Procedures For Dealing With Public Interest Disclosures

In accordance with subsection 59(3) of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (the PID Act), the principal officer of any agency must, by instrument in writing, establish procedures for facilitating and dealing with public interest disclosures relating to the agency. The procedures must:

1. deal with the assessment of risks that reprisals may be taken in relation to those disclosures
2. provide for confidentiality of investigative processes, and
3. comply with any standards in force under subsection 74(1) of the PID Act.

I, Christina Grant, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (IPEA):

1. REVOKE all previous procedures of IPEA under the PID Act; and
2. ESTABLISH these procedures.

These procedures come into effect on the day they are signed. 

Christina Grant
Chief Executive Officer
Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority
March 2025

Introduction

The purpose is to provide advice and guidance to employees of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (IPEA) about the procedures that have been established to manage public interest disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (the PID Act). 

IPEA is committed to the highest standards of ethical and accountable conduct and encourages and supports the reporting of wrongdoing. IPEA will act on any disclosures in accordance with these procedures and will protect those who make disclosures from reprisals or threats from making a disclosure.

The operation of these procedures will be reviewed regularly to ensure their continued effectiveness.

In these procedures:

1. references to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) include references to their delegate
2. except as otherwise provided, all references to an Authorised Officer include reference to the CEO or an Authorised Officer appointed in writing by the CEO
3. all terms that are used have the same meaning as in the PID Act.

What is a public interest disclosure?

Not all disclosures of information that might be made to IPEA will be a ‘public interest disclosure’ (PID) for the purposes of the PID Act. A PID generally occurs when:

• it is made by a current or former public official (the discloser)
• the information tends to show, or the discloser believes on reasonable grounds the information tends to show, one or more instances of disclosable conduct as defined by the PID Act, and
• the disclosure is made to an appropriate person (including an Authorised Officer or the supervisor of the discloser).

In limited circumstances, a public official may disclose such information to a person outside government. This is known as an external disclosure or emergency disclosure. For more details, please refer to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Agency Guide to the PID Act at www.ombudsman.gov.au. 

Who is an authorised officer?

Authorised Officer is defined in section 36 of the PID Act. In IPEA, the Authorised Officers are: 

• the CEO
• Senior Executive Band 1 Officer in IPEA
• Chief of Client Services in IPEA

Who is a public official?

Public Official is defined in section 69 of the PID Act. In IPEA, for the purpose of these procedures, a public official is:

• an APS employee in IPEA (either current or former employee)
• the CEO (who is also the principal officer)
• an individual who is a contracted service provider

What is disclosable conduct?

The full definition of disclosable conduct is set out in section 29 of the PID Act. That definition applies for the purposes of these procedures.

In summary, disclosable conduct is conduct by an agency, a public servant in connection with their position, or a government contractor, in connection with entering into or giving effect to a Commonwealth contract that:

• contravenes a Commonwealth, State or Territory law
• in a foreign country, contravenes a foreign law that applies to IPEA, public official or service provider
• perverts the course of justice
• is corrupt
• constitutes maladministration, including conduct that is based on improper motives or is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or negligent
• is an abuse of public trust
• results in the wastage of public money or public property
• unreasonably endangers health and safety
• endangers the environment 
• is prescribed by the PID rules or
• involves abuse of the public official’s position, or could, if proved, give reasonable grounds for disciplinary action against the public official.

What is NOT disclosable conduct?

Individual grievances or workplace conflicts should be managed through existing mechanisms such as the Managing Inappropriate Workplace Behaviour Policy rather than being the subject of investigation under the PID Act. However, if it appears to the Authorised Officer that such a disclosure may represent a systemic issue within IPEA, then it may be treated as a disclosure under the PID Act.

Conduct that is wholly private and has no bearing on the position as a public official is not disclosable conduct. Matters that reflect private or personal interest are not matters of public interest:

• personal disagreement with a government policy or proposed policy
• personal disagreement with an action or proposed action by a Minister, the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President of the Senate
• expenditure, or proposed expenditure relating to such policy or action

How to make a disclosure

Who can you report to?

IPEA staff are encouraged to make a disclosure internally to their current supervisor or manager, or to one of IPEA’s Authorised Officers. Making a disclosure internally to an Authorised Officer provides IPEA the opportunity to investigate the matter and remove any danger or correct any wrong practices.

