This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Government & democracy
The bill would create independent selection panels in each department and a Public Appointments CommissionerThe new independent office the bill would create to chair selection panels and oversee how major appointments are run. to make major Commonwealth appointments more open and merit-based.
Growing political appointments to major Commonwealth roles, exposed by the AATA federal tribunal that reviewed government decisions before it was abolished; the page uses it as the main example of appointments becoming politicised. scandal and loss of trust in its independence and competence, left appointment processes looking opaque and merit-free. The bill creates independent panels and a Public Appointments CommissionerThe new independent office the bill would create to chair selection panels and oversee how major appointments are run., and limits ministers to choosing from shortlisted eligible candidates.
Before this bill, major Commonwealth appointments were often made without a uniform independent selection process, even though some roles such as ABC and SBSThe Special Broadcasting Service, a public broadcaster already using merit-based panels for some board positions, according to the page. board positions already used merit-based panels. After evidence of politicised appointments mounted, including a July 2022 report showing many prestigious roles went to political allies and the December 2022 decision to abolish the AATA federal tribunal that reviewed government decisions before it was abolished; the page uses it as the main example of appointments becoming politicised. after confidence in it collapsed, the bill proposed independent shortlists and a Public Appointments CommissionerThe new independent office the bill would create to chair selection panels and oversee how major appointments are run., but it was later removed from the Notice PaperThe list of parliamentary business scheduled for debate; if a bill is removed from it, the bill is no longer moving forward in that chamber. without passing.
The main criticism is that locking ministers into independent shortlists could curb legitimate political judgement and blur democratic accountability if elected governments cannot choose senior appointees they must later answer for. This criticism was limited rather than broad, coming mainly from later commentary about appointments policy, while no party represented in the debate opposed the bill.
Sophie Scamps MP introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
190 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
The bill would create independent selection panels in each department and a Public Appointments CommissionerThe new independent office the bill would create to chair selection panels and oversee how major appointments are run. to make major Commonwealth appointments more open and merit-based.
The bill would cover most major Commonwealth appointments, mainly the people who lead Commonwealth entities, with extra roles able to be added in a scheduleA list attached to the bill that can be used to add more offices or roles to the appointments system without rewriting the main rules..
Independent selection panels would have to give ministers a shortlist, compare the shortlisted candidates, and provide a certificate showing each shortlisted person is eligible for appointment.
Ministers would only be allowed to appoint someone who has already been shortlisted by an independent selection panelA panel in each department that would screen applicants, interview them, and give ministers a shortlist of eligible people..
Most appointment certificates would have to be tabled in Parliament within 7 days, and sensitive integrity roles would also face parliamentary committee scrutiny before appointment.
This Bill is for an Act to establish a framework for making transparent and quality public appointments, and to establish Independent Selection Panels and the Office of the Public Appointments Commissioner.Transparent and Quality Public Appointments explanatory memorandum
The Bill captures almost all major Commonwealth public appointments via its application to any group of persons or person who is the ‘accountable authority’ of a Commonwealth entity under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth). This structure enables the Bill to capture the vast majority of public appointments; however, insofar as the definition of ‘accountable authority’ does not capture all relevant appointments, the Bill also allows for appointments to be captured via their inclusion in a Schedule (cl. 6).Transparent and Quality Public Appointments explanatory memorandum
Upon conclusion of the selection process, the ISP must provide the Minister with a report setting out the shortlisted candidates and a comparative assessment of them (as well as a numerical ranking of the candidates, if there are more than three individuals shortlisted) (cl. 10). The ISP must also provide the Minister with a ‘certification statement’ for each shortlisted candidate (cl. 10): this statement, which is simply a certification by the ISP that a person is eligible for appointment – and includes their rank, where ranking has taken place – is used to promote transparency (see below).Transparent and Quality Public Appointments explanatory memorandum
The Minister is then able to appoint any candidate shortlisted by the ISP (for the avoidance of doubt, the Minister will not be able to appoint a candidate who has not been shortlisted by the ISP) (cl. 11).Transparent and Quality Public Appointments explanatory memorandum
Within 7 days of the making of a public appointment that is not a ‘significant integrity officer appointment’ (see below) the Minister must table in Parliament the certification statement prepared by the ISP in respect of the individual appointed (cl. 12). In the case of a significant integrity officer appointment, the parliamentary oversight committee established by the Bill (see below) must report to Parliament on whether it supports a proposed appointment before that appointment is made (NB: this is not a veto power: see below in respect of interaction with veto provisions under other Acts) (cl. 52).Transparent and Quality Public Appointments explanatory memorandum
Context
Before this bill, major Commonwealth appointments were often made without a uniform independent selection process, even though some roles such as ABC and SBSThe Special Broadcasting Service, a public broadcaster already using merit-based panels for some board positions, according to the page. board positions already used merit-based panels. After evidence of politicised appointments mounted, including a July 2022 report showing many prestigious roles went to political allies and the December 2022 decision to abolish the AATA federal tribunal that reviewed government decisions before it was abolished; the page uses it as the main example of appointments becoming politicised. after confidence in it collapsed, the bill proposed independent shortlists and a Public Appointments CommissionerThe new independent office the bill would create to chair selection panels and oversee how major appointments are run., but it was later removed from the Notice PaperThe list of parliamentary business scheduled for debate; if a bill is removed from it, the bill is no longer moving forward in that chamber. without passing.
