Review of tax and corporate whistleblowing in Australia

On 29 July 2026, the AICD made a submission to Treasury's review of tax and corporate whistleblowing frameworks in Australia.

The AICD supported targeted reforms to improve Australia's corporate whistleblower regime, recognising that effective whistleblowing frameworks, underpinned by strong protections for whistleblowers, support high standards of governance.

Our key points included:

• Addressing gaps in the current framework: The AICD’s view is that the availability of protections for whistleblowers should not depend on the legal form of an organisation. The current scope of the corporate regime creates gaps that are difficult to justify from a policy perspective, and results in inconsistent access to whistleblower protections across entities of comparable scale that undertake activities of a similar nature. We supported consideration of options to address gaps in the current framework.

• Reducing overlap between different whistleblowing regimes: The AICD expressed concern that overlapping Commonwealth whistleblower regimes detracts from the objective of a coherent and accessible system of protections, while also increasing complexity and the compliance burden for regulated entities. We supported measures to improve harmonisation and clarity, including additional regulatory guidance where multiple frameworks may apply.

• Targeted amendments to support operation in practice: The AICD recommended targeted amendments to support the operation of the corporate regime, including to ensure the regime captures serious misconduct and integrity concerns, while carving out employment matters that fall below the intended materiality threshold; facilitate review and investigation of alleged misconduct; and support governance oversight processes.

• Disclosure to regulators: The AICD supported expansion of the list of eligible recipients to additional Commonwealth regulatory agencies, including the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) and law enforcement agencies. We recognised that this brings its own complexity (and implications for regulator resourcing). As an alternative, we supported additional resourcing to ASIC to allow it to operate as, in effect, a clearinghouse for whistleblowing disclosures, with ASIC to refer disclosures to the most appropriate regulator for review and investigation. We also supported the intent of the ‘no wrong door’ approach, such that if a whistleblower mistakenly reports to the wrong agency, they should not lose their legal protections.

• Preparatory acts: The AICD cautioned against reforms that could undermine entities’ efforts to protect against unauthorised access to, and use of, confidential, commercially sensitive and private information, and noted that any reforms would need to be carefully weighed against related privacy, data protection and cyber security risks for organisations and third parties. If reform is considered necessary in order to provide appropriate protections to whistleblowers, any immunity would need to be limited to where the relevant acts are reasonably necessary for the making of a protected disclosure (based on clear statutory criteria), and incorporate robust safeguards.

• Incentives and legal support: The AICD did not support the introduction of a financial rewards scheme, and recommended that reform efforts should instead focus on ensuring that the existing framework is operating as intended, including through targeted protections, compensation mechanisms, and organisational practices that support reporting of misconduct, as well as active regulatory oversight and enforcement. We supported consideration of models, resourced appropriately, to allow whistleblowers to access independent legal advice and other support services they require.