Whistleblower Protection Bill passes in Senate

GOVERNMENT'S third attempt at the Whistleblower Protection Bill continues on its way to proclamation after it was passed in the Senate on July 3.

The bill was passed with 23 votes in favour and six opposition senators voting against it.

While the independent senators threw support behind the bill, it was not without raising some concerns.

Continuing her contribution from July 2's sitting, Dr Maria Dillon-Remy took issue with sections 13 to 16 of the bill which proposes that a reporting unit being set up to receive external whistleblower reports. Particularly, she took issue with the whistleblowing officers and questioned the method used to be appointed.

"We know that you can have a law and you put people in positions, but if the people are not the right people, you're not going to get the right outcomes. So how confidential are the people in the unit who are designated whistleblowing officers? It's a concern for me.

"How do we make sure, as we put this in place, and I'm not saying by any means that we should not, but making sure that the people that are chosen in these different departments or in different ministries etcetera are the right people. And also, making sure that having made the disclosure that things don't disappear. As we know, files disappear etcetera."

Independent Senator Deoroop Teemal said he believed the bill should have been subject to a joint select committee (JSC) for "rigorous review." Had this been done, he said, there could have been expert input into the legislation.

Opposition senator Jayanti Lutchmedial-Ramdial agreed with Teemal's view.

"It's not just about how functional the legislation can be you know, it's about at which different junctures the operation and implementation of this legislation the law can be challenged or it could lead to unintended consequences. Those are the things that you flesh out in a JSC. Again, a government that wants to and is committed to passing good law would take the time to listen and do that."

She called on the Government to withdraw the bill and send it to a JSC for scrutiny before bringing it back to Parliament.

"That's why people think there is a nefarious sort of aim on the part of Government when they come here to shove through this legislation without giving the time and due consideration it requires. It is a serious piece of law. It is a piece of law that everyone acknowledges from 2016 come forward interferes with individual rights."

She argued that protections offered to whistleblowers will lead to an imbalance of rights. She gave the example that someone could make an untrue claim but, because of their identity and disclosure being protected, a person's ability to defend themselves could be compromised.

Temporary opposition senator Karunaa Bisramsingh shared a similar sentiment. However, among the issues raised was what she described as the inherent risk of a whistleblower's identity being revealed through the course of investigation or prosecution.

"For example, if the details of the report are specific to a particular incident or a particular person, it can be easy to find out who the person is.

"It lacks detailed protocols and procedures for ensuring that confidentiality. Telling me I have to keep the identity confidential without telling me what are steps and measures I should take to do that does not help. This bill, by not stating what the employers have to do in their internal process can lead to inconsistent application and potential breaches."

In winding up the debate, Attorney General Reginald Armour thanked the independent senators for what he described as "very balanced, thoughtful, wise commentary."

"As we go forward, I expect much of what the independent senators have contributed will inform very materially, in particular, the regulations which are to be built out under section 28...of the bill before this house."

He acknowledged Bisramsingh's contributions and said he would take them under full consideration.

Armour also defended the Government's move to require a simple majority to pass the bill as opposed to a special majority. In its previous two attempts, the bill failed because it was unable to receive the required special majority. Although Lutchmedial-Ramdial argued otherwise, Armour said a 2022 privy council ruling allowed for the change. He said the benefits of the bill outweighed the individual rights it might step on.

"The right to private life cannot be used to trump an institution which is operating corruptly and that institution is entitled to privacy and therefore my rights are being impacted by the whistleblower spilling the beans."

The bill was passed in the House of Representatives two weeks ago when, although not required for its success, opposition Cumuto/Manzanilla MP Dr Rai Ragbir broke party ranks and voted for it.