Earlier this year, independent Parliamentarians Andrew Wilkie MP and Dr Helen Haines MP introduced the Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025 (Cth) to the House of Representatives. The following day, David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie introduced the Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025 (No 2) (Cth) in the Senate. These bills are substantively the same in that they establish an independent Whistleblower Protection Authority (WPA) with jurisdiction over all federal whistleblower protection laws.
Background
The WPA is proposed to consist of a Whistleblower Protection Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, and a Chief Executive Officer, dedicated to:
- receiving, facilitating and investigating whistleblower disclosures of wrongdoing;
- providing advice, assistance, guidance and support to any person, including a whistleblower or someone with responsibility for managing a whistleblower disclosure;
- conducting research and policy work in relation to the efficacy of Australia’s whistleblower protection laws; and
- investigating any mistreatment of whistleblowers and undertaking necessary enforcement activities.
A “one-stop shop” WPA is not a new idea, it was recommended in the final report into whistleblower protections from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, published in September 2017, and it was recommended in 1994, in the Senate Select Committee’s Report, In the Public Interest. [1]
In their second reading speeches, Mr Wilkie and Dr Haines emphasised that whistleblowers play a vital role in strengthening Australian democracy and advocated for comprehensive measures to support them.
They said we desperately need to overhaul the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) (PID Act) and the whistleblower protections in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and this is exemplified by the prosecutions of Richard Boyle, the former Australian Taxation Office official who blew the whistle on unethical debt collection practices, and David McBride, the former Australian Army lawyer who provided the ABC with information about Australian soldiers committing war crimes in Afghanistan.
In February, the Senate referred the Whistleblower Protection Authority (No 2) Bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. On 29 August 2025, they recommended that the Senate should not pass the bill.
This came one day after whistleblower Richard Boyle was subject to a year-long good behaviour bond after striking a plea deal to avoid a conviction and jail sentence. His case was the first test of the PID Act.
Why was the Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025 (Cth) not recommended?
The majority of the Committee acknowledged the significant challenges faced by whistleblowers and the limitations of the current framework including that for most whistleblowers, their experience has left them feeling traumatised, isolated and fearful.
However, it concluded that the Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025, in its current form, risks duplicating existing functions, creating potential conflicts of interest and adding complexity without sufficient clarity on roles and interactions.
The Committee recommended that the Australian Government consider the evidence from the inquiry as part of ongoing reforms to the PID Act and the Department of the Treasury’s statutory review of the Corporations Act 2009 and Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), but that the Senate not pass the bill at this time.
On 26 August 2025, three days before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee delivered their Report on the Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025, the Federal Court ordered TerraCom Limited to pay a $7.5M penalty for causing detriment to Justin Williams, an eligible whistleblower, the first enforcement outcome for contravention of the whistleblower victimisation provisions in Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act. [2] Mr Williams had raised concerns regarding a practice of improperly amending coal quality results to record more favourable results, which were then used to invoice customers.
This case sets a precedent for significant penalties to be imposed on companies that victimise whistleblowers and should prompt businesses to take care to properly manage whistleblower disclosures.
In September 2025, the Albanese Government announced it would re-commence consultation on the PID Act to reform Australia’s public sector whistleblowing framework, including strengthening protections for whistleblowers, simplifying procedures for making public interest disclosures and establishing a new whistleblower ombudsman within the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman with strong oversite over the PID Act.
These consultations are intended to support the Albanese Government to introduce reforms by the end of 2025.
Implications for organisations
Clearly, whistleblower reforms are in the spotlight, and we should expect ongoing scrutiny of Australia’s whistleblower protection regime. Organisations in both the public and private sectors should:
- monitor developments in the PID Act and Corporations Act, as harmonisation or expansion of protections remains a possibility;
- review internal whistleblowing policies and procedures to ensure they are accessible, robust and compliant with current and emerging standards;
- consider the adequacy of support, advice and protection offered to whistleblowers, including access to independent legal advice and protection from reprisals; and
- prepare for potential changes to oversight and enforcement mechanisms, including the possible establishment of a centralised authority in the future.
[1] Journals of the Senate, No. 104, 31 August 1994.
[2] Australian Securities and Investment Commission v TerraCom Ltd (No 3) [2025] FCA 1017.
The views expressed in this article are general in nature only and do not constitute legal advice. Please contact us if you require specific advice tailored to the needs of your organisation’s circumstances.