The ‘Ending Jobs for Mates’ bill gives politicians the chance to win back lost trust

The 1999 republic referendum failed not for love of the queen, but because not enough voters believed our federal Parliament could be trusted to appoint a president (even by a two-thirds majority). In the 24 years since, the Australian public has not developed more respect for and confidence in the integrity of our elected representatives than it had back then.

It is unsurprising, therefore, that the serial atrocities committed by the Coalition government in the field of governance — including but not limited to its stacking of boards and tribunals with its mates — has pierced the public’s unconsciousness and become rather a big thing.

The gap between public demand for better governance and the major parties’ willingness to provide it will be exposed by the fate of independent MP Sophie Scamps’ bill that lands in the House of Representatives today. The Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill — codename “Ending Jobs for Mates” — is designed to call time on the free-for-all under which highly paid and high-status government posts have been handed to whoever the relevant minister of the day likes.

The bill has been carefully drawn in collaboration with the Centre for Public Integrity. It would establish an entirely new regime for important public appointments, with multiple layers of due process, oversight and accountability.

There are three critical structural components to the bill’s architecture: the office of the public appointments commissioner (PAC); an independent selection panel (ISP) in each government department; and a permanent parliamentary joint committee (PJC) to oversee the regime. Each is an entirely new creature, not the co-option of existing instruments.

The ISPs are key: each department must establish one to handle the appointments within its remit that are caught by the bill. It has two permanent members: the department’s secretary and the PAC. It can also appoint between one and four additional members for each selection process, and they must be relevantly qualified.

For each appointment, the ISP is required to conduct an advertised, competitive selection process, assess the applicants against guidelines established by the PAC, and put forward at least three recommended candidates to the relevant minister. The minister’s ultimate choice has to come from this list; no more favours dressed up as merit.

The process will apply widely to a huge range of appointments across the federal government. Think of any of the multifarious commissions (ACCC, ASIC, Human Rights Commission, Information Commissioner, the new anti-corruption commission and so on), they’re all caught.

For a sub-class called “significant integrity officer appointments”, including Administrative Appeal Tribunal members, the solicitor-general, director of public prosecutions, Commonwealth ombudsman, inspector-general of intelligence and security, and the PAC themselves, the bill adds some extra measures of due diligence. The ISP for their appointment must include a retired judge of the High Court, Federal Court or a state/territory Supreme Court, and the PAC has to send a certification to the PJC for its review and report back to Parliament as a whole.

Where this bill does not take Australia is anywhere near America’s problem of public appointments paralysis, due to its constitutional system requiring some 1200 different presidential appointments to be confirmed by Senate vote. It does not give Parliament any power to overrule or invalidate appointments made following the process. Invalidity, as a consequence of not following the process correctly, will be the preserve of the courts. As it should be.

Is this just more expensive bureaucracy? It is bureaucracy, but not particularly expensive (the Parliamentary Budget Office has costed it at $3 million a year). It will also, probably, make for slower appointments in many cases, because the process will no longer be amenable to a quick and easy swish of the ministerial pen.

However, we need it because the alternative has failed us. We don’t trust our politicians to perform these functions with integrity, and they have given us every reason to come to that position. And you know what they say about trust: hard won, easily lost.

The ultimate test of integrity, of course, is preparedness to act against one’s own personal interest. That will be the test for every MP as they decide how to vote on this bill.