• confidentiality of whistleblower's identity and subject of his/her disclosure;

• legal immunity (or mitigation of culpability) when making a protected

disclosure;

• no breach" of whistleblower's duty to maintain confidentiality;

• police protection for whistleblower and his/her family.

Table 18

Whistleblower's protection mechanisms

(Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States)

The whistleblowing laws reviewed reveals at least four aspects in existing practices to protect and support whistleblowers.

• Mandating whistleblower's protection as a societal/organization obligation;

• Establishing the rights of whistleblowers as protection against retaliation;

• Preventing any disadvantageous treatment of whistleblowers in the workplace;

• Providing physical protection to the whistleblower and his family.

A few specific examples further clarify and illustrate these practical aspects of whistleblower's protection. Article 32 of South Korea's Anti-Corruption Act of 2001, for example, makes explicit protection to persons making disclosures, including the witnesses to wrongdoings and the cooperators in subsequent investigations of protected disclosures. When these individuals experience reprisals, they can appeal for the intervention of the Korean Independent Commission Against Corruption (KICAC) to guarantee their employment and to facilitate their request for work transfer or reinstatement. When needed, KICAC can also request for police protection of whistleblowers who made a protected disclosure.

Article 33 of ACA empowers KICAC to investigate allegations of reprisals and requests for remedy. Although ACA does not explicitly state that the KICAC has a proactive ability to investigate, the ACA allows the KICAC to recommend the conduct of investigations when necessary.

As part of the state's obligations to protect whistleblowers, KICAC and its members and staff are prohibited under Article 33 (1) of ACA from revealing or even suggesting the identity of a whistleblower without his consent. KICAC initiates investigations once there is breach of confidentiality, and imposes appropriate disciplinary actions.

In the United States, whistleblowers are given the right to make prima facie case of retaliation as part of the design of the Whistleblower's Protection Act of 1989. When a whistleblower suffers from reprisal in close timing with his disclosure, there is a presumption that the making of the protected disclosure contributed to the adverse personnel actions.

In the United Kingdom, the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) establishes the right of a whistleblower not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, as a result of the whistleblower's making of a protected disclosure. Detriment includes a variety of unfavorable personnel actions such as refusal to promote, denial of pay raises, relocations and denial of training. The law also specifies that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee "principally" because he made a protected disclosure.

Whistleblower's rewards. The idea of granting rewards to encourage whistleblowing is institutionalized only in South Korea's Anti-Corruption Act of 2001. It is not explicit in the whistleblowing laws in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United States (see Table 19).

In South Korea, when whistleblowing leads to financial gain or cost-savings to the national treasury, an estimated two (2) to 10 % of such benefits or a maximum of 200 million won (160,000 US Dollars) goes back to the whistleblower as a form of reward. There are exceptions, however. A public official who reports an act of corruption in connection with his duties may not eligible for the reward.

Table 19
Mechanisms of whistleblower's rewards

(Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States)

The Anti-Corruption Act of 2001 mandates the KICAC to establish a Rewards Deliberations Board to formulate rules related to requirements and procedures for getting rewards, decide whether rewards should be given to a whistleblower, and determine the amount of the reward.

5. Comparative analysis of whistleblowing channels and procedures

Internal channels. The channels or routes of disclosures are almost always prescribed by the whistleblowing laws reviewed. Generally, the laws express preference for using internal channels for whistleblowing. However, they also prescribe the use of external channels under certain conditions.

The internal channels could either be designated persons or offices within an organization. They include the business entities themselves, the manager or employer, or specified persons (including the Chief Executive Officer) within public agencies. In Australia, whistleblowing to the relevant public agency is required when the one involved in the wrongdoing is an officer or employee of the agency concerned. When the accused is a legislator, a disclosure of wrongdoing can be submitted to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly (Australia).

In New Zealand, disclosures of wrongdoing must be done in accordance with internal procedures established by and published in the organization. A whistleblower in New Zealand can blow the whistle directly to the head of the organization when there are no established internal procedures and when he believes that the complaint recipient is involved in the wrongdoing.

