Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026
Ms CHANEY (Curtin) (17:07): As part of these budget discussions, I'm going to focus on a part of the Attorney-General's portfolio that may seem dry but that strikes at the very heart of our democracy—that is, protecting and resourcing our accountability institutions. In the US at the moment we're seeing democratic institutions being undermined at an alarming rate.
This includes executive overreach, independent agencies being white-anted and defunded, attacks on judicial independence, intentional weakening of civil society and the media, and the politicisation of law enforcement. I'm sure I'm not alone in watching on with horror and wondering how a proudly democratic country can change so fast. Most Australians I speak to feel very grateful for our democracy, but in a time of global upheaval we must safeguard our own democratic institutions.
We're fortunate to have a range of integrity agencies within the Attorney-General's portfolio that provide checks and balances to protect our democracy. These agencies are an essential part of our democratic architecture and make up the fourth arm of government—bodies such as the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General, the Information Commissioner and the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
These agencies are safeguards against secrecy, overreach and corruption, but they cannot do their jobs if they're underfunded, politically stacked or denied access to the information they need, and unfortunately we're starting to see some signs of this. This budget, while addressing many pressing needs, has failed to adequately fund and empower the agencies that were established with the mandate to keep government honest.
Despite being in a better position than the US, we are facing what some experts have called an integrity deficit, a decade-long decline in funding for the agencies responsible for securing good governance. This budget was an opportunity to reverse that trend, but that opportunity has not been taken. I want to talk about three aspects that need to be protected—independence, resourcing and oversight—and why we can't afford to put this off.
Firstly, on independence, for us to trust that integrity agencies are doing their job, we must know that they're independent and unable to be influenced by government. How do you ensure that independence? Part of it involves looking at who these agencies report to.
In Australia, many integrity agencies sit under a minister. They're part of the Public Service that reports to the executive, and this creates a conflict. These agencies should be staffed under legislation that reflects their independence and their role as offices of the parliament.
If they reported to the parliament rather than the executive, there would be greater trust that they could hold the executive to account. Second is resourcing. This is the part that's most directly relevant to the budget before the House.
Integrity agencies cannot undertake their work if they're not funded to do so, and we're seeing too many examples of integrity agencies with declining resources. For example, the Ombudsman's funding will fall from $48 million this year to $37 million in 2028-29. Funding for the OAIC is also set to fall, from a high of $40 million to $26 million by the end of the forward estimates.
Funding for the Human Rights Commission is set to fall, from $32 million last year to $28 million this year, with funding not expected to recover over the forward estimates. The DPP will see funding fall from $128 million this year to just $101 million next year, and even less in subsequent years. This decline in funding is absolutely unacceptable and should ring alarm bells.
The third element is oversight. We also need to acknowledge that parliamentary committees and oversight groups are often dominated by the government of the day, and that limits their effectiveness. But, if integrity agencies are truly independent and well resourced, they can then do what committees cannot—investigate fearlessly, speak truth to power and protect the public interest.
These institutions should report to the parliament, not to the executive. I've met with a range of experts, including the former Commonwealth ombudsman, Allan Asher, and the former head of the Consumers Federation of Australia, Robin Brown, who, along with academics, judges, advocates and former integrity practitioners, have developed a five-point reform plan.
They have published an open letter—which I hope the Attorney-General has seen—which outlines a clear path forward. Some of the actions these experts have identified include making integrity agency offices of the parliament protected from government interference and guaranteeing sustained resourcing so they can hold government to account and are protected from retaliation.
This is not about attacking anyone government; it's about futureproofing our democracy. I urge the Attorney-General to read, consider and respond to these asks.