The Hungarian Parliament adopted the act on complaints and announcements of general interest. Transparency International Hungary (TI) believes that the law does not facilitate the eradication of corruption, moreover; it does not provide adequate protection for those who encounter corruption and report the incident. Therefore, we call on János Áder, the president of the Republic, to refuse signing this law.
TI has already expressed a critical opinion of the draft legislation. We expressed our confidence in the first draft submitted for administrative consultation referring to it as an attempt worth further consideration. However, the law adopted yesterday by Parliament is, in fact, nothing more than an incompetent effort to protect citizens who are willing to defy corruption.
Corruption surveys conducted by TI in 2012 and 2013 revealed that 70% of people in Hungary would not report corruption to authorities, which is a staggeringly high figure even in international comparison. The bulk of people are either indifferent to cases of corruption or they are afraid. When social indifference towards corruption reaches such a magnitude, only novel and effective measures are able to bring a breakthrough in the situation. The previous government envisaged addressing the problem by establishing an authority charged with the task of protecting whistleblowers and by passing the Act on The Protection of Fair Procedures. We will never know whether these would have brought an effective solution because the law was never applied and with the adoption of the new legislation it has now been repealed formally as well.
The government in power does not share the vision of its predecessor; it does not intend to set up an new anti-corruption organ. Instead, it obliges existing authorities, i.e. the police, the tax authority, the public prosecution, the audit office etc. to investigate announcements. We do not agree with this measure since the present institutional system and currently applied procedures let several forms of corruption flourish. For instance, the payment of gratuity money in the health care system has been in practice for decades without any consequence, and only the press and certain NGOs are concerned about corrupt party campaigning but not the police. It would be more than naivety to suppose that currently passive authorities would suddenly start tackling these sensitive manifestations of corruption effectively just because yet another law requires them to act.
The only progress the new law brings is that the ombudsman may launch an inquiry into the practice of authorities which refuse to act upon announcements of general interest. Yet not even this measure can be expected to deliver a breakthrough since the conclusions of the ombudsman are not binding for the negligent authorities.
The new law also fails to provide effective protection for whistleblowers. People defying corruption might put themselves and their environment in jeopardy: they can lose their job; if they are entrepreneurs, they can lose orders; in worse-case scenarios, their physical safety or even their life may be put at risk. The new law ignores these potential risks. Protection would only be granted to whistleblowers, but not so to their families and other relations, for example.
Moreover, the special support intended for the protection of whistleblowers would only represent financial help, which means that the bill does not provide for the physical and personal protection of whistleblowers and their families. Another major shortcoming of the proposed legislation is that it stops short of defining a minimum amount of support.
However, successful action against corruption would result in less public money leaking from the state budget. It is unreasonable to expect a high-ranking employee, for example, to risk their livelihood by blowing the whistle, if all they can hope for in exchange is a humble state subsidy. Financial support granted to whistleblowers must be proportionate to the income they earned before reporting an incident.
The fact that whistleblowers do not enjoy protection against wrongful dismissal, or prosecution for disclosing state secrets or breaching business secrecy amounts to another major legislative deficiency.
In lack of such measures, the provision stipulating that any discriminatory act against whistleblowers constitutes a violation of law remains but a mere declaration.
In fact, the new legislation fails to address, in any way, situations in which whistleblowers reporting corruption are, for instance, removed from their job by way of retribution. Not only does the misfortunate citizen have to bring their employer to court at their own expense if they want to be compensated, but the burden of proof also rests with them.
Therefore, Transparency International Hungary calls on the president of the Republic to refuse signing the act on complaints and announcements of general interest and to refer it back to Parliament for reconsideration. Pull position paper can be accessed here.