If a public official discloses information to a supervisor and the supervisor has reasonable grounds to believe the information concerns, or could concern, disclosable conduct, the supervisor must give the information to an Authorised Officer as soon as reasonably practicable.

If a public official in IPEA has information about suspected wrongdoing in another agency, they may choose to make a disclosure directly to an Authorised Officer in that agency.

In certain circumstances, a disclosure may also be made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Please refer to their website (www.ombudsman.gov.au) for more details on how to submit a PID to the Ombudsman. 

What should a disclosure include?

There is no required format for making a PID. A disclosure can be made:

• anonymously or openly
• orally or in writing
• without stating the disclosure is made under the PID Act.

As a minimum, a public interest disclosure should:

• be clear and factual
• avoid speculation, personal attacks, and emotive language wherever possible
• include supporting evidence where it is available to the discloser
• identify any witnesses to the disclosable conduct.

Depending on the circumstances, a discloser should think about covering as many of the following matters as possible to help IPEA determine how to proceed:

• their name and contact details
• the nature of the suspected wrongdoing
• who they believe committed the suspected wrongdoing
• when and where the suspected wrongdoing occurred
• how they became aware of the suspected wrongdoing
• whether the suspected wrongdoing has been reported to anyone else and, if so, what that person has done to fix, stop or prevent it
• whether they are concerned about possible reprisal because of making a disclosure.

Authorised Officers can be contacted by:

• completing the public interest disclosure form on the IPEA website at https://www.ipea.gov.au/public-interest-disclosure-form or
• email to pid@ipea.gov.au
• mail:
  PID Authorised Officer
  Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority 
  1 Canberra Avenue
  Forrest ACT 2603

Anonymous disclosures

Public officials may make anonymous disclosures if they wish to do so. A disclosure is considered anonymous if:

• the identity of the discloser is not revealed and if no contact details for the discloser are provided, or
• the discloser does not disclose their name but does provide anonymous contact details.

IPEA will act on anonymous disclosures wherever possible. However, if a disclosure is made anonymously and no contact details are provided, it may prevent investigation of the disclosure. Where a supervisor or manager receives an anonymous disclosure, they must refer it to an Authorised Officer as soon as reasonably practicable.

There are reasons why disclosers should consider identifying themselves to an Authorised Officer, or at the very least providing means of contact:

• the PID Act requires IPEA to keep a discloser’s identity confidential, subject to limited exceptions including the discloser’s consent. However, the discloser’s identity may become apparent if any investigation is commenced
• it is more difficult to ensure protection from reprisal if IPEA does not know the discloser’s identity
• the Authorised Officer who receives an anonymous report must have reasonable grounds to suspect the disclosable conduct has occurred to allocate the matter for investigation. If the discloser cannot be contacted to provide additional information, the matter may not proceed
• an Investigator has discretion not to investigate, or investigate further, if it is impracticable to do so because the discloser cannot be contacted to provide the Investigator with further information or assistance
• a discloser who does not provide a means of contact cannot be updated on the progress of the matter, including the outcome of the investigation.

A person who has made an anonymous disclosure may come forward at a later stage to disclose their identity and seek the protection of the PID Act.

Protections and support

Protections for disclosers, witnesses and potential disclosers

A discloser is subject to protection from reprisal under the PID Act unless such a disclosure does not fall within the PID Act or these procedures do not apply. Protections include confidentiality and immunity from criminal and civil liability or disciplinary action.

However, making a disclosure under the PID Act does not protect a discloser from their own wrongdoing. A person who intentionally makes a false or misleading disclosure will not receive protections under the PID Act.

When a disclosure is made, IPEA will conduct a risk assessment to consider the risk of reprisal action being taken against the discloser. IPEA will support disclosers, regardless of the outcome of the risk assessment, and where the risk of reprisals is greater than ‘low’, IPEA will take steps to mitigate the risk.

Where a disclosure is made but is later determined not to be a PID under the PID Act and is managed under other complaint mechanisms, IPEA will provide disclosers with the protections offered under the PID Act. 

Risk Assessment

When a supervisor or manager receives a disclosure, they must assess the risk that reprisal may be taken against the discloser. When an Authorised Officer receives a disclosure from a supervisor (whether the discloser is anonymous or not), the Authorised Officer must assess the risk that reprisal may be taken against the discloser.

