Corruption Matters - May 2019 | Issue 53
Investigations arising from PIDs
Public sector employees play a vital role in exposing wrongdoing and building public trust in government. Many investigations are triggered by the 788 public interest disclosures (PIDs) received on average each year by public and investigating authorities. But investigations resulting from an internal source often have added complexities.
Many of the recent formal investigations conducted by the NSW Ombudsman’s office commenced as a result of the PIDs we received from staff inside the relevant agencies.
Recently, we have observed a trend of staff reporting because they are affronted when they perceive that their own agency is not supportive of, or held to, the same professional standards that they espouse to or have genuine concerns for public safety. In some circumstances, and depending on the credibility of the reporter, investigators are able to draw on this professional knowledge by seeking the reporter’s views on the technical issues in question.
However, investigating allegations made by staff also poses a number of challenges, as outlined below.
- Can the matter be investigated without revealing the identity of the reporter and that a report was made? If confidentiality is not practical or appropriate, agencies need to assess the risk of reprisal against the reporter and other witnesses, and take action to mitigate any identified risks.
- Staff who report may not have purely public interest intentions, but be motivated to make allegations by an ongoing conflict or performance management situation. While these reports can still contain valuable information about wrongdoing, the credibility of the reporter’s evidence may be diminished, making it necessary to seek other more reliable evidence.
- As reporters may be seeking a predetermined outcome, it is important for agencies to emphasise up front that:
- they decide the scope of any investigation and the allegations pursued
- information will be gathered from a range of sources
- the outcome will depend on whether there is sufficient information to substantiate the allegations.
- If allegations cannot be substantiated, reporters can perceive this outcome as indicating that they have not been believed or even as an attack on their integrity. In these cases, it would be helpful to explicitly acknowledge the reporter’s integrity in making the PID and thank them for coming forward, unless there is evidence that contradicts this.
- During an investigation, reporters can often be anxious, hypersensitive to events or routine management decisions in their workplace and communicate frequently. Within professional boundaries, it is possible to build rapport with a reporter so that they feel comfortable raising concerns that can then be further explored or “reality checked”.
- There may be a conflict of roles if the people responsible for impartially investigating allegations are also responsible for supporting the person who made them. Supporting a reporter can also be hard for a case officer whose role and experience is not in providing ongoing psychological support.
Read more about these issues in the NSW Ombudsman’s Oversight of the Public Interest Disclosures Act Annual Report 2017–18. This report describes how public sector agencies are discharging their responsibilities and the activities of this office to support those agencies and persons who make PIDs.
For advice on investigating PIDs, contact the NSW Ombudsman’s PID Unit at pid@ombo.nsw.gov.au or 02 9286 1000.