Blowing the whistle is a lonely business.

And as the recent cases of former Australian Taxation Office (ATO) workers Richard Boyle and Ron Shamir show, blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing can derail your life.

Mr Boyle is facing the threat of life in prison (161 years maximum to be exact) for speaking out about heavy-handed debt collection tactics he witnessed at the ATOs Adelaide office, where he worked from 2005 to May 2018.

His case is yet to go to trial, but Mr Boyle plans to plead not guilty.

Mr Boyle's case will be the first major test case of protections available under the Public Interest Disclosure Act (2013).

Meanwhile, Mr Shamir, who blew the whistle back in 2012 that the ATO was wrongly tagging some claims as fraudulent, lost his job and hasn't been able to find employment since.

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 last week that the body that promised to protect him failed.

He said he lost his job as a result, and he and his wife and kids have been living in poverty ever since (the ATO told the hearing his termination was not in relation to his disclosure but followed two years of performance counselling).

Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick says Mr Shamir's internal disclosure happened in 2012 when there were virtually no whistleblower protections in place for public servants.

Mr Shamir told the inquiry he initially made a disclosure in October 2014 to the tax ombudsman, the Inspector-General of Taxation (IGT), about "suspected misconduct" at the ATO, but was advised at that time that an investigation would not occur because the IGT was unable to offer him protection from ATO reprisals.

In May 2015, the IGT advised Mr Shamir that it may be able to offer protection from reprisals under Section 39 of the IGT Act, and invited him to re-submit his disclosure.

Senator Patrick said the fact that Mr Shamir was relying on protection in IGT Act, rather than a single whistleblowing agency, highlights problems with current laws.

"At this point in time, it's very difficult for any person to work out what legislation covers them and what protections apply," Senator Patrick said.

Former ATO worker Ron Shamir.

The need for a 'Whistleblower Protection Authority'

Asked whether there should be one single act that sits under one single body, Senator Patrick said: "I think that would be a cleaner solution and we might end up in that space."

This is exactly what the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services recommended in its final report handed down in September 2017.

The Committee had mixed views about whether there should be a single Whistleblower Act that covers both private and public sector workers, as well as registered organisations such as unions and industry bodies.

In the end, it recommended separate public and private whistleblower protection legislation but noted the preference of Labor and Green committee members was for a single Act.

The Committee also recommended the Federal Government set up a Whistleblower Protection Authority, which would have total oversight over all whistleblower regimes.

This authority would not only be responsible for investigating whistleblower complaints but would also be able to conduct investigations of reprisals.

Finally, if the wrongdoer was ordered to pay a penalty for their misconduct by a Court (or other body), the authority would be able to give a percentage of that as a "reward" to the whistleblower (although it's unclear whether this reward would be akin to US-style whistleblower bounty programs, which can be worth millions of dollars to each individual).

The Federal Government agreed to all these recommendations in principle and has already moved to modify existing but separate whistleblower laws, including a review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

In the meantime, there is inconsistency in whistleblower protections, and no single body to protect whistleblowers.

Other scenarios where whistleblowers may lack protection

This leaves a range of other scenarios where whistleblowers could go unprotected:

Imagine you work for a private defence company and have been seconded to work on a project at the Defence Department. While working at the Defence Department you uncover wrongdoing and you decide you want to blow the whistle. Do you fall under:

a) Whistleblower protection provisions under the Corporations Act, which have recently been revamped and offer some level of protection?

b) The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the FWRO Act)?

c) More limited whistleblower protections under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013?

d) None of the above?

Another scenario: you hold a senior role at a multinational company and have discovered a large tranche of documents showing the company is engaging in illegal tax avoidance. You want to report this information to the ATO and Australian Federal Police but need to ensure there will be no reprisal from the company for your report. Are you protected under:

a) Whistleblower protection provisions under the Corporations Act?

b) The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the FWRO Act)?

c) Tax whistleblower laws that came into effect on July 1, with some protections and remedies under the Taxation Administration Act 1953?

d) None of the above?

The answer to these potential scenarios could be any of the options, or none, according to expert on whistleblower laws from Griffith University and Transparency International, Professor AJ Brown.

Professor AJ Brown is leading a push for stronger whistleblower protection. ( ABC News )

He said the scope of protection under the Corporations Act is now far wider for private sector whistleblowers, including grounds for the whistleblower to sue and seek compensation from the company if the company takes action against the individual for their disclosure.

"But the key question remains … who is going to enforce the law?," Professor Brown said.

"It's really unclear for a huge raft of organisations … whether the rules that apply to them are the more stringent rules under the Corporations Act, or the outdated rules under the PID Act, or a mixture of both."

He said that means that anybody who is a Commonwealth Government contractor, or working for a company that's owned by the Commonwealth, for example the National Broadband Network (NBNCo), could be impacted.

The solution, he said, was a one-stop-shop for whistleblowers.

"We rely on those people [whistleblowers] to help us maintain the integrity and lawfulness of institutions," Professor Brown said.

"They should be able to speak up about problems they see and not be prosecuted."