Bold truth: the “Jobs for mates” review exposes a deeply flawed appointments system, and the government’s reply is a near-total failure to address it. For years, across political lines, senior public appointments have been made with little regard for integrity, transparency, or accountability. That pattern has done real damage to democratic trust and to the legitimacy of public institutions.
The nadir, some would say, came with the Morrison government’s late-term deployment of a wave of political allies into the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Yet even with strong rhetoric about reform, the Albanese government has moved cautiously, almost at a glacial pace, in tackling the issue. A comprehensive inquiry was commissioned in 2023, led by Lynelle Briggs, but the resulting findings sat unpublished for over two years, denied to the media and the public despite mounting pressure.
Yesterday’s release of the Briggs Review (after sustained civil society advocacy, crossbench and independent pressure) lays bare the motivations for the delay and paints a stark picture of a system in desperate need of repair. The government’s justification for the delay rings hollow when weighed against the report’s contents.
Key takeaways from the report are blunt and unambiguous:
- The major political parties have systemically abused appointments to government boards, eroding public trust in the process.
- The problem is so severe that it has undermined confidence in government and fueled public unease.
- Boards have too often been staffed to reward loyalty or advance political aims, a quintessentially patronage-driven practice that modern Australia cannot accept.
Titled No Favourites, the Briggs Report offers careful, concrete recommendations aimed at restoring public confidence while preserving ministerial accountability for board selections. Central proposals include:
- Fixed terms of four years for board appointments (five years for statutory officers).
- Regular public notices when vacancies arise on boards.
- A formal skills matrix to guide candidate selection.
- The establishment of assessment panels to canvass a wide pool of qualified candidates and present informed recommendations to the minister.
- Ministers would retain the final say, but must justify cabinet or direct-appointment choices transparently.
The report also sets out clear safeguards:
- Ministers should not make direct appointments in the six months before an election.
- Politicians and their staff would be barred from board service for six months after leaving political roles, and up to 18 months in certain portfolio areas.
- The Australian Public Service Commission would assume a leading role in policy guidance and coordination for board appointments.
Crucially, the report argues that these reforms must be enshrined in law to ensure they cannot be easily undermined. It states, with strong conviction, that public trust in appointment integrity is so fragile that legal guarantees are necessary to rebuild confidence.
How did the government respond? Finance Minister Katy Gallagher released an appointment framework, which, while a step forward, falls short in several essential respects. It does not implement all Briggs recommendations, notably omitting key reforms vital to genuine change. More troubling, it sidesteps the call to legislate the reforms, a critical misstep that undermines the credibility of the entire package. The framework also curtails the Public Service Commissioner’s authority and preserves significant discretionary leeway, leaving the system vulnerable to the same weaknesses that caused the crisis.
In short, the response appears inadequate and reactive, not transformative. The Centre for Public Integrity characterizes it as insufficient and short-sighted, failing to address the depth of public concern.
If, as proponents contend, the two-year delay was justified by the need to craft a robust framework, that justification may ring hollow. The framework, by all accounts, does not meet the Briggs Report’s mandate and risks leaving critical gaps open.
Decisive steps were expected, and many argue for a transparent, public, consultative process on the Briggs recommendations. Deliberations should have been accompanied by measured submissions from civil society, parliament, and other stakeholders. The current approach, perceived as dismissive of public input, undermines both integrity and accountability.
Anthony Whealy KC, chair of the Centre for Public Integrity and former assistant commissioner of Icac, weighs in on these issues.
Would this reform truly restore public trust, or are there fundamental political incentives that could still derail lasting change? The dialogue around appointments—merit, loyalty, transparency, and accountability—remains alive, and the conversation belongs to all Australians. If these reforms are pursued through legislation, would they enjoy broad, cross-partisan support, or become an arena for political contention? Your views on these questions are important and welcome in the comments.
