2 December 2025

Jobs-for-mates report slams 'shameless' appointments that 'bring governments into disrepute'

| By Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
14
cover of report

It’s taken a while – more than two years, in fact – but Lynelle Brigg’s report into ‘jobs for mates’ has finally been released. Photo: Region.

The Federal Government has finally released the damning “jobs for mates” report that recently saw Senate Question Time descend into extended chaos over Labor’s delay in tabling it in Federal Parliament.

Former public service commissioner Lynelle Briggs delivered her final report into the Review of Public Sector Board Appointments Processes more than two years ago, but the delay in making it public caused the Senate to extend QT grilling of the government until it was tabled.

Labor then struck a deal with the crossbench to release it before Christmas.

There appears good reason for the delay – it is a scathing analysis of how government appointments have been corrupted.

The report refers to “reward for past loyalty” and seeking to align appointments with government priorities in current processes.

It found there were not enough “checks and balances” in how some government board appointments are currently made.

“All too often these appointments have looked like forms of patronage and nepotism that should have no place in the modern Australian society,” the report states.

It calls for an end to “last-minute bequests”, meaning a six-month stay on appointments before a federal election.

“Such bequests in the dying days of a government are shameless; are widely frowned upon by the public; and bring governments into disrepute,” Ms Briggs wrote.

The report also recommends former politicians and staffers be banned from holding public board positions for at least six months after leaving parliament – and 18 months for ex-ministers and their staff.

“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.” Ms Briggs wrote.

“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.”

The government does not appear enthusiastic about implementing all of the report’s recommendations, however.

Instead, in part in response, Labor has released the new Australian Government Appointments Framework, which changes selection processes within the Australian Public Service to enable Ministers and agencies to bypass merit lists and previously restrictive procedures, but it also places greater scrutiny over filling top roles.

READ ALSO Former A-G Dreyfus appointed Special Envoy for International Human Rights

Informed by the Briggs Review, the framework seeks to address the jobs-for-mates issues that have plagued too many areas of government appointments in the past.

The long-awaited report was released on Tuesday (2 November), as was the new framework that will come into effect from 2 February 2026.

While it incorporates recommendations from the Briggs Review and establishes clear ministerial responsibility and accountability for appointments, the new framework goes beyond the review’s scope to include a broader range of Commonwealth appointments, including agency heads and secretaries.

But it doesn’t go into some of the more pointed recommendations from Ms Briggs.

Public Service Minister Katy Gallagher said the framework was developed through a multi-stage process, including extensive consultation across government, and is robust, flexible, and fit-for-purpose.

“Australians expect the highest standards of integrity and transparency in public sector appointments,” she said.

“Our new Australian Government Appointments Framework delivers on that expectation, setting out clear principles and best practice guidance for ministers and departments.

“We took the time to get this right. We listened to stakeholders and have designed a framework that will serve the Australian community for years to come.”

READ ALSO Senate inquiry to be held over CSIRO job cuts

The newly released framework replaces the 2008 Australian Government Merit and Transparency Policy, and introduces foundational principles, practical tools, and guidance to support agencies.

Rather than prescribing rigid, one-size-fits-all rules, it empowers Ministers and agencies to tailor selection processes to the unique requirements of each role, while maintaining high standards of accountability and public trust.

This approach seeks to ensure the framework can adapt to evolving needs and circumstances, supporting robust and fair appointments in a dynamic public sector.

It also forms part of the government’s broader integrity work program, which includes reforms to the Ministerial Code of Conduct, whistleblower protections, and the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

“We want to make the best appointments in the national interest with an emphasis on merit, diversity, accountability and this new framework delivers this,” Senator Gallagher said.

“This framework is about making sure appointments are made on merit, with transparency and accountability at every step.

“We are committed to upholding integrity and ensuring our public sector reflects the diversity of the people we represent.

“The government thanks Ms Briggs for her detailed work and considered report, which has underpinned a new and fit-for-purpose appointments framework for the Australian Government.”

Departments will be expected to support appointment processes by providing strong operational and administrative capability and high-quality advice, enabling a broader range of quality candidates and making government appointments more effective.

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

14
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

A terrible indictment on this Government. And consider that the Libs were probably worse. All appointments should be by an independent body.

About time. Defence employees are subject to rules regarding accepting positions with Defence contracting organisations after leaving Defence. The same should apply to politicians too. Because right now it seems to be do as I say, not as I do.

Jobs for the mates, the Higgins affair, Kimberley, the public service debacle. Surely the time has come that Gallagher must stand aside or be sacked.

Jobs for the mates (doesn’t make it right but all govts do this and always have, hopefully it changes under the new framework), the Higgins affair (happened during the Morrison govt in a LNP senator’s office…the rest is skynews culture wars nonsense that interests no one other than partisans…log off and go for a walk), Kimberley (I’d love you to elaborate on this likely skynews nonsensical allusion without sounding foolish at best, a ghoul at worst), the public service debacle (general Penfoldian nonsense that can be dismissed).

