Politics
Jobs for mates
Once the Coalition realized it was facing an election loss, it went about appointing six of its loyal and faithful servants to jobs on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – jobs with salaries between $200 000 and $500 000 a year, and positions that can ease or thwart the government in administration of its policies. Writing in The Guardian before the election, Paul Karp described these and other last-minute appointments to government bodies.
Such practices have not been confined to the Morrison government, however, and it they are not confined to the Commonwealth. Danielle Wood, Kate Griffiths and Anika Stobart of the Grattan Institute have studied patterns of politicized appointments, finding that the practice is widespread. Sometimes the appointees are competent people, but often they occupy places where more qualified people could better serve the public interest. Also, politicized appointments erode people’s trust in institutions, and the expectation that appointments will be based on partisan loyalty makes people fearful of criticizing government policy.
Their report – New politics: a better process for public appointments – recommends that governments make more open and competitive appointments, administered by independent panels, with ministerial discretion limited to making a decision based on a shortlist presented by the panels.
Few would disagree with the desirability of more independent selection processes, but the solution to political patronage may require a more considered approach than application of textbook selection processes as recommended by the Grattan researchers. Many government bodies are best-served by a variety of people from different ethnic, cultural and community groups. But there is a whole industry that coaches people on preparation of resumés, and on how to conduct oneself in interviews, leading to a certain dulling uniformity, and prioritizing presentational performance over competence or ability to contribute to an organization’s mission.