There are four steps for assessing risks:

• Identifying—are there reprisals or related workplace conflict problems in the workplace, or do they have the potential to be problems?
• Assessing—what is the likelihood and consequence of reprisals or related workplace conflict?
• Controlling—what strategies should be put in place to prevent or contain reprisals or related workplace conflict?
• Monitoring and reviewing—have the strategies been implemented and were they effective?

In assessing the risk of reprisals, the following risk matrix must be used to determine the level of risk:

Examples of seriousness of reprisals

Minor: Occasional or one-off action that is likely to have a minor adverse effect on the discloser. For example, the occasional exclusion of the discloser from a social activity.

Moderate: Repeated action which is likely to have an adverse effect on the discloser. For example, routinely failing to include the discloser on work-related emails which the discloser has a genuine need to know.

Major: Sustained or on-off action which has a significant impact on the discloser. For example, consistently excluding the discloser from team discussions or imposing a negative performance assessment on the discloser without reasonable cause and supporting evidence.

Extreme: Action which is likely to have a very severe impact on the discloser. For example, physical violence or the denial of a promotion opportunity without reasonable cause.

Criteria for assessing likelihood of potential reprisals

When considering the likelihood of a reprisal being taken against a discloser, the supervisor or manager or Authorised Officer may consider, to the extent relevant, the following factors:

• the likelihood of the discloser being identified, which may involve a consideration of:
  • the size of the work area in which the discloser is located, and
  • the number of people who are aware of the information leading to this disclosure
• the number of people implicated in the disclosure
• the subject of the disclosure
• the number of people who are aware of the disclosure or are likely to become aware of the disclosure (e.g., through participation in the investigation)
• the culture of the workplace
• whether any specific threats against the discloser have been received
• whether there are allegations about individuals in the disclosure
• whether there is a history of conflict between the discloser and the subject of the disclosure
• where the disclosure can be investigated while maintaining confidentiality, and
• any other relevant matters.

Criteria for assessing likely seriousness of potential reprisals

When considering the likely seriousness of any potential reprisals against a discloser, the supervisor or manager or Authorised officer may consider, to the extent relevant, the following factors:

• the significance of the issue being disclosed
• the likely outcome if the conduct disclosed is substantiated
• if the discloser is isolated and whether they work full-time, part-time or on a casual basis
• if the alleged wrongdoing that is the subject of the disclosure was directed at the discloser, and
• the relative positions of the discloser and the person whose alleged wrongdoing is the subject of the discloser.

Support for disclosers, witnesses and potential disclosers

Regardless of the outcome of the risk assessment, IPEA will take all reasonable steps to protect disclosers, potential disclosers and witnesses from reprisal action. IPEA will support those who make or may make disclosures, and who are otherwise involved in PID matters. This may include taking one or more of the following actions:

• with the discloser’s, witnesses’ or potential discloser’s consent, appointing a support person to assist the discloser, potential discloser or witness, who is responsible for checking on their wellbeing regularly
• informing the discloser of the progress of the investigation
• advising the discloser, witness or potential discloser of the availability of the Employee Assistance Program
• where there are concerns about the health and wellbeing of the discloser, potential discloser or witness, liaising with officers responsible for work health and safety in IPEA
• with their consent, transferring the discloser to a different work area or approving remote working. This would be appropriate in cases involving very major or extreme risk.

To avoid doubt, reasonable administrative action taken to protect a person from detriment (for instance transferring this discloser to another business line) is not reprisal action. A person making a PID is still liable for their own conduct.

Support for person or persons against whom a disclosure has been made

IPEA will take steps to support any employee who is the subject of a public interest disclosure. This may include taking one or more of the following actions:

• advising the employee of their rights and obligations under the PID Act and about IPEA’s investigation procedures, including their right to procedural fairness
• informing the employee of the progress of the investigation
• ensuring the identity of the employee is kept confidential as far as reasonably practicable
• advising the employee of the availability of the Employee Assistance Program
• where there are concerns about the health and wellbeing of the employee liaising with officers responsible for work health and safety in IPEA
• with their consent, transferring the employee to a different work area or approving remote working. This would be appropriate in cases involving very major or extreme risk
• advising the employee they should seek their own independent legal advice on the impact of the PID Act and their rights and responsibilities.

