March 1 - 31, 2026: Issue 652
Mackellar MP Sophie Scamps re-launches updated ‘Ending Jobs for Mates’ Bill
Independent Federal Member for Mackellar Dr Sophie Scamps is acting on the recommendations of an independent review to introduce a mandatory cooling-off period for former politicians applying for major Commonwealth appointments.
On Monday March 2 2026 Dr Scamps introduced an updated version of her Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2026 (‘Ending Jobs for Mates Bill’) in the House of Representatives.
Seconded by Federal Member for Calare the Hon Andrew Gee MP, the Bill establishes an independent, transparent process for all major Commonwealth appointments to ensure selections are based on expertise, not political connections.
The Bill also requires a six-month cooling-off period for former politicians and senior political staff, and 18 months for former Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries, before they can be appointed to major public roles.
These measures implement key recommendations of the ‘No Favourites’ Review into Public Sector Board Appointment Processes (the Briggs Review), commissioned in March 2023 shortly after Dr Scamps briefed the former Attorney-General on her proposed bill.
Delivered to Government in August 2023, and kept under wraps for 27 months, the Briggs Review identified ongoing concerns about the transparency, independence and merit of senior public appointments.
It found that board appointments had, at times, favoured politically connected individuals, fuelling perceptions of patronage and eroding public confidence. The review concluded that reform is needed to restore independence, transparency and merit-based selection.
Four years after the Albanese Government promised stronger integrity and transparency at the 2022 election, meaningful reform to the appointments system continues to be left unaddressed.
Dr Sophie Scamps MP said:
“It's been three years since I first introduced this bill and sadly major public roles are still being appointed behind closed doors with little to no transparency The Briggs Review made it clear: without enforceable rules, patronage and favouritism creep into the system.
“It’s bad for democracy and bad for Australians when governments choose who suits them best, not who is best for the job.
“I am taking this action because the government has not.
“The Briggs Review was hidden from the public for almost two years, only to be quietly released on a Friday before Christmas. And instead of acting on its detailed integrity recommendations, the Government has put forward a token half‑page of vague ‘principles’ - seven dot points that leave board appointments largely at the discretion of Ministers. It’s window dressing, not reform.
“Since the Bill was first introduced, the Commonwealth has established several major new bodies, including the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Environment Protection Authority (National EPA), yet the appointment of their leaders remains entirely at ministerial discretion, without any legislated requirement for a transparent or merit‑based process.
“Australians deserve a system where these high-paid and powerful appointments are based on merit, not mateship. This bill puts an end to the quiet deals and back‑room pathways that have damaged confidence in government for far too long.
“Good governance is not a partisan issue. Every Australian is better served when the best person gets the job, not the best‑connected person. It doesn't just look bad - it dampens the morale and capability of our public institutions, ultimately weakening the quality of decisions that affect people’s lives.”
The Hon Andrew Gee MP stated:
“Jobs for mates erodes public trust and confidence in government and our public institutions.
“Making political appointments to government boards has become an accepted part of Australian political life that’s been going on for far too long. It’s time to clean this up and bring the practice to an end.
“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 actually an open, independent and transparent process around selections.
“If as a nation, we’re serious about restoring confidence in government, this is surely a vitally important place to start.”
Geoffrey Watson SC - Centre for Public Integrity Board Member, said:
“It’s not just about the selection of the best candidates, it’s also about perception - the current process seems to be that jobs are recycled amongst friends and insiders, without the transparency and independence that is essential to ensure the best quality candidates end up in our important public sector roles.”
In introducing an updated version of her Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2026 (‘Ending Jobs for Mates Bill’ - Second Reading) in the House of Representatives, Dr. Scamps said:
'Three years ago, when I first introduced this bill, Australians were calling for an end to the culture of entrenched cronyism and political patronage that pervades appointments to major public roles in this country. This culture weakens our institutions and undermines trust in government. Australians had had a gutful of seeing highly paid, powerful public appointments seemingly handed out as captains' picks by ministers as rewards to political allies and/or to ensure alignment with government priorities.
For example, the Morrison coalition government, which was strongly opposed to action on climate change, had appointed former fossil-fuel executives to chair both the Climate Change Authority and the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission. Strangely, the COVID commission developed and strongly pushed for the so-called gas led recovery. Additionally, the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal, one of our nation's most important institutions underpinning our democracy, had to be abolished and recreated after being heavily stacked with former Liberal MPs, candidates and staffers and other supporters. In fact, the Australia Institute's research shows that, under the Morrison government, up to 40 per cent of plum positions at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal were deemed to be political appointments.
Following its election in 2022, the Albanese Labor government spoke passionately about its commitment to transparency and promised to reform the jobs-for-mates culture in Canberra. But, four years on, little has changed. Since first introducing this bill, several Labor stalwarts have been appointed to key roles, including the lead of the review of Australia's Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and the Chair of the Net Zero Economy Authority. While each of these may well have been the best person for the job, the absence of a legislated, transparent appointments process means that the public simply has no assurance of that. Importantly, even the perception that an appointment is political can be enough to erode trust in government, and, when trust in government is low, social cohesion suffers.
