WRITTEN BY John Wilson & Kieran Pender
Whistleblowing is an important aspect of democratic accountability. In June 2013, then-Attorney General Mark Dreyfus rose in federal Parliament to speak to what would become the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. The bill to establish the PID Act, Dreyfus said, represented “an important reform to strengthen the process in which wrongdoing in the Commonwealth public sector is handled, and to strengthen the protections for those who report wrongdoing.”
The reform was somewhat overdue. For two decades, the federal public sector had lagged behind as every state and territory, and the private sector, gained the benefit of specific whistleblower protections. The PID Act was a significant step forward in the federal integrity landscape, with major implications for the Australian Public Service.
The PID Act applies to federal public servants, contractors and employees of government contractors. It allows them to raise concerns about a range of wrongdoing (including illegality and maladministration) through different channels: to a supervisor or designated recipient within their agency, to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, or, in certain narrow circumstances, to the public – for example, through a journalist or politician.
If a whistleblower makes a public interest disclosure, they are immune from liability for doing so, and can seek remedies if they suffer retaliation for speaking up. The PID Act also requires agencies to investigate the concerns raised.
On paper, the PID Act appeared robust when enacted. Unfortunately, it has enjoyed mixed success in practice – and fallen behind what is now considered best-practice. A statutory review into the scheme’s operation in 2016, the Moss Review, reported that “the experience of whistleblowers under the PID Act is not a happy one.” A few years later, a Federal Court judge described the law variously as “ technical, obtuse and intractable” and “largely impenetrable”.
In 2023, the Albanese Government made some technical tweaks to the PID Act, and promised more substantial reform to come. That moment has now arrived – in September, the Attorney-General’s Department published an exposure draft, and it is anticipated the Public Interest Disclosure and Other Legislation Amendment (Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2025 will be introduced to Parliament later this month.
What do public servants need to know about the changes ahead? While there will be changes between the exposure draft and the final bill, the broad contours of the reform are clear – and there are a number of improvements which will assist whistleblowers to speak up about wrongdoing.
First, the Bill will establish a Whistleblower Ombudsman within the Commonwealth Ombudsman. This body will have a range of oversight functions to ensure the PID Act operates more effectively. One significant aspect of the changes is for the Ombudsman to have alternative dispute resolution and restorative engagement functions, to seek to resolve disputes arising between whistleblowers and their agencies.
Questions about resourcing for the Ombudsman remain, and the proposed model is not the independent, standalone Whistleblower Protection Authority sought by advocates (including a co-author of this article). Nonetheless, if appropriately resourced, the Whistleblower Ombudsman should make the whistleblowing journey more straightforward for public servants.
Second, a significant problem with the current framework is the prescriptiveness of how whistleblowers can speak up. The reform will introduce a ‘no wrong doors’ approach, expanding the number of oversight agencies which can receive disclosures, providing catch-all provisions for whistleblowing to be treated as a disclosure, and fixing some gaps in the current law.
Third, the Bill will insert a reverse onus provision where a whistleblower claims they have been subject to retaliation for speaking up. The difficulty of proving reprisal has stymied the effectiveness of the PID Act – in over a decade, a PID Act claim has never succeeded in court. Under the changes, which mirror the existing position for private sector whistleblowers, the whistleblower need only point to evidence suggesting a reasonable possibility that someone caused them detriment; the burden is then on the respondent (typically the agency) to prove that the detriment was not caused because of the whistleblowing.
While difficulties will remain in accessing the PID Act’s protections – the Bill still requires proceedings to be brought in a federal court, and does not provide a scheme for legal assistance (as has been proposed by some) – the reverse onus should make it easier for whistleblowers to succeed in claims when they suffer retaliation.
Fourth, the Bill will significantly expand avenues for whistleblowers to access support. Currently, a whistleblower can only seek legal support; once the Bill is enacted, a whistleblower will be able to make their disclosure to a lawyer, a medical practitioner, a psychologist, their union or a professional association. This will mean whistleblowers can access a greater variety of support, during what is often a very difficult time.
We have highlighted some of the major positive changes the Bill makes, which will hopefully significantly improve the practical operation of the PID Act. There are a range of areas where the currently proposed reform does not go far enough, however – and it can only be hoped that in the legislative process that follows, further amendments are made to ensure the best whistleblower framework possible for the public sector.
One area of particular concern is a failure to address the problem caused by the prosecution of tax office whistleblower Richard Boyle. In that case, the South Australian Court of Appeal significantly narrowed the scope of whistleblower protections, to only the act of disclosure – not anything done beforehand by the whistleblower to get to the point of being able to blow the whistle, no matter how closely the prior conduct related to the whistleblowing. This causes significant practical problems for whistleblowers, and should be fixed.
Ultimately, law reform is one thing – but for the PID Act to work in practice, agencies need to ensure a speak-up culture is fostered within. The roll-out of the revised public sector whistleblowing framework will provide a significant opportunity for the public sector to ensure staff are aware of their whistleblowing rights, and send a message that whistleblowing is encouraged, not resisted.
More than a decade after the PID Act was first enacted, we hope that the coming year sees progress towards the law’s initial aspirations: ensuring public servants who speak up about wrongdoing are protected, not punished.
First published 10 November 2025 in the Canberra Times – “Better Whistleblower Protections for the Public Sector are Finally on the Way”