By Andrew Klein

A critical test of the Albanese government’s commitment to integrity and transparency has concluded with a failing grade. In its long-awaited response to the Briggs Review, commissioned to clean up the rampant “jobs for mates” culture in federal appointments, the government has systematically rejected the very reforms designed to ensure merit and independence. This decision is not an isolated policy choice but a definitive action that exposes a deeper pattern: a preference for political control over transparent, accountable governance.

The review, led by former senior public servant Ms. Lynelle Briggs, was born from scandal. It aimed to overhaul the opaque system for appointing individuals to hundreds of government boards, agencies, and tribunals—a system exploited for partisan patronage. Its core finding was that the process was vulnerable to ministerial interference and lacked the transparency necessary for public trust. The solution it offered was a suite of recommendations to install robust, independent safeguards.

However, the government’s response has been to accept the facade of reform while gutting its substance. It adopted numerous minor, administrative tweaks but rejected the foundational pillars meant to transform the system.

The most significant rejection is the refusal to establish an independent panel to oversee and approve senior public appointments. This recommendation was the heart of the reform, designed to remove the unilateral power of ministers to install political allies, donors, or friends into lucrative and influential positions. By preserving this discretionary power, the government has explicitly chosen to keep the mechanism for “jobs for mates” fully intact. The promise of a “merit-based” system is rendered hollow without an independent body to assess that merit.

Furthermore, the government has reportedly rejected the proposal for a public, searchable register of all appointments and candidates. This register was intended to be the cornerstone of transparency, allowing citizens and journalists to see who was applying for roles, who was shortlisted, and who was ultimately appointed. Its rejection means appointments can continue behind closed doors, shielded from public scrutiny. Secrecy, not sunlight, remains the preferred disinfectant for the appointments process.

This approach mirrors the government’s troubling trajectory in other areas of accountability. It is of the same character as its proposed amendments to the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, which seek to introduce fees, expand exemptions, and make it easier to refuse requests. It aligns with its record of invoking Public Interest Immunity (PII) more frequently than its predecessor to avoid answering questions in Parliament. A clear pattern emerges: whether it is accessing government documents, questioning ministers, or scrutinising public appointments, the pathway for legitimate public oversight is being deliberately narrowed.

The implications for governance are profound. Firstly, it erodes institutional integrity. Robust democracies require checks and balances. An independent appointments panel is such a check. By concentrating this power within the political executive, the government weakens a vital barrier against corruption and cronyism. Secondly, it actively undermines public trust. Communities and integrity bodies have consistently demanded concrete actions to restore faith in politics. When a government commissions a review to address a known crisis of trust and then rejects its key solutions, it sends a message that political convenience outweighs democratic legitimacy.

The Briggs Review presented a clear roadmap to end a corrosive and bipartisan practice. The government’s choice to ignore its central recommendations is a deliberate decision to preserve the architecture of patronage. It reveals that for all the rhetoric on integrity, the political self-interest of discretion and secrecy remains paramount. This is not good governance; it is the preservation of a broken system under a new management label. The message to the public is unmistakable: when given the choice between transparent integrity and opaque control, this government will consistently choose the latter.