This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Government & democracy
People applying for major Commonwealth public roles would face a standard competitive process.
The bill's sponsor, Sophie Scamps (Independent), said stronger rules were needed to stop public appointments being treated as political rewards and to rebuild trust in government institutions. The explanatory memorandum says that, as of July 2022, about 7 per cent of federal public appointees had a direct political connection, rising to 21 per cent among the best-paid, most powerful or prestigious roles. Scamps also said a government review had found the existing system was not fit for purpose, but its report was withheld for 27 months and the government's replacement framework was non-binding.
By July 2022, direct political connections were recorded among about 7 per cent of federal public appointees and 21 per cent of those in the best-paid or most prestigious roles, while existing arrangements lacked consistent safeguards. After the government commissioned the Briggs Review in February 2023, its report was withheld for 27 months and released in December 2025; Sophie Scamps MP responded by reintroducing this private member’s bill on 2 March 2026 to require independent, competitive and transparent appointments.
The evidence pack contains no speech criticising the bill itself. Sophie Scamps (Independent), its sponsor, instead criticised the current appointments system and argued that the government's seven-point, non-binding framework contained no mandatory safeguards. Andrew Gee (Independent) supported the bill and said appointments by major political parties had become an accepted practice that should end.
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
197 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
People applying for major Commonwealth public roles would face a standard competitive process. The responsible minister must set the selection criteria in a rule that Parliament can reject and give them to an independent selection panelA department-based panel that assesses and shortlists applicants.. The panel must advertise within 7 days after the rule starts, keep applications open for at least 10 business days and, if applications are received, assess every applicant for quality, experience and integrity while considering diversity.
If written applications are received, the panel must shortlist at least three candidates, subject to the cooling-off rules, and rank them if it selects more than three. It must give the minister a comparison and written confirmation that each shortlisted candidate meets every selection criterion. Only someone shortlisted under these rules may be appointed.
An applicant cannot be shortlisted if they held certain political roles or worked for a minister or parliamentary office-holder during the 6 months ending when they applied. A former minister or parliamentary secretary faces an 18-month restriction only for an appointment in their former portfolio area, also measured from the application date.
The rules would cover people who lead Commonwealth bodies, a list of other senior public offices and appointments later added by regulations. They would also cover acting appointments to integrity roles, acting terms of at least 6 months and shorter terms that immediately follow another acting term. The bill would override inconsistent Commonwealth appointment laws but preserve existing approval arrangements for National Anti-Corruption Commission appointments and appointments made before commencement.
Each government department would have a selection panel that could not be directed by the Commonwealth Government. It would normally include the Public Appointments CommissionerThe official who oversees the proposed system., the department secretary and one to four extra members. When choosing extra members, the chair must consider relevant expertise, integrity and diversity; sitting MPs cannot serve, and all panel members must disclose possible conflicts of interest.
A former judge must sit on panels selecting senior integrity officers. The Commissioner would normally chair each panel, but not a process to appoint the Commissioner: in that case, the current Commissioner is excluded and a former judge appointed by the responsible minister becomes chair.
Proposed appointments to senior integrity roles would receive extra parliamentary scrutiny. A new 16-member committee must have no more than eight government members, at least two members from neither the Government nor the Opposition, and a non-government chair. It must report to each house within 7 sitting days of that house after receiving the candidate's certification statementConfirmation that a candidate meets every selection criterion.. The appointment can proceed after that period; committee support is not required by the bill. The committee must also prepare and table a report on its work after every financial year.
For other covered appointments, the minister must table the successful candidate's certification statementConfirmation that a candidate meets every selection criterion. in each house within 7 days after the appointment. If a house is not sitting, the minister must give it to that house's Presiding Officer for circulation. Appointments made on or after commencement are invalid unless the bill's process is followed, subject to the preserved operation of section 33AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
A new Public Appointments CommissionerThe official who oversees the proposed system. would provide advice and training, collect information and normally chair selection panels. The Commissioner may also make written guidelines. These would not be laws, but decision-makers must consider them and they must be published on the Office's website. The Commissioner's annual report must cover any guidelines, the selection processes in which they participated and the outcomes. The Commissioner would serve full-time for no more than three years and could not be reappointed.
Recording, sharing or using information obtained under the proposed law would be an offence if it was not done for the law's purposes or the person concerned had not consented. The maximum penalty would be 2 years in prison, 120 penalty units, or both. The minister must cause a review to start 2 years after the review section commences and be completed within 6 months. A written report about the review must be laid before each house within 15 sitting days of that house after the minister receives it.
