Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Three years ago, when I first introduced this bill, Australians were calling for an end to the culture of entrenched cronyism and political patronage that pervades appointments to major public roles in this country. This culture weakens our institutions and undermines trust in government. Australians had had a gutful of seeing highly paid, powerful public appointments seemingly handed out as captains' picks by ministers as rewards to political allies and/or to ensure alignment with government priorities.

For example, the Morrison coalition government, which was strongly opposed to action on climate change, had appointed former fossil-fuel executives to chair both the Climate Change Authority and the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission. Strangely, the COVID commission developed and strongly pushed for the so-called gas led recovery. Additionally, the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal, one of our nation's most important institutions underpinning our democracy, had to be abolished and recreated after being heavily stacked with former Liberal MPs, candidates and staffers and other supporters. In fact, the Australia Institute's research shows that, under the Morrison government, up to 40 per cent of plum positions at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal were deemed to be political appointments.

Following its election in 2022, the Albanese Labor government spoke passionately about its commitment to transparency and promised to reform the jobs-for-mates culture in Canberra. But, four years on, little has changed. Since first introducing this bill, several Labor stalwarts have been appointed to key roles, including the lead of the review of Australia's Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and the Chair of the Net Zero Economy Authority. While each of these may well have been the best person for the job, the absence of a legislated, transparent appointments process means that the public simply has no assurance of that. Importantly, even the perception that an appointment is political can be enough to erode trust in government, and, when trust in government is low, social cohesion suffers.

Controversy surrounding public appointments has continued to flourish, including around the appointment of a trade union leader to the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund board, despite not being shortlisted or put through a formal due diligence process, and the head of the Office of National Intelligence came directly to that role from the Prime Minister's office. Several public institutions, including the Centre for Disease Control, the National Reconstruction Fund and the National Environmental Protection Agency have been newly established with no legislated or merit based selection process for their heads.

The government has failed to act on the jobs-for-mates culture in Canberra, which is why I'm reintroducing this bill today. When I first stood here back in 2023 to present this bill, the government responded by saying that they were dealing with the jobs-for-mates culture by announcing a review into public board appointments, otherwise known as the Briggs review. But, far from fixing the problem, it has functioned largely to kick the can down the road, not due to the integrity of the review but because of the government's handling and response to it. The Minister for the Public Service, Katy Gallagher, on announcing the review, promised that the report would be made public as soon as it was completed, in line with the government's commitment to transparency. Yet, instead, the government withheld the review from the public for 27 months. It was requested over and over again here in this chamber, in the Senate, by freedom-of-information applications and by orders for the production of documents in the Senate. Finally, under growing pressure and media attention, it was quietly released just before Christmas last year.

Perhaps the reason for this delay was that the Briggs review does not mince words. It gave a scathing assessment of the public board appointment process, calling the current system 'not fit for purpose' and 'failing the Australian people'. It also gave this damning assessment:

… too often the practice in recent years has been to appoint friends of the Government to boards, either as a reward for … loyalty or to ensure alignment with government priorities and all too often these appointments have looked like forms of patronage and nepotism that should have no place in the modern Australian society.

'Patronage', 'nepotism' and 'reward for loyalty'—when these words define an appointment system, there is obviously something deeply wrong.

The Briggs review set out a straightforward fix: legislate an independent, standard public-sector selection process for board appointments with commonsense safeguards like cooling-off periods for former ministers and political staffers. But, instead of acting on this review and implementing legislation, the government put forward something entirely different: the Australian Government Appointments Framework. This so-called framework consists of seven dot points, takes up about half a page, is non-binding, uses language so vague it provides no real protection at all and includes no mandatory requirements. The people of Australia have every right to feel let down.

Political appointments have deep and enduring impacts on the functioning of our institutions and public confidence in them. They erode public trust. They weaken the capability and efficiency of institutions. They can shatter the morale of public servants. And they affect all of us, because the people in these positions make decisions that affect us directly, including on welfare, visas, safety, health, education, the environment and the economy.

This bill is about protecting the integrity of those decisions. Drafted in partnership with the Centre for Public Integrity, this bill would see the creation of a public appointments commissioner and independent departmental selection panels. The appointment process would be overseen by a parliamentary joint committee on appointments, which would have no more than 50 per cent representation from the government. The recruitment process for all major Commonwealth public appointments would be transparent and independent. The recruitment process would require independent selection panels to publicly advertise the relevant position, run a competitive selection process and shortlist at least three candidates for the minister to choose from. An addition to this new version of the bill would also restrict politicians and their staff members from being shortlisted for six months after leaving political employment or 18 months in the case of a minister's portfolio areas.

In short, this bill would ensure that it's what you know, not who you know, that gets you the job. Australians deserve a public appointments system they can trust. I commend this bill to the House, and I cede the remainder of my time to the member for Calare.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder of the motion?

Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion, and I'm very pleased to be doing so. I commend the member for Mackellar for bringing it to this House again. She has been a tireless campaigner for integrity and transparency, and I commend her on her efforts in this regard since her election to this parliament.

Jobs for mates erodes public trust and confidence in our government and our public institutions, and making political appointments to government boards has become an accepted part of Australian political life that's been going on for far too long. All of the major parties do it when they're in government, and it's time to clean this up and bring the practice to an end. As a former minister and cabinet minister, I've seen how this process works firsthand, and it's become a time honoured part of politics in Australia. There's nothing covert about it. But I think if the public knew the extent of it they would be shocked, and this has to change.

Trust is the truest test of whether our systems of governance are fit for purpose in both private and public settings. The member for Mackellar has been through the Briggs review and the need for these reforms, but I think it's very important that we note that this bill establishes a number of new key elements that bring openness, transparency and independence to the appointment process. It will introduce a public appointments commissioner to oversee the act and set up a new parliamentary joint committee on appointments to consider selections and report to the parliament on whether the committee supports the selections. This bill would also introduce a new six-month cooling-off period to prevent recent politicians or political staffers from being appointed to major public roles.

I don't think it's too much to ask that we have the most qualified people being appointed to key public positions and that there's an open, independent and transparent process around selections. If, as a nation, we are serious about restoring confidence in government, this is surely a vitally important place to start. I commend this bill to the House, and I again commend the member for Mackellar for bringing it.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.