Table 19
Prescribed whistleblowing channels

External channels. The laws allow the use of external channels such as Members of Parliament, Cabinet Ministers, the Ombudsman, other public agencies, and the media. In Australia, whistleblowing to external channels such as the Ombudsman is prescribed when a disclosure relates to a member of a municipal council, the Chief Commissioner of Police, or members of the police force.

In New Zealand, external whistleblowing is allowed when the whistleblower believes that the head of the agency is involved in the serious wrongdoing alleged in a disclosure. In addition, it is protected when the whistleblower believes that the matter is serious or urgent. The failure of the organization to act or recommend action within 20 days on any disclosure also makes external whistleblowing legitimate.

In the UK, wider disclosures to external channels are protected when one of the following conditions are met: the whistleblowing is not made for personal gain; there is reasonable belief of possible victimization when internal whistleblowing is used; when there is reasonable belief about a possible cover-up; when the matter has been raised internally but no official action has been undertaken within the prescribed time frame.

The US WPA does not require a whistleblower to make his disclosure through any particular channel to secure state protection. With some exceptions such as national security information, an employee is protected regardless of the channel he used in disclosing information about a wrongdoing. State protection may even extend to whistleblowers who take their allegations to the media.

Procedures for handling disclosures. Designated entities use prescribed procedures in handling disclosures of wrongdoing. In Australia, for example, a public body is required to keep proper records of any disclosure that it receives. Within 45 days from receipt of a disclosure, it needs to determine whether it is a "protected disclosure" or not. Within 14 days from making the decision to confer a protected-disclosure status or not, a public body must notify the whistleblower about the decision. It must also provide updates to the whistleblower on the official actions taken on the disclosure and their results. In Japan, even private sector organizations are required to notify the whistleblower that actions have been taken to address a wrongdoing reported internally.

In the US, public agencies are required to produce a report on the results of the investigations on disclosures of wrongdoing. The report, which must be signed by the head of the agency, must include a summary of evidence obtained in the course of the investigation; listing of any violation of any law, rule, or regulation; and description of the action taken or planned as a result of the investigation such as changes in agency rules, regulations, practices;

Table 20
Handling whistleblower's disclosures

Public authorities such as the Office of the Ombudsman handled disclosures using prescribed procedures. In South Korea, Australia and the United States, public authorities gather necessary details (name of whistleblower, reason for disclosure, etc) to validate the allegations contained in a disclosure. Within a reasonable time, these public authorities also need to determine whether a disclosure is protected by law or not.

In Australia, there is clear requirement for whistleblower notification on the conduct and results of investigations. Investigations are done in private, with the Ombudsman deciding whether a person investigated needs legal representation during an investigation.

In South Korea, there are two key categories of procedures for handling disclosures:

• When a high-ranking public official is involved, the Korean Independent Commission Against Corruption (KICAC) will receive and confirm the facts of the disclosure. If KICAC substantiates the materials facts about the disclosure, it files a complaint against the official with the Public Prosecutor's Office (PPO). PPO will investigate and notify KICAC of the results. KICAC may apply for adjudication with the High Court, if the PPO's findings merit such action. KICAC then notifies the person making the disclosure of the actions taken.

• When a non-high ranking public official is involved, the KICAC will refer the substantiated disclosure to the relevant investigative body. The investigating agency needs to complete the investigation within 60 days. The investigative body notifies KICAC and the government office involved about the results of the investigation. KICAC may ask for a reinvestigation if it is not satisfied with the results. Again, it notifies the whistleblowers about the actions taken on the disclosure and the results.

KICAC uses trace logs on investigation records and standardized investigation process. It also observes confidentiality of the investigation process to safeguard the reputations of the persons involved. Overall, the design of South Korea's Anti-Corruption Act is meant to encourage direct disclosures to KICAC. The rationale for encouraging external reporting direct to KICAC is to "reinforce horizontal and bottom-up administrative responsibility and prevent civil servant corruption".

