Insights & News

October 23, 2025

While multiple-employer agreements have existed for some time, legislative amendments in 2022 are seeing bargaining for these agreements move from the periphery to the centre of the industrial spotlight.

The Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) in 2022–2023 marked a significant change in collective bargaining in Australia. The reforms introduced new and refined streams for supported and single interest multi-employer bargaining, designed to encourage and increase enterprise bargaining, while purportedly improving wages and productivity. Whilst having different requirements, the result of bargaining through either mechanism is a single enterprise agreement which will apply to multiple employers, regardless of the operational needs of employers.

Employers are now being forced to the bargaining table to negotiate enterprise agreements which will cover them, as well as their competitors. Recent high-profile cases in the fast food, mining, and health and community services sectors have tested the boundaries of the new legislative regime, with significant implications for employers, employees, and unions alike.

We are taking a look at the two avenues that are utilised to get multiple-employer agreements off the ground and the ultimate outcome from two key decisions in this rapidly evolving area.

Supported Bargaining Stream

The supported bargaining provisions are aimed at employees who require ‘support’ in enterprise bargaining due to lack of skills, resources and bargaining strength. Unions can coalesce lower paid or fragmented workforces and apply to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for a supported bargaining authorisation. Relevantly, the FWC must make the authorisation if it is satisfied that it is appropriate for the employers and employees subject to the application to bargain together having regard to:

• the prevailing pay and conditions within the industry or sector;
• whether the relevant employees have an ‘identifiable common interest’; and
• whether the likely number of bargaining representatives would be consistent with a manageable bargaining process.

So far, employees in childcare, disability care and fast food have been identified in this category.

Case Study 1: McDonald’s and the Fast-Food Sector

The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) have had perhaps the most significant and high-profile win under the supported bargaining provisions, when the FWC granted its application for a supported bargaining authorisation in respect of McDonald’s franchises in South Australia (McDonald’s Decision).[1]

The SDA argued that the McDonald’s franchisees shared clear identifiable common interests: uniform branding, standardised systems, and a workforce overwhelmingly reliant on the Fast-Food Industry Award.  In relation to the employees bargaining power and positions, the SDA relied on the absence of enterprise agreements since 2019, coupled with the youth, inexperience, and low pay of the workforce to support multiple employer bargaining.

McDonald’s argued that operational differences between stores, such as location, size, and management practices, preclude a finding of common interest. However, they were unsuccessful, with the FWC finding that the South Australian franchisees have a broad degree of similarity both in the substance of their operations and the way they are presented to the public. Notably, the Commission also held that the supported bargaining stream does not require unions to demonstrate majority employee support, a key point of contention for employers.

McDonald’s are now subject to the authorisation which requires 18 McDonald’s’ franchisees to bargain together with their 5000 employees over 50 restaurants, preventing a ‘divide and conquer’ approach.

On the back of this success, the SDA is now seeking to extend the supported bargaining authorisation to McDonald’s franchises across the country, potentially covering 115,000 McDonald’s employees.

Single interest employer bargaining stream

In contrast to supported bargaining, the single interest employer bargaining stream is not concerned with the bargaining power or resources of the employees who will be subject to it. It is necessary (unlike a supported bargaining authorisation) that the majority of employees who are employed by a relevant employer named in the application want to bargain for the agreement. However, similar to supported bargaining authorisation, the FWC must be satisfied (amongst other matters) that the employers subject to the authorisation have clearly identifiable common interests, with the FW Act referencing the employers’ geographical location, regulatory regime and nature of the enterprises as relevant consideration for a common identifiable interest. Further, the operations and business activities of each of the relevant employers must be reasonably comparable.

Case Study 2: Coal Employers and the Mining Sector

In 2023, the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA) sought to negotiate a multi-employer agreement covering a small and discrete group of workers employed by four separate employers at four respective coal mines (the Employers).

In a hotly contested case, the Full Bench of the FWC awarded the single interest employer authorisation, finding that the employers had clearly identifiable common interests and that the statutory requirements for single interest authorisation were satisfied (Coal Decision). [2]

The Employers argued that the differences in their day-to day operations, their direct commercial competition and differing employment conditions favoured against the authorisation being made. However, only one of the Employers was successful, with the FWC finding their business activities and structure materially different, particularly noting it did not operate to generate profit or commercial gain.

