WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION: LEGAL FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES
Regulators across the globe increasingly view whistleblowing as an essential control in the fight against fraud, corruption and other forms of corporate misconduct. With this shift, a robust whistleblowing programme and ‘safe to speak up’ culture has moved from a procedural nicety to a mandatory governance function that requires board-level oversight. Whistleblowers, who are commonly employees, are often the ‘canaries in the coal mine’ for organisations, providing early warning of issues that may otherwise go undetected.
In Australia, the primary protections for whistleblowers in the private sector are set out in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). This regime places obligations on organisations to maintain compliant whistleblower policies and to protect whistleblowers who make a disclosure about ‘misconduct’ or an ‘improper state of affairs or circumstances’ (collectively, disclosable matters).
These protections make it unlawful to disclose a whistleblower’s identity (or information that is likely to identify them) that is derived directly or indirectly from their disclosure (unless a limited exemption applies), or to cause detriment to a person because of a belief or suspicion that person or another person has made, may make, proposes to make or could make a protected disclosure. A breach of these protections can result in significant civil and criminal penalties. These protections are enforced by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) which, in 2025, achieved a A$7.5m penalty plus A$1m in its costs when resolving its first enforcement action under these provisions.
For board directors, senior executives, compliance officers and legal professionals and risk managers, two essentials flow from the legal framework. First, organisations must implement whistleblower programmes that both satisfy the legal requirements of the Corporations Act and establish trust. Secondly, they must be equipped to respond to disclosures received, including to conduct procedurally fair investigations where appropriate. Failure on either front carries regulatory, legal and reputational risk.
Jan-Mar 2026 Issue
Clayton Utz