Scamps's independent panels for top jobs lapsed without a vote
Dr Sophie Scamps, an independent MP, wanted independent panels to pick people for big government jobs and boards. Former politicians would have had to wait first. The bill never got a vote. It was dropped from Parliament's to-do list in September 2026.
Official name: Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2026
- Independent panels would have advertised top government jobs. They would have picked a shortlist of at least three people.
- Ministers could only have picked someone from the shortlist. Otherwise the job offer would not count.
- Recent politicians and their staff could not have made the shortlist for 6 months, or 18 months in some cases.
- A new official and a group of MPs and senators would have watched over the system.
- It never got a vote. It was dropped from Parliament's to-do list on 15 September 2026.
Who it affects
- People applying for government boards and top jobs: They would have applied through an open, advertised process. They would have been judged against published tests.
- Federal ministers: They could only have picked someone an independent panel had shortlisted.
- Former politicians and their staff: They would have had to wait before they could be shortlisted for these jobs.
- People chosen for watchdog jobs: A group of MPs and senators would have looked at their choice before they could start.
Ministers pick top public jobs
The federal government fills many top jobs. Examples are heads of agencies and members of boards. Ministers often choose who gets them.
Dr Sophie Scamps MP is the member for Mackellar, in Sydney. She brought this private bill, which means it did not come from the government. She put it to the House of Representatives, Parliament's main house, on 2 March 2026.
Her notes on the bill say it tackles a 'jobs for mates' culture. They say that in July 2022, about 7 per cent of people in federal public jobs had a direct link to politics. In the best-paid and most powerful jobs, it was 21 per cent.
In February 2023 the government asked for a review of how board members are chosen. It is called the Briggs Review. Her notes say the final report was not made public until December 2025.
The review found the system was 'not fit for purpose'. That means it did not do its job. Her notes say the government's reply did not turn picking the best person into law.
Which jobs it covered
The bill would have covered what it called public appointments. These include the person or board in charge of any federal government body. It also listed some jobs by name. One example was members of the old Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which checked government decisions until it was replaced in 2024. Another is the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, who fights unfair treatment based on sex.
People filling in for a job for 6 months or more would also count.
A smaller group was the watchdog jobs. They include the head of the Australian Electoral Commission, which runs elections. They include the head of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which looks into corruption in federal government. They also include the Commonwealth Ombudsman, who handles complaints about government. And they include the head of the Australian National Audit Office, which checks government spending.
Any public job filled without the new process would not have counted. Jobs filled before the law started would stay as they were.
Independent selection panels
Each federal department would have had an Independent Selection Panel. The government could not tell it what to do.
The new Public Appointments Commissioner would chair each panel. That is the official in charge of fair hiring. The head of the department would sit on it too. The chair would add one to four extra members for each job. They would be picked for their skills, honesty and range of backgrounds. Sitting MPs and senators could not be panel members.
For a watchdog job, at least one extra member would have had to be a former judge.
Panel members would have had to say if they had any clash of interest. A member who did not could be removed.
How a job is filled
First the minister would set the tests for the job in a formal written rule. Parliament could reject that rule.
The panel would then advertise the job within 7 days. The ad would run for at least 10 working days. It would go on the department's website and the public service jobs site. It would name the panel members.
The panel would judge people on the tests and on skill, experience and honesty. It would also think about a range of backgrounds. It would shortlist at least three people. If there were more than three, it would rank them.
The panel would give the minister a report and a signed statement for each person on the list. The minister could only pick someone from the shortlist.
Say a minister wants to put a former adviser on a board. Under this bill, that adviser would need to apply. The panel would judge them. They would have to make the shortlist.
Waiting periods for politicians
The panel could not shortlist anyone who held certain roles in the last 6 months. These were minister, MP, senator or political staffer. Political staffers here means people who work for MPs and senators under the law for their staff.
A former minister or assistant minister could not be shortlisted for a job in their old area for 18 months. Her notes say this follows advice from the Briggs Review.
Extra checks for watchdogs
For watchdog jobs, the minister would have had to send the panel's statement to a new group of MPs and senators. It was called the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Appointments. The minister would then wait 7 sitting days for the group's report. Sitting days are days Parliament meets. Only then could they fill the job.
For other public jobs, the minister would have had to give the panel's statement to Parliament within 7 days. That makes it public.
These rules would not have changed how the head of the National Anti-Corruption Commission is picked.
A Public Appointments Commissioner
The bill would have set up a new independent government office for this official.
The official would chair the panels and write guidelines. They would give advice and training. They would collect facts about who gets picked. Each year they would report on the hiring they took part in.
The Governor-General, who stands in for the King, would pick this person. It would be a full-time job for up to three years, with no second term. When this person's own job was being filled, a former judge would chair the panel.
A new Parliament committee
The new group would have 16 members. There would be 6 senators and 10 members of the House. No more than 8 could come from the government party. At least 2 would come from outside both the government and the main party not in government. The chair could not be from the government.
It would tell Parliament whether it backs each watchdog pick. It would also report each year on its work.
Secrecy rules and review
It would have been a crime to record, share or use facts gained under the law for any other purpose without consent. The top punishment was 2 years in prison, a fine, or both. The fine was 120 penalty units. A penalty unit is a set dollar amount used to work out fines.
A review of the law would have started 2 years after it began. It would finish within 6 months. Its report would go to Parliament.
Cost and start date
Her notes say the bill would cost nothing.
It would have started the day after Parliament set aside money for the department running the law.
Dropped after time ran out
Dr Scamps brought in the bill and gave her opening speech on 2 March 2026. The House never debated it again or voted on it.
On 15 September 2026 it was dropped from Parliament's to-do list. House rules drop private bills that sit untouched for a set time. The bill will not become law unless someone brings it back.
Its journey through Parliament
| 02 Mar 2026 | House of Representatives: Introduced and read a first time |
| 02 Mar 2026 | House of Representatives: Second reading moved |
| 15 Sep 2026 | House of Representatives: Removed from the Notice Paper in accordance with (SO 42) |