The bill creates a binding statutory framework for senior Commonwealth public appointments. It requires Ministers to publish selection criteria by legislative instrument, obliges Independent Selection Panels (ISPs) attached to each Department to run competitive, advertised selection processes, and prevents appointments unless an ISP has shortlisted the appointee.
Significant integrity officer appointments trigger additional parliamentary scrutiny: the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Appointments receives the ISP’s certification and has 7 sitting days to report.
The measure matters for anyone involved in senior recruitment, governance or compliance across the Commonwealth: it limits ministerial discretion, centralises selection through departmental ISPs chaired by a new Public Appointments Commissioner, imposes cooling‑off rules for recent politicians and staff, and brings new transparency obligations (shortlist publication, certification statements, annual reporting). The bill also establishes a small statutory agency — the Office of the Public Appointments Commissioner — to set guidelines, collect statistics and participate in every ISP.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires responsible Ministers to set selection criteria by disallowable legislative instrument and the responsible Independent Selection Panel to advertise vacancies, assess applicants against quality/experience/integrity, and shortlist (generally at least three) candidates. Only shortlisted individuals may be appointed. For significant integrity roles the ISP must provide a certification statement to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Appointments, which has 7 sitting days to report before an appointment proceeds.
Who It Affects
Departments of State, Secretaries and departmental recruitment teams (they host ISPs), Ministers who make appointments, the new Public Appointments Commissioner and Office staff, candidates for senior Commonwealth roles (including recent Ministers and staff subject to cooling‑off rules), and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Appointments.
Why It Matters
The bill statutoryises selection steps that are often procedural, shifting power from Ministers to independent panels and a central Commissioner, and embeds parliamentary scrutiny for integrity offices. That changes how senior appointments will be run, audited and reported, with compliance, timing and disclosure implications for recruitment teams and ministers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill builds a single, uniform appointment pathway for a defined class of senior Commonwealth roles. It begins by defining which positions are “public appointments” and singles out “significant integrity officer” roles that receive extra parliamentary oversight.
Ministers must set selection criteria by legislative instrument and notify the Department’s ISP. Once criteria are set, the ISP must advertise the role (on the Department website, the government jobs site and other accessible channels), accept written applications for a minimum advertised period, and assess candidates against stated criteria, including quality, experience and integrity.
ISPs sit in each Department and are chaired by the Public Appointments Commissioner (except where the Commissioner is the appointee under selection, in which case a former judge chairs). An ISP comprises at least the Commissioner and the Department Secretary, plus 1–4 additional members appointed for each selection process; additional members must not be sitting parliamentarians and, for significant integrity roles, must include a former judge.
The ISP must shortlist candidates (generally at least three), produce a written report and a certification statement for each shortlisted person certifying they meet all selection criteria, and provide those documents to the responsible Minister.For significant integrity officer appointments the Minister must give the certification statement to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Appointments and wait for the Committee’s 7 sitting‑day reporting period to elapse before making the appointment. For other public appointments the Minister must table the certification statement in Parliament within seven days of appointment.
The bill makes noncompliance consequential: a public appointment made without meeting the Part 3 requirements is invalid.To support the system the bill establishes the Office of the Public Appointments Commissioner as a statutory agency. The Commissioner is a full‑time, non‑reappointable appointment of up to three years, chairs ISPs, issues non‑instrument guidelines (which must be published), provides training and collects statistics for annual reporting.
The Office can employ staff (SES‑level delegation permitted) and must include ISP operation details in annual reports. The bill also creates a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Appointments with set membership and functions focused on reviewing certification statements for significant integrity appointments.
Finally, the bill creates an offence for unauthorised use or disclosure of information obtained under the Act with a custodial or monetary penalty and requires a formal review of the Act two years after commencement.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Ministers must determine selection criteria by disallowable legislative instrument and give the determination to the responsible ISP as soon as possible after making it.
Within 7 days of the Minister’s determination the ISP must advertise the vacancy and keep applications open for at least 10 business days; the ISP must generally shortlist at least three candidates and provide a certification statement for each shortlisted person.
The bill bars shortlisting of individuals who were Ministers, Members of either House, certain parliamentary office holders, or ministerial/parliamentary staff at any time in the 6 months before they applied; and it bars shortlisting for appointments in a portfolio where the person was a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary if they ceased that role within the previous 18 months.
Significant integrity officer appointments require the ISP’s certification statement to be given to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Appointments and the Minister must wait until the Committee’s 7 sitting‑day reporting period has elapsed before making the appointment.
The Office of the Public Appointments Commissioner is a Statutory Agency; the Commissioner is full‑time, may serve up to three years, must not be reappointed, chairs ISPs (except in certain recused cases), and the Office must publish guidelines and include ISP statistics and outcomes in its annual report.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandatory, invalidating selection rules and reporting requirements
This Part makes compliance compulsory: any public appointment made after commencement is invalid unless the Minister and ISP meet the Part’s steps. It sets procedure for Ministers to issue selection criteria as a disallowable legislative instrument (so Parliament can disallow those criteria), requires the ISP to advertise and assess applicants against quality, experience and integrity, and prescribes the documentation the ISP must produce (selection report and certification statements). It also specifies the different reporting paths for significant integrity appointments (Parliamentary Joint Committee) and other appointments (tabling in each House). Practically, this makes the selection process auditable and creates a clear documentary trail that recruitment and legal teams must preserve.
