Who could I have gone to that I hadn't already gone to? I felt that I had gone to about half a dozen people and everyone that I could think of." Such was the frustration of Neil Pugmire, the nurse who revealed the release of a dangerous patient from a psychiatric hospital's secure unit. For nine months, Mr Pugmire had tried to warn of the danger to public safety through the correct channels.
Finally, he went to Labour's spokesman on justice, Phil Goff, who went public. For his trouble, Mr Pugmire was disciplined and almost lost his job. To add insult to injury, the Privacy Commissioner found that he should not have approached Mr Goff because the MP had no authority to intervene.
Given the tribulations attending such good intention, it is not surprising that Mr Pugmire became a cause celebre. He spurred Mr Goff to introduce legislation protecting those who divulge information in the public interest. This later metamorphosed into the National Government's 1996 Protected Disclosures Bill, which, after languishing in Parliament's too-hard basket, is about to become law. Sadly, it fails to provide adequate and effective means of revealing serious wrongdoing, the very issue which perplexed Mr Pugmire.
The bill offers protection for whistleblowers only within a narrowly prescribed and closed circuit. It encourages workers with a serious concern about activities within their organisations to first try to have it dealt with internally.
That is hardly conducive to disclosure - more likely it is a recipe for suppression. The person accused of wrongdoing may well be involved in dealing with the employee's concern. And the main interest then lies in keeping the lid on matters of serious embarrassment.
The bill seeks to cover this shortcoming by giving whistleblowers the right to approach outside authorities, such as the police or the Auditor-General - figures with power and expertise who might be expected to act effectively. If nothing is done about the complaint, the final recourse is to a cabinet minister. Remember, however, that Mr Pugmire tried to raise his concerns with the Ministers of Health and Police and the national director of mental health - all to no avail. Ministers and bureaucrats also have their sensitivities.
Given that, the logical step is for those who hit a brick wall to be protected if they disclose information publicly through the media. The public can judge the significance of the concern - the more directly it reaches them, both in time and content, the better. There is, of course, a danger that such an avenue could be used maliciously, but that tendency could be curbed by penalties above and beyond those for defamation.
The bill's central flaw is the more disappointing because it correctly reinstates private-sector employees to the ranks of those offered immunity from criminal or civil liability. As the Government says, the hazardous dumping of noxious waste is a public-safety issue no matter who does the dumping. It might have added that with the private sector so often involved in the expenditure of taxpayers' money, whistleblower protection could be a safeguard against rip-offs.
No law is perfect, and one which gave whistleblowers protection when they went public could be open to abuse. But the Government, before dismissing this option, would have done well to ponder something close to home - the freedom of speech endowed by parliamentary privilege. It, likewise, can be flouted but the liberty it bestows far outweighs the potential peril of malicious intent.
Such imbalance between merit and deficiency dictates the survivability of all laws. So it would guarantee that a more liberating Protected Disclosures Bill would stay the distance. When the system fails, society needs its whistleblowers to be heard far and wide.
<i>Editorial:</i> Whistleblowing in a soundpoof room
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.