“Surely the time has come that Gallagher must stand aside or be sacked.”

I didn’t vote for her but Gallagher standing aside or being sacked because of biased whinging of anonymous partisans seems unlikely…and rightly so.

LOL, you remind me of Donald Trump. Anything that doesn’t fit your narrative is dismissed as no one’s interested. Gallagher was a major part of promoting Higgins changed version of events and how they applied to Reynolds and Brown. What she and Wong did needs to have consequences for those women. Not to mention the compensation paid in such haste for an untested allegation.

“LOL, you remind me of Donald Trump. Anything that doesn’t fit your narrative is dismissed as no one’s interested. “

And you remind me of the typical rusted on LNP partisan who can’t tell me which voters care about the “Higgins Affair” let alone take a biased, one sided view of the whole mess, let alone “Kimberley” whatever that supposed to mean, nor the vague “public service debacle” to pad the homework.

“Gallagher was a….” sorry not interested in your regurgitation of Skynews “think” pieces and neither are the vast majority of sensible Australians judging by the ratings.

Elf old mate, the difference between you (& Penfold) and me, I think “jobs for mates” is wrong whichever government is in power, unlike those who only care when it’s governments they don’t support.

Correct Elf, Gallagher’s refusal to answer questions about the Higgins affair and her allegedly misleading the Senate really should be examined. It was clear from Shiraz’ statements that she’d been briefed about this issue before she went on the attack, but categorically denied this with a “how dare you” in parliament.

She even admitted as such later in June 2023. “I was given some information, I did nothing with that information,” Senator Gallagher said. Except attack Reynolds. Seemed like a pretty obvious porky.

In the Howard era misleading parliament cost you your job. In the Albanese era it means promotion.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-10/katy-gallagher-denies-misleading-parliament-higgins-allegation/102465788

seano just on those double standards which have become your hallmark, it sounds like parliament being misled under Labor is fine. But would you apply the same standard if it was under a Liberal government ?

You don’t really need to respond because we know the answer.

Penfold regurgitating the right’s partisan attacks on Gallagher as if they are meaningful outside of the culture wars bubble you live is hilarious. lol.

“seano just on those double standards which have become your hallmark, it sounds like parliament being misled under Labor is fine”.

Just because you say it doesn’t make it true in the real world Penfold.

“You don’t really need to respond because we know the answer.”

Bit early for the white flag Penfold, the emojis to tell us where the “jokes” are can’t be too far behind.

You don’t care about jobs for the boys when you support the govt, the attacks on Gallagher are partisan, boring and really don’t matter to anyone outside of your Skynews culture wars bubble, I note you bravely didn’t expand on “Kimberley”…lol.

Like when you tried to claim without evidence that the “Higgins affair” had a significant impact on the 2022 election it’s just the usual vacuous faux outrage. Turn off Skynews and go for a walk.

If you need some help understanding the issues you could try reading the ABC link provided. But as always that’s a bridge too far. Ignorance is such bliss. 🧚‍♀️

Sean old mate, your rant was very Trumpian. You’ve proved my point. You’ve at least conceded that “jobs for mates” is wrong no matter who’s in Government. At the moment it’s Labor and they should be held accountable by all. Likewise the whole messy Brittany/Bruce fiasco should be examined and those responsible held accountable. As for my politics, I vote for who I think will be good. That leaves the likes of Gallagher, Zed, Pocock, and Taylor Federally off my list and locally Hanson, Steel, Castley, Berry (though her dad was great) off my list too. It’s refreshing being able to see both sides rather than stuck supporting one, particularly their lame duck members. I didn’t mention Kimberley so not sure if you got carried away without reading my post first (very Trump Style), or it’s another chop at Penfold.

No I understand the issue, I also understand you trying to make it into something it’s not based on nothing more than your bias and partisanship.

Your only interest in the “Higgins affair” is culture wars points scoring much like your only interest in the appropriateness of appointments is when you don’t support the current government. You’re hot takes on these issues are transparent as they are tediously predictable.

“Ignorance is such bliss.” Yes, but it’s not a reasoned argument for sacking a Minister Penfold. If you want to make your points seem worthwhile for a change IDK maybe try more emojis? lol.

“Sean old mate, your rant was very Trumpian. You’ve proved my point. “

Ah yeah, given you literally did not address any of the issues raised, ah no I didn’t old mate. Your whole point here is to only to defend Penfold and whilst he clearly needs the help you’ve clearly contributed nothing to the discussion.

“You’ve at least conceded that “jobs for mates” is wrong no matter who’s in Government.”

No I didn’t concede anything, I pointed it out to you and Penfold. It’s quite the alternative universe you live in though.

As to the rest of your comment, strawmans and nonsense you’re as partisan and as uniformed as Penfold and your lack of meaningful contribution here proves it.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.