Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Australia
Table of contents
Australia has a strategic framework to mitigate corruption risks and strengthen public integrity. The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 aims to mitigate integrity risks in the Australian public sector by strengthening governance, accountability transparency, internal control and risk management. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 promotes integrity and accountability across the public service by providing rules, standards and principles. Additionally, the Commonwealth Fraud Control Framework 2017 contains provisions to mitigate public integrity risks in public financial management and reduce fraud and other types of corruption across the public sector. Judicial integrity is supported by a combination of constitutional and legal rules (such as the Federal Court Act), professional ethical standards and institutional arrangements. The Public Service Act 1999 and the APS Code of Conduct provide the main framework for disciplinary procedures.
In terms of institutions, Australia has an independent anti-corruption body (National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which operates under the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022, and an independent body responsible for open data (Office of the National Data Commissioner). The Attorney-General’s Department oversees lobbying at the federal level, and lobbying frameworks are also applicable and overseen by local bodies at sub-national level.
The Australian Constitution establishes safeguards for the independence of federal judges, and they are appointed and promoted by the Governor-General on the advice on the Attorney-General. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is the federal prosecution service, the Director and Associate Director are appointed under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, while other prosecutors are appointed under the Public Service Act 1983 (Cth). The Public Service Act establishes the disciplinary framework and defines disciplinary offences as violations of the Code of Conduct and the Australian Public Service Commission provides standardised guidelines on handling suspected breaches of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct.
Note: 2025 and 2020 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Data on where Australia's integrity system is strongest and could be most improved can be found at the link below:
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Australia fulfils 33% of criteria on the strength of strategic framework, and 27% on practice compared to the OECD average of 38% and 32%, respectively.
Australia's strategic framework to mitigate public integrity risks is composed of the “Louder than words: an APS Integrity Action Plan”. The Integrity Action Plan, published in 2023, was developed by the APS Integrity Task Force which is based in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It was adopted by the Secretaries Board, which is responsible for “developing and implementing strategies to improve the APS. The Action Plan provides recommendations across three pillars: culture, system and accountability. Each recommendation is further analysed in concrete actions.
The APS Action Plan establishes strategic objectives to mitigate public integrity risks in the areas of human resource management, public procurement, and to reduce fraud and other types of corruption. It was developed according to a situation analysis that identified public integrity risks and it includes an action plan for each objective. No monitoring annual reports are currently available as it was recently launched.
The APS Action Plan could be further strengthened by setting strategic objectives across other key integrity areas, such as public financial management, internal control and risk management, and state owned enterprises. The Action Plan would also benefit from outcome level indicators with baseline targets for each strategic objective and action plan activity.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Australia fulfils 60% of criteria on lobbying regulations, and 56% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 43% and 38%, respectively.
The Australian Government Lobbying Code of Conduct provides a definition of lobbying activities, including which actors are considered lobbyists, and sanctions for breaches of lobbying transparency standards. Additionally, Australia has cooling off periods for lobbyists who were formerly public officials, but does not impose cooling off periods on lobbyists who then seek positions as public officials..
In practice, the Attorney-General oversees lobbying activities at the federal level. In 2024, it investigated nine potential breaches to the Code of Conduct. The lobbying register provides clear instructions on how to register and publishes information such as the lobbyist’s name, clients, and former government representative status. However, it does not provide information such as the legislation or regulation target.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Australia fulfils 100% of criteria on conflict-of-interest regulations, and 33% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 80% and 45%, respectively.
Australia’s comprehensive regulatory framework, essentially composed of the Public Service Act and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, defines and describes how to manage conflict-of-interest situations at various levels of government and includes proportional sanctions for breaches of conflict-of-interest provisions. Additionally, ministers, members of parliament, high-ranking judges and public employees in high-risk positions are all required to declare their interests. In practice, all ministers and almost all members of parliament (99%) submitted their interest declarations over the 2019-2024 period. However, Australia does not fully track data on the verification of interest declarations for high-ranking judges and public employees in high-risk positions, and not all declarations are submitted electronically.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Australia fulfils 40% of criteria on political finance regulations, and 57% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 76% and 58%, respectively.
The regulatory framework, composed of the Electoral Act, requires political parties to report on their annual and campaign finances and defines proportional sanctions, but it does not set a threshold for personal contributions to candidates’ personal campaigns, and does not establish a ban on anonymous donations or financial contributions by publicly owned enterprises or a ban on anonymous donations if the value of the donation is below the disclosure threshold ($17,300AUD indexed as at FY2025/26). The Electoral Act prohibits the receipt of donations or financial contributions for an electoral purpose valued over $100AUD by foreign donors including foreign states and foreign enterprises. In practice, all political parties publicly disclosed their annual financial reports over the 2020-2024 period. The Electoral Commission oversees the financing of political parties and election campaigns and publishes key information such as the number of investigations conducted and sanctions issued. However, it does not meet the methodological requirements for independence and does not have certified auditors on its payroll.