The remaining unsuccessful Employers appealed the Coal Decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court but were again unsuccessful, with the Federal Court finding the FWC had applied the correct statutory tests.[3]

Despite the legal victory, practical challenges soon emerged for those subject to the authorisation. Company closures, operational differences, and resistance from rival unions led to a shift away from multi-employer bargaining. At one of the Employer’s sites, protracted bargaining resulted in lockouts, industrial action, and intractable bargaining declarations, whilst another Employer was removed from the bargaining after announcing closure of its mine site. The relevant unions have now abandoned their multi-employer bargaining strategy and announced they are seeking individual employer agreements, underscoring the complexity of applying a unified bargaining framework in industries with diverse operations and business models. Perhaps biting off more than they can chew.

Key takeaways for employers

The two cases above involve two different employer groups working within different sectors but who were ultimately subject to the same outcome – being obligated to bargain for a multi-employer agreement despite their vigorous objections.

In the case of McDonald’s Decision, the SDA’s win has seen the expansion of its bargaining strategy from South Australia (where the authorisation was limited to) to Australia-wide. Should it have continued success with this strategy, it has the potential to bargain for a single agreement that will cover hundreds of individual employers and over a hundred thousand employees. It provides an indication of just how many employers may be forced to bargain for multi-employer agreements, with no requirement for FWC to satisfied that the employers or a majority of employees are in fact in support of such an agreement.

The Coal Decision underscores the legal hurdles employers will face in convincing the FWC that they do not share a ‘common interest’ with their commercial rivals in an application for a single interest employer authorisation. In reviewing the Coal Decision, the Federal Court has emphasised the FWC is allowed to perform a ‘highly evaluative exercise’ on what common interest there may be between employers and is not bound by a restrictive definitions or mathematical formulae. However, while the union was successful in its application, the practical realities of engaging in multi-employer bargaining with an unwilling and differing group of employers quickly came to the forefront, with the strategy ultimately collapsing.

The experience suggests that, while the single interest employer authorisation can be a powerful tool, its success depends on the willingness of parties to engage and the manageability of the bargaining group (both employers and employees) overall.

[1] B2024/992 – Application by Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association
[2] APESMA v Great Southern Energy Pty Ltd T/A Delta Coal, Whitehaven Coal Mining Ltd, Peabody Energy Australia Coal Pty Ltd, Ulan Coal Mines Ltd [2024] FWCFB 322.
[3] Ulan Coal Mines Pty Ltd v Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia [2025] FCAFC 127.

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.

October 22, 2025

As artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision-making (ADM) technologies rapidly transform the world of work, Australian employers face a complex and shifting regulatory environment. On the employer side is the argument that it creates opportunities for increased productivity, efficiency and innovation. On the other hand, unions argue that there are risks ranging from potential discrimination in hiring to concerns over workplace surveillance and job displacement.

AI was a hot topic leading into the Productivity Roundtables in August this year where union representatives pushed for a strong regulatory framework and greater worker voice in the adoption of AI in the workplace. If union proposals are adopted, they have the potential to impede employers’ abilities to implement productivity measures in their workplaces.

While the union movement continues to push these reforms, the Australian Government has been careful not to commit to a position yet, instead announcing a regulatory “gap analysis” to determine whether legislative change is necessary, including a review of workplace laws. This work forms part of the Australian Government’s National AI Plan which is currently being consulted on.

While the outcome of this review and the National AI Plan is not expected to be completed until the end of the year, key figures in the Australian Government have already endorsed union calls for a greater voice in the adoption of AI in the workplace. Meaning that this issue remains one to watch in what could be the next major industrial relations contest for employers.

In this article we consider employers’ existing obligations with respect to the use of AI and ADM technologies in the workplace and how they should navigate the shifting regulatory environment into the future.

Existing regulatory framework 

Despite claims from the union movement to the contrary, Australia’s existing workplace laws already provide a foundation of protections that are relevant to the use of AI and ADM.

Unfair dismissal laws, anti-discrimination statutes, adverse action provisions and work health and safety (WHS) legislation all play a role in safeguarding employees. For example, even if an algorithm makes a decision to terminate employment without human oversight, the employer remains liable under unfair dismissal laws. The Fair Work Commission (FWC) would still require a valid reason for dismissal and would assess whether the process was fair and reasonable.

Discrimination law presents a more nuanced challenge. While intent is not required for a finding of discrimination, the law typically contemplates actions taken by a person. This raises questions about liability when a decision is made solely by an algorithm, such as where an employer may rely on ADM technology to vet prospective employees, in circumstances where candidates may inadvertently be rejected for discriminatory reasons.

