A well-functioning democracy depends on informed, transparent and accountable law-making. Public confidence in law-making is strengthened where governments rely on publicly available evidence, engage meaningfully with experts and
affected communities and individuals, and allow Parliament to perform its legislative-scrutiny function.

On the other hand, rushed, opaque or selective law-making processes risk poorer-quality laws, increase the likely influence of vested interests, and further erode already fragile public trust in political institutions. These risks arise particularly in two categories of law-making:

• integrity risk – where governments legislate in areas that regulate government conduct or strengthen transparency and accountability, creating an inherent conflict of interest
• susceptibility to capture – where strong commercial incentives and vested interests can distort policy outcomes (including environmental and planning law).

Using recent case studies including the 2025 FOI Amendment Bill and the 2025 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) reform bills, the paper shows how limited consultation and attempts to short-circuit committee scrutiny can undermine legislative quality and democratic legitimacy.

The paper proposes four law-making integrity safeguards to be embedded as standard practice – and formalised through parliamentary procedure where necessary:

1. independent policy development with public consultation
2. transparent exposure draft consultation
3. robust parliamentary scrutiny
4. mandatory post-implementation review.