Australia is in desperate need of a Whistleblower Protection Authority. Here’s what it should look like
- Written by A J Brown, Professor of Public Policy & Law, Centre for Governance & Public Policy, Griffith University
Making it safer for insiders to speak up about wrongdoing is crucial for public integrity in Australia. Ask anyone, from the public servants who tried to speak up against Robodebt, to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, again at the front end of whistleblower protection reforms.
But what it will take to make reform a reality has long been the issue. This is particularly salient as the federal government consults on how to better protect whistleblowers in the public sector, including contractors. In addition, reviews are underway or looming for other whistleblower protections in the Corporations Act, Taxation Administration Act, and the aged care sector, to name a few.
Read more: How and why Australian whistleblowing laws need an overhaul: new report
Naturally, the key to improved protections is making them work. This is why many years of research support the need for a dedicated Whistleblower Protection Authority to fully enforce our “speak up” laws, irrespective of what improved protections they contain.
Together with Transparency International Australia and the Human Rights Law Centre, we have released draft design principles for a Whistleblower Protection Authority, informed by our research and the experience of many who have blown the whistle.
Here are our five key recommendations for this crucial reform.
1. The agency must actually protect whistleblowers
The first priority is to fill the gaps in what institutions currently do to implement whistleblower protections, given these types of laws have already been around for years.
Several federal bodies have the task of fighting wrongdoing and ensuring integrity, including the new National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).
Yet, drawing on international research, we found when it comes to the crunch, out of 15 key official functions required to make whistleblowing laws work, only four of those were currently fully provided for. This leaves substantial or total gaps for the remaining 11.
Of these weak or missing roles, the most important are powers to independently investigate claims of detriment or vengeful harm to whistleblowers, and to ensure remedies are found. This massive and obvious gap lies at the heart of the need for institutional reform.
Authors: A J Brown, Professor of Public Policy & Law, Centre for Governance & Public Policy, Griffith University



















