Why records as a compliance centre is a political loser and easy to under-fund.

It's a simple matter of priority.

What hits the front page of the newspaper first?

Core services that are failing because they're not properly funded?

OR records services that are failing because they're not properly funded?

Even if regulators would show up and audit, I can see the headline now when an agency was found non-compliant (which every single one would).

Minister at question time is asked about why they weren't funding records properly, you can see it now - "I won't prioritise adminis-trivia over frontline service delivery."

They'd go on about saving the children, minority group, working families etc.

Then they'd bump 5 points in their polls because the electorate is Australian, and Australians are anti-authoritarian and love anything that looks like bureaucracy busting (if it was America, they would just position it as removing red tape).

The point, is that in government, a compliance narrative is very easy to fob off - because it's not what the organisation is about (unless of course AUSTRAC is your regulator, then you just do what they tell you).

How would that situation change if funding records was operating as a value centre, and records projects were responsible for increasing frontline service capacity by 10% every year?

Minister gets a question on notice in question time - "why are you over-funding your records team" - "records projects have allowed us to increase delivery of core agency services by 10% year on year, this means - mr speaker - that we've saved 10% more children, minorities etc. etc. and if the xyz party had managed their own records as well while they were in government, I wouldn't be digging us out of this mess" etc. etc. etc.

Which one of those would you rather your minister was delivering?

Which one gets funded?