Probity in 2026: What We’re Seeing and What It Means
Over the past few years, there has been a noticeable shift in how probity issues arise and how they are examined across government. As agencies move into 2026, that shift is becoming more pronounced.
In our probity advisory and review work, we are seeing fewer issues framed purely as technical non-compliance. Instead, probity concerns are more often emerging from questions about judgement, transparency and the defensibility of decisions, particularly where discretion has been exercised.
This is not a theoretical trend. It is evident in audits, integrity reviews and, increasingly, in internal agency examinations of past decisions.
Key Probity Trends
Decision-making is being examined more closely than process. Historically, probity assessments tended to focus on whether prescribed steps were followed. While process compliance remains important, it is no longer the sole lens through which decisions are assessed.
Increasingly, agencies are being asked to demonstrate why particular options were preferred, how competing considerations were balanced, whether discretion was exercised consistently, and whether the reasoning would withstand later scrutiny.
Conflicts of interest remain one of the most common probity risks encountered in government work, particularly in procurement, grants administration and panel-based assessments. What we are seeing more frequently is concern not about whether conflicts were declared, but whether they were actively and appropriately managed.
Procurement and grants administration continue to attract a disproportionate level of probity scrutiny. In reviews and audits, recurring issues include unclear assessment criteria, inconsistent application of scoring, limited separation between assessment and approval functions, and inadequate documentation explaining final recommendations.
The integrity oversight environment in Australia has shifted in both scope and intensity. Agencies are now operating with a clear understanding that decisions may be reviewed long after they are made, often through multiple lenses. Reviews by bodies such as the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and state Auditors-General increasingly focus not only on whether policies were followed, but whether decisions were made fairly, impartially and on a defensible basis. Informal practices, discretionary judgements and undocumented assumptions that may once have attracted limited attention are now more likely to be examined if concerns are raised.
From a probity advisor’s perspective, this has materially changed the risk environment for decision-makers. Integrity bodies have consistently emphasised the importance of contemporaneous records, transparent reasoning and consistency between policy and practice. Where there is a gap between what an agency’s frameworks say and how decisions are actually made, that gap is increasingly characterised as a probity or governance issue rather than a benign administrative variation. In this environment, probity is less about anticipating a particular investigation and more about ensuring decisions are capable of withstanding unknown future scrutiny, whether by an auditor, an integrity body or a parliamentary committee.
Finally, agencies are engaging probity advisors earlier. Rather than limiting probity involvement to major projects, agencies are increasingly seeking early advice on process design and independent views where discretion or sensitivity is involved.
From a probity advisor’s perspective, probity in 2026 is less about rigid compliance and more about defensibility, transparency and trust.
To find out more, contact us on 1300 822 694
Click here for more information about our workplace investigation services