While some may point to this as a “regulatory gap”, the general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) arguably capture circumstances where a prospective employee has been rejected for discriminatory reasons, regardless of whether a human or an algorithm made the decision. In practice, an employer would find it difficult to overcome the hurdle of a reverse onus of proof if relying exclusively on ADM technologies for recruitment purposes.

Workplace surveillance is governed by a patchwork of state and territory laws, as well as WHS obligations. While these laws may be in need of modernisation to keep pace with technological change, they do provide a level of protection against unreasonable monitoring and data collection.

Consultation requirements are another area of focus. Most employees are covered by modern awards or enterprise agreements that mandate consultation when major changes, such as the introduction of new technology, are likely to have a significant effect on employees. These obligations are broad enough to encompass AI and ADM, ensuring that employees and their representatives are involved in discussions about technological change. Recent committee reports and union submissions argue that consultation duties are sometimes “obviated by employers” and may lack transparency in practice, creating uncertainty over whether AI deployment constitutes a major change triggering formal consultation. While there is little proof that this is the case, this argument is quickly gaining support in the Federal Cabinet.

Federal Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Senator Tim Ayres, who is the Government’s lead on all things AI, has publicly endorsed a greater union voice in the adoption of AI in workplaces. Similarly, Assistant Treasury Minister, Dr Andrew Leigh MP, recently said that the union movement made the case at the Productivity Roundtable that “workers must be partners in shaping how AI is deployed, not passive recipients of decisions made in corporate boardrooms”.

Where to from here?

Recent developments indicate that specific regulation of AI in the workplace is not just a possibility but is already here. Notably, the introduction of a statutory Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code for gig economy platforms and proposed amendments to the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) signal a move towards greater oversight of automated systems.

The New South Wales workers compensation changes, currently before Parliament, are particularly novel and may provide a blueprint for similar laws in other jurisdictions. They seek to link work, health and safety risks with workplace surveillance and “discriminatory” decision-making, providing union officials with specific entry rights to inspect “digital work systems” to investigate suspected breaches of the law.

These reforms purportedly aim to ensure human oversight in key decisions, prevent unreasonable performance metrics and surveillance, and grant unions increased powers.

At the Federal level, unions, led by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), are advocating for mandatory “AI Implementation Agreements” that would require employers to consult with staff before introducing new AI technologies. These agreements would guarantee job security, skills development, retraining, and transparency over technology use. Additional union proposals include a right for workers to refuse to use AI in certain circumstances, mandated training, reforms to surveillance laws, and expanded bargaining rights related to AI adoption.

In a public critique of the Productivity Commission’s interim report on AI, the ACTU argued that the Productivity Commission had adopted a “let it rip” stance and reiterated its call for a “dedicated AI Act and a well-resourced regulator”. It also opposed any copyright changes that would diminish workers’ rights or allow their work to train AI systems without meaningful consent.

While the Australian Government appears to be moving away from a dedicated AI Act, recent supportive comments from key members of the Australian Government indicate that employers should be prepared for more targeted legislative changes which give workers and unions greater voice in the adoption of AI in the workplace.

Practical steps for employers

In this evolving landscape, employers should take proactive steps to manage both legal compliance and workforce relations. In practice, organisations should:

• Ensure human oversight: maintain human involvement in significant employment decisions made using AI or ADM, particularly in hiring, firing, promotion and performance management.
• Conduct AI risk assessments: evaluate the potential bias, privacy, WHS and discrimination risks before implementation.
• Consult with employees: engage in timely and meaningful consultation with employees and their representatives when introducing new technologies, in line with existing modern award or agreement obligations.
• Develop clear policies: establish and communicate clear policies on the use of AI, workplace surveillance and data handling to ensure transparency and build trust.
• Invest in skills development: provide upskilling and retraining opportunities to help employees use AI safely and effectively, adapt to technological change and maintain workforce capability.
• Monitor legal developments: track reforms at federal and state levels and emerging best practices to ensure ongoing compliance and readiness for future reforms.

Preparing for the future of work 

With government, unions, and business groups all weighing in on the future of AI regulation, it is crucial for employers to understand both the current legal framework and the likely direction of future reforms. Employers who act now, will be better prepared to meet upcoming reforms and maintain the trust needed for successful AI adoption.

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.

