Governance & Board Expert ◼ Academic Educator ◼ Strategist ◼ Leadership Mentor ◼ Ind. Director ➡ [ Trusted Advisor Since 1999 ]
Really!? The announcement of "#independent Directors" in situ as if it is an innovation......it seems ASX Principle 2 - Recommendation 2.3 has been a revelation to some, but to most of us, it has been a preferred way to insure that behaviours and decision making within a board are monitored by a truly impartial cohort of Directors "#independents" . The appointment of Independent directors should NOT be an afterthought or strategy to safeguard the repeat of poor practices , it should have been there from day one to prevent said poor practices & decision making. Please use the Principles to structure & inform your Board, they are applicable to all Boards!!! #bestpractice #boardstructure #effectiveboard
Great question, Max Franchitto, although KPMG is not listed and, therefore, is not required to comply with ASX requirements. Regardless, the positioning (that the former Premier is independent) sounds and feels like a long stretch of the bow. Government expertise and governance expertise are quite different, and they should not be conflated!
Max Franchitto thank you for posting and your comments. The article raises interesting questions on several topics: a) What test/s (if any) did they apply to confirm the appointees' independence? Do they realise there are processes to test this? b) the reality is his appointment is a sham. They should have just engaged him as a lobbyist if what they wanted was his governmental experience, knowledge, etc. That would leave a space for a properly qualified director to join. c) Its interesting that "Deloitte" identified independent directors "would not substantially improve its governance". So they are saying, their governance is so fantastic that independents are not needed, a very debatable claim at best, given the scandal of last year. This single comment provides an insight into the hubris surrounding their expertise/knowledge/skill sets. Also, given they provide governance advice to clients, do they advise their clients not to have independent directors because they likely add no real value?
Political pull?
'Reactionary governance' seems to be the current trend in too many places...