Whistleblower protections failed 'superhero' Richard Boyle, calls grow for urgent reforms
Richard Boyle has faced the heavy price of being a whistleblower in Australia.
The law suggests that if you blow the whistle on wrongdoing, you will be protected.
But, in Boyle's case, it didn't protect him.
Nor did the federal government, which could have, at any stage, requested the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) drop all the charges against Boyle.
More than eight years after the former ATO debt collector internally spoke out about the ATO's heavy-handed debt recovery practices, Boyle has stopped fighting for justice.
His decision to reveal unethical practices at the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) — while helping the lives of many taxpayers — ultimately destroyed his, and his wife Louise Beaston's lives.
"I personally am broken, physically, mentally, and financially", Boyle said, in a recent public address at the 2024 Walkley Awards.
He talked of how he and Louise should have "been starting a family, buying a house, settling into the routines of life together", but instead were, "completely and utterly broken".
On Tuesday, Boyle pleaded guilty to four charges of disclosing protected information, making a record of protected information, using a listening device to record private conversations and recording another person's tax file number.
The 49-year-old struck a plea deal under which Senator Rex Patrick — who has long been fighting on behalf of Boyle for the charges against him to be dropped — said Boyle would avoid jail.
While many of the original 66 charges against Boyle were withdrawn by the CDPP before the case went to trial, it highlights that being a whistleblower in Australia isn't appreciated.
Boyle may have avoided 161 prison years, which was the potential penalty he could theoretically have faced under the initial very long list of charges, but the question still begs, why even prosecute a whistleblower?
Legal experts and human rights groups say the re-elected Albanese government must now urgently reform both public and private sector whistleblower laws and establish an independent Whistleblower Protection Authority to give support to, and better protect, those who blow the whistle.
It's worth noting that this is not the first time that people blowing the whistle on the ATO have claimed they have faced a lack of protections.
In 2012, when there were virtually no whistleblower protections in place for public servants, Ron Shamir uncovered how the ATO was wrongly tagging some claims as fraudulent. He lost his job.
The former senior ATO insider, who was sacked by the ATO in mid-2015 for non-performance (he took his case to the Fair Work Commission, winning initially but losing on appeal) told a federal inquiry that the body that promised to protect him failed.
In 2012, the agency was also accused by others of abusing its power and wasting taxpayers' money on court cases designed simply to chase revenue rather than enforce the law.
Boyle's case was the first test case of the Public Interest Disclosure (PID) Act introduced a year later.
This act is supposed to promote "the integrity and accountability of the Commonwealth public sector by creating a framework for facilitating the reporting of suspected wrongdoing and ensuring timely and effective investigation of reports".
Boyle first made a public interest disclosure within the ATO, internally, revealing the agency's heavy-handed tactics.
In mid-2017, while working as a debt recovery officer at the ATO's Adelaide office, he shared how agency staff across the country were instructed to take money out of people's bank accounts — regardless of whether the debts raised against them by the ATO were justified or not — thereby unjustly targeting many small to medium size businesses.
Boyle then made a complaint to the Tax Ombudsman before going public with his revelations in a joint Four Corners-Fairfax Media (now Nine) investigation.
Follow-up reviews confirmed that Boyle's revelations of aggressive debt-recovery practices at the ATO at the time were valid, with the small business ombudsman at the time saying the agency's then treatment of small businesses was "crippling".
And a parliamentary report later also found that the ATO's investigation into Boyle's public interest disclosure was 'superficial'.
Boyle's home was raided after he spoke out publicly, and he's spent almost a decade trying to claim protection under public interest disclosure laws.
The Albanese government is currently reviewing both public and private sector whistleblower laws, and many hope that changes will close existing loopholes that have failed to protect Boyle and other whistleblowers.
Senator Rex Patrick says it was accepted that Boyle's disclosure was not dealt with properly by the ATO and that the agency "botched the investigation into his claims" and did nothing until their inappropriate activity was aired as part of the joint Fairfax-Four Corners investigation.
He says the ATO charged Boyle, not for blowing the whistle, but for what he did in preparing his disclosure — namely using his mobile phone to take photographs of taxpayer information, covertly recording conversations with ATO colleagues; and uploading photographs of taxpayer information to his lawyer's encrypted email account.
Patrick says the Court of Appeal found that those preparatory acts were not covered by protections in the Public Interest Disclosure Act and as such, he was not immune from prosecution.
"Section 6 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act lists four objectives that seek to protect and encourage whistleblowers," Patrick said.
