Complexity of frameworks creating challenges for whistleblowers, says Law Council

However, the submission said the government could look to address some of the complexity of the whistleblower schemes that make it difficult for whistleblowers to identify the most appropriate reporting pathway.

"Further consideration could be given to a ‘no wrong door’ approach for disclosures where alleged wrongdoing may fall across multiple regulatory mandates and where disclosure is made to a regulator which would reasonably be considered to have a regulatory interest in the disclosure," the submission said.

"For example, disclosures protected under the corporate whistleblowing regime may relate to conduct investigated by another regulator, such as the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC), while tax-related misconduct may engage multiple agencies with overlapping responsibilities."

The submission noted that, given that regulators such as the ACCC rely on memoranda of understanding to share and exchange information, including confidential information, it would be helpful to include express provisions regarding regulators referring disclosable matters to other regulators for the purpose of investigations.

"Such an approach would provide greater certainty than reliance on administrative arrangements or memoranda of understanding between agencies and would complement the development of clearer, coordinated guidance for potential whistleblowers," it said.

"For example, guidance directing whistleblowers in relation to tax evasion to the Australian Taxation Office, rather than the Australian Federal Police or AUSTRAC, which do not appear to have their own regimes, would be a beneficial solution to this issue."

The Law Council said it would also support, in principle, greater regulatory parity across businesses operating in Australia in relation to the types of entities captured by the tax and corporate whistleblower regimes.

"Whistleblower protections should not turn unduly on the technical legal form of the entity about which a disclosure is made, particularly where non-corporate structures operate in functionally corporate ways or receive public funding, tax concessions or other public benefits," it said.

"This is important to consider as whistleblowers may not know whether the entity is a corporation, partnership, trust or hybrid structure, and this lack of thorough knowledge of an entity’s legal structure should not be a prohibitive factor."

However, the submission cautioned that there would be significant legal and practical considerations to take into account with any extension of the current whistleblowing regime to other entities and incorporated bodies that currently fall outside of the meaning of regulated entity’ in Part 9.4AAA.

"Any proposed expansion should proceed cautiously, by reference to a clear constitutional foundation and legislative mechanism, including whether the objective is best achieved through targeted Commonwealth amendments, complementary State and Territory legislation, or a referral of power," it said.

The Law Council said any reforms to Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act should be considered alongside the broader question of regulatory oversight of large accounting, audit, and consulting firm partnerships, which is currently being examined by Treasury in its July 2026 Options Paper.

"The Law Council also notes the practical implications of extending the regime to a broader range of entity types. Without appropriate thresholds or limits, expanding the definition of ‘regulated entity’ could significantly increase the number of entities and disclosures falling within ASIC’s remit, with corresponding implications for resourcing and regulatory effectiveness," it said.

"Accordingly, we support further consideration of identified gaps in the current coverage of the tax and corporate whistleblower regimes, but caution that any expansion should be targeted, constitutionally sound and supported by adequate regulatory resourcing."