Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 31, page 10 (after line 26), after section 16B, insert:

16BA Appointment process — members of the Ministerial Advisory Board

(1) This section applies to the following appointments:

(a) the appointment of a person to be a member of the Ministerial Advisory Board under section 16B;

(b) the appointment of a person to act as a member of the Ministerial Advisory Board if:

(i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or

(ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more.

(2) An appointment must not be made unless:

(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:

(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and

(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and

(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment who are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and

(b) the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates.

(3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed 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.

(4) In this section:

former judge means:

(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or

(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or

(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.

(5) This section does not affect the operation of subsection 16B(4).

(2) Schedule 1, item 32, page 14 (after line 28), after section 19, insert:

19A Appointment process — Commissioners

(1) This section applies to the following appointments:

(a) the appointment of a person to be the JSA Commissioner under section 18;

(b) the appointment of a person to be a JSA Deputy Commissioner under section 18A;

(c) the appointment of a person to act as a Commissioner under section 19 if:

(i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or

(ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more.

(2) An appointment must not be made unless:

(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:

(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and

(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and

(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment who are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and

(b) the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates.

(3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed 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.

(4) In this section:

former judge means:

(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or

(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or

(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.

(5) This section does not affect the operation of subsections 18(3), 18A(3) and 19(2).

In March this year, I introduced a private member's bill called the Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill. This bill, which was drafted in partnership with the Centre for Public Integrity, calls for an independent recruitment process for major Commonwealth public appointments. At the last election, Australians let us know in no uncertain terms that they were fed up with wave after wave of rorts, corruption, cronyism, secret ministries and a lack of transparency. The message to the federal parliament was clear: clean up your act.

Across the country, including in my electorate of Mackellar, building greater integrity into our political system was a core election issue and remains so. We need to end the jobs-for-mates culture in our politics, government and bureaucracy. We need this so Australians can have trust and confidence that the decisions being made by these vital bodies that underpin our democracy are true.

My bill, if implemented, would establish a framework to ensure that major public Commonwealth appointments are made independently and transparently and that appointees are of the highest quality and expertise. Independence and expertise: these are two quite separate requirements. Selections requiring quality of candidates are vital. It goes without saying. But the quality or merit of a candidate is a very different thing to the independence of the process and people that make the appointment. Currently, appointments are made at the discretion of the relevant minister.

Reaction to my private member's bill was overwhelmingly positive. It was backed by the Centre for Public Integrity, the Grattan Institute, the Human Rights Law Centre, the Australia Institute, the Australian Democracy Network, Transparency International Australia—and the list goes on. Polling done by the Australia Institute in February this year showed that, when it comes to appointments to government bodies, over two-thirds of Australians think that only candidates who have been shortlisted by an independent selection panel should be eligible for these appointments. This is precisely why I introduced the private member's bill earlier this year.

So I come to this bill under consideration, the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. As we know, Australia is facing a critical skills and labour shortage. These shortages have been exacerbated by the pandemic, as well as an absence of proper planning by the previous government. In response, the Albanese government established an interim Jobs and Skills Australia Agency in November last year. This legislation makes that agency permanent. The legislation has been welcomed by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Tech Council of Australia, Universities Australia and the Business Council of Australia. I too welcome and support the passage of this bill. I agree with Jobs Australia Ltd, whose submission to the Senate inquiry noted that this bill provides long-awaited solutions to Australia's reactionary and inconsistent response to the ongoing labour market difficulties.

But, like others, I believe this bill could be improved. The bill requires the appointment of a commissioner, deputy commissioners and a ministerial advisory board to the Jobs and Skills Australia agency. There are existing provisions in the bill which require candidates for these positions to have appropriate experience and knowledge for the role. Those provisions are vital. My amendment specifically states that it does not seek to override those provisions. My amendments to this bill require that, in addition to the consideration of expertise, the selection process for these positions must have greater independence from party politics, whereby an independent panel selects a shortlist of candidates from which the minister can then make the final appointment. In short, I am trying to ensure that there is not a jobs-for-mates culture in the Jobs and Skills Australia agency. We know it was the jobs-for-mates culture that caused the Attorney-General to last year abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Why would we set up new institutions of government without learning from the mistakes that have caused other institutions like the AAT to fail?

I have already presented the government with a robust, viable overall solution through my 'ending jobs for mates bill'. For a mere $3 million, as costed by the PBO, the government could pass and implement my bill to take care of the jobs-for-mates— (Time expired)

See this speech in context