Considering and allocating the disclosure

Does the disclosure meet the requirements of a PID?

When an Authorised Officer receives a disclosure of information, they will consider the information disclosed and determine whether there are reasonable grounds on which the disclosure could be considered an internal disclosure made in accordance with the PID Act, or if it would be more appropriately investigated under another law or power.

If the Authorised Officer is not the CEO, the Authorised Officer will, as soon as practicable, notify the CEO of the receipt of the disclosure.

The Authorised Officer will consider whether:

• the disclosure was made by a person who is, or was, a public official in IPEA
• the disclosure was made to a manager or supervisor, the CEO or an Authorised Officer
• the disclosure is about disclosable conduct
• the person who is alleged to have carried out the disclosable conduct was a public official at the time of the alleged conduct
• the disclosure is otherwise a PID within the meaning of the PID Act.

Following receipt of a disclosure, the Authorised Officer may obtain information and may make such inquiries as they think fit, for the purpose of deciding whether the disclosure is an internal disclosure or not and for allocation of the disclosure.

If the Authorised Officer is satisfied the disclosure meets the requirements of a PID, the disclosure will be allocated to one or more agencies for further handling and investigation in accordance with these procedures. The Authorised Office will us their best endeavours to decide the allocation within 14 days after the disclosure is made.

If the Authorised Officer is not satisfied the disclosure could be an internal disclosure, the disclosure will not be allocated for investigation and:

• if contacting the discloser is reasonably practicable, the Authorised Officer must advise the discloser in writing that the disclosure will not be allocated and advising:
  • the reasons why the disclosure will not be allocated; and
  • any other course of action which might be available to the discloser under other complaint mechanisms
• if the disclosure relates to conduct that may need to be addressed under IPEA’s
  • Fraud Control Plan
  • Policy for Managing Inappropriate Workplace Behaviour
  • procedures for managing breaches of the APS Conde of Conduct
  • any other IPEA policies or procedures

The Authorised Officer may refer the matter to be dealt with in accordance with the relevant policy or procedures.

Allocation of the disclosure

Determining the agency or agencies to which the disclosure will be allocated

In deciding the agency or agencies to which a disclosure will be allocated, the Authorised Officer will have regard to:

• the principle that IPEA should not handle a disclosure unless some or all of the conduct disclosed relates to IPEA (and not to other Departments or agencies)
• any other matters the Authorised Officer considers relevant, including whether another agency would be better able to handle the disclosure and any recommendation of the Ombudsman or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (the IGIS).

If the Authorised Officer contemplates allocating the disclosure to the Ombudsman, the IGIS or an investigative agency prescribed by the PID Rules, the Authorised Officer must have regard to additional matters in section 43 of the PID Act.

The Authorised Officer must not allocate a disclosure to another agency unless an Authorised Officer of that agency has consented to the allocation.

Informing relevant persons of the allocation

If the disclosure is allocated for handling within IPEA, the Authorised Officer must inform:

• the relevant contact officer in the Ombudsman’s office, and
• the discloser, if the Authorised Officer is aware of their contact details

Informing the receiving agency

Where an Authorised Officer allocates the handling of a disclosure to another agency, they will inform the principal officer of that agency of the allocation, the information that was disclosed, the conduct disclosed and, if the discloser consents, the discloser’s name and contact details. 

Informing the discloser

The Authorised Officer must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the allocation has occurred, inform the discloser in writing of the allocation and of the information that has been provided.

Recording the allocation decision

When an Authorised Officer allocates the handling of a disclosure, that officer must keep an appropriate record of:

• the decision (including, as necessary, the name of each agency the disclosure is allocated)
• the reasons for the decision
• the consent provided by the Authorised Officer of an agency to which an allocation is made.
• whether the discloser was informed of the decision and, if so, the day and time of the notification, how the discloser was notified and the content of the notification.

These records should be kept confidential.

Investigating the disclosure

Decision by the CEO to investigate the disclosure

The CEO or their delegate must, as soon as reasonably practicable after being allocated a PID, decide:

• to investigate the disclosure under the PID Act
• not to investigate the disclosure
• not to investigate the disclosure further, or
• to investigate under a separate investigative power.