Grattan report says many top federal appointments went to political allies
An Australian Financial ReviewThe newspaper cited in the background context for reporting on Grattan Institute analysis of political connections in appointments. report on Grattan Institute analysis said about one in five of the most powerful, prestigious or well-paid federal appointments had gone to people with direct political connections.
Australian Financial Review ↗Government announces the AATA federal tribunal that reviewed government decisions before it was abolished; the page uses it as the main example of appointments becoming politicised. will be abolished after confidence in it was undermined
The bill’s explanatory memorandum says unchecked politicisation of AATA federal tribunal that reviewed government decisions before it was abolished; the page uses it as the main example of appointments becoming politicised. appointments damaged competence, independence and access to justice, culminating in the December 2022 abolition announcement.
Transparent and Quality Public Appointments explanatory memorandum ↗Lynelle Briggs is appointed to review federal board appointment processes
The review was commissioned to examine standards and processes for government board, authority and tribunal appointments as Labor flagged tighter controls on patronage.
Australian Financial Review ↗Sophie Scamps introduces the bill for independent panels and a new commissioner
The private member’s bill was introduced to require merit-based shortlists for major Commonwealth appointments and to create a Public Appointments CommissionerThe new independent office the bill would create to chair selection panels and oversee how major appointments are run..
Parliamentary timeline ↗The bill is removed from the Notice PaperThe list of parliamentary business scheduled for debate; if a bill is removed from it, the bill is no longer moving forward in that chamber.
The bill did not progress further in Parliament and was removed from the Notice PaperThe list of parliamentary business scheduled for debate; if a bill is removed from it, the bill is no longer moving forward in that chamber. under standing order 42A parliamentary rule mentioned as the basis for removing the bill from the Notice Paper..
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Considered by scrutiny committee (22/03/2023): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 3 of 2023
Considered by scrutiny committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main criticism is that locking ministers into independent shortlists could curb legitimate political judgement and blur democratic accountability if elected governments cannot choose senior appointees they must later answer for. This criticism was limited rather than broad, coming mainly from later commentary about appointments policy, while no party represented in the debate opposed the bill.
Most recorded concern went to preserving ministerial discretion, not to defending patronage or opaque appointments.
Reduced ministerial discretion and accountability
Critics argued ministers are elected to make politically accountable decisions, including senior appointments, so forcing them to pick only from an independent panel's shortlist could shift real power to unelected gatekeepers while leaving ministers to carry the blame.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Scamps strongly supports the bill and urges the House to pass it, arguing it would replace cronyism and jobs-for-mates appointments with a more transparent, independent process.
Read in Hansard ↗Haines strongly supports the bill, saying it would end cronyism and restore fairness, due process and trust in federal appointments.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
2 speakers · 2 support
“I urge all members of this House to do what is necessary and right and to support this bill as another vital step in restoring integrity and decency to our political system.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Jobs for mates can constrain public policy. When political party loyalty is being rewarded, appointees are less likely to put forward policy recommendations and reforms that might rock the boat and that don't align with party positions. This is a big problem, but this bill brings a clear fix which would align us with international best practice. No more captain's picks! Let's restore fairness, due process and trust, with quality, non-political public appointments. The people of Mackellar care, the member for Mackellar cares, and all of the crossbench care. Let's get on and do it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Removed from the Notice Paper in accordance with (SO 42)
Removed from the Notice PaperThe list of parliamentary business scheduled for debate; if a bill is removed from it, the bill is no longer moving forward in that chamber. in accordance with (SO 42)
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered by scrutiny committee
Considered by scrutiny committee (22 Mar 2023): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 3 of 2023
APH bill page notes