On 13 February 2025, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Act 2025 (the Electoral Reform Act) was passed by the Australian Parliament and will commence on 1 July 2026. Among other things, the Electoral Reform Act will reduce the disclosure threshold above which donors and recipients must be identified to $5,000, and will implement donation caps for all political actors, which includes a threshold for personal contributions to candidates’ personal campaigns.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Australia fulfils 56% of criteria on public information regulations, and 62% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 72% and 62%, respectively.
The regulatory framework, essentially composed of the Freedom of Information Act, establishes deadlines to process requests for information, that information must be provided in the requested format, and the right to appeal to the Federal Court in case of refusal. Although it establishes that everyone has access to public information, it does not establish that all public institutions and private persons carrying out public duties are holders of public information.
In practice, the Office of the National Data Commissioner is responsible for public information issues. Consolidated versions of all primary laws, legislative proposals of the government as sent to parliament and the state budget for the current year as well as public tenders and results of those awarded by central government are publicly available. However, agendas of formal government meetings are not systematically published prior to the session, and not all ministers’ agendas are publicly available.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Australia fulfils 26% of criteria on judicial integrity regulations, and 24% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 45%, respectively.
The Australian Constitution establishes safeguards for the independence of federal judges, including rules on appointment and removal as well as guaranteed tenure. Federal judges are appointed and elevated by the Governor‑General on the advice of the Attorney‑General and there is no possibility to appeal appointment or elevation decisions. The Government uses policy-based tools to encourage merit‑based appointments, but the law does not prescribe merit‑based objective procedures like exams or interviews. There are no objective grounds for the dismissal of judges: removal is permitted based on “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” but “misbehaviour” is not defined in law.
There is no unified code of conduct for judges as defined in law, though individual federal courts apply their own workplace conduct policies, some of which include integrity provisions. The federal courts also adhere to the Australasian Institute of Administration’s Guide to Judicial Conduct. Conflict of interest rules are not set in statute but arise from Australian common law. Members of the highest courts and national judges must submit interest declarations under the Cabinet Handbook, with a 100% submission rate over the past four years.
The Federal Court and the Federal Circuit and Family Court have a Public Interest Disclosure Policy issued in line with the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which offers legal protections against retaliation, but the Policy does not cover the conduct of judges. There are no internal reporting channels across the courts, nor any public portal offering information on whistleblower rights.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Australia fulfils 66% of criteria on prosecutorial integrity regulations, and 68% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 52%, respectively.
The Director and Associate Director are appointed under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, while other prosecutors are appointed under the Public Service Act. Although panels or interviews may be used in practice, neither Act nor the Public Service Commissioner’s Directions require standardised exams or interviews. Objective grounds for dismissal are laid out in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act and the Public Service Act. Public prosecutors’ decisions cannot be appealed: they are excluded from judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and have been deemed nonreviewable by the High Court in Maxwell v The Queen.
The 2025 Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitor Conduct Rules (ASCR) set standards of conduct, including measures on recusal. The Australian Public Service (APS) Values and Code of Conduct, the Public Service Act and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act define the circumstances and relationships that can lead to conflict-of-interest situations for prosecutors. The Public Service Code (under the Public Service Act) sets out sanctions for breaches of conflict-of-interest provisions. The interest declarations submission rate for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is 100% for the past 4 years.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act applies to the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution (CDPP), and internal reporting channels for whistleblowers are established. The Act protects whistleblowers from retaliation, information on reporting prosecutorial misconduct is CDPP website, and staff handling such reports receive mandatory training on confidentiality.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Australia fulfils 33% of criteria on disciplinary system regulations, and 17% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 22%, respectively.
The Public Service Act establishes the disciplinary framework and defines disciplinary offences as violations of the Code of Conduct. A range of disciplinary sanctions are established which vary according to the severity of the offence, including termination of employment, reduction in salary, a fine or a reprimand. The law does not establish a statute of limitations established for disciplinary offences, or the right to appeal a disciplinary decision in front of a judicial body after exhausting administrative remedies.
The Australian Public Service Commission provides standardised guidelines on handling suspected breaches of the APS Code of Conduct, but no information was provided on whether staff conducting disciplinary investigations are offered training on how to conduct these investigations, or whether a centralised case management system was in place.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Kosovo: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
The full book is available in English: OECD (2026), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Harnessing the Integrity Advantage, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/16708b78-en.
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of the original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.