The review into government appointment processes finally sees the light of day two years after it was completed, only to have its core suggestions rejected.
Public service minister Senator Katy Gallagher faced a grilling in Senate estimates today over her government’s “toothless” response to the long-awaited Briggs review into the way ministers make appointments to boards.
Lynelle Briggs, the former Australian Public Services Commissioner and Medicare chief executive, has finally seen her review of government appointment processes hit daylight, only to have her major recommendations watered down.
Ms Briggs found that when it comes to ministerial appointments to boards there were no clear rules, so ministers appointed who they wanted, with no transparency.
Her report was released today by the government more than two years after she submitted it in August 2023. Also released was the Albanese government’s response to the review – the Australian Government Appointments framework, which waters down Ms Briggs’ comprehensive recommendations and seems to reject the core recommendations to enshrine appointment standards in law and centralise oversight under the Australian Public Service Commission.
“You’ve made us wait for years for this report, and now you have ignored its key recommendation, which means we have a toothless response,” said Greens senator Barbara Pocock to Senator Gallagher today.
“I don’t agree that putting it in legislation would have delivered anything more than this framework does, frankly,” replied Senator Gallagher.
Ms Briggs said that “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”.
“All too often these appointments have looked like forms of patronage and nepotism that should have no place in the modern Australian society.
“Merit-based appointments have been the focus of public service recruitment for well over a century in Australia, but the concept of merit has not always been extended to the wider public sector.”
There are around 200 governing and decision-making boards (listed in the report) in Australia. How these important, powerful positions are appointed matter because “Integrity in board appointments is one of the first gateways to integrity in the government”, Ms Briggs said.
The perception of jobs for mates undermined trust in government, even if only 6-7% of board appointments were political, because up to half are “direct appointments” by ministers, she said.
“I expect that the public is unable to differentiate between political and direct appointments and there is a perception that all direct ministerial appointments are politically motivated. In and of itself, that is a cause for concern in our Westminster system of government.”
The delay in releasing the report probably has not done much to help in that regard.
“The thing about the Briggs report, what she found was that support around the appointments process probably wasn’t what it should be and that the systems were opaque across government,” said Senator Gallagher today.
“She obviously was looking backwards at that time, so it was another government that she was looking at.
“The thing we are trying to put in place here with the framework is a very clear and transparent way of those appointments being made in recognition of what Ms Briggs has identified as a problem in how appointments are made.”
In the report, Ms Briggs said there were “not enough checks and balances” for ministers to balance their power to make appointments with their obligations to be accountable.
Of course, governments want boards that they could work with, but the public expected them to appoint people qualified for the job, and who were there to serve the best interests of the country, not the political party in power, she said.
Related
“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,” wrote Ms Briggs.
“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.”
Changing the way things work would take more than conventions; it would take new laws to require change, she said.
“To change Ministerial behaviour among all political parties needs the strength of legislation to enforce the change, then a period of some stability to embed it so that it becomes the way government appointments business is done.
“It also requires individual Ministers to take their personal responsibility seriously to act in the national interest when making these important appointments. And, it needs to be underpinned by proactive management of the assessment process by Secretaries, assessment panels and the Public Service Commissioner.”
The framework released today makes no mention of legislation and keeps the power of board appointments firmly in the hands of ministers.
When asked in Senate estimates today about the lack of penalties for not following the framework, Senator Gallagher said:
“The penalty is public. Part of the job here is ministers have to publicly account for the appointments they make. For a politician that is how you serve the public and how the public judges you, is the appropriate way of dealing with some of the issues.
“We did not, when we commissioned Lynelle Briggs [say] make all your recommendations and the government is going to agree with every single one of them,” said Senator Gallagher.
“That report informed our thinking about the practical improvements we could make to the appointments process across government and that has been delivered through the government’s appointments framework.”
Ms Briggs made 30 core recommendations in all for reforming the board appointments process, covering:
- board integrity through legislation and now boar appointment process,
- legislated operational standards for ministers, board appointees and officials,
- board tenure,
- restrictions on powers,
- minsters’ roles,
- centralised coordination of board appointment processes, and
- board performance measures.
Today Senator Gallagher said the government had “covered or partially covered” 19 of the recommendations.
“Three are further covered by guidance or recommendations and I think three are subject to further consideration. Five recommendations are not covered by the framework,” she said.
One recommendation the government rejected was to avoid making appointments six months out from an election, and don’t appoint politicians or their staffers to boards for six months after they leave their jobs (18 months for ministers).
“There’s a ministerial code of conduct which applies, of course, around post-ministerial employment,” said Senator Gallagher today.
“We don’t believe that people should be excluded if they’ve got the right skill set and go through a process of appointment to a government board.
“There are people who leave work in this parliament who do have the right skills and would be an asset on government boards and committees.”
Senator Pocock was having none of it.
“Minister, I think many Australians will not buy that. They have lost confidence in democracy, and one of the main sources of their loss of confidence is the appointment of the boys, the brothers and some of the sisters into jobs,” said the Greens senator.
“You know, ex-politicians and staffers not barred for six months to 18 months, former ministers and their staff who go directly with key knowledge about internal processes of the government and of cabinet, who go into positions, that is unacceptable to the Australian public.
“I think that is really clear. I think you are making a gesture and failing to take the key steps that will make it a requirement. And that is a big difference.”
Senator Gallagher said the framework arrangements were very clear about requiring public justification for appointments, and that was the key thing.