Australians looking to expose wrongdoing need to navigate a complex legal minefield, with significant developments changing how people blow the whistle.
Whistleblowers can use information unveiled in legal discovery - when both sides of a case disclose confidential documents to the other for evidence in a trial - to make a public interest disclosure in the latest legal precedent set in 2025.
A public interest disclosure is a protected complaint under whistleblowing laws that shields a person from defamation, breaching non-disclosure agreements, reprisals or criminal prosecution.
The Human Rights Law Centre's intervention in the case of an ABC whistleblower fighting in court with the public broadcaster determined whistleblower immunities extended to confidential court documents when making a public interest disclosure to expose wrongdoing.
The centre's acting senior lawyer Anneliese Cooper welcomed the outcome as a positive step forward.
"However, this novel and technical judgment demonstrates the difficulties whistleblowers face when navigating complex whistleblowing laws in Australia," she said.
"Too many people who blow the whistle in Australia face reprisals due to loopholes, exceptions and prescriptive requirements in Australia's whistleblowing laws."
She called on the federal government to strengthen whistleblower protections, including an independent whistleblower protection authority.
"Whistleblowers are key to accountability and transparency in our institutions. They should be protected, not punished, for doing the right thing and speaking up in the public interest," the senior lawyer said.
It follows a separate legal ruling that determined whistleblowers gathering evidence ahead of a public interest disclosure weren't protected by immunity clauses in the laws.
Essentially, immunities don't kick in until after a disclosure is made, and so people can be prosecuted for actions leading up to their complaint.
Transparency advocates argued that this ruling in Richard Boyle's case had a chilling effect on whistleblowing as it hampered people from gathering evidence to support their claims of wrongdoing.
Mr Boyle pleaded guilty to disclosing protected information, making a recording of protected information and recording private conversations after a lengthy court battle following his exposure of predatory collection practices by the Australian Tax Office.
He escaped jail time after a deal with prosecutors.
The attorney-general outlined a second tranche of whistleblower protection reforms, including proposals to establish an independent ombudsman to support complainants and expand support networks so people can now legally disclose information to lawyers, doctors, psychologists and unions without breaching the law.
The ombudsman's powers and scope fall short of the dedicated whistleblower protection authority that transparency advocates are calling for.
