No, and I'd like to explain.
In the U.K. context, it was removed. The “good faith” test was taken out of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. It's a very real example.
What ended up happening was that it became a bar to even getting past the first hurdle in a legal case. It became the case that the individual's motives were what was on trial. Lots of times they were asking if the whistle-blower behaved reasonably, without asking.... Basically, what happens in the U.K. environment is that you show that you raised a public interest concern, and you show what the misconduct was. The burden then moves...the misconduct, the retaliation, is against them. Because you've shown a prima facie case, it switches to the employer to disprove.... What they have to show is that any retaliation that happened was actually fair—independently fair—and had nothing to do with the whistle-blowing.
Having it as a bar to having the discussion.... There is enough in people's workplaces. Most people want to raise things internally. If you think of yourself, you don't immediately think that in your job you would have gone directly to the chief executive or to a non-executive director, or immediately called a regulator. The law is trying to protect the individual who has suffered for raising concern. Removing “good faith” doesn't suddenly give the green light to everybody to speak up and do it with motives that are not good.
I think we've shown time and again that when you have “good faith” in there, it tends to focus all the efforts of the courts, and the minds of the other side can actually impugn the motives of the whistle-blower before we even get to the next point.