Can you ban the government from handing out highly paid jobs to mates? Independent Senator Rex Patrick thinks so, and will give it a go in the Senate as early as this week.
Patrick is targeting appointments to one agency in particular, the powerful Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which as Crikey has reported has been stacked by Coalition party figures in recent years. He has written an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals Bill that would make it illegal to appoint members who were not lawyers or in some cases accountants.
But he faces some challenges, namely that Labor is unlikely to support it.
What would the amendments do?
Although mostly former judges and lawyers are appointed to the AAT, there is a special provision that allows members with no legal experience to be appointed as long as they have “special knowledge of skills relevant to the duties of a senior member or member”.
Patrick says this special knowledge is too often the phone number of the attorney-general.
“The AAT is the place Australians go to address wrongs in administrative decision-making through a process which is fair, just, economical, informal and quick,” he said.
“They don’t need to turn up and find that the matter will be heard by someone without legal qualifications and who are only sitting on the bench because they were a former politician or staffer or friend of a government minister.”
Why won’t Labor support it?
Labor has frequently criticised the government for appointing mates to high-paying roles, including at the AAT. But a spokesman for shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus said Patrick’s bill amendment would not “ban” political mates from being appointed to the AAT.
“Rather, the amendment would ensure that the only mates the Liberals would be able to appoint in the future are lawyers or certified accountants,” he said.
Patrick disputes this, saying the amendment would go a long way to preventing “appointment corruption”.
“This is Labor again pretending they care, pretending they want to stop the stacking, but not willing to actually stand up and do something,” he said.
Why the AAT?
Crikey has reported extensively on the Coalition stacking the AAT. Our investigation found dozens of people with ties to the Liberal Party have been given high-paying jobs at the tribunal in the past six years, despite many having no formal legal qualifications.
Labor claims that during its time in government between 2007 and 2013 it appointed just two Labor-connected members — former senator Linda Kirk and former MP Duncan Kerr, both lawyers.
Patrick says the bill would fulfill a recommendation by former High Court justice Ian Callinan, who said in a 2018 review of the AAT that there was “no necessity to appoint professionals other than lawyers to the AAT (except perhaps for accountants to the taxation and commercial division).”
Should jobs for the boys, and girls, be banned in politics? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say column. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
*This story originally claimed that former Labor Party Victorian state member Philip Dalidakis was appointed by the Labor party. In fact Mr Dalidakis was appointed by the Coalition.
‘But a spokesman for shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus said Patrick’s bill amendment would not “ban” political mates from being appointed to the AAT.“Rather, the amendment would ensure that the only mates the Liberals would be able to appoint in the future are lawyers or certified accountants,” he said.’
Another shameful lack of will from Labor, and what a feeble excuse. The perfect is the enemy of the good once again, but really the more probale explanation for Labor’s stance is (a) it wants to stack the appointments with its own mates if ever gets the chance and (b) the amandment did not originate with Labor and letting someone else get the credit for something is anathema.
If Labor wanted to be taken seriously on this issue it would propose to strengthen Patrick’s amendment by adding that the lawyers or certified accountants appointed to the AAT must also be free of any political affiliation at any time in the past 10 or 15 or 20 years before appointment. But where’s the fun in that?
Perfectly stated, Rat.
Agree, Labor seem to have lost their raison in their decisions recently. Shape up I say.
Apple lost a word ‘d’etre’, sorry
We now have the LNLP. Lib nat labor party. Why bother with elections.
The reason that Labor has been so indistinguishably in lockstep with this ”government” on so many issues is because they want to be able to use & abuse precisely those processes on the off-chance that one day they might stumble into office.
Meanwhile, the comfort & indolent ease of Opposition is disturbed only by the annoying buzz of intelligent thought from stalwart Independents & Greens which must swatted like insects.
C’mon Labor lift your game and support Rex! I’m lovin’ this guy, finally a decent polly!
I agree entirely. Not that Patrick is always right, but he’s doing a great job in several areas and really sticks to his guns. If only there were a few more like him the whole reputation of Parliament would be transformed.
Of course that is exactly why Labor cannot stand him. He makes them look bad. They want him gone. He’s no better than the Greens in some respects. The idea of Labor supporting him… hell will freeze over first.
Yes- if I remember correctly- he is the only poli who has called out Dutton’s favouring of contracts for Paladin with no due process followed.
When it comes to acting in the greater public interest (before the party’s) they have to start somewhere – eventually.
Otherwise ‘what’s the difference’ – to vote?
It would be nice to live in a country where politics was more than a lucrative game which rewarded lying and corruption.!
Some years ago, I was able to have an unfair dismissal overturned by the AAT. I wouldn’t have the same confidence in the process today.
Given that he AAR is a merits review body, former public servants with very recent experience in casework decision-making should also be considered for these jobs. Agree on tightening up the criteria for being appointed.
AAT
I agree with JMNO. AAT is merits review so the lawyers should be leavened by others with special expertise. The Patrick amendment further amended to stop political mates but not give lawyers and accountants a closed shop could then be supported.
I cannot see it, unless you can define exactly what additional special expertise is required and why it would help. The AAT deals with legal/financial issues so denouncing it as a closed shop if it only employs lawyers/accountants makes about as much sense as complaining about the restriction of General Practitioner appointments to those with medical qualifications.
In fact why aren’t they appointed by a special non-political panel ?
How long do you think it would take the Coalition to stack this special non-political panel?
Australia is littered with ostensibly non-political bodies and agencies that have been bent all out of shape by shameless partisan appointments. The AAT is supposed to be non-political anyway, setting up a non-political body to supervise only creates another set of tax-payer funded sinecures to be taken up by Liberal rejects and failures. But your idea might work if we create so many non-political bodies and agencies needing to be stuffed that they finally run out of spare Liberals.