While ensuring the psychological safety of workers continues to be a topic of great interest for businesses, the term “psychosocial risks” continues to be an area of frustration, causing businesses headaches as a result of the confusion, including from concerned employees, about what does/does not constitute a “psychosocial risk”.

In an effort to address this confusion some states have introduced laws and regulations, regulators have published codes of practice, and businesses have reviewed and revised their risk management frameworks.

Nevertheless, concerned workers continue to be vocal (arguably to the point of excess) about the protections they are/should be afforded at work against psychosocial risks. And regulators are, in turn, using their powers to enforce compliance in relation to those perceived risks. A trend that will persist for some time, we expect.

To provide business with some certainty in these uncertain times, we unpack some recent, current and future developments in the “psychosocial” safety space.

Recent: WorkSafe WA discontinues prosecution of Department of Justice

In a case that would have been WorkSafe WA’s first attempt at prosecuting a failure to ensure the psychological safety and health of workers, it commenced proceedings against the state’s Department of Justice in late 2024. The charges related to an alleged failure to provide and maintain a safe work environment, which had resulted in a former prison officer suffering a serious psychological injury.  The charges would have attracted fines of up to $3.5 million.

However, the regulator withdrew the prosecution last month, on the basis of “fresh evidence” obtained in the course of the proceedings, noting that the Department of Justice has improved its management of psychosocial hazards in recent years.

This WA case follows a NSW decision, which was the first we are aware of, where SafeWork NSW withdrew its prosecution of Western Sydney Local Health District after three weeks of hearings. These matters highlight the challenges of proving alleged breaches of the WHS Act in the context of psychosocial risk management and reiterate the importance of having appropriate controls that are implemented and reviewed.

Current: NSW’s new WHS regulations commenced on 22 August 2025

The new Work Health and Safety Regulation 2025 (NSW) contain a raft of changes and updates to the state’s regulatory framework. In relation to psychosocial risks specifically, a change has been made to the prescribed method of management of those risks.

The previous version of the regulations expressly carved out the use of the “hierarchy of controls” for the purpose of managing psychosocial risks. That carve out has now been removed.

Accordingly, to the extent a psychosocial risk cannot be eliminated, businesses in NSW now must:

• substitute, wholly or partly, the hazard giving rise to the risk with something that gives rise to a lesser risk;
• isolate the hazard from persons exposed to it; and/or
• implement engineering controls.

Where a psychosocial risk remains, businesses must implement administrative controls to minimise the risk. And if a psychosocial risk still remains, suitable PPE must be provided to minimise the residual risk.

The hierarchy of controls provides a clear framework for businesses to follow when determining appropriate measures to manage psychosocial risks. It requires that the most effective controls, those offering the highest level of protection, are considered first. Businesses in NSW should review their existing psychosocial hazard controls to ensure they are aligned with this framework.

Future: Victoria’s highly anticipated psychological health regulations commence on 1 December 2025

Initially slated as a progressive (and potentially onerous) step towards the management of psychosocial risks at work, the final form of Victoria’s long-anticipated regulations closely aligns with existing frameworks already in place across other Australian states and territories.

Victorian employers have long been required under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) to provide a working environment that is safe and without risks to health, including psychological health. What the new regulations bring is greater clarity on what employers must do to meet those duties in relation to psychosocial hazards.

Under the Victorian regulations, employers must, where elimination of a risk is not reasonably practicable, reduce the risk by altering:

• the management of work;
• plant or systems of work;
• work design; or
• the workplace environment.

Providing information, instruction or training may only be relied upon as a sole control where no other measures are reasonably practicable, and must not be the predominant form of control when used in combination.

Notable absences from the final version of the regulations include the originally planned requirement for employers to:

• prepare “prevention plans” that identify psychosocial risks and controls measures to be implemented, among other things; and
• provide a six-monthly report to the regulator about psychosocial complaints received.

These proposed inclusions received widespread pushback from industry stakeholders. While the requirement for prevention plans was ultimately removed, WorkSafe has published a prevention plan template which, although not mandatory, provides a practical starting point for employers developing their own plans.

WorkSafe Victoria has also released the Psychological Health Compliance Code, offering practical guidance on how to comply with the new duties. The code also provides detailed, hazard-by-hazard examples of control measures, including identification of overlapping psychosocial risks. Although adherence to the code is not mandatory, failure to follow it may be used as evidence of what was “reasonably practicable” to implement.

In addition, WorkSafe Victoria has also established a specialist Psychosocial Inspectorate, signalling increased regulatory focus and stronger enforcement in this space.

