Comment

Sophie Scamps
Labor’s jobs for mates test

Late last month, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese used a speech at the British Labour Party’s yearly conference to define himself as a defender of “democracy itself”. He placed himself in this category alongside his “mate”, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

They are strong words, especially given the state of democracy itself. Research institutions such as the Center for Systemic Peace consider the United States, another close friend and ally of Australia, to be no longer a democracy, instead describing it as lying “at the cusp of autocracy”.

There are many facets to a robust democracy. Among the most critical are an accessible and functioning freedom of information (FOI) system and strongly independent public sector institutions that can give frank and fearless advice.

Right now, the government is trying to diminish our FOI system. At the same time, it is trying to establish two significant federal institutions – the Australian Centre for Disease Control and a national Environment Protection Authority.

If Albanese is serious about defending democracy, the effectiveness and independence of these institutions and the way in which senior positions in them are filled will have a major bearing on his success.

Back in February 2023, the Albanese government announced an independent inquiry into the transparency and integrity of senior public board appointments headed by Lynelle Briggs, a former Australian Public Service commissioner. Her review followed what had been an alarming growth in “jobs for mates” appointments over the previous decade, particularly for plum, highly paid and powerful public sector roles.

Announcing the review, Public Service Minister Katy Gallagher said the Morrison government’s approach to political appointments had “made a mockery of the process”, exploiting them for political purposes. She was right.

Under Scott Morrison, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, for example, had been so heavily stacked with political appointments that it couldn’t be reformed and had to be abolished in the Albanese government’s first term – a mammoth step in anyone’s book.

Senator Gallagher declared that the report of the Briggs review would be made public in mid 2023, after it was finalised “in line with the government’s commitment to transparency”. That has not happened. Two years after the Briggs report was handed to the government in August 2023, it has not seen the light of day. Independent Senator David Pocock has twice tried to compel the government to comply with an order of the Senate to produce the document. Each time he has been unsuccessful.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, the announcement of the Briggs review came just before I introduced my “ending jobs for mates” bill to parliament. The bill, drafted in partnership with the Centre for Public Integrity, would legislate the use of independent selection panels to shortlist candidates for major public appointments such as the auditor-general and commissioners of the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Productivity Commission – rather than appointments being entirely at the discretion of the minister of the day.

At the time, the Albanese government used the upcoming Briggs review as the excuse for refusing to engage with, debate or adopt my bill. It needed to wait to be able to consider the findings of the report, it argued. Two years on, the government is steadfastly refusing to make the Briggs report public.

Since the Briggs review was commissioned, several Labor stalwarts have been appointed to key roles. Greg Combet was made chair of the Net Zero Economy Authority. Craig Emerson led the independent review of Australia’s Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. Most recently, Mike Kaiser was appointed secretary of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.

Each of these people may have been appointed on merit under a transparent process, but how would we know?

Transparency and the perception of independence are almost as important as true independence. Without transparency, voters lose trust, and a lack of trust is corrosive to democracy.

Labor’s amendments to freedom of information laws will make it even harder to access reports like the Briggs review. This is the reality against which Albanese claims to be a defender of democracy.

As Katy Gallagher herself so eloquently put it, “Being on a government board should be about what you know, not who you know.” Rewarding party stalwarts, retired politicians, failed candidates, staffers or other apparatchiks with plum jobs is not only unfair, it compromises the expertise and efficiency of a body.

Most insidiously, ministerial appointments can be abused to capture the culture and direction of institutions that advise government. In this regard, events in the United States should serve as a warning.

As we prepare for the creation of our own Centre for Disease Control (CDC), many will have looked on aghast at the influence of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr on the CDC in America.

As a doctor, I understand intimately how important it is that health advice be based on science, not personal opinion or political proclivity. That’s why double-blind randomised control trials are the gold standard – they remove human bias as much as possible.

In the case of the US CDC, we see the advice of one of the most powerful scientific institutions in the world being directed by a high-profile anti-vaccine advocate. This is in large part possible because the president himself, Donald Trump, has the power to sack the person in the top job.

Dr Susan Monarez was fired as director of the US CDC after just one month in the role. In testimony before the US Senate, Monarez stated that her dismissal followed her refusal to terminate senior scientists or to pre-approve changes to national vaccine guidance without access to the relevant scientific data.

The White House later confirmed she was removed because she was “not aligned with the president’s agenda”.

Out of their own mouths.

As parliament seeks to establish an Australian CDC and a national EPA before the end of the year, hearing the recommendations of the Briggs review is even more urgent.

Why won’t the government release the report? What has it got to hide?

Could it be that the review would reveal the government does not walk the talk about transparency in the appointment process? That despite its commitment before the 2022 election to correct the bad behaviour of the previous government (for example, ignoring warnings that robodebt was illegal and rewarding public servants who buried the evidence), Labor has proved little better in practice than its predecessor?

Indeed, when it comes to freedom of information requests, the Albanese government’s record is worse than the heavily criticised Morrison government’s.

In July this year, the Centre for Public Integrity reported that under the Albanese government the proportion of FOI requests granted in full fell from 59 per cent in 2011/12 to just 25 per cent in 2023/24. Refusals nearly doubled, from 12 per cent to 23 per cent.

The Centre for Public Integrity also found that about 45 per cent of initial decisions were flawed and that the time taken for review by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner had ballooned to 15.5 months.

As the centre noted: “This delay is disastrous for transparency and democracy. By the time a review is completed, the documents in question have often lost their political and public relevance – blunting the FOI regime’s democratic function.”

Rather than rectifying this record of failure, the newly re-elected government is now attempting to wind back Australians’ democratic right to access government information through its Freedom of Information Amendment Bill.

Among the many changes, the bill would expand the exemption for cabinet documents, add a new list of “factors against giving access”, ban anonymous or pseudonymous requests, and introduce application fees.

While the government says changes to FOI laws are necessary to combat AI-generated and vexatious claims, there is little evidence to support its assertion.

In fact, the Attorney-General’s Department was unable to present evidence of increased automated or malicious requests during recent Senate estimates. In response to a Senate order for documents, the attorney-general produced two US media reports and a list of talking points to substantiate the government’s claims – hardly compelling.

Former public service commissioner Andrew Podger has condemned the proposed “factors against giving access” in the government’s bill as “the final straw” and said they “could be used to refuse access to almost any document”. Last week I stood with the Centre for Public Integrity and other crossbenchers to condemn the bill, calling for its withdrawal and for an independent inquiry into FOI.

Albanese is right – democracy does need defending, including here on our own shores.

I’ve submitted an FOI application to obtain a copy of the Briggs review. I’m still waiting. I’m not holding my breath.

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on October 18, 2025 as "Labor’s Lynelle Briggs test".

For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australia’s leading writers and thinkers. We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth. We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care, on climate change, on the pandemic.

All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers. By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential, issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to account politicians and the political class.

There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this. In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world, it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.

Send this article to a friend for free.