Stronger Protections, Safer Cultures: The Next Step for Whistleblowing in Australia

While Australia points to strong statutes for protecting whistleblowers, experience shows those safeguards are patchy and slow to enforce. For every safeguard written into legislation, gaps in enforcement, culture and practical support leave individuals exposed.

So, as updates to the Public Interest Disclosure (PID) Act progress through review, now is a critical moment to look at what’s changing and where Australia still lags behind. 

The Long Road to Reform

High profile cases like former military lawyer, David McBride and public servant, Richard Boyle, have exposed the ongoing vulnerability of Australian whistleblowers, fuelling calls for urgent reform. Yet despite strong promises on paper, progress has been slow, dogged by complexity, weak enforcement and limited accessibility.

The gap between legal rhetoric and real-world change remains stark; a look back at the milestones makes clear just how incremental progress has been:

• 2013: PID Act introduced at federal level.
• 2019: Corporations Act amendments expanded private-sector protections.
• 2022-23: Independent PID Act review called for simplification and stronger safeguards.
• 2024-25: Draft amendments under consultation; final reforms expected but not yet legislated.

A Patchwork System

At the federal level, whistleblower protections sit on two main legislative pillars:

• Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth): Covers Commonwealth public sector agencies, offering protection for officials who report wrongdoing, from corruption to maladministration.
  
• Corporations Act 2001 (Cth): Strengthened in 2019 through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Act, expanding protections for private sector and financial institution whistleblowers and requiring companies to establish whistleblower policies.

State and Territory Acts: Coverage and Limitations

Australia’s federal structure means that each state and territory has its own Public Interest Disclosure (PID) legislation, primarily covering the public sector. While they effectively share the same purpose - shielding employees, contractors and volunteers from reprisals - in practice, protections are inconsistent, often leaving private-sector whistleblowers in limbo.

Here’s how whistleblower legislation currently looks across federal and state levels:

This fragmented framework creates a postcode lottery of protections, where the strength of safeguards depends on where a disclosure is made with a whistleblower in Victoria enjoying broader protections than one in, say, South Australia or Tasmania. This inconsistency often leaves individuals straddling state and federal regimes confused and struggling to know which laws apply to them.

Why Reform Matters

The 2022-23 PID Act review identified gaps in accessibility, clarity and oversight and recommended:

• Simplifying definitions of wrongdoing.
• Clarifying reporting pathways, particularly for public servants.
• Expanding protections to cover a broader range of individuals. 
• Expanding protections to capture some forms of preparatory conduct by the whistleblower. 
• Strengthening victimisation safeguards.

Some of these recommendations are now moving into draft legislative updates, but the pace is slow and inconsistencies persist across jurisdictions. Until these are addressed, whistleblowers remain vulnerable to retaliation, financial ruin and reputational damage.

Where the Gaps Remain

Despite the legal scaffolding, five structural weaknesses continue to hold Australia back:

• Consistency Across Jurisdictions: While all states and territories have PID legislation, definitions, scope and enforcement vary widely - leading to confusion for individuals and risk for organisations operating nationally.
  
• Effectiveness and Oversight: Several Acts are criticised as overly technical, with weak enforcement and limited proactive support for whistleblowers.
  
• Overlap with Federal Laws: Some individuals fall under both state and federal regimes, creating duplication, conflict and uncertainty - particularly in cases that straddle public and private domains.
  
• Practical Support: Laws ban retaliation but rarely provide day-to-day support mechanisms such as trauma-informed care, victimisation assessments or psychosocial safety.
  
• Culture: Legal protections mean little without a culture that supports them and as things stand, too many organisations treat disclosures as threats rather than opportunities. 

The Stakes

For organisations, the message is clear: don’t wait for reforms to catch up. Building trusted, accessible whistleblowing systems now is a competitive advantage that strengthens compliance and reputation.

For policymakers, the challenge is just as stark: without cultural change, consistent enforcement and unified laws, Australia risks leaving whistleblowers exposed, despite appearing well protected.

As for the whistleblowers who risk their livelihoods - individuals like McBride and Boyle and many others; they deserve a system that truly safeguards them.

Australia’s statutes may look strong, but reform is not just about laws on paper. Until legislative changes can deliver clarity, support, good process design and culture change, whistleblowers will continue to face patchy, unreliable protection.

‍