- Telephone
- Email
I don’t usually use this blog to repost things that I’ve written on LinkedIn…the two audiences are different…however, this discussion about Government Board appointments felt like something with a broader interest, so here it is.
The release of the Government Appointments Framework following the Briggs Review is a step forward, but is it a firm step or a shuffle?
The Briggs Review was unequivocal. It identified a long history of political appointments across the spectrum and recommended that changes to the .
Instead, we have a non-legislated Framework. While it looks good on paper, a closer look at the phrasing reveals significant escape hatches. The document is peppered with subjective qualifiers:
• “Ministers have the flexibility”
• “Where appropriate”
• “Where proportionate”
To a governance professional, these phrases signal risk. They provide enough latitude for a Minister to drive a bus through the Framework whenever political expediency requires it.
Perhaps the most telling inclusion is the first Principle, which states Ministers must appoint on the . The fact that this basic requirement needed to be explicitly written down highlights the extent of the ” ” perception identified by Briggs.
The UK, Canada, and New Zealand have tackled this head-on with robust systems. Australia remains hesitant to legislate genuine independence.
Without legislative backing, do you believe a policy framework is enough to shift the culture of public sector appointments? I for one will not be holding my breath.
We are proud to have CBC Staff Selection as supporters of the Conus/CBC Staff Selection Trend Employment and Jobseeker data series