That's true. We proposed a tribunal because we wanted something that was independent; that had order power, not the power to recommend; that had the power to fire and penalize bullies who issued reprisals against whistle-blowers, but also the power to restore those whistle-blowers. We believed it was necessary to have something with order power. But at the same time, we didn't want to just leave it to the courts, because when whistle-blowers are fighting with government in courts, the resource imbalance is enormous.
We see this with cases right now, where whistle-blowers are trying to fight the justice department and the imbalance is extraordinary. In some cases, if the union doesn't support them, the whistle-blower has to pay out of his own pocket. It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight with a justice department that is full of lawyers who are happy to work as many hours as they're given.
The tribunal is meant to redress that imbalance. I want to make sure that at the end of the day the whistle-blower doesn't get beaten down through attrition by government bureaucrats who are resisting a final outcome. So I think it will be important for you to look to that and work to see that the whistle-blower has a fair hearing in front of these tribunals and isn't overpowered by the infinite resources of the state.
What do you think?