2.2.7 Comparative analysis of whistleblowing official support structures and programs

Support structures. Support structures are vital to the effectiveness and success of whistleblowing legislation. They are the main instruments for concretizing legislative mandates for whistleblower's protection. Theoretically, the more powerful these support structures are, the more effective is whistleblowing as an instrument for correcting or terminating corrupt practices and other forms of wrongdoing.

Several support structures can be clearly identified from the whistleblowing laws reviewed (Table 21). Among these are:

• Lead public authorities in-charge of whistleblowing policy;

• Public and private sector organizations serving as channels and complaint-recipients;

• Political parties;

• Public officials and employees;

• Citizens in general

The whistleblowing laws strengthen these support structures using several key approaches. For lead support structures such as the Office of the Ombudsman, the whistleblowing laws make it mandatory to investigate "protected disclosures". For public and private sector organizations, the laws in some jurisdictions mandate it as their duty to prevent corruption, investigate disclosures of wrongdoing, establish procedures for whistleblowing and for handling disclosures of wrongdoing, and notify whistleblowers of official or organizational actions taken on the disclosures.

In South Korea, political parties, as support structures for whistleblowing against corruption, are encouraged to create a clean and transparent election culture. Citizens are also encouraged to cooperate in the government's anti-corruption programs.

To strengthen these support structures for whistleblowing, the various laws mandate the performance of certain duties and responsibilities. In the case of South Korea, the Anti-Corruption Act of 2001 establishes the Korean Independent Commission Against Corruption (KICAC) to perform essentially the following functions:

• Conduct studies on corruption and formulate anti-corruption policies and recommendations;

• Evaluate progress of various public agencies in implementing anti-corruption recommendations;

• Receive disclosures related to corruption;

• Investigate disclosures of wrongdoing;

• Protect anti-corruption whistleblowers and witnesses;

• Operate a compensation and reward systems;

• Ensure implementation of the Code of Conduct for public officers.

Table 21
Whistleblowing support structures

In some jurisdictions, the lead public authority on whistleblowing is the Ombudsman. This is true in the case of Victoria, Queensland and other states in Australia. In the United States, however, the lead authority on whistleblowing is the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC). The independence of the OSC is assured within the executive branch of the government. Its head the Special Counsel is appointed by the President with the concurrence of the US Senate. The Special Counsel does not serve at the pleasure of the President. He or she has a fixed term of five years.

The Office of the Special Counsel follows certain procedures in resolving complaints especially on retaliation against whistleblowers. In cases where it determines that retaliatory actions against whistleblowers occurred, the OSC tries to obtain voluntary correction on the part of the agency involved. When an agency does not make a voluntary correction of retaliatory actions against a whistleblower, it prosecutes the case before an administrative judge. The decision is subject to review by the Merit Systems Protect Board (MPSB).

In the UK, the Public Interest Disclosures Act does not provide for any independent agency of the State to investigate or prosecute whistleblower complaints. An employee must bring his retaliation claim to an employment tribunal, which has the power to award compensation. An employee who is dismissed has the right to seek an interim order, placing him back on the job, during the pendency of his case.

Support programs. Programs that raise awareness on whistleblowing and its benefits for organizations and the society are needed to ensure success at the implementation level. In the whistleblowing laws reviewed, such programs are either absent or not well specified. The most common programs are those that mandate the conduct of legislative reviews and the submission of annual reports to the legislature. Also, in South Korea, the implementation of a whistleblowing policy against corruption is complemented by the adoption and implementation of Code of Conduct for civil servants.

To enhance the public accountability of organizations, the submission of periodic reports to the legislature by the lead public authority on whistleblowing and other public organizations is mandated in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. In Australia, the contents of the annual reports include the current whistleblowing guidelines and the number and type of disclosures received, determined as "protected disclosures", investigated, and referred to other public agencies.

The annual report mandated in the US WPA includes the number and types of disposed allegations, the descriptions of recommendations and reports made to other agencies, and the actions of the agencies on the recommendations. It also includes the recommendations for legislative actions in support of the whistleblowing policy.

Table 22
Whistleblowing support programs