# data[].attributes.body
The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (RO Act) protects a person who makes a protected disclosure.

They are protected even if the matter is only reported to the registered organisations as long as it meets certain eligibility and could have been reported to the Commission.

# data[].attributes.body
Dr Clara He and her colleague/ co-accuser Dr Chen.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Thought there would be a fair investigation

2. Frustrated due to lack of legal action hence, led to whistleblowing

# data[].attributes.body
University of NSW

vice chancellor found Hall guilty only of the lesser charge of academic misconduct, only censured not sacked

Fired the vice chancellor and hired a new one to put an end to the case, suggesting that no further disciplinary action would be taken by the university

Allows the publish of non existing data as long as the experiment would be conducted and produce the exact copy of data mentioned.

Allows publication of data from the past without acknowledging

Institutional failure

Rather clumsy collegial procedures and don’t produce simple clear outcomes

Dismissal of misconducts, suggesting it was not severe academic misconduct as final conclusion

Reckless disregard for truth and excuses would allow you to get away with bad misconducts

Lost competent dean and vice chancellor, however, Bruce Hall is still in the institution

# data[].attributes.body
Whistleblowers are protected against reprisals. This includes:

any civil or criminal liability for reporting the concern (they are only liable for their own misconduct)

any contractual or other remedy being enforced by the investigation.

A reprisal includes:

dismissal

disadvantage them in their employment or position

discrimination between them and other employees

harassment or intimidation

harm and injury (including psychological injury)

damage to property

damage to reputation

# data[].attributes.headline
In this case,Whistleblowing did not lead to systemic change.

# data[].attributes.subject
In this case,Whistleblowing did not lead to systemic change.

# data[].attributes.body
Dr Chen, also one of the whistleblower

Other co-accuser that was in this case too

Norman Swan

# data[].attributes.body
case study

no support was given to accusers

No policies were established to protect whistleblowers

Strongly discourages the act of whistleblowing

The act led to serious consequences and damage to everyone involved

Even with written evidence, the journalist did not believe the misconducts of Bruce Hall

Journalist provided informed consent which was extremely discouraging and suggested that if whistleblowers were scared, it’s better to abandon the story

# data[].attributes.body
Dr Clara He, a researcher in University of NSW (whistleblower) was one of the complainants against a transplant immunologist, Professor Bruce Hall

Still an ongoing case with outstanding litigation, 12-13 enquiries, internal and external that contradict or conflict with each other

What happened?

Four years ago, Bruce Hall was accused of gross misconduct by his own laboratory members, which he strenuously denied

Dr Clara was frustrated over the lack of official action, leading her to approach Norman Swan, an investigator

When Dr Clara mentioned the investigation is on Bruce Hall, he felt shocked as he knew him personally and could not have believed he have done any scientific misconduct, giving Clara a hard time to be a whistleblower

After Clara provided clear evidence on this accusation, Norman finally agreed to investigate

Evidence

In April of 2001, Clara He was in the audience at the Transplantation Society of Australia and NZ’s annual conference

Professor Hall presented two experiments, that her and her lab worker, Dr Chen, claimed were never done

Apparently Professor Hall has been promoting these two experiments for years, although he has never actually conducted it

Proof that he never conducted it? It is not present in the lab books in the hospital he claimed it was carried out in (Liverpool Hospital), testimony from Dr Chen who would have help carried out the experiments

Professor Hall claimed he carried out these experiments in the past or in a different place, but presented the work as if he did it in the Liverpool Hospital

Findings would not be comparable if it was done elsewhere due to the different conditions

After the whistleblowing

Clara He received a lot of accusations from the same university she was promoted in and obtained an NH&MRC funding grant from

Her hospital told her to relocate out from research facilities, making it extremely hard for her to finish her research

She was not allowed to get animals from her university for her research, instead needed to buy from Perth and import into there

Reason? The animals bred are for Professor Hall and not for her

She was also denied access to any facility, she and Dr Chen had resolved to engaging with different research groups to assist them with different projects

Conclusion

High Court Chief Justice, Sir Gerard Brennan, found that Professor Hall had, seriously deviated from practices commonly accepted for reporting research and that he’d stated a material and significant falsehood with reckless disregard for the truth and with deliberate intent to deceive

Dr Clara He and her co-accusers though they were vindicated (clear of blame), but a subsequent enquiry under the university’s workplace agreement by the then Vice-Chancellor, Professor Rory Hume

The Vice-Chancellor found Hall guilty of only lesser charge of academic misconduct, meaning he would be severely disapproved but not dismissed

But with the new Vice-Chancellor, they stated that given the lapse of time and consideration of natural Justin and cost, resolved that no further disciplinary action be taken by the university

So, Professor Hall was basically only given a slap on a wrist and according to the university, scientific misconduct is okay

After all this, the university lost a Vice-Chancellor, Dean of Medicine who were very competent people, but Professor Hall still remained there.