Controversy surrounding public appointments has continued to flourish, including around the appointment of a trade union leader to the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund board, despite not being shortlisted or put through a formal due diligence process, and the head of the Office of National Intelligence came directly to that role from the Prime Minister's office. Several public institutions, including the Centre for Disease Control, the National Reconstruction Fund and the National Environmental Protection Agency have been newly established with no legislated or merit based selection process for their heads.
The government has failed to act on the jobs-for-mates culture in Canberra, which is why I'm reintroducing this bill today. ....
Perhaps the reason for this delay was that the Briggs review does not mince words. It gave a scathing assessment of the public board appointment process, calling the current system 'not fit for purpose' and 'failing the Australian people'. It also gave this damning assessment:
… too often the practice in recent years has been to appoint friends of the Government to boards, either as a reward for … loyalty or to ensure alignment with government priorities and all too often these appointments have looked like forms of patronage and nepotism that should have no place in the modern Australian society.
'Patronage', 'nepotism' and 'reward for loyalty'—when these words define an appointment system, there is obviously something deeply wrong.'
Review of Public Sector Board Appointments Processes - the Briggs Report
The Government appointed Ms Lynelle Briggs AO to lead a Review of public sector board appointments processes in February 2023.
The Review forms part of the Government’s Public Service Reform Agenda, under the priority area of an APS that embodies integrity in everything it does.
The Review considers and proposes appropriate standards for the processes by which Board members are appointed to Government Boards. This includes a focus on:
- clarifying the role of public sector boards and how needed skills and standards are set;
- options for transparent processes to identify and recruit board members;
- how ministers are advised on selection of board members; and
- improving the diversity of board membership (including in terms of gender, CALD, First Nations and geographic representation on public sector boards).
The Final Report of the Review into Public Sector Board Appointments Processes and the Australian Government Appointments Framework was released on 2 December 2025.
Ms Briggs states in her report, 'Report of the Review into Public Sector Board Appointments Processes - No Favourites' ;
'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 and all too often these appointments have looked like forms of patronage and nepotism that should have no place in the modern Australian society. The public expects to see board appointees who are professionally qualified for the roles they are expected to perform and who are willing to work for the good of the country rather than for a particular political party.
I found that the current board appointment arrangements are not fit for purpose. They have let down the Australian people, undermined the integrity and effectiveness of the public sector and exposed Ministers to unnecessary risk. They do not provide Ministers with a disciplined and structured appointments process that ensures a broad, relevant, and diverse skill set for their boards. They do not provide Ministers with the support that they need to find the best candidates and make appointment decisions. They do not always provide the best people for the job.'
...
'I am proposing a series of careful and measured reforms to the processes by which board members are identified, selected, appointed, and supported in their roles. The idea is to systematise appointment processes in legislation so that there is a standard appointment process that is disciplined and rigorous in its application and which will provide the benchmark for ministerial appointment practice. The proposed appointments model will deliver better candidates, from a wider range of circumstances, for board positions.'
....
'I have proposed in this review a series of measured reforms with necessary flexibility that should help to restore public confidence in the governance of public entities, whilst maintaining ultimate ministerial responsibility for board appointment decisions.
The reforms start with an acknowledgement that Ministers need a generally applicable and standard appointments process that is applied in all portfolios in order to have access to a predictable and fairer recruitment system that builds in strength over time as its practice is embedded and built upon through talent pools, talent pipelines, diversity responsibilities, and other mechanisms.
They open up the board recruitment process through advertising virtually all positions, formalising ministerial and departmental roles in the process, collecting and publishing appointments data, and explaining how and why appointment decisions were made.
They engage the public service directly in independent ownership of, and accountability for, appointment processes and, in so doing, secure them as willing partners in achieving better appointment results for Ministers through good process.
They establish a centre of board expertise in the Public Service Commission, which is also responsible for assurance reporting.
They enforce operational standards and correct process in the Government Boards Services Act, with the stick of the National Anti-Corruption Commission and breaches of the Code of Conduct for Ministers.
I would like to think that these reforms will ensure that “only the best will do” will become the mantra for public sector board and other appointments and the integrity-safe reality for Ministers as they make these appointments.'
On December 2nd 2025 Public Service Minister, The Hon. Katy Gallagher, defended the delay in releasing the report and unveiled an overhaul of the appointments framework, which included a list of strengthened principles focused on merit and diversity but did not adopt key recommendations from the review, such as politicians and staff not being appointed to boards within six months of leaving government positions or 18 months if they were in ministerial jobs, or banning ministerial appointments in the six months before an election.
More in December 2025 PON reports: Australian Government Appointments Framework Released alongside Briggs 'Report of the Review into Public Sector Board Appointments Processes; No Favourites'