The Claim
“Appointed 2 Liberal mates to the Migration Review Tribunal even though they were not shortlisted by the selection committee.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
TRUE. The claim is factually accurate based on Senate estimates testimony and documented evidence.
In October 2014, the federal government appointed 18 new members to the Migration Review Tribunal. Of these appointments, three individuals—Helena Claringbold, Nick McGowan, and Antoinette Younes—were appointed despite not being shortlisted by the joint selection panel that typically recommends candidates to the immigration minister [1].
Two of these appointees had well-documented ties to the Liberal Party:
Helena Claringbold: Former staffer to Prime Minister Tony Abbott (left his office in July 2014) and listed on NSW electoral funding disclosures as having donated $45,000 to the NSW Liberal Party in 2002 [1][2]
Nick McGowan: Ran as a Liberal candidate in the seat of Jagajaga during the 2013 federal election [1][3]
The appointments were revealed during Senate estimates hearings on October 20, 2014, when Labor Senator Kim Carr raised concerns about the process. Assistant Immigration Minister Michaelia Cash defended the appointments, stating: "The process was undertaken in accordance with the Australian public service commission merit and transparency guidelines" and that "the government...are able to appoint whomever they wish. It is a cabinet appointment" [1].
Missing Context
The claim omits several important contextual elements:
1. Third appointee without Liberal ties: While the claim focuses on "2 Liberal mates," there was actually a third appointee (Antoinette Younes) who was also not shortlisted by the selection panel but had no documented Liberal Party connections mentioned in the reporting [1].
2. Legal authority for appointments: Ministerial appointments to tribunals are ultimately cabinet decisions. The selection panel provides recommendations, but the government retains constitutional authority to make appointments. As Senator Cash noted, governments "are able to appoint whomever they wish" [1].
3. APS guidelines compliance: The government maintained that the process followed Australian Public Service Commission merit and transparency guidelines, suggesting the appointments were technically lawful even if controversial [1].
4. Second source unrelated: The second Guardian source provided with this claim (about UN ruling on indefinite detention in 2016) is entirely unrelated to the tribunal appointments issue—it addresses a completely separate matter of ASIO security assessments and refugee detention between 2009-2015, a period spanning both Labor and Coalition governments [4].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original sources provided with this claim require critical assessment:
Source 1: The Guardian (2014) - The Guardian Australia is a mainstream progressive-leaning news outlet. The article is factual reporting based on Senate estimates testimony, a public parliamentary proceeding. The reporting is accurate and based on documented evidence. However, The Guardian editorially leans center-left and has been critical of Coalition immigration policies [1].
Source 2: The Guardian (2016) - This article is about UN rulings on refugee detention and has no relevance to the claim about tribunal appointments. Its inclusion appears to be an error in the original claim compilation [4].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Research indicates that while both major parties make political appointments, the scale differs dramatically:
According to Australia Institute research analyzing all 974 appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and its precursors between 1996 and 2022:
- Howard Government (Coalition): 6% political appointments
- Rudd/Gillard Government (Labor): 5% political appointments
- Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison Government (Coalition): 32% political appointments [5]
Another study found that Coalition governments made 109 political appointments in their 21 years in office since 1996, compared to Labor's 10 in its six years in power—meaning 92% of political appointees to the AAT were made by Liberal prime ministers [6].
The research also found that the Coalition appointed 22 politically connected Senior Members to the AAT (out of 61 total) since 2013, including seven without legal qualifications [5].
However, Labor governments also made political appointments, and both parties have been criticized for a "jobs for mates" culture. A 2025 parliamentary review found government appointments by both major parties are "clouded by nepotism" and patronage [7].
Balanced Perspective
Context on tribunal appointments:
While the claim accurately describes the 2014 appointments, the broader context shows:
Scale of issue: Political appointments to tribunals increased significantly under the Coalition compared to previous governments—approximately 6-7 times the rate of the Rudd/Gillard Labor government [5][6].
Defensive justification: The government defended the appointments as following proper guidelines and exercising legitimate cabinet authority. Critics argued this undermined merit-based selection [1].
Bipartisan pattern: While the Coalition's rate was significantly higher, both parties engage in political appointments. The Coalition appointed 32% political appointees versus Labor's 5% during their respective recent terms [5].
Systemic concern: Multiple independent analyses and parliamentary reviews have identified a "jobs for mates" culture affecting both parties, with the Albanese government subsequently establishing a Strengthening Democracy Taskforce in 2023 to address appointment integrity [5][7][8].
Comparative analysis: This specific 2014 incident was part of a broader pattern of increased political appointments under the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison government compared to the Rudd/Gillard government, though Labor also made some political appointments during its term (2007-2013).
TRUE
8.0
out of 10
The claim is factually accurate. In 2014, the Coalition government appointed at least two individuals with documented Liberal Party ties (Helena Claringbold and Nick McGowan) to the Migration Review Tribunal despite them not being shortlisted by the selection panel. This was confirmed in public Senate estimates testimony [1]. The appointments were defended by the government as following proper guidelines and exercising legitimate cabinet authority, but the factual allegation—that non-shortlisted candidates with party connections were appointed—is correct.
Final Score
8.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The claim is factually accurate. In 2014, the Coalition government appointed at least two individuals with documented Liberal Party ties (Helena Claringbold and Nick McGowan) to the Migration Review Tribunal despite them not being shortlisted by the selection panel. This was confirmed in public Senate estimates testimony [1]. The appointments were defended by the government as following proper guidelines and exercising legitimate cabinet authority, but the factual allegation—that non-shortlisted candidates with party connections were appointed—is correct.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (8)
-
1
New members of Migration Review Tribunal bypassed selection panel
Two members have Liberal party ties and were not shortlisted by a selection panel, Senate committee told
the Guardian -
2
Tony Abbott staffer Helena Claringbold
Afr
Original link unavailable — view archived version -
3
Nick McGowan candidate profile
Mypolitician Com
-
4
Australia's indefinite detention of refugees illegal, UN rules
Government told it should compensate five people who were incarcerated without charge on secret security grounds
the Guardian -
5
Government Agency Political Appointments as High as One in Three
A new report from the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program represents the largest and most comprehensive domestic study of the
The Australia Institute -
6
AAT appointments 'have become increasingly political'
Just days out from the federal election, a new study from the Australia Institute reveals how political appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has “skyrocketed”, as well as how few
Lawyersweekly Com -
7
Scathing 'jobs for mates' review finds government appointments too often political
A report into government appointments to boards savages the system, which it says too often allows governments to award friends or pick candidates for political purposes, eroding trust with the public.
Abc Net -
8
Labor and merit-based appointments
As the new Administrative Review Tribunal prepares to begin operating on October 14, an analysis of 364 appointments shows Labor has been sincere in reforming the stacked body it replaces.
The Saturday Paper
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.