It has long been heartening to compare our system of government with those in place in the rest of the world.
We have our say at the ballot box and when we don’t like the government we have chosen we get the chance to rectify that without resorting to violence.
To help keep our democracy in top shape we need to be engaged in the system and aware of our responsibilities.
Sign up to The Nightly’s newsletters.
Get the first look at the digital newspaper, curated daily stories and breaking headlines delivered to your inbox.
By continuing you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy.
Being who we are, Aussies are not averse to throwing a healthy dose of cynicism into the mix. That can be accommodated as long as it does not tip over into complete mistrust, disregard and disengagement.
Sadly, we appear to be at a point where those characteristics are on display all too often. We have never lived in an era in which the political processes are viewed with so much distrust.
And a review of government appointments released on Tuesday will only serve to heighten those sentiments.
The scathing review says favouritism, patronage and nepotism is widespread and should be ended to help restore public trust — but the Government has failed to enact its key recommendations.
Finance Minister Katy Gallagher finally released the review by former public service commissioner Lynelle Briggs more than two years after it was handed to her.
The Government commissioned it after the 2022 election where Labor complained about “jobs for mates” displayed by their Coalition predecessors.
The report found both the Coalition and Labor had been guilty of appointing friends of the government to boards.
“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 and all too often these appointments have looked like forms of patronage and nepotism that should have no place in the modern Australian society,” Ms Briggs wrote.
“They do not always provide the best people for the job.”
Ms Briggs proposed a 10-step appointment process, with public advertising of positions and a full selection panel system, be enshrined in legislation.
No direct ministerial appointments should be made in the six months before an election was due, and politicians and staffers should be barred from being given jobs on boards for six months after they left political employment, or 18 months for ministerial portfolios.
But the Government responded with an unlegislated “appointments framework” that aims “to support ministers” to make the best possible appointments.
It lays out seven principles for appointments to government roles, starting with ministers seeking to make the best possible choices on the basis of merit.
But it doesn’t place any restrictions on the employment of former politicians or staffers nor does it mandate the use of assessment or interview panels.
By its own limp action, or rather inaction, the Government has further eroded trust. And in so doing has merely served to prove the whole point.