Kieran Pender, associate legal director at the Human Rights Law Centre says, "while it is welcome that Boyle will avoid jail, he should never have been prosecuted".
He says the fact that the Court of Appeal in Richard Boyle's case found that whistleblower protections don't apply to conduct before the blowing of the whistle, was a "very narrow approach".
"It means in cases like this when people record conversations and so on for blowing the whistle, there's no protection for that," Pender said.
AJ Brown, a professor of public policy and law at Griffith University and a board member of Transparency International Australia, says the prosecution against Boyle was a waste of taxpayers' time and money.
The former Tax Commissioner Chris Jordan in 2019 used parliamentary privilege to hit back at what he labelled "sensational" media reporting and said the ATO took "whistleblowing very seriously".
Brown said the ATO did not adequately respond to Boyle's disclosure about maladministration.
Brown says reasonable actions by whistleblowers to secure information to protect themselves against reprisal should attract the protections and immunity but in Boyle's case hasn't because of a "loophole that the ATO exploited".
"In this case, there were technical breaches of secrecy laws to secure the information used to then blow the whistle, but they have been legally able to treat it as separate to his whistleblowing," he said.
One of the other ways to ensure that whistleblowers aren't prosecuted is for the Albanese government to set up an independent national body that is tasked with hearing their complaints and protecting them.
Earlier this year the Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill was proposed and introduced by Andrew Wilkie, Helen Haines, Senator David Pocock and Senator Jacqui Lambie.
It seeks to do what lawyers and human rights groups have long been calling for — establish a federal body with the power to oversee and enforce whistleblower protections, facilitate whistleblower disclosures, and safeguard whistleblowers from inside government or business who expose corruption and wrongdoing.
Pender says such an authority — which many other countries have set up — would ensure that people like Boyle, who speak up for others, are properly protected and supported.
"It's been 31 years since a parliamentary inquiry recommended a whistleblower protection authority in Australia and we're still waiting for one," he said.
Senator Rex Patrick notes that while the prosecution has not sought a custodial sentence, a penalty has not yet been imposed.
Submissions will be made in August, when the case returns to court, with a sentencing outcome expected soon thereafter.
Patrick thinks it is unlikely the court will seek a jail term in circumstances where the prosecutor doesn't also seek that outcome.
But he says Boyle does still run the risk of having a conviction recorded against his name, which will be a "chain around his neck every time he seeks to apply for a job".
"We need more people like Richard in Australia."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The Australian
41 minutes ago
- The Australian
Anthony Albanese ‘open' to defence funding boost
You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback. You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Anthony Albanese is opening the door to lifting defence spending ahead of his potential meeting with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the G7 next week, while declining to confirm publicly whether he considers China a national security threat to Australia. The Prime Minister has for weeks stood firm on his position that he would not blindly tick off on the call from US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth for Australia to lift defence spending to 3.5 per cent, but on Tuesday left the door open to increasing funding for defence more broadly. 'Arbitrary figures lead to a cul-de-sac and we want to make sure as well that every single dollar that defence spends results in actual assets,' he told the National Press Club ahead of travelling to the G7 this week. When asked if defence spending as a portion of GDP could feasibly increase as investment in such assets and capabilities went up, Mr Albanese said: 'Of course, we'll always provide for capability that's needed. I've made it very clear – we will support the capability that Australia needs. 'I think that Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that.' It follows senior ministers such as Richard Marles and Pat Conroy indicating a similar willingness to boost spending on defence, with Mr Conroy confirming last week the government was 'open to having a conversation about increasing defence funding'. Former Defence Department deputy secretary Peter Jennings said the critical question for Mr Albanese was whether the current defence spend was adequate to the strategic challenge, arguing that the answer was a resounding 'no'. 'He's got a little bit of wriggle room now, if he finds that he's under pressure from Trump or other allies or the calls for increasing spending just get too great, too loud domestically, well, then he does have a way out of it,' Mr Jennings said. 'What he's doing is just describing a process; when he's pressed on this issue, all he says is, 'well, what we do is that we consider our needs based on proposals that are put in cabinet'. 'He's not locking himself out of doing more, but clearly, I think he's reluctant to, because they haven't so far.' Strategic Analysis Australia head of research Marcus Hellyer said he was sceptical over Mr Albanese's language, arguing that for more investment to be made in specific capabilities, the government had to tick off on an increase in defence spending, rather than the process occurring the other way around. 'We have had review after review … and assessment after assessment, which have determined the capabilities we need, yet the current investment program doesn't include them, why?' he said. 'Because the current investment program was designed around a certain funding envelope. 