PoliticalClaims.au

**The criticism is partially justified, but context matters:** **The government's perspective:** The Department of Infrastructure defended the Leppington transaction as having been "developed in consultation with the Department of Finance and the Australian Government Solicitor" to "mitigate the risk of costly and lengthy legal challenges" [6].

While the ANAO criticized the approach as "unorthodox," the government argued this strategy was professionally approved.

However, the ANAO's criticism that "appropriate consideration was not given to costs and benefits" remains a valid finding [6]. **On the budget cut timing:** While the ANAO did uncover significant improprieties (sports rorts in January 2020, Leppington in September 2020), and the $14 million cut came in October 2020, the causality suggested in the claim is difficult to establish conclusively [2][3].

However, the timing is striking: announcing a budget cut to the office that just publicly criticized you weeks earlier creates an appearance of retaliation, whether intentional or not. **Expert analysis on the real concern:** Both the Public Integrity briefing paper and ABC Fact Check identified the core problem: ANAO funding as a percentage of total government expenditure has declined dramatically — from 0.02761 per cent in 2000-01 to 0.01303 per cent in 2019-20, and projected to fall to 0.01108 per cent in 2020-21 — representing a 60 per cent reduction since 2000-01 [8][9].

This reflects the gap between growing government spending and flat/declining audit office resources. **The key context is systemic, not partisan:** Professor A.J.

Brown (Griffith University) noted that "integrity bodies in Australia, the ANAO included, had seen an overall downward trend in resourcing over the past decade, despite increased expenditure" and that "they are exposed to a general attrition or to other political instability in a way they shouldn't be" [9].