Around the globe, concerns about the backsliding of democracy – the erosion and liberties of civil society – are growing.
Even in well-established systems, erosion is a real problem.
Recent research by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, (IDEA), highlights the importance of parliamentary processes to this dynamic.
This report’s core insight is simple, but not simplistic: Parliamentary rules are more than just technicalities. Often, they are important guardrails of democracy.
IDEA’s report highlights several ways that these safeguards could be compromised. The government may shorten legislative timelines or limit the debate in order to reduce parliament’s ability to carry out its core duties. The use of procedural tools, such as control over the agenda for legislation or committee structure, can help entrench the executive’s dominance.
The Australian democracy is a reflection of these insights.
Academics, researchers, law councils and other professional organisations are all voicing concern that Australia’s parliament is under threat. In turn, accountability and policies suffer.
Legislation with minimal parliamentary oversight
The heavy reliance of executive legislation with little regard for oversight by the parliament is a first concern. It was especially evident during the COVID Pandemic when governments needed flexibility to adapt to quickly changing circumstances.
In its inquiry, the Senate Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee showed just how easy it was for executive laws to be made without parliamentary oversight. Just in the first seven month of 2020, there were 249 legal instruments. Out of those 48, or around 20 percent, were not subject to parliamentary rejection (meaning that the parliament could not veto these). The experts questioned whether these exemptions would be necessary even in light of the pandemic.
A strong democracy is built on a proper parliamentary oversight. Mick Tsikas/AAP
A committee found that fewer sittings of parliament meant less supervision. The committee suggested stronger safeguards including restricting exemptions and making sure emergency instruments are subject to scrutiny.
Although executive lawmaking is an important feature of modern government, it can be a source of serious concern when done without the scrutiny and approval by parliament.
This expansion raises questions regarding the balance of efficiency and accountability. The pandemic response exacerbated these concerns, which extend far beyond it.
Respect for the constitutional role of parliament
Second, the primary legislative processes themselves are not without fault.
In its recent report Lawmaking with Integrity by the Centre for Public Integrity, it documents an increasing number of practices in legislation that are not new but have been commonplace. They include
- Timeframes are compressed
- Consultation limited or opaque
- The curtailment or suspension of the parliamentary oversight in the name of urgency.
Law Council of Australia expressed concerns similar to those of the Australian Bar Association. It released its own Best Practice Legislative Development Checklist in 2025.
These trends are illustrated by a small number of case studies.
First, the EPBC Act reforms of 2025 will be passed. There were concerns about the lack of consultation prior to the introduction of the bill and its “urgent” passage through Parliament before the Senate Committee investigation was completed – before submissions from the public had even closed.
The Senate Standing Order, which requires that committees report on legislation before it is passed, had to be suspended.
Another example of the abuse of parliamentary process is illustrated by proposed changes in 2025 to Freedom of Information laws. This amendment was developed without any public consultation. It was disappointing that the government did not do more to boost confidence in its approach to parliamentary oversight.
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry was conducted by a government-dominated, government-chaired committee.
It is notable that it didn’t call on a number prominent experts to testify.
Reports later claimed that the government offered more staff to the opposition in order to ensure the passage of the legislation. This was equally troubling. This allegation, if true raises grave concerns over the use of government resources to negotiate legislative outcomes.
The government dominates parliamentary committees
The functioning of the parliamentary committees is a third concern that was also raised in the IDEA Report.
The committees play a central role in the oversight function of Parliament. Their effectiveness is dependent on how they are constituted and run.
When committees have a majority of government representatives or are given shortened timelines, they can lose their ability to fulfill this function.
The Centre for Public Integrity called for models of best practice that would ensure integrity oversight committees were not dominated by government (which is still the case in most Australian jurisdictions).
Information control by the government
Control of information is another dimension in democratic erosion. The parliamentary procedure determines the information that is made available to parliament and, therefore, what level of scrutiny can be performed. To make legislation and to hold the executive accountable, Parliament needs to have access to appropriate information. Responsible government is based on these functions.
In this context, it is important to understand the growing concern about Australian information control. The government has become increasingly reluctant to provide documents requested by parliament.
In the report Still Shrouded by Secrecy 2025, published by Centre for Public Integrity, a substantial increase was documented in refusing to obey Senate orders for production of documents. The government is more often asserting broad immunity in the public interest and failing, at times, to justify withholding of information.
Such claims are not subject to an independent process.
The procedure of the Parliament dictates what the response should be to these refusals. This has only had limited success to date.
Similarly, there have also been concerns raised over the quality of the information that is provided to the parliament during the actual legislative process.
Governments have refused to disclose the legal or evidence-based advice that informed legislative proposals in a number cases. It has instead asked the parliament and public to accept assurances of appropriate legal advice.
At least in one case, these assurances were later questioned.
Refusing to backslide
What may seem like procedural changes in Australia are really signals of a democratic regress. The Albanese government has, in particular, used its position as the largest parliamentary majority after the election of 2025 to undercut the role and constitutional authority of parliament.
A healthy democracy requires maintaining democratic guardrails. This will take vigilance in the current climate. The civil society should be ready to criticize poor processes, while opposition parties, minor political parties, and independents need to be prepared to defend the role of parliament.
It is important that those in the ruling parties are willing to defend the role of parliament and not give into the leadership’s demands.
