This Bill introduces a comprehensive framework for major Commonwealth public appointments to address concerns that approximately 21% of prestigious federal positions are held by individuals with direct political connections. According to the explanatory memorandum, the 2023 Briggs Review found that current arrangements are
‘not fit for purpose,’ lack clear rules and consistent standards, provide insufficient checks and balances, and too often permit direct ministerial appointments in the absence of transparent, competitive processes.[Explanatory Memo page 2].
Key provisions of the Bill include:
Under the proposed law, a Minister must set selection criteria via a disallowable legislative instrument and may only appoint individuals from the ISP's shortlist. This establishes a
clear, legally binding and independently administered system... aimed at strengthening integrity, improving transparency, and restoring public confidence in federal institutions.[Explanatory Memo page 3].
The central argument for this Bill is that the integrity of democratic institutions depends upon the perceived and actual independence of the public service and statutory bodies. When a significant portion of powerful positions is occupied by political associates, it undermines public trust and risks the 'politicisation' of advice and regulation [Judgment]. By legislating merit-based rules, the Bill moves away from the 'trust us' model of ministerial discretion toward a system of objective verification.
The introduction of 'cooling-off' periods is a crucial safeguard. It addresses the 'revolving door' between political offices and statutory boards, ensuring that those in oversight or administrative roles are not unduly influenced by recent partisan loyalties. Furthermore, the mandatory use of Independent Selection Panels ensures that the pool of candidates is assessed by experts and public service leaders, rather than being limited to those within a Minister’s immediate social or political circle.
Finally, the special scrutiny for 'significant integrity officer' appointments is essential. These roles—such as the heads of anti-corruption or auditing bodies—must be beyond reproach. Requiring parliamentary committee review and a 'wait period' for these roles provides a necessary 'double-key' check on executive power, ensuring that the watchdogs of our democracy are not selected solely by those they are tasked with watching.
The primary objection to this Bill is that it risks blurring the lines of executive responsibility and accountability. In a Westminster system, Ministers are responsible to Parliament for the performance of their departments and agencies. To discharge this responsibility effectively, they must have the authority to appoint leaders who they believe can deliver on the government’s mandated policy agenda [Judgment]. Forcing a Minister to choose only from a shortlist provided by an unelected panel may lead to a situation where a Minister is held responsible for the failures of an appointee they did not truly select.
There is also the concern of administrative efficiency. The creation of a new 'Office of the Public Appointments Commissioner' and the requirement for every major appointment to pass through a rigid, multi-stage statutory process could lead to significant delays in filling critical vacancies. In times of crisis or rapid policy shift, the government needs the agility to appoint qualified individuals quickly, without being hamstrung by the 'red tape' of a legislative instrument for every set of selection criteria.
Lastly, it can be argued that 'political connection' is not a proxy for a lack of merit. Many former staffers and politicians possess deep expertise in governance, legislative processes, and public policy. Overly restrictive cooling-off periods and a rigid ISP process might inadvertently exclude highly qualified Australians from public service, thereby reducing the quality of appointments in the name of transparency [Judgment].
2026-03-02
House of Representatives
Before House of Representatives
SCAMPS, Sophie, MP
Unspecified
Anti-Corruption, Democratic Institutions, Civics