Australian Tax Office (ATO) whistleblower Richard Boyle breathed a sigh of relief inside Adelaide’s District Court last month. After eight years of police raids, court cases, and media he was finally handed a verdict – a $500 fine and 12-month good behaviour bond, no conviction, and no custodial sentence. But more importantly, one of the lengthiest whistleblowing trials in Australia’s history was finally over.
Boyle was an employee of the ATO when in 2017, he spoke up about the ATO’s heavy handed use of garnishee orders. After making a public interest disclosure internally, he followed the steps in the ineffectual and complex Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) (the PID Act), waiting until internal investigations had proven to be inadequate before speaking with a journalist from Four Corners.
Boyle did almost everything right in making his public interest disclosure – he followed prescribed pathways and ensured he would receive protections for blowing the whistle under the PID Act. However, he made the mistake of collecting evidence he thought would help investigators, taking photos of taxpayer information, covertly recording conversations, and uploading sensitive information to a ProtonMail account.
For these actions, Boyle was charged with 66 offences in early 2019, later reduced to 24 charges, all related to his collection of evidence in support of his whistleblowing.
Preparatory acts not protected
The South Australian District Court held that Boyle’s ‘preparatory acts’, in gathering evidence to prepare for his disclosure, were not acts protected under the PID Act.
Instead, the Court found that immunities afforded to whistleblowers only protected the making of the disclosure, not the conduct leading up to the making of the disclosure.
This meant that while Boyle was protected for making his internal disclosures (and possibly even for his public whistleblowing), he was still liable for any unlawful conduct leading up to the making of the disclosure.
The District Court decision was later upheld by the Court of Appeal, a proceeding in which the Human Rights Law Centre intervened as amicus curiae, or ‘friend of the court’. Boyle was also unsuccessful in his special leave application to the High Court, which was dismissed in November 2024.
In May 2025, Boyle entered into a plea deal to avoid a custodial sentence, pleading guilty to three offences under the Taxation Administration Act and one offence under the Listening and Surveillance Devices Act.
While Boyle ultimately avoided jail time and a conviction, prosecutions like Boyle’s have a chilling effect on whistleblowers who, faced with the prospect of jail time, lawsuits, or being sacked, are often staying silent.
Speaking up comes at a price
The experience of the whistleblower is already not a simple one. As her Honour, Justice Kudelka aptly put in her sentencing remarks “[t]o put it colloquially, blowing the whistle can be a tough gig”.
By speaking up, whistleblowers risk serious impacts to their personal and professional lives. On average, 8 in 10 whistleblowers face retaliation for speaking up, often being bullied, harassed, or even being terminated from their employment. The psychological toll of speaking up can be enormous, and the financial cost can be crippling. Many face lengthy and expensive legal claims brought about to try to silence them.
Speaking out exposes wrongdoing in our institutions, it holds power to account, and it lifts the lid on corruption, fraud, and human rights violations, but the reality is that complex whistleblowing laws, and the threat of punishment, deter people from speaking up. So how do we better protect whistleblowers?
Better protections for whistleblowers
Ensuring our whistleblower protection laws are expanded to extend immunities to protect preparatory conduct, where that conduct is reasonably necessary to the making of the disclosure, would protect all whistleblowers. Several other jurisdictions already provide this immunity through a mix of caselaw and legislation, including the US, UK and France.
However, extending whistleblowing immunities is only one piece of the puzzle. Currently, whistleblowers navigate complex and overlapping laws across Australia. Harmonisation of these laws to ensure consistent immunities and pathways – in different jurisdictions, and the private and public sectors – would go a long way to helping whistleblowers speak up in a safe and lawful way.
At a federal level, the establishment of a Whistleblower Protection Authority would be critical to overseeing and enforcing whistleblower protections. As a single, independent authority it would assist whistleblowers navigate complex laws, help safeguard whistleblowers from reprisal and retaliation, and act as a clearinghouse for oversight bodies, facilitating the quick and effective investigation of complaints.
With a Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill currently before the Senate and the Albanese Government about to consult on the next stage of reforms to the Commonwealth PID Act, now is the time for the federal government to implement these vital and overdue reforms.
Most whistleblower cases do not make the headlines, but nearly all whistleblowers pay an immense personal cost for speaking out. Whistleblowers deserve to be protected, not punished, for holding institutions to account and making sure that grave wrongdoing does not continue in the dark.