The CEO or their delegate must not investigate or refer a disclosure for investigation if a stop action has been issued under the National Ani-Corruption Commission Act 2022 (the NACC Act) with respect to that element or all of the disclosure. The Ombudsman must be notified of this circumstance.

The CEO or their delegate may decide not to investigate (or discontinue an investigation) if:

• the discloser is not a current or former public official (and a determination has not been made under section 70 of the PID Act)
• the information does not to any extent concern serious disclosable conduct
• the disclosure is frivolous or vexatious
• information is the same, or substantially the same, as information disclosed under the PID Act and
  • a decision was previously made under subsection 48(1) of the PID Act not to investigate the earlier disclosure, or not to investigate further, or
  • the earlier disclosure has been, or is being, investigated as a disclosure
• the conduct disclosed, or substantially the same conduct, is being investigated under another law or power, and the CEO or their delegate is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that it would be inappropriate to conduct an investigation under the PID Act.

Decision not to investigate

Where the CEO or their delegate decides not to investigate a disclosure, they will, as soon as reasonably practicable, give written notice to the Ombudsman of that decision and the reasons for that decision. If the CEO or their delegate decides (or proposes) to refer the disclosure internally or to another body for investigation under another law or power, then the notice to the Ombudsman must include information about:

• the other law or power
• the agency or other person or body to which the conduct has been, or is to be, referred
• the steps taken, or proposed to be taken, for the conduct to be referred or to facilitates its referral.

If the CEO or their delegate is aware of the name and contact details of the discloser, they must inform the discloser of that decision and the reasons for the decision. This includes advising of any referral for investigation under another law or power, inclusive of the information provided to the Ombudsman. The CEO or their delegate must also provide information to the discloser about other courses of action which may be available to the discloser under other laws of the Commonwealth.

Decision to investigate

Where the CEO or their delegate has decided they are required to investigate the disclosure, and where they are aware of the name and contact details of the discloser, they will, as soon as practicable, inform the discloser 

• that IPEA is required to investigate the disclosure and the estimated length of time of the investigation and
• the investigator’s name and contact details

Decision not to investigate further

If the CEO or their delegate decides to investigate and commences an investigation into the disclosure, but then decides not to investigate the disclosure further, they will provide written notice to the discloser of that decision and the reasons for the decision. This includes advising of any referral for investigation under another law or power, inclusive of:

• the other law or power
• the agency or other person or body to whish the conduct has been, or is to be, referred
• the steps taken, or proposed to be taken, for the conduct to be referred or to facilitate its referral.

The CEO or their delegate must also provide information about other courses of action which may be available to the discloser under other laws of the Commonwealth.

The CEO or their delegate must also give written notice to the Ombudsman of the decision not to investigate further and advise the reasons for the decision. Where the CEO or their delegate decides to refer the disclosure internally, then the notice to the Ombudsman must include information about:

• the other law or power
• the agency or other person or body to whish the conduct has been, or is to be, referred
• the steps taken, or proposed to be taken, for the conduct to be referred or to facilitate its referral.

Notifying the CEO

A delegate of the CEO must advise the CEO as soon as practicable that a PID has been received and any decision the delegate has made to investigate, not investigate or not investigate further.

Conducting the investigation

An internal disclosure may be investigated under the PID Act or under other legislation applying to the Ombudsman, the IGIS and prescribed investigative agencies.

The CEO has delegated all functions under the PID Act to Senior Executive Band 1 officers within IPEA, and the Chief of Clients Services in IPEA, including investigative functions under the PID Act.

The following general principles will apply to the conduct of investigations:

• maintaining the confidentiality of the identity of the discloser will be observed
• natural justice will be afforded, including that a person who is the subject of the investigation will be provided with an opportunity to respond to allegations
• in the event an interview is to be conducted, it will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Public Interest Disclosure Standard 2013 (or any other relevant standard made under the PID Act), and
• a decision whether evidence is sufficient to prove a fact will be determined on the balance of probabilities.

The CEO, or their delegate, is free to conduct the investigation as they see fit. The way an investigation is conducted may vary depending on the alleged conduct.

