When Whistleblowers Are Told To Wait. Then Told - It’s Too Late.
In Australia, the systems that claim to protect Whistleblowers often just run out the clock. This is how the silence is maintained.
It’s Monday morning Story Time in The Reckoning Room.
In 2020, I was told that media was my last resort. That the only way to hold people accountable for what was done to me - while working inside a large trade union, in what was supposed to be a democratic institution - was to speak publicly.
So I did.
And now, “they” don’t like it.
Some have blocked me from their platforms. Others pretend not to see. But I keep speaking, because the alternative is to let them win.
🧩 The Attempt to Be Heard (Again)
Late last year, I contacted the Fair Work Ombudsman. I made a disclosure under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, hopeful that the system might finally do what it says on paper: investigate misconduct, protect whistleblowers, and act in the public interest.
What followed was a predictable but exhausting dance of emails and bureaucratic delays:
📆 10 December 2024
Emails back and forth, setting up a time for a conversation.
📆 11 December 2024
I forward my original letter (dated 16 November 2024) I’d sent to all Australian Senators and posted it online. It includes this message:
“In 2020, I was advised media was my last resort…
I chose to use social media platforms, and now it seems ‘they’ don’t like it.
The misinformation and disinformation spread for malicious intent was, and still is, appalling…
Bottom line: the double standards are beyond hypocritical.
This isn’t about misinformation. It’s about stopping us from speaking the truth they don’t like.”
📆 11–23 December 2024
More emails. I’m told an assessment is being conducted under the FW(RO) Act.
Then: radio silence.
📆 5 February 2025
I receive the decision:
No investigation.
Why?
Insufficient evidence.
Too much time has passed.
The conduct is beyond the six-year statute of limitations.
🪤 The Rules Are the Problem
Let’s be clear: this isn’t about one complaint.
It’s about how institutions stall, deflect, and run out the clock, especially when someone challenges power.
Under the FW(RO) Act, investigations must proceed unless:
The matter doesn’t concern disclosable conduct
It’s frivolous or vexatious
The whistleblower withdraws it
It’s being adequately dealt with another way
None of those applied.
But they added a new barrier: time.
They told me to wait while they assessed it. Then said it was too late to act.
It’s a Catch-22.
One whistleblowers know all too well.
⚖️ This Isn’t About “Misinformation.” It’s About Suppressing Truth.
They say they want to fight “misinformation and disinformation.” But when whistleblowers come forward with documented, verifiable truths, they hide behind technicalities and PR spin.
What they call misinformation is often just truth that makes them uncomfortable.
“Accountability feels like an attack when you’re not ready to acknowledge how your behaviour affects others.”
“If that democratic institution doesn’t want people knowing what they do behind closed doors, maybe they should think about what they say and do.”
🚪 So Where Do We Go From Here?
We go public.
We go loud.
We write it down, and refuse to be erased.
🗣️ The Reckoning Room is here because silence protects the wrong people.
This space is for those who’ve been sidelined, silenced, or sabotaged, and are ready to speak anyway.
If that’s you, or if you care about:
whistleblower justice
system failure
abuse of power
or the human cost of workplace corruption
…then subscribe and be part of the reckoning.
This post is free.
Future newsletters will be subscriber-only.
With truth,
Jeanine Orzani
Whistleblower
#SilentSaboteurs #TheReckoningRoom #ElectionIssue25 #AccountabilityNotImpunity #WhistleblowerJustice #SystemicInjustice
