Memorandum by Joy W Fraser (PAP 5)
1. I am not able to comment on this.
2. I am sure that the public at large would
view this as an even more costly option, also:
how would you decide which committees
should be elected;
on what criteria would you choose
candidates (or would it involve newspaper adverts etc. and then
people offering themselves as candidates, with or without, a given
number of sponsors) and who would be able to "vote"?
3. Public appointments should not be a requirement
of an individual's civic duty:
people would be drafted onto committees
with little knowledge and less interest in the subject to be addressed;
public resentment about perceived
"waste in time and money by government" would increase;
time taken to reach an agreed opinion
4. Main priorities for improving the system:
I am afraid that I do not have sufficient
knowledge to comment.
5. I cannot think of a fairer option.
6. Concerns tend to be generated by media
stories of "cronieism".
Political Influence on Appointments
7. Press reports sometimes imply that there
might be occasions when appointments are "political"
and this shows the need for transparency, particularly in the
appointments of committee chair.
8. Politicians with the support of the Civil
Service are probably best placed to have knowledge of suitable
appointees, but again the reasons for the choice of candidates
should be made more transparent.
9. Little evidence of political bias.
10. Yes, if a balanced view of either political
thinking, gender bias, age, religious affiliation etc. is required,
but again the criteria for the selection of members should be
11. It depends on the nature of the specific
committee being formed, but in general, it should be left to the
12. No, there are already sufficient independent
appointment commissions and this would merely add a further layer
and more costs.
Diversity in Public Appointments
13. Possibly not, but it is difficult to
think of a different system which could appoint a broader selection
of people who have the time, commitment and ability to fulfill
the roles required.
14. I do not know.
15. Remunerating members has advantages:
enables people who could not afford
to give their time for free to participate,
may broaden the numbers available;
gives added "worth" and
"status" to membership, which may encourage participation,
and also disadvantages:
reduces the value of participation
"for participations sake";
devalues other committees where payment
is not available.
16. "Joe Public" generally is
either indifferent, unaware of the number and work done by most
committees and, if aware, is cynical about the whole process.
17. The question of advertising public appointments
is exceedingly difficult; getting the "ear" of the most
"suitable" (however that is to be defined) potential
candidates is a subject on which I know I am not competent to
18. I have no understanding of her role.
19. Yes, the Code of Practice is a reasoned
sensible document and no one could disagree with its underlying
20. I have no knowledge of these independent
21. I cannot comment on this.
22. Again, no comment.
23. I see no reason why it should not.
24. I have little knowledge of these and,
again am therefore not in a position to comment.
25. Yes, if the system is to be deemed equitable.
The interviews do not need to be protracted but it does focus
all concerned on the responsibilities required of the candidate.