Independent Selection Panels — composition, conduct and limits on ministerial control
Part 4 creates an ISP for each Department, declares that ISPs are not subject to Government direction and provides Crown privileges/immunities. It fixes membership: the Public Appointments Commissioner and the Department Secretary are core members, with 1–4 additional part‑time members appointed per process. Additional members cannot be sitting MPs and must be chosen with an eye to expertise, integrity and diversity; for significant integrity roles an additional member must be a former judge. The Part prescribes meeting mechanics (quorum of two, majority voting and casting vote rules), disclosure duties for conflicts of interest, termination grounds for additional members, and specific finance law treatments (additional members are not Department officials for PGPA purposes). These mechanics address conflicts, transparency of membership and decision‑making continuity.
Office of the Public Appointments Commissioner — powers, appointment, staff and reporting
Part 5 establishes the Office as a listed entity under the finance law, makes the Commissioner the agency head equivalent to a Secretary, and gives the Commissioner core functions: chairing ISPs (except where recused), making guidelines (non‑legislative), providing advice and training, and collecting appointment data for annual reports. The Commissioner is appointed by the Governor‑General for a single term (up to three years), serves full‑time, cannot be reappointed, and is remunerated under the Remuneration Tribunal regime (with an exception on payment source). The Office employs staff under the Public Service Act and permits SES delegations. The Part also shields the Commissioner and staff from suit for acts in good faith under the Act and requires specified annual reporting content.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Appointments — structure and oversight role
This Part creates a 16‑member bicameral joint committee with constraints on government majority and requires the Chair not be from a government party. The Committee’s primary function is to consider certification statements for proposed significant integrity officer appointments and report to both Houses within 7 sitting days. Its reports (and an annual performance report) are tabled in both Houses. The structure embeds parliamentary scrutiny short of veto (the Committee reports whether it supports an appointment), but the statutory waiting period is mandatory before making such appointments.
Information offences, review and regulation‑making power
Part 7 creates a penal offence for unauthorised recording, disclosure or use of information obtained under the Act (penalty of up to 2 years imprisonment or 120 penalty units), requires a statutory review of the Act starting two years after commencement to be completed in six months, and grants the Governor‑General power to make regulations. These provisions create enforcement teeth for confidentiality and a built‑in mechanism to evaluate practical operation and resource needs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Members of the public and civil society campaigning for transparent government — they gain standardized documentation (selection reports and certification statements) and tabling/Committee visibility that makes senior appointments easier to scrutinise.
- Candidates who meet published criteria — transparent advertising, objective assessment against published criteria and a written certification raise fairness and predictability for qualified applicants.
- Integrity agencies and independent statutory officers — significant integrity roles now have an extra parliamentary checkpoint and a declared, open selection trail that supports legitimacy and public confidence.
- Parliament — the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Appointments receives timely materials and a statutory window to examine senior integrity appointments, strengthening parliamentary oversight and record‑keeping.
Who Bears the Cost
- Departments and Secretaries — they must host ISPs, run advertised competitive processes, support documentation and reporting obligations and absorb related administrative and recruitment costs.
- Ministers — the bill curtails unilateral appointment discretion, forces publication of selection criteria as a disallowable instrument, and may lengthen appointment timetables (delays from advertising, shortlisting and Committee windows).
- The new Office of the Public Appointments Commissioner and its staff — establishing and running the Office, publishing guidelines, collecting statistics and participating in ISPs will require new budgetary allocations and ongoing resourcing.
- Recent politicians and ministerial/parliamentary staff — cooling‑off rules (6‑month and 18‑month bars) limit eligibility for some appointments and reduce immediate opportunities for those individuals.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between embedding transparent, independent, auditable processes that limit political discretion and preserving the executive’s ability to make timely, expert appointments: stronger transparency and parliamentary scrutiny increases legitimacy but also creates procedural friction, capacity burdens and potential legal uncertainty if an appointment later proves invalid.
The bill solves a transparency gap by standardising recruitment, but it raises implementation and design questions. First, making appointments invalid for noncompliance is a strong enforcement lever — but the text does not specify transitional protocols for acts performed by an appointee whose appointment is later found invalid.
Agencies, appointees and third parties could face legal uncertainty if an appointment is challenged after the fact. Second, many operational details are left to non‑legislative guidelines and delegated instruments: Ministers set selection criteria by disallowable instrument, and the Commissioner issues guidelines that are not legislative instruments.
That split raises the prospect of political contest over criteria while leaving practical selection norms to softer, non‑binding guidance.
The bill also imposes timing and process burdens that can slow appointments: mandatory advertising windows, minimum shortlists, and a 7 sitting‑day Committee period for integrity roles will lengthen timetables compared with private executive recruitment or historical ministerial appointments. Departments will need people and budgets to run repeatable competitive processes.
Finally, the criminal penalty for unauthorised use of selection information is significant and could chill legitimate information flows (for example between Agencies and oversight bodies) unless well‑scoped exceptions and training are implemented. The Commissioner’s single non‑reappointable short term (up to three years) may encourage independence but risks loss of institutional memory and continuity in leadership of the regime.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.