9 Responsible Minister to determine selection criteria (1) The responsible Minister for a public appointment must, by legislative instrument, determine selection criteria for the public appointment. Note: A determination under subsection (1) is disallowable (see section 42 of the Legislation Act 2003). (2) As soon as practicable after making a determination under subsection (1), the Minister must give a copy of the determination to the responsible ISP for the public appointment. 10 Responsible ISP to conduct selection process Advertising appointments (1) Within 7 days after the commencemTransparent and Quality Public Appointments introduced text
(3) If the responsible ISP for the appointment receives written applications in response to an advertisement under subsection (1), the ISP must: (a) assess all applicants for the appointment against the selection criteria determined under subsection 9(1) for the appointment; and (b) assess all applicants for the appointment on the basis of the following: (i) quality; (ii) experience; (iii) integrity; and (c) consider opportunities for promoting diversity through the selection process; and (d) subject to subsection (5), shortlist at least 3 individuals for the appointment on the basis ofTransparent and Quality Public Appointments introduced text
Restriction on shortlisting—cooling‑off period for former politicians and staffers (5) The responsible ISP for an appointment must not shortlist a person if: (a) the person was, at any time during the 6‑month period ending when the person submitted an application in relation to the appointment: (i) a Minister; or (ii) a Member of the House of Representatives; or (iii) a Senator; or (iv) a holder of a statutory office as a parliamentary office holder; or (v) a member of the staff (within the meaning of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984) of a Minister or parliamentary office holdTransparent and Quality Public Appointments introduced text
6 Meaning of public appointment (1) Each of the following is a public appointment: (a) the appointment of an individual to an office or body that is the accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity; (b) the appointment of an individual to an office (other than an office covered by paragraph (a)) mentioned in column 1 of an item of the following table that is made under the provision mentioned in column 2 of the item; (c) any other appointment prescribed by the regulations.Transparent and Quality Public Appointments introduced text
14 Establishment There is established by this section an Independent Selection Panel (an ISP) for each Department of State. 15 Functions The ISP for a Department has the following functions: (a) to conduct, in accordance with this Act, a competitive selection process for each public appointment for which the ISP is the responsible ISP; (b) such other functions as are conferred on the ISP by this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth; (c) to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of any of the above functions. 16 Independent Selection Panels not subject to direction TTransparent and Quality Public Appointments introduced text
18 Membership (1) The ISP for a Department consists of the following members: (a) subject to subsection (3), the Public Appointments Commissioner; (b) the Secretary of the Department; (c) for each selection process conducted by the ISP—at least 1, and not more than 4, members (an additional member) appointed for the purposes of the selection process. (2) Subject to subsection (3), the Public Appointments Commissioner is the Chair of the ISP for each selection process conducted by the ISP. (3) If the Public Appointments Commissioner is the public appointment in relation to which the ISP iTransparent and Quality Public Appointments introduced text
52 Functions of the Committee (1) The functions of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Appointments are: (a) to consider certification statements that are given to the Committee under paragraph 12(1)(a) in relation to proposed significant integrity officer appointments; and (b) to, in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, report to both Houses of the Parliament on whether or not the Committee supports a proposed significant integrity officer appointment; and (c) after the end of each financial year, to prepare a report on the performance of its functions during the year and tablTransparent and Quality Public Appointments introduced text
Other public appointments (2) Within 7 days after an individual is appointed to an office or body that is a public appointment (other than a significant integrity officer appointment), the responsible Minister for the appointment must cause a copy of the certification statement for the individual to be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or (b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.Transparent and Quality Public Appointments introduced text
13 Guidelines relating to public appointments (1) The Public Appointments Commissioner may, by instrument in writing, make guidelines for the purposes of this Part. (2) For the purposes of the performance of a function or the exercise of a power under this Part, regard must be had to any guidelines made by the Public Appointments Commissioner under subsection (1). (3) Guidelines made under subsection (1) are not a legislative instrument. (4) Guidelines made under subsection (1) must be published on the website of the Office of the Public Appointments Commissioner.Transparent and Quality Public Appointments introduced text
55 Unauthorised dealing with information A person commits an offence if: (a) the person makes a record of, discloses or otherwise uses information; and (b) the information was acquired by the person in the course of performing functions or exercising powers under this Act; and (i) the record, disclosure or use is not for the purpose of performing a function or exercising a power under this Act; or (ii) the person to whom the information relates did not consent to the recording, disclosure or use of the information. Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.Transparent and Quality Public Appointments introduced text
Context
By July 2022, direct political connections were recorded among about 7 per cent of federal public appointees and 21 per cent of those in the best-paid or most prestigious roles, while existing arrangements lacked consistent safeguards. After the government commissioned the Briggs Review in February 2023, its report was withheld for 27 months and released in December 2025; Sophie Scamps MP responded by reintroducing this private member’s bill on 2 March 2026 to require independent, competitive and transparent appointments.
Political connections were common in high-profile appointments
About 7 per cent of federal public appointees had a direct political connection, rising to 21 per cent in the best-paid, most powerful or prestigious roles.
Transparent and Quality Public Appointments explanatory memorandum ↗Government commissions review of public board appointments
The government announced the Briggs Review to examine whether public sector board appointments were being made on merit rather than through political connections.
ABC News ↗Sophie Scamps proposes independent appointment panels
Sophie Scamps pushed for major government-appointed roles to be filled through independent panels and a Public Appointments CommissionerThe official who oversees the proposed system..
Sydney Morning Herald ↗Briggs Review finds appointments system unfit for purpose
The review found that candidates or friends were too often selected for political purposes or past loyalties, after the report had been withheld since 2023.
ABC News ↗Sophie Scamps introduces the bill
Sophie Scamps MP reintroduced the private member’s bill in the House of Representatives, arguing that legislated safeguards were needed because the government’s response remained non-binding.
Hansard ↗Bill removed from the Notice Paper
The bill reached a recorded parliamentary step removing it from the Notice Paper without evidence in the supplied material that it became law.
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
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The evidence pack contains no speech criticising the bill itself. Sophie Scamps (Independent), its sponsor, instead criticised the current appointments system and argued that the government's seven-point, non-binding framework contained no mandatory safeguards. Andrew Gee (Independent) supported the bill and said appointments by major political parties had become an accepted practice that should end.
The evidence includes only the sponsor's case for the bill and a supporting speech. It therefore does not establish the government's, opposition's or other parties' objections to the bill.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Sophie Scamps urges the House to pass the bill, arguing that independent, transparent and merit-based selection processes are needed to prevent political patronage and restore public trust in major Commonwealth appointments.
Read in Hansard ↗Andrew Gee supports the bill because it would curb political appointments and restore public trust through independent oversight, parliamentary scrutiny and a cooling-off periodTime certain former politicians or staff must wait. for former politicians and staffers.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
2 speakers · 2 support
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”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 Paper in accordance with (SO 42)
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
