How whistleblower and general protections interact

The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corps Act) provides protections for whistleblowers, which are designed to encourage individuals to report misconduct or improper conduct within regulated entities while safeguarding them from retaliation or detriment. To be an eligible whistleblower and qualify for protection, the individual must make a disclosure about a ‘disclosable matter’ concerning a ‘regulated entity’.

Disclosable matters include information about misconduct, an improper state of affairs, or breaches of specific laws such as the Corps Act. The information must be based on reasonable grounds to suspect misconduct or improper circumstances. However, personal work-related grievances, such as an interpersonal conflict between the discloser and another employee, are not protected under the Corps Act.

The scheme operates in a similar way to the general protections scheme in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), albeit the scope of the protections is different, as the whistleblower protection under the Corps Act scheme extends beyond employees and contractors.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia explored these differences in scope recently in Macmartin v Bunnings Group Ltd (2025).

In this case, the applicant employee was dismissed for alleged serious misconduct. The employee made a general protection claim under the FW Act, alleging that the employer took adverse action against him by dismissing him from his employment. He also alleged that the conduct undertaken by the employer breached the employment contract.

Additionally, the employee sought to claim that his employer contravened certain whistleblower protections in the Corps Act. While there was no issue that the Court had the authority to hear the FW Act and common law claims, the question was whether the whistleblower claim made under the Corps Act fell within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court was required to make this determination before hearing any substantial facts of the case.

The Court ruled it did not have the authority to hear the whistleblower claim, and only the Australian Securities and Investments Commission could seek a declaration that a civil penalty has been breached. However, the Court ruled it could deal with the claim in its associated jurisdiction, being the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine matters linked to a matter with its original jurisdiction. This was because the whistleblower claims were connected to the dismissal challenge. However, the remedies available were limited to compensation and could not extend to penalties under the Corps Act.

Employers should take a broad view of complaints, recognising that whistleblower issues may be part of wider employment disputes.

Paying the price of the unrealised risk of a fall from height
In a recent Victorian prosecution, a roofing company was fined $25,000 for putting workers at a risk from falls from height, even though no one actually fell ...