Rationale:

The Protected Disclosures Act 2000 has implications for boards of trustees and their staff. The intent of the Act is to allow employees to disclose serious wrong doings confidentially where they believe on reasonable grounds that such wrong doings have or are being committed by the employer or another employee in the organisation.

Purpose:

To ensure that the School has a clear process in place to enable staff, former staff, volunteers, board members and contractors to confidentially make a protected disclosure.

Policy Statement:

CBHS of Trustees ensures that procedures are in place to meet the requirements of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 including the confidentiality of those who make a disclosure.

The Headmaster and Board Chairperson have delegation from the Board of Trustees to investigate Protected Disclosures

Procedures for staff making a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act 2000.

1. If on reasonable grounds you believe you have information that a serious wrongdoing is occurring within the school and you wish to disclose that information, so it can be investigated you can make a protected disclosure to the Headmaster.

2. This can be done verbally or in writing. You should identify yourself and that the disclosure is being made under the Protected Disclosures Act and is following the board procedure, provide detail of the complaint [disclosure], and who the complaint is against.

3. If you believe that the Headmaster is involved in the wrongdoing or has an association with the person committing the wrongdoing that would make it inappropriate to disclose to them, then you can make the disclosure to the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees.

4. It is then up to the person you disclose to, to decide if the disclosure constitutes a serious wrongdoing, and that the allegations need investigating.

They can decide:

a. to investigate the disclosure themselves

b. to forward the disclosure to the board or a committee of the board to investigate

c. whether it needs to be passed on to an appropriate authority. If it goes to an appropriate authority, they will advise you that they are now investigating the complaint.

5. If you believe that both the Headmaster and the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees may be a party to the wrongdoing or in close relationship with the person/s involved in the wrongdoing you can approach an external "appropriate authority" direct yourself.

6. As noted above, in some circumstances the disclosure could be made to an appropriate authority by yourself or the person to whom you have made the disclosure.

An appropriate authority is defined in the Act as including:

"(a) includes ---

i. the Commissioner of Police:

ii. the Controller and Auditor - General:

iii. the Director of the Serious Fraud Office:

iv. the Inspector - General of Intelligence and Security:

v. an Ombudsman:

vi. the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment:

vii. the Police Complaints Authority:

viii. the Solicitor - General:

ix. the State Services Commissioner:

x. the Health and Disability Commissioner; and

(b) includes the head of every public sector organisation, whether or not mentioned in paragraph (a)."

7. Clause (b) can mean that in certain circumstances the appropriate authority could be the Secretary for Education of the Ministry of Education or the Chief Review Officer of the Education Review Office (ERO).

8. There are three circumstances when you can go directly to the appropriate authority:

a. When you believe that the head of the organisation is also a party to the wrongdoing or has an association with the person which would make it inappropriate for them to investigate.

b. If the matter needs urgent attention or there are other exceptional circumstances.

c. If after 20 working days there has been no action or recommended action on the matter to which the disclosure related. Otherwise, you need to go through the internal processes.

9. What happens if even the appropriate authority does nothing?

a. You could then make the disclosure to the Ombudsman [unless they were the authority you have already disclosed to] or a Minister of the Crown.

b. The Act does not protect you if you disclose information to the media or a member of parliament other than a Minster of the Crown in the circumstances referred to above. Where can I find out more information?

c. If you notify the Office of the Ombudsman verbally or in writing, that you have disclosed or are considering a disclosure under this Act, they must provide information and guidance on a number of matters including those discussed here and the protections and remedies available under the Human Rights Act 1993 if the disclosure leads to victimisation.

Procedure for the Headmaster or Board Chairperson when receiving a Protected Disclosure.

On being approached by a staff member, former staff member, or contractor working in the school who wishes to make a protected disclosure, the Headmaster or Board Chairperson will:

1. Ensure that any discussions with that person are carried out in a manner that protects the confidentiality of the discloser. It would not be unusual for a Headmaster to talk to a staff member in private, but it could be for a trustee. Meeting away from the school may resolve this issue. Likewise, the Headmaster or Board Chairperson needs to be cautious he/she does not reveal the discloser by beginning the investigation in such a way that links the person who made the disclosure.

2. Inform the discloser of the protections they have including any possible reasons that information that may identify themselves may need to be disclosed. Remind them that those protections only exist if the allegation is made in good faith. The protections are:

2.1 the discloser’s identity will be confidential unless they give permission to be identified or if the person who has acquired knowledge of the protected disclosure reasonably believes that disclosure of identifying information

a) is essential to the effective investigation of the allegations in the protected disclosure; or

b) is essential to prevent serious risk to public health or public safety or the environment; or

c) is essential having regard to the principles of natural justice.

2.2 The discloser cannot be victimised by the employer for having disclosed the information

2.3 the discloser is not liable for civil or criminal proceedings for disclosing the information

2.4 if the discloser believes that they have been unfairly treated in their job or unreasonably dismissed following a disclosure they can take a personal grievance against their employer.

2.5 A request for information under the Official Information Act 1982 [other than one made by a member of the police for the purpose of investigating an offence] may be refused, as contrary to this Act, if it might identify a person who has made a protected disclosure.”

3. If the Headmaster or Board Chairperson considers that the allegation does not fit the criteria for serious wrongdoing by the employer or a staff member the Headmaster of Board Chairperson could identify that to the person making the disclosure and consider with them other forms of action if necessary for example making a complaint under the complaints policy.

4. The Headmaster or Board Chairperson can arrange a further meeting time with the discloser to discuss any outcome of an investigation that can be shared. It is important that the person making the protected disclosure knows that the allegation has been investigated even if they cannot be told the outcome of that investigation.

5. The Headmaster or Board Chairperson will keep confidential records of any meetings, notes, and investigation reports in a secure place.

Procedure for the Headmaster or Board Chairperson when considering information revealed by a protected disclosure will be to determine

1. Whether the information constitutes serious wrongdoing in terms of the Act. The Act defines serious wrongdoing as being any of the following:

a. an unlawful, corrupt, or irregular use of public funds or public resources; or

b. an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes a serious risk to public health or public safety or the environment; or

c. an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes a serious risk to the maintenance of law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial; or

d. an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes an offence; or an act, omission, or course of conduct by a public official that is oppressive, improperly discriminatory, or grossly negligent, or that constitutes gross mismanagement.

2. What is the best course of investigation

3. Whether it is advisable to refer the matter to another appropriate authority

4. The appropriate mechanism for informing the person who made the disclosure of the outcome of the investigation.

Approved by Board: March 2023

Procedure for the Headmaster or Board Chairperson when considering information revealed by a protected disclosure will be to determine

1. Whether the information constitutes serious wrongdoing in terms of the Act. The Act defines serious wrong doing as being any of the following:

1.1 an unlawful, corrupt, or irregular use of public funds or public resources; or

1.2 an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes a serious risk to public health or public safety or the environment; or

1.3 an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes a serious risk to the maintenance of law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial; or

1.4 an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes an offence; or an act, omission, or course of conduct by a public official that is oppressive, improperly discriminatory, or grossly negligent, or that constitutes gross mismanagement.

2. What is the best course of investigation.

3. Whether it is advisable to refer the matter to another appropriate authority.

4. The appropriate mechanism for informing the person who made the disclosure of the outcome of the investigation.

Approved by Board: 28 August 2018