3 years on from the ‘integrity’ election, how is Australia tracking on corruption reforms?
- Written by: Kate Griffiths, Democracy Deputy Program Director, Grattan Institute
At the last federal election, the then opposition leader Anthony Albanese pledged[1] to “change the way politics operates in this country”. Integrity was a key issue in 2022, and Australians voted for a change of government and a wave of independents who championed anti-corruption reforms.
Labor’s election commitments included a federal corruption commission[2] “with teeth” and the powers to hold public hearings. The new government was subsequently held to account by crossbenchers who were elected on platforms of integrity and honesty in politics.
Three years on, how much progress has been made on those promised changes?
Australia has made significant headway on some of these fronts, while others are still in progress or have stalled. Whoever forms government after Saturday will need to stay the course on many of these reforms and lift its game on others.
Corruption watchdog
Australia now has a National Anti-Corruption Commission[3](NACC), a huge reform for public accountability.
However, compromises were made on the promised model, most notably that the Commission only has the power to hold public hearings[4] in “exceptional circumstances”.
The NACC has been fairly quiet in its first two years in operation – not surprising given the time it takes to establish itself and wade through a mountain of potential investigations[6].
But it did raise its head above the parapet with a decision not to investigate the Robodebt[7] royal commission referrals[8], which drew so many complaints the decision was independently reviewed, and subsequently reversed[9].
It is too soon to assess the success of the NACC, but we have seen some improvement in Australia’s Corruption Perceptions Index[10] in recent years, which is at least partly attributed to its establishment.
Other progress
The Albanese government has also made progress on reducing vested-interest influence in our politics. Under the Electoral Reform Bill[11] passed in February this year, Australians will now get better and more timely information on political donations. The new caps on electoral expenditure put a ceiling on the fundraising “arms race[12]”.
These are important steps forward. But the bill also takes a step back. It favours incumbents, which will make it harder for new entrants to contest elections. The changes don’t come into effect until July 1 next year, so there is still time for the next parliament to amend the rules.
Finally, progress was made on appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which Labor claim had become highly politicised[13] by the Morrison government.
That tribunal was abolished[14] and replaced with a new body, the Administrative Review Tribunal[15].
Where are we now?
On the eve of the 2025 election, Australia’s institutions are generally strong, outperforming[16] many of our international peers.
But we cannot afford to be complacent. The global context is increasingly alarming, with the international rules-based order under siege. Democracy is more fragile[17] than ever.
Australians generally trust[18] that government will protect lives in an emergency, and that it takes decisions based on evidence. But they are more sceptical when it comes to corporate influence[19] in politics, and misuse of public office for personal or political gain.
5 priorities for action
There are several things the next government can do to maintain trust and confidence in our institutions.
The first is to stay the course on the NACC as it builds trust with the Australian people. This will take time, and increased public engagement, particularly through its corruption prevention outreach.
Second, amending the recent electoral reforms would level the playing field for new candidates. The total cap[21] of $90 million for electoral expenditure by a political party is too high. And the per-seat cap of $800,000 is too low, advantaging incumbents over new entrants, who typically need to spend more to introduce themselves to their electorates.
There are also loopholes[22] in the legislation that benefit the major parties by allowing the donations cap and disclosure threshold to apply separately to each branch of a party.
Third, it would be timely to take a closer look at government advertising. Parliament should tighten the rules[23] to ensure that taxpayer-funded advertising can’t be used to spruik the government of the day.
Fourth, the government has the opportunity to build on the abolition of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, by extending best-practice processes[24] to all public appointments. And it should make public grants processes more open and competitive[25].
These reforms would support confidence in our institutions, ensure taxpayers get better value for money, and reduce opportunities for “jobs for mates” and “pork-barrelling”, which are particularly corrosive to public trust.
Finally, the government can do more to reduce vested-interest influence in politics. Ministerial diaries should be published to improve transparency of lobbying activity[26].
Gambling is one example of a powerful industry[27] swaying policy in its favour. Consumer protections to prevent gambling harm are weak, despite the compelling case for reform[28]. Government should be taking action in the public interest.
Collectively, these reforms would have very little budgetary impact. But they could substantially improve confidence in our policy-making institutions, which should be a clear priority for whoever forms government after Saturday.
References
- ^ pledged (www.smh.com.au)
- ^ federal corruption commission (www.afr.com)
- ^ National Anti-Corruption Commission (www.nacc.gov.au)
- ^ public hearings (www.nacc.gov.au)
- ^ Lucas Coch/AAP (photos.aap.com.au)
- ^ potential investigations (theconversation.com)
- ^ Robodebt (robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au)
- ^ referrals (www.news.com.au)
- ^ reversed (www.nacc.gov.au)
- ^ Corruption Perceptions Index (transparency.org.au)
- ^ Electoral Reform Bill (www.aph.gov.au)
- ^ arms race (www.smh.com.au)
- ^ highly politicised (www.afr.com)
- ^ abolished (www.markdreyfus.com)
- ^ Administrative Review Tribunal (www.ag.gov.au)
- ^ outperforming (www.oecd.org)
- ^ more fragile (freedomhouse.org)
- ^ trust (www.apsc.gov.au)
- ^ corporate influence (grattan.edu.au)
- ^ Mick Tsikas/Lucas Coch/AAP (photos.aap.com.au)
- ^ total cap (theconversation.com)
- ^ loopholes (theconversation.com)
- ^ tighten the rules (theconversation.com)
- ^ best-practice processes (grattan.edu.au)
- ^ open and competitive (grattan.edu.au)
- ^ improve transparency of lobbying activity (grattan.edu.au)
- ^ powerful industry (grattan.edu.au)
- ^ case for reform (theconversation.com)
Authors: Kate Griffiths, Democracy Deputy Program Director, Grattan Institute
