‘Patronage and nepotism’: Labor releases scathing ‘jobs for mates’ report
After sitting on a report into public board appointments for more than two years, the government has released the damaging findings.
Integrity advocates have panned Labor’s response to a damning report into public sector appointments, which found government board positions and senior bureaucratic roles had been handed to “friends of the government” and often resembled political patronage.
Finance Minister Katy Gallagher on Tuesday rejected several recommendations made by the report’s author, former Australian Public Service Commissioner Lynelle Briggs, whose long-awaited review of government board appointments was finally released.
Ms Briggs found the current system used to fill coveted public board roles had eroded confidence in the public service and “was not fit for purpose”.
“Too often the practice in recent years has been to appoint friends of the government to boards, either as a reward for past loyalty or to ensure alignment with government priorities,” Ms Briggs said.
Commissioned by Senator Gallagher in 2023, the 108-page report, No Favourites, followed Labor’s accusations that the former Coalition government stacked public boards with former colleagues and allies, and set out a suite of reforms to lift integrity in the appointments process.
Chief among the recommendations was barring direct ministerial appointments in the six months before a federal election to prevent “last-minute bequests”, and imposing strict rules on when former ministers, politicians and their staff could be appointed.
But the government has instead unveiled a new “appointments framework”, to take effect in February, which was swiftly criticised by transparency advocates for falling short of a genuine merit-based overhaul.
Under the framework, ministers must “be transparent about appointments within their portfolios”, use independent assessment panels where appropriate, and seek to make “the best possible appointments on the basis of merit”.
The Centre for Public Integrity, a think tank that advocates against corruption, said the new framework fell “well short” of meaningful reform.
“Australia deserves an appointments system that puts merit before mates,” executive director Dr Catherine Williams said. “Briggs provided a clear road map for achieving that. The government’s current approach does not get us there.”
ACT independent senator David Pocock – who last month joined with the Coalition to pressure Labor to release the Briggs report by extending Senate question time – was similarly critical.
“Australians get it. It just seems to be the major parties that don’t get it,” he said.
Pressed during Senate estimates about Labor’s limited adoption of the Briggs recommendations, Senator Gallagher defended the new system.
“If anyone comes in here and says the appointments framework is not an improvement on what existed previously, or the problems that Ms Briggs identified, is simply wrong,” she said.
“We don’t believe people should be excluded if they have the right skillset and go through a process for appointment to a government board.”
Senator Pocock questioned why, if that principle applied, a merit-based process could not be mandated.
“It might be a (matter of) urgency, it might be that you need someone quickly,” Senator Gallagher replied.
The new framework will replace the government’s 2008 merit and transparency policy. Rather than imposing rigid rules, it will allow ministers and agencies to tailor selection processes to the needs of each role.
While covering agency heads and departmental secretaries – roles not within the scope of Ms Briggs’s review – the new framework will not apply to appointments to diplomatic posts.
Anthony Albanese last month unveiled the appointment of former South Australian Labor premier Jay Weatherill to the post of UK high commissioner, replacing ex-Labor defence minister Stephen Smith.
The government similarly appointed former prime minister Kevin Rudd as ambassador to the US and former financial services minister Stephen Jones as ambassador to the OECD.
More Coverage
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout