- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Banking & Credit, Business & Consumer Services and Consumer Industries industries
2025 was an eventful year for whistleblower laws in Australia and APAC, with significant judicial decisions, and renewed efforts for reform in the corporate and public sector whistleblower space. Overall, these trends highlight appetite for the continued strengthening of whistleblower protections, momentum towards whistleblower oversight bodies, and the practical impact that whistleblower laws are having on corporate governance, employment claims and the conduct of investigations.
Regulatory updates and increasing oversight
In Australia, regulatory reform has focused on amendments to public sector whistleblower laws, with consultation commencing in September 2025 on stage 2 of the federal public sector whistleblower reforms. The centrepiece of these reforms is the creation of a new Whistleblower Ombudsman, which will give the Ombudsman significantly enhanced powers to investigate and deal with complaints and disclosures under amendments to the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth).
The Malaysian Government appears to be following a similar path. It has tabled the Whistleblower Protection (Amendment) Bill 2025 — passed by the lower house but not yet in force — proposing a temporary Whistleblower Protection Committee to monitor enforcement. Meanwhile, the Government aims to table separate Malaysian Ombudsman legislation in Parliament, creating an independent body with wider powers and clearer reporting mechanisms to strengthen complaint handling against enforcement agencies, including Whistleblower Protection Act coordination. This legislation is expected to reach parliament in the first half of 2026.
The introduction of an oversight body for public interest disclosures mirrors calls from some Australian parliamentarians for a Whistleblower Protection Authority to oversee both public and private sector whistleblowing. Prior to the last federal election in February 2025, the Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025 (No 2) was tabled in both houses. The Bill borrowed substantial wording from the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 (Cth), particularly in relation to the proposed authority's structure and investigatory powers. While the Bill ultimately did not proceed following the election, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's report provides a critical review of the state of corporate whistleblower protections.
On the other hand, Thailand has decided to take a more direct route, passing the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). This Act empowers its National Anti-Corruption Commission with various protective powers, including the discretion to grant formal immunity from civil, criminal, and disciplinary proceedingsto bona fide whistleblowers.
One area to watch in 2026 will be whether appetite for further reform re-emerges. In Australia, well over 18 months have now passed since the fifth anniversary of the commencement of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Act 2019 (Cth) and yet little has been said in respect of the five-year statutory review. When this review finally occurs, we can expect a broad range of stakeholders to be active in advocating for stronger, dedicated, and more specialised bodies with oversight of whistleblower protections.
Driving compliance and corporate culture
In the meantime, Australia's corporate regulator, ASIC, has continued its emphasis on driving and incentivising compliance and robust whistleblowing frameworks.
Statistically speaking, the number of disclosures reported by ASIC has dramatically increased following the introduction of the 2019 reforms; from an average of 207 disclosures between 2015 and 2019, to 736 in the reporting years since 2019-20. Notably however, the actionable rate for these disclosures has also remained steady at approximately 10%.
In an important milestone, ASIC achieved its first successful enforcement outcome in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v TerraCom Ltd (No 3) [2025] FCA 1017for breach of the victimisation provisions, when TerraCom agreed to pay a $7.5 million penalty and an additional $1 million in respect of ASIC's costs. The size of the penalty is noteworthy as the Court gave significant consideration and credit to various mitigating factors, including TerraCom's cooperation and admission of contravention, and the steps TerraCom took following the breach to review its whistleblower policy, provide training, and promote a corporate culture conducive to compliance and avoiding future breaches. While penalty decisions are inherently fact-specific, this result sends a clear signal to corporates of the potential cost of non-compliance, and the value of whistleblowing frameworks. You can read our breakdown of this decision here.
ASIC's pursuit of instituting a culture of speaking up was also showcased as it released its "first-of-its-kind" whistleblower questionnaire, which resulted in a report on the practices of 134 surveyed companies. While it was acknowledged that industry specific factors should play a significant role in the tailoring of internal processes, ASIC nevertheless encouraged companies to consider what more they could be doing to socialise their policies throughout their organisation.
ASIC is far from unique in its focus on improving corporate culture, with Japan having amended its Whistleblower Protection Act in June 2022 to expressly require companies with 300 or more employees to establish a system to promote a whistleblowing culture.
Internal whistleblower investigations and corporate
litigation trends –
key takeaways for business
In 2025, the Federal Court substantively considered for the first time several key aspects of the corporate whistleblower protections regime, with the Court's decisions reinforcing some key areas of guidance for companies navigating whistleblower laws in practice.
The rulings in Mount v Dover Castle Metals Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 101 and Reiche v Neometals Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 125 provided some important guidance on the complexities of protected disclosures. Each of these cases was factually complex, involving victimisation, confidentiality, and employment issues. You can read our full review of these cases here.
For companies undertaking a whistleblower investigation, a number of key takeaways arise.
1. Err on the side of caution when it comes to disclosures
Many ordinary business emails, interactions, or reports prepared to assist with making a formal disclosure, which an individual may later seek to characterise as a disclosure, may not actually rise to the threshold required to be a protected disclosure. However, employers should err on the side of caution, as if they suspect or believe a disclosure may be a protected disclosure, the victimisation provisions will still apply.
2. Be clear on confidentiality
Maintaining discloser confidentiality while investigating the substance of the disclosure can be a particularly difficult area to navigate. For instance, it may not be immediately clear when the substance of the disclosure and the broader circumstances may reveal the whistleblower's identity or where the discloser may have consented to their identity being disclosed. For this reason, it is vital to ensure eligible recipients are adequately supported in the initial handling of disclosures, both through training and procedures.
3. Maintain clear records
Employers should keep clear records of the reasons for any decision to engage in potentially detrimental conduct, such as disciplinary action or restructuring. In any proceedings alleging victimisation, the defendant (usually the employer) must prove that their belief that a protected disclosure had been or may be made was not a reason for the detrimental conduct in question. It can be hard to discharge this burden in the absence of clear documentary evidence of the decision-making process. For similar reasons, it is also important to clearly identify the decision maker and, where possible, limit the number of people involved in the decision-making process.
4. Establish a speak-up culture
Companies must ensure they encourage a speak-up culture by not only being responsive to disclosures, but by proactively maintaining and applying their whistleblower policy. This not only develops trust with employees but may be a mitigating factor in any penalty proceedings.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
