“Whistleblowers play an important role in identifying corporate and tax misconduct, but the current framework – particularly in the corporate regime – can be difficult for ordinary people to navigate,” Zohrab said.
“A person considering whether to report wrongdoing is likely to be focused on three things: whether they will remain anonymous, whether they will be protected from harm, and whether they are reporting to the right authority. People should not need specialist legal knowledge to understand whether they qualify for protection or where they should go to make a disclosure.”
Why the system is hard to navigate
CPA Australia is proposing that the office provide independent guidance, help individuals work out whether they qualify for protection, and direct disclosures to the correct regulator – functions that currently don’t exist in a coordinated form. Existing regulators would keep their enforcement and investigative roles.
David Morgan, managing director at Veremark and a whistleblower investigations specialist, said the proposal reflects a genuinely fragmented landscape. Speaking to HRD, he explained that whistleblowers currently have to work out which of several overlapping regimes applies to them.
“We’ve got, you know, all the states that have got state laws for public whistleblowing, or what we call PIDs, or protected disclosures. We’ve obviously got that then at a federal level, Commonwealth level. You’ve got the Corporations Act, which is the private sector whistleblower legislation … and then you’ve got other industry-specific pieces of regulation,” Morgan said.