this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2025
18 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

4216 readers
55 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Key parts:

In 2017, Richard blew the whistle on the ATO for inappropriately, indiscriminately, and carelessly issuing garnishee notices that brutally emptied businesses’ bank accounts of money to settle ATO debts.

During the Court of Appeal proceedings, the prosecutors conceded that Richard was a whistleblower as that term is commonly understood. He had disclosed information to an authorised person pursuant to the terms of the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

It was also accepted that his disclosure was not dealt with properly by the ATO. The ATO botched the investigation into his claims and did nothing.

That is, they did nothing until their inappropriate activity was the subject of an ABC Four Corners program (Note that there is no allegation that Richard disclosed taxpayer information to the ABC). In an act of revenge, the ATO charged Richard, 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.

The Court of Appeal found that those preparatory acts were not covered by protections in the Public Interest Disclosure Act and,

top 1 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Great article and an even better title.