The investigator must, as soon as reasonably practicable, inform the discloser:

• that IPEA is required to investigate the disclosure and the estimated length of time of the investigation, or
• that the investigator has decided not to investigate the disclosure, the reasons and other courses of action that might be available to the discloser.

Investigations must be completed, and the investigation report finalised, within 90 days after the disclosure was allocated for investigation. The investigation timeframe may be extended under the provisions in section 52 of the PID Act.

Additional procedures required in particular circumstances

In conducting an investigation, the investigators must also comply with:

• the Public Interest Disclosure Standard 2013 or any other standard issued under section 74 of the PID Act, and
• to the extent they are relevant to the investigation:
  • the Commonwealth Fraud and Corruption Control Framework 2024;
  • procedures established under subsection 15(3) of the Public Service Act 1999
  • any other departmental policies or procedures.

Obtaining information

Instances of disclosable conduct may relate to information that is disclosed or information obtained during the investigation rather than information provided in the initial disclosure.

During the investigation, the CEO or their delegate may, for the purposes of the investigation, obtain information from such persons and make such inquiries as they see fit.

When being interviewed as part of an investigation, an interviewee will be informed of:

• the identity and function of each individual conducting the interview
• the process of conducting an investigation
• the authority of the CEO under the PID Act to conduct the investigation
• the protections provided to witnesses under section 57 of the PID Act, and
• the person’s duty:
  • if they are a public official—to use their best endeavours to assist the investigators in the conduct of the investigation (subject to privilege against incriminating themselves or exposing themselves to a penalty)
  • not to take or threaten to take reprisal action against the discloser, and
  • not to disclose the identity of the person who made the disclosure.

The investigator must ensure that:

• an audio or visual recording of the interview is not made without the interviewee’s knowledge and
• when an interview ends, the interviewee is given an opportunity to make a final statement or comment or express a position, and 
• any final statement, comment or position by the interviewee must be included in the interview record.

In conducting the investigation, the CEO or delegate may adopt findings set out in reports of investigations or inquiries under another law or power, or other investigations under the PID Act.

Referral of information to police and others

If, during the investigation, the investigator suspects, on reasonable grounds, that some of the information disclosed or obtained in the course of the investigation is evidence of the commission of an offence against a law, they may disclose the information to a member of an Australian police force. If the information relates to an offence that is punishable by imprisonment for a period of at least two years, the investigator must disclose the information to a member of an Australian police force, unless the offence forms part of a corruption issue that has been referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

The investigation may also include consideration of whether a different or further investigation should be conducted by the agency or another body under another law or power.

Preparing the investigation report

Once the investigation is completed, the investigator will prepare a report of the investigation. The report must set out:

• the matters considered in the course of the investigation
• the duration of the investigation
• the findings (if any), and 
• the action (if any) that has been, is being or is recommended to be taken.

Where relevant the report should:

• identify whether there have been one or more instances of disclosable conduct 
• identify any regulations or rules to which the disclosable conduct relates
• explain the steps taken to gather evidence, and
• provide a summary of the evidence, findings and recommendations based on that evidence.

Provide the investigation report to the discloser

The investigator must, within a reasonable time after preparing the report, give a copy of the report to the discloser. The copy of the report given to the discloser may have some information deleted if:

• it is likely to enable the identification of any person (the discloser or another person, such as someone who is under investigation), or 
• the inclusion would cause the document to
  • be exempt under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act)
  • require a national security or protective security classification, or 
  • contain intelligence information or sensitive law enforcement information.

Provide the investigation report to the Ombudsman

The CEO or delegate will provide the Ombudsman with written notice of the completion of the investigation, with a copy of the report, within a reasonable time after preparing the report.

Record-keeping

Where an Authorised Officer is required to keep a record under these procedures, the record may be kept in hard copy or in an electronic form or both. Access to these records must be restricted to Authorised Officers, delegates or other employees in IPEA who require access in order to perform some function under the PID Act.

All records made for the purposes of the PID Act must be marked as ‘Sensitive – Personal’ and any hard copies must be stored in the appropriate storage container.

What if the discloser is not satisfied with ipea’s actions?

A person who has made an internal disclosure may be unhappy with IPEA’s decision not to investigate a matter. If the disclosure is investigated, they may believe that the investigation or IPEA’s response to the investigation was inadequate. A reasonable belief that an investigation under the PID Act was inadequate or that IPEA’s response was inadequate is one of the conditions for making an external disclosure.