# data[].attributes.headline
Penalties for breaching whisteblower protections 

# data[].attributes.subject
Penalties for breaching whisteblower protections 

# data[].attributes.body
There are civil penalties for taking or threatening to take a reprisal.

The Federal Court or Federal Circuit Cpurt can also order significant civil remedies including:

compensation for loss, damage or injury

injuctions to prevent, stop or remedy the effect of reprisals or threats

an order requiring an apology

exemplary damages

any other order the court thinks appropriate

It is a criminal offense to harm or threaten to harm a whistleblower. An offender can be sent to jail for up to 2 years, fined or both.

# data[].attributes.body
Scientific misconduct like fabricating experiments can undermine the credibility of research and harm the scientific community

Institutions must prioritise transparent and thorough investigations against misconduct allegations to ensure ethical standards are met at all times

# data[].attributes.body
As seen, Dr Clara received a lot of accusations and professional isolation after retaliating against Professor Hall

A strong support system is very important to encourage the whistleblower is speak out on the ethical issue and to support them mentally

# data[].attributes.headline
3. Importance of Institutional Accountability

# data[].attributes.subject
3. Importance of Institutional Accountability

# data[].attributes.body
In general, universities and research institutions should have a clear and unbiased mechanism in handling misconduct allegations for fairness and justice

How the university handled the case demonstrated how institutional conflicts of interest can compromise the accountability

# data[].attributes.body
Clara He:

hardest thing she’s ever done, very destructive

Finds herself like a criminal

Lost her funding grant as a young scientist

Became a bad manager after accusation

Move out of research labs to relocate to a place with no facilities for in depth research projects such as molecular part of the work

Can’t use animal houses internal breeding animals and had to buy and import on her own

Denied access to all facilities

Very difficult and slow progress in terms of her own projects

Thinks she would never be able to rebuild her career and will always fail, no future

# data[].attributes.headline
Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (PID Act)

# data[].attributes.subject
Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (PID Act)

# data[].attributes.body
Applies to public sector employees, including those in government-funded scientific institutions.

Protects individuals who disclose information about illegal, unethical, or improper conduct, including scientific fraud, within the federal public sector.

# data[].attributes.body
Professor Bruce Hall

# data[].attributes.headline
Summary of the Healthcare Institutions Incident in Hungary 

# data[].attributes.subject
Summary of the Healthcare Institutions Incident in Hungary 

# data[].attributes.body
Incident:

A whistleblower reported a private hospital anaesthetist in Hungary for demanding gratuities (extra fees) $74 from patients, in addition to standard fees.

Action Taken:

Transparency International Hungary’s ALAC obtained consent from the whistleblower to use their personal data.

Filed a complaint with the National Protection Authority.

Authorities quickly initiated an investigation.

Context:

This case highlights Bribery in healthcare is a widespread issue in Hungary.

18% of public hospital users reported paying bribes in the past year (2021 Global Corruption Barometer).

Systemic Change:

Whistleblowing raises awareness about unethical practices and prompts official investigations.

While individual cases address specific incidents, collective reporting can pressure authorities to implement reforms.

Systemic change requires consistent action, regulatory reforms, and cultural shifts in healthcare practices.

# data[].attributes.body
Encourage whistleblowers to come forward, protect tehm from retaliation, and help them navigate the challenges associated with their disclosures.

Encourage on reporting wrongdoing.

A supportive environment, including clear policies, legal protections, and encouragements can increase the likelihood that individual will report misconduct.

Mitigates Emotional and Psyhological Impact

Can help manage the emotional toll and maintain well-being as whistleblowers may experience stress, anxiety, depression or isolation due to their actions.

Protect against retaliation

Legal frameworks, organizational policies, and advocacy groups can act as protective mechanisms, ensuring that whistleblowers are shielded from unfair treatment.

Encourages Ethical Behavior in Organizations

When organizations provide a safe and supportive culture for whistleblowers, it signals a commitment to ethical practices.This can deter wrongdoing, as employees see that the organization values accountability and transparency.

# data[].attributes.headline
Corporations Act 2001 (as amended by the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Act 2019)

# data[].attributes.subject
Corporations Act 2001 (as amended by the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Act 2019)

# data[].attributes.body
Covers whistleblowers in the corporate sector, including those working in private research organizations or companies.

Protects disclosures related to misconduct, including fraud or breaches of laws by corporations.

# data[].attributes.body
The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research outlines standards for ethical research.

Universities and research institutions often have their own whistleblower policies aligned with the Code, offering internal protections.