'That's why it's ludicrous when people pompously say 'we will acquire the capabilities we need' when governments are the ones setting a funding envelope.' While giving himself room to move on the issue of defence spending, Mr Albanese also sought to dodge direct questions over whether China posed a national security threat to Australia and argued that simplifying what was a 'complex set of relationships' was neither 'diplomatic' nor 'mature'. 'We engage constructively in the region, including with China, and including with ASEAN nations and what we say is that it is in Australia's interests and indeed, the world's interest for there to be peace and security in our region,' he said. 'That's our position. That's the mature way in which we are able as a middle power to exercise influence in the region.' It follows a Chinese flotilla circumnavigating Australia ahead of the election, with Mr Marles confirming Australia engaged in an 'unprecedented level of surveillance' of the ships that he said were conducting exercises and 'seeking to … demonstrate' capabilities. 'We are very aware of what that task group was doing, the exercises that it was engaging in, what it was seeking to be able to demonstrate,' he told Sky. Despite the expected meeting with Mr Trump being just days away, Mr Albanese once more made veiled inferences over the danger of 'copying' policies from overseas – or more specifically the US – that would leave Australia 'narrower, less generous and more divided'. It followed Labor accusing the Coalition of importing policies from overseas numerous times during the election, arguing the opposition would 'Americanise Medicare' if it won office. Mr Albanese also confirmed that other policies on top of the question of defence spending, such as the news media bargaining code and the under-16s social media ban, were also not 'on the table' when it came to speaking to Mr Trump about lifting the tariffs imposed on Australian products by the US.


SBS Australia
3 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Which Indigenous players should inaugural Perth Bears coach Mal Meninga be targeting?
Interviews and feature reports from NITV. A mob-made podcast about all things Blak life. The Point: Referendum Road Trip Live weekly on Tuesday at 7.30pm Join Narelda Jacobs and John Paul Janke to get unique Indigenous perspectives and cutting-edge analysis on the road to the referendum. Watch now

ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Australia, UK to sanction Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich
Australia has issued sanctions against two of the most controversial members of Israel's government, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. The pair have been hit by the joint action from the Australian, British, Canadian, New Zealand and Norwegian governments, enforcing travel bans and freezing their assets. In a statement, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said the sanctions have been announced in response to the pair's incitement of violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Mr Ben-Gvir serves as National Security Minister in Israeli Prime Minister's Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition government, while Mr Smotrich is the finance minister. They are two of the most outspoken far-right politicians calling for the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, and have also agitated for continuing fighting in Gaza and the return of Jewish settlements in the strip. Mr Smotrich has said he would allow "not even a grain of wheat" to enter Gaza, adding that the strip would be "entirely destroyed" during the war. Mr Ben-Gvir has called for the Palestinian population to be pushed out of Gaza, saying "we must encourage emigration." He has also repeatedly fuelled tensions in Jerusalem's Old City by insisting Jewish people can pray on the Temple Mount, something reserved solely for Muslim worship, and the replacement of the Al-Aqsa mosque with a synagogue. The joint statement from the UK, Australian, Norweigan and Canadian foreign ministers, said: "Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights. "Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new Israeli settlements is appalling and dangerous. These actions are not acceptable. "We have engaged the Israeli Government on this issue extensively, yet violent perpetrators continue to act with encouragement and impunity. This is why we have taken this action now – to hold those responsible to account. "The Israeli Government must uphold its obligations under international law and we call on it to take meaningful action to end extremist, violent and expansionist rhetoric." Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar said the Israeli government had been informed about a "UK decision to include two of our ministers on the British sanctions list". "It is outrageous that elected representatives and members of the government are subjected to this kind of measures," he said. "I discussed it earlier today with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we will hold a special government meeting early next week to decide on our response to this unacceptable decision." The sanctions were first reported by British newspaper The Times, prompting early responses from Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich directed at the UK government. "We passed Pharaoh, we will also pass Starmer's wall," Mr Ben-Gvir said. "I will continue to work for the State of Israel and the people of Israel without fear or intimidation." Mr Smotrich said he viewed the decision with contempt. "Britain has already tried once to prevent us from settling the cradle of our homeland, and we cannot do it again," he said. "We are determined God willing to continue building." The UK has sharpened its criticism of Israel in recent weeks, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer foreshadowed sanctions against Israel in a joint statement with Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney and French President Emmanuel Macron. Israel's humanitarian blockade of Gaza has been roundly criticised by leaders, with French President Emmanuel Macron labelling it as "shameful."