A discloser who is unhappy with the process or how they have been treated may also complain to the Ombudsman. Further information on external disclosures is on the Ombudsman’s Public Interest Disclosure website.

Freedom of information requests

Documents associated with a PID are not exempt from the operation of the FOI Act. Requests for access to documents under the FOI Act must be considered on a case-by-case basis. A range of exemptions may apply to individual documents or parts of documents, particularly in relation to material received in confidence, personal information, operations of agencies, and law enforcement. For more information, please refer to IPEA’s Freedom of Information page.

Monitoring and evaluation

Authorised Officers will provide an annual report to the CEO specifying the number of PIDs they have received and the nature of the disclosable conduct for each disclosure.

The CEO will report to the Ombudsman on disclosures within the time requested by the Ombudsman or as otherwise agreed with the Ombudsman.

Roles and responsibilities

Managers and supervisors

A public official may make a disclosure to their supervisor or manager. Supervisors and managers play a key role in ensuring IPEA’s workplace culture supports the making of PIDs in a safe environment. They can help to do so by:

• being knowledgeable about the PID Act and IPEA procedures, particularly in relation to confidentiality requirements
• being approachable to public officials who wish to raise concerns
• supporting public officials who they know have made a PID and ensuring they are protected from reprisal
• providing a written assessment of any risks that reprisal action might be taken against the discloser when reporting a disclosure to an Authorised Officer
• ensuring identified problems in the workplace are corrected, and
• setting an example for public officials.

If a public official discloses to a supervisor or manager and they have reasonable grounds to believe the information concerns, or could concern, disclosable conduct, the supervisor must give the information to an Authorised Officer as soon as reasonably practicable.

Upon receipt of a disclosure, supervisors are required to:

• inform the discloser that the disclosure could be treated as an internal disclosure for the purposes of the PID Act, and
• explain to the discloser the procedures under the PID Act for such a disclosure to be:
  • given to an Authorised Officer
  • allocated to IPEA or another agency
  • investigated by the CEO of IPEA or the principal officer of another agency
• advise the discloser about the circumstances (if any) in which a PID must be referred to an agency or other person or body under another law, and
• explain to the discloser the civil and criminal protections the PID Act provides to protect disclosers, and those providing assistance in relation to such disclosures, from reprisals.

Authorised Officers

Authorised Officers are senior officers who are authorised to receive reports of suspected disclosable conduct. In IPEA, the Authorised Officers are:

• the CEO
• Senior Executive Band 1 Officer in IPEA
• Chief of Client Services in IPEA

Authorised Officers have a range of decision-making, notification and other responsibilities under the PID Act, including:

• receiving disclosures from current or former public officials about disclosable conduct
• deeming a person to be a public official to facilitate the making of a PID
• informing a person who may be unaware of PID Act requirements that information the Authorised Officer reasonably believes could concern disclosable conduct could be treated as an internal disclosure
• explaining the requirements of the PID Act and advising the person of any designated publication restrictions that may affect disclosure
• assessing reported information to determine if there are no reasonable grounds to believe the information could be considered to be a PID
• making any preliminary inquiries necessary to make an allocation decision
• referring a disclosure to the NACC if the criteria for mandatory referral are met
• allocating all or part of the disclosure to the CEO of IPEA and/or the principal officer of another agency with that agency’s consent
• informing the principal officer of each agency, and the Ombudsman or the IGIS as appropriate, of allocation decisions and associated information
• informing the discloser of the allocation decision
• consenting to the allocation of a disclosure to IPEA by an Authorised Officer of another agency
• take reasonable steps to protect public officials in IPEA against reprisals
• advising the discloser of a decision not to allocated, the reasons why and any other course of action that may be available under Commonwealth law.

Public Officials

All public officials have an obligation to report wrongdoing by another public official in the course of, or in connection with, their APS employment. Public officials must make any report based on information they believe, on reasonable grounds, may provide evidence of behaviour that is disclosable conduct.

All public officials have a responsibility to familiarise themselves with these procedures to ensure they are aware of what a PID is, what action to take if they suspect wrongdoing, how disclosures will be handled and the protections available should they report suspected disclosable conduct.