There are invisible strings that the powerful use to keep critics at bay

In my experience, integrity rarely features in the public’s consciousness until there is a scandal. But scandals in public life are as foreseeable as death and taxes. And when they happen, the public needs to know an independent watchdog will hold the miscreants to account.

The revelation that Victoria’s IBAC turned down the Allan government’s referral about alleged corruption by the construction union, the CFMEU, back in 2024 puts the spotlight on the workings of our integrity agencies. These CFMEU allegations are only the latest example to raise concern.

At the same time, the integrity agencies themselves have called for more independent funding processes. That’s not new, but attention to these issues is well overdue.

In 2022, when I was Victorian ombudsman, I released a paper with IBAC and the auditor-general making similar points. Perhaps predictably, nothing happened.

If governments are to have and deserve the trust of the public, it is essential that integrity agencies have the right powers and adequate funding. Also essential is the agency’s will to act and its readiness to expose what may be uncomfortable truths, which should be driven by an independent assessment of the public interest.

Every state and territory has an Anti-Corruption Commissioner to keep government clean, an auditor-general to keep it efficient and an ombudsman to keep it fair. How they are appointed, funded and overseen is widely different across Australia – and more often than not, controlled by the very government the agency is appointed to oversee.

This matters, and should concern us, for two reasons. First, we have seen a trend in recent decades of centralisation of power within executive government. The independent watchdog is more important than ever, and more than ever it needs to be protected.

Second, the tension between integrity agencies and the government they oversee will inevitably worsen in an increasingly centralised environment. New powers and funding often follow scandals that politicians in opposition promise to fix. But support for integrity agencies often falters when governments find themselves the subject of critical reports. This can be seen through the control governments exercise over appointments, funding and parliamentary oversight.

So how independent are these agencies in reality?

Being appointed, funded or overseen by the government does not inherently compromise independence. Australian integrity agencies have a long and proud history of independent action.

I trust that my own record as Victorian ombudsman is proof of that. My appointment by a Liberal government shortly before Labor’s victory in 2014 resulted in much ill-informed commentary that I was a political hack – even though I had been out of Australia for nearly 30 years and had no political affiliation. We must not only be independent, but believed to be.

Of 27 integrity officers around Australia, most are appointed either directly by the government or with the involvement of a parliamentary committee controlled by the government. Only seven are required by their legislation to have the positions publicly advertised. An independent panel is required in only two.

Once the officer is appointed, will they remain independent? Eighteen integrity officers have renewable terms, despite the conflict-of-interest risk – in effect, that they will not rock the boat so as not to jeopardise a reappointment.

If my own appointment had been renewable at the five-year mark, rather than subject to a non-renewable 10-year term, I cannot imagine I would have been reappointed by the Andrews government in 2019.

Closing down a troublesome agency could carry a political price, so funding is the main lever. This is a perennial problem: governments are often reluctant to feed the hand that bites them.

During my 10 years as ombudsman I observed that most governments fund their integrity agencies with as little as they can get away with. Will the latest scandal finally be the impetus for funding reform?

None of the 27 agencies has independent funding, though for six agencies – in NSW and the ACT – parliamentary committees not controlled by the government are actively involved – which is what the latest reform proposals in Victoria argue for.

Without safeguards, oversight becomes an extension of executive power rather than a check upon it. Most parliamentary committees are controlled by the government. Victoria has the only oversight committee in which the government is prohibited from having a majority. That happened only after trenchant criticism of the partisanship of the previous committee.

It is not possible to measure the impact of the watchdog who fails to bark. Tame or timid appointments, funding that does not keep pace with workload or control through government-dominated committees will not necessarily make any headlines.

Who will notice if an integrity agency issues few reports or makes no criticism of government in the reports it does? A watchdog may continue in muzzled form for years, unless or until a public scandal exposes it. And that will be too late.

Deborah Glass was the Victorian ombudsman from 2014 to 2024.