CPA Australia says confusing reporting rules deter whistleblowers, urging Treasury to fund independent triage and support
CPA Australia has called for a dedicated Whistleblower Protection Office to help Australians report corporate and tax misconduct, arguing the current system is too complex and risks discouraging people from speaking up.
The call comes as Treasury's statutory review of tax and corporate whistleblowing – triggered under section 1317AK of the Corporations Act 2001 – considers reforms following the KPMG Australia scandal, in which a former audit director's 2024 disclosure about the misuse of confidential Lendlease board papers led to a federal parliamentary inquiry and the resignation of the firm's chief executive, audit boss and chairman.
In its submission to Treasury, CPA Australia said uncertainty about who is protected, what can be disclosed and where disclosures should be made creates unnecessary barriers for potential whistleblowers. Belinda Zohrab, regulations and standards lead at CPA Australia, said Australians who want to report misconduct should be able to do so confidently and without fear.
"Whistleblowers play an important role in identifying corporate and tax misconduct, but the current framework – particularly in the corporate regime – can be difficult for ordinary people to navigate," Zohrab said.
"A person considering whether to report wrongdoing is likely to be focused on three things: whether they will remain anonymous, whether they will be protected from harm, and whether they are reporting to the right authority. People should not need specialist legal knowledge to understand whether they qualify for protection or where they should go to make a disclosure."
Why the system is hard to navigate
CPA Australia is proposing that the office provide independent guidance, help individuals work out whether they qualify for protection, and direct disclosures to the correct regulator – functions that currently don't exist in a coordinated form. Existing regulators would keep their enforcement and investigative roles.
David Morgan, managing director at Veremark and a whistleblower investigations specialist, said the proposal reflects a genuinely fragmented landscape. Speaking to HRD, he explained that whistleblowers currently have to work out which of several overlapping regimes applies to them.
"We've got, you know, all the states that have got state laws for public whistleblowing, or what we call PIDs, or protected disclosures. We've obviously got that then at a federal level, Commonwealth level. You've got the Corporations Act, which is the private sector whistleblower legislation … and then you've got other industry-specific pieces of regulation," Morgan said.
He said the complexity is manageable for practitioners who work in the space daily, but far harder for someone encountering it for the first time while dealing with a distressing workplace experience.
"If you imagine you're a whistleblower that is coming across this world for the first time and is witnessing or experiencing something sort of pretty traumatic and pretty bad in their working career, where to go, who to speak to, how to get support and advice – it's a bit of a nightmare," he said.
A gap in partnership structures
CPA Australia's submission also points to a specific coverage gap: the corporate whistleblower regime does not extend to partnerships, even though large, sophisticated businesses – audit and professional services firms among them – often operate under partnership structures.
"Large and sophisticated businesses can operate through partnership structures, yet protections available under the corporate whistleblower regime may not apply," Zohrab said. "Closing this gap is important if we want people to feel confident reporting misconduct regardless of how a business is structured."
The body is also pushing for greater consistency between the corporate and tax whistleblower regimes, and for stronger practical support – including clearer guidance and more accessible pathways to compensation where a whistleblower has suffered detriment.
What HR leaders should watch
Morgan said the office proposal would only strengthen the system if it sat above existing regulators, with genuine independence and enough resourcing to move quickly. "You want to make sure that it has teeth and has the right resource and structure to make it work, because the concern would be another regulator that's no more or about as effective as some of the others," he said.
For HR leaders, Morgan flagged a separate but related risk: the conflicted position HR teams can find themselves in once a whistleblower complaint turns into a counter-complaint or performance management process involving the same people. He said HR functions need to think through their own role early, including whether they should step back from a matter where a conflict has emerged.
Morgan said the momentum behind reform is real, pointing to ongoing parliamentary scrutiny of KPMG Australia as a driver, but cautioned against adding further complexity to an already crowded regulatory landscape. Treasury's consultation closed for submissions on 29 July 2026, with a report to government required under the Corporations Act.
CPA Australia's position adds to a growing chorus – including from other accounting bodies pushing for stronger whistleblower incentives – arguing the framework needs a rethink as KPMG Australia's leadership rebuild continues under new management.
The scandal has also drawn in KPMG's global parent amid the deepening Australian crisis, underscoring how high the stakes have become for how organisations handle disclosures.
