The National Integrity Framework has changed. The real test is whether Australian sport changes with it.
On 24 July 2026, Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) announced the most significant update to Australia's National Integrity Framework (NIF) since its introduction in 2021.
With 96 sports having adopted the Framework, it is fair to say that the NIF has fundamentally changed the regulation of integrity in Australian sport.
The revised policies, which sports are required to adopt by 30 April 2027, are intended to strengthen protections, improve consistency, and make the Framework easier to apply.
All worthy objectives.
But five (5) years into the NIF experiment, I think Australian sport needs to ask a more important question:
Are we improving integrity outcomes, or simply becoming better at producing integrity policies?
1. What's actually changed?
The 2026 NIF updates include several important and welcome developments. The five (5)-policy framework remains, but the changes go beyond cosmetic amendments.
Among the more significant are:
Complaints, Disputes and Discipline: A simplified 'allegations' approach replaces the distinction people previously needed to make between reports and complaints. There are stronger independence requirements for Complaint Managers, including where allegations involve a National Sporting Organisation (NSO), together with clearer investigation, sanctioning and governance processes.
Participant Protection: The former Member Protection Policy has been renamed and expanded, with greater recognition of the protection of all participants, including people with disability, and stronger protections against victimisation.
Safeguarding Children and Young People: More explicit minimum safeguarding requirements, updated definitions of harm and abuse, and increased organisational responsibilities relating to risk management, recruitment, child safety statements, and the use of images and livestreaming.
Competition Manipulation and Sports Betting: Broader coverage of international competitions and greater attention to emerging threats, including courtsiding and data scouting.
Improper Use of Drugs and Medicine: Clarified responsibilities for support personnel, with practical guidance separated into companion materials.
Importantly, the revised Framework also seeks to distinguish enforceable rules from guidance and recommendations.
That is a sensible development. In my experience, uncertainty about what constitutes a binding obligation, as opposed to recommended practice, can create considerable difficulty when a sporting organisation seeks to investigate and discipline someone for alleged misconduct.
However, better drafting is only part of the solution.
2. Adoption is not Implementation
One of the challenges facing the NIF since 2021 has been the assumption that adopting a nationally consistent policy framework necessarily produces nationally consistent integrity outcomes. It doesn't.
An NSO can adopt a policy, place it on its website, circulate it to its state members, and report compliance with relevant governance standards. But what happens when the first serious allegation arrives?
Does the sport have an appropriately trained and independent Complaint Manager?
Does it understand the distinction between receiving an allegation, assessing it, investigating it, determining whether a breach has occurred, and imposing a sanction?
Does it understand the evidence required to support a disciplinary outcome?
And, perhaps most importantly, are the people making those decisions authorised, independent, competent and procedurally fair?
These are not simply operational questions. They go directly to the legal and governance foundations of the organisation's integrity system.
As I discussed in my earlier article, You Better Get a Lawyer, Sport, the National Sports Tribunal's determination in Belooussov v Gymnastics Australia provides a valuable warning about the consequences of poorly managed integrity proceedings.
An investigation report is not automatically proof of a policy breach. Nor does the existence of a policy guarantee that a decision made under it will survive legal scrutiny.
The 2026 reforms present an opportunity to address these weaknesses. But only if implementation extends beyond adopting the new documents.
3. The real challenge is the integrity operating system
For sporting organisations, updating to the 2026 NIF should involve reviewing the entire integrity operating system.
This includes:
Governance and delegations. Who is authorised to receive allegations, commission investigations, determine breaches, impose sanctions and hear appeals? Are those powers clearly established in the constitution, regulations, policies or other applicable instruments?
Independence and conflicts. What happens if a complaint concerns the CEO, a board member, an influential coach or the organisation itself? Is there a credible alternative pathway?
Procedural fairness. Are affected parties properly informed of the allegations and evidence, given an appropriate opportunity to respond, and provided with reasoned decisions?
Capability. Are the people administering the process appropriately trained in investigation, evidence, decision-making and the application of the relevant policies?
Application across the sport. Are the updated obligations properly binding on the relevant organisations and individuals through constitutions, membership arrangements, participation agreements and other instruments?
The last issue is particularly important in federated sporting structures, where responsibility may be distributed across national, state, regional and club bodies.
A nationally approved policy is of limited practical value if its application and enforcement cannot be clearly established.
Organisations will also need to manage the transition carefully. The policy version applicable to alleged conduct, the powers of the relevant decision-maker, and any transitional arrangements must be properly identified. The latest policy cannot simply be assumed to govern every historical allegation.
4. An opportunity for sport's boards
The revised NIF should be welcomed. It reflects experience accumulated over five years, consultation with sporting organisations, and an effort to address gaps in the original Framework.
But the deadline of 30 April 2027 should not be treated merely as a document adoption deadline. For boards and executives, it should trigger a proper review of their sport's integrity capability, including whether its systems are suitable, adequately resourced, independent where required, and legally defensible.
The measure of success will not be how many organisations adopt the 2026 NIF.
It will be whether participants are safer, allegations are managed fairly, decisions are made competently, and sporting organisations are better equipped to respond to integrity threats.
Australian sport does not need more integrity policies for their own sake. It needs integrity systems that work.
The 2026 NIF reforms provide a useful opportunity to make that happen.
Whether sporting organisations take full advantage of that opportunity is another question.
Key references
