A new authority would support whistleblowers
Senators David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie want one independent body to help whistleblowers. A whistleblower is someone who reports wrongdoing at their workplace. It would look into how they are treated and take people to court for them. It would cover all federal whistleblower laws.
Official name: Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025
- A new Whistleblower Protection Authority would give whistleblowers advice and help, and could pay for their lawyers.
- It would look into people who punish whistleblowers, and could take them to court.
- A chief would lead it. A group of MPs and senators would have to agree to who gets the job.
- It is a private bill, which means it did not come from the government. It is from Senators David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie. It ran out of time in July 2025 and was put back on the Senate's to-do list two days later.
Who it affects
- Whistleblowers and people thinking of speaking up: They could get free advice, legal help and practical support from one body.
- People who punish or bully whistleblowers: They could be investigated, taken to court, or made to sign a promise to fix things that a court can enforce.
- Federal public servants (people who work for the national government): They would have to pass on any claim that a whistleblower is being treated badly.
- Government agencies: They would have to hand over facts when asked, and could be told not to run their own investigation.
Whistleblowers left without help
A whistleblower is someone who reports wrongdoing inside a government agency or business. Australia has several federal laws meant to protect them.
The senators say whistleblowers need help to find their way through these laws. Their bill would set up one body to give that help.
Senators David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie brought this bill into the Senate on 11 February 2025.
Their notes on the bill say a whistleblower body is the missing piece in how Australia keeps public life honest. They say people should not be punished for telling the truth.
A new Commissioner and Authority
The bill would create a new top job called the Whistleblower Protection Commissioner. We will call this person the whistleblower chief.
The chief would be an independent officer of the Parliament. That means they answer to Parliament, not to a minister.
Up to two deputies, or helpers, would assist the chief. At least one would need to know about government investigations and making people follow the law. One would need to know business law.
A head of staff would run the office day to day.
Together with the staff, they would make up the Whistleblower Protection Authority. We will call it the Authority. It would cover all federal whistleblower laws, both in Australia and overseas.
Help for whistleblowers
Anyone could bring a report of wrongdoing to the chief. You could do it in writing or by talking. You could keep your name secret. You could also report for someone else.
The chief would have to keep your name private. They would ask if you want to be kept up to date on what happens.
The chief could send your report to the right agency to look into. Then the chief could watch how that agency handles it. They could give advice to you and to the agency along the way.
Say you work at a federal department and see money being misused. You are worried about your job. You could go to the Authority for advice on how to report it safely.
Looking into bad treatment
The bill talks about harm to whistleblowers. This means any payback or harm to a person because someone made a whistleblower report. It also covers a group failing in its duties to a whistleblower.
Any federal public official who learns of such harm would have to tell the chief quickly. Staff would tell the head of their agency, who would pass it on.
The chief could look into it alone or with another agency. They could also ask an agency to look into it and watch over the work. They could act without anyone complaining first.
Investigations and public hearings would use the same powers as the National Anti-Corruption Commission. That is the federal body that fights corruption, which means officials acting dishonestly for their own gain.
The chief could say no to silly complaints, or ones that someone else is already handling.
Legal help and enforcement
The chief could pay for or set up legal advice for whistleblowers, and a lawyer to act for them. They could also give practical help. This could be money for costs other than lawyers, help with living costs, or a reward.
If it was good for the public, the chief could start court cases about harm to a whistleblower. They could also bring claims to bodies that check decisions, like a court but less formal.
The chief could help both sides settle a dispute. They could also make a final ruling on a dispute if both sides agreed.
Someone might break a whistleblower law. The chief could then accept a written promise from them to fix the problem. A court can enforce this kind of promise. If the person broke the promise, the chief could go to court.
Who checks the Commissioner
The Governor-General, who stands in for the King, would pick the chief and the deputies. They would follow the minister's advice.
First, a new group of MPs and senators would have to agree to the choice. Each term would be up to 7 years. A person could get one more term.
That group would have 12 members, six from each house. Each six would have three from the government and two from the main party not in government. The last one would come from MPs or senators not in the big parties.
The group would keep an eye on the chief and report to Parliament.
The chief could only be removed early if both houses of Parliament asked. The reason would have to be bad behaviour or being unable to do the job. The chief would give the minister a yearly report to share with Parliament.
An advisory council
An advice group called the Whistleblower Protection Advisory Council would give the chief big-picture advice. It would have a leader and 6 to 10 part-time members picked by the minister.
Members would need deep skills in a related field. Or they could be a former federal complaints officer, a former head of a body that fights corruption, or a former head of the company and finance watchdog.
At least one member would have to have been a whistleblower. The group could not give advice on single cases.
Waiting in the Senate
The law would start the day after it was signed into law. The Authority's spending would come from money Parliament sets aside.
Senators Pocock and Lambie brought in the bill on 11 February 2025. They spoke on its main idea that day.
It ran out of time when that Parliament ended on 21 July 2025. The Senate put it back on its to-do list on 23 July 2025. It has not been voted on since.
To become law it would need to pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Its journey through Parliament
| 11 Feb 2025 | Senate: Introduced and read a first time |
| 11 Feb 2025 | Senate: Second reading moved |
| 21 Jul 2025 | Senate: Lapsed at end of Parliament |
| 23 Jul 2025 | Senate: Restored to Notice Paper |