With the commencement date fast approaching, Victorian employers should review and benchmark current practices against the new regulations and compliance code, identifying and addressing any gaps.

Looking ahead: balancing psychosocial health and regulatory oversight

With mental health challenges on the rise, any reforms that prioritise early identification and mitigation of risks are a welcome step forward. This legislation across Australia reflects a shift from traditionally reactive practices, toward a model that emphasises proactively assessing risks and implementing controls before harm occurs.

That said, there remains uncertainty around the scope of intervention, particularly given the subjective and context-dependent nature of many psychosocial issues. Trends across the country, including regulators increasingly using enforcement action to drive compliance, raise the potential for overreach. As businesses navigate this evolving regulatory landscape, the central challenge will be striking a balance between meeting compliance requirements and fostering genuine, systemic cultural change.

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.

Following the death of American political commentator Charlie Kirk, US Vice President JD Vance urged the public to report individuals who appeared to be celebrating the incident. Major world events like this are increasingly prompting employers to consider how to respond when an employee publicly expresses personal views that don’t align with the company’s values, workplace harmony or corporate reputation.

The situation raises an interesting question as to the limits of employees’ personal rights to personal expression and the implications on the employment relationship. This article examines the rights of employees to express personal opinions and clarifies when employers can lawfully and reasonably intervene.

The legal framework

Australia does not have an explicit constitutional right to freedom of expression, except for an implied freedom of political communication, which restricts government power not private employment relationships. While employees can express personal opinions, this right is limited by their duties of loyalty, confidentiality and good faith to their employer.

An employer cannot discriminate against an individual based on their political opinions, beliefs or activities.

Private employers can regulate employee’s out-of-hours conduct, including online speech, if the behaviour impacts the workplace.

Managing employee free speech 

Investigate fairly

Where an employee expresses a personal or political opinion which does not reflect the organisation’s values or conduct expectations, an employer should conduct an investigation into the alleged conduct. It can, at times, be tempting to act immediately, particularly given that the employee’s opinion may have been published online or expressed in writing. It is however important to carefully consider the circumstances and provide an employee with an opportunity to respond to the allegations before a decision in relation to the employee’s ongoing employment is made.

Consider appropriate disciplinary outcomes

When determining appropriate disciplinary action, employers should balance the employee’s right to personal expression against any legitimate business needs, such as brand protection, client relationships and workplace safety. This can be a delicate exercise, and an employer must have regard to whether the conduct would be protected by anti-discrimination laws.

An employer should also have regard to the seriousness of the conduct and weigh up all the factors including whether the conduct was threatening, hateful or incited violence.

Consider the risks of termination of employment

If considering termination of employment, it is important to assess the risks, including the potential for an unfair dismissal or general protections claim.

Whether a dismissal is considered harsh, unjust or unreasonable will depend largely on whether the employee’s conduct provides a valid reason for dismissal. Typically, expressing a political opinion of outside work hours will not qualify, unless there is a clear connection to the workplace.

Case law [1][2] provides that such a connection might exist if the employee’s behaviour:

• negatively affects the employer’s relationships with clients or staff;
• has an adverse impact on other employees;
• impedes the efficient operation of the business;
• impacts the employee’s capacity to perform their role; or
• demonstrates incompatibility or conflict with the employment relationship.

In those circumstances, conduct that might typically be regarded as private may become relevant to the workplace and justify dismissal. For example, if an employee publicly advocates violence against a particular group of people, this may be sufficiently connected to the workplace. Conduct that poses a risk to respectful working relationships may be work-related and provide grounds for dismissal.

On the other hand, civil expressions of contentious political opinions are less likely to demonstrate an adverse impact on the business.

Importantly, the conduct must clearly be connected with the employment, and employers cannot simply rely on reputational harm or hypothetical impacts without having reliable evidence.

The Federal Court recently clarified in Lattouf v ABC (No 2) (2025) [3] that political opinions shared on personal social media outside work hours are protected, provided they do not breach a clear, lawful and reasonable workplace policy or conflict with the employee’s role.

Key takeaways for employers

• Procedural fairness is essential – always investigate alleged misconduct thoroughly and allow employees to respond before acting.
• Employers can discipline employees for the expression of personal opinions where such conduct has a clear, negative impact on the workplace or business operations.
• Ensure that any disciplinary action does not breach anti-discrimination laws and is not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

[1] 314 IR 22.
[2] FWCFB 201.
[3] 341 IR 105.

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.

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.