Author
David T.
David Toma

Serving on a Queensland Government board is a position of trust. Board members are appointed to provide strategic direction, exercise oversight, and steward public resources in the interests of the Queensland community. With this public mandate comes heightened expectations around integrity, transparency, and ethical decision‑making – including when it comes to identifying and managing conflicts of interest. In this blog, we share why managing such conflicts is essential for maintaining public trust and some examples on how to do so. 

In our report to parliament Appointing and renewing government boards (Report 7: 2021-22), we noted that ‘over and above the duties and obligations placed upon their private sector counterparts, members of Government boards assume a public trust and confidence by virtue of their role in public administration.’ 

Why managing conflicts of interest matter for government boards

Conflicts of interest are not uncommon on government boards. In fact, they are often a by‑product of appointing directors with the skills, experience, and sector knowledge needed to govern complex public entities. However, the same experience that adds value can also give rise to competing interests – actual, potential, or perceived. The risk for boards is not whether conflicts exist, but how they are managed.

For Queensland Government boards, conflicts often arise in areas such as procurement decisions, regulatory oversight, funding allocations, appointments, or strategic partnerships. Given the breadth of government activity, it is not realistic to eliminate all conflicts – but it is essential to manage them well.

Poorly managed conflicts undermine the integrity of board decisions and can quickly erode public confidence, even where no improper conduct has occurred. In a public sector environment, perception and trust is critical.

A changing board environment: local clinicians on hospital and health service boards

The importance of managing conflicts of interest well is emphasised by recent changes to hospital and health service (HHS) board membership requirements.  

From 1 April 2026, the Health Legislation Amendment Act 2025 will amend the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011 (the Act). The change means at least one member of each board must be a clinician who is employed or engaged by that HHS. Previously, each HHS was required to have one clinician on its board, but the member did not need to be from that board’s HHS.  

As a result of this change, there may be instances where a clinician board member’s role conflicts with their duties as an employee of their HHS. For example: 
 

  • there is a conflict between a clinician’s operational responsibilities where they report to the HHS chief executive, and their board role where they oversee the chief executive’s performance 
  • there is a conflict between a clinician’s responsibility for managing risks and incidents in an area that is subject to oversight by the board. 

Our recommendation to HHSs for managing the change

In our Health 2025 (Report 9: 2025-26) report to parliament (tabled on 20 January 2026), we made the following recommendation for HHSs: 

‘We recommend that the 16 HHSs should each develop a plan for managing conflicts of interest for board members who are employed as clinicians at the HHS. Preferably, the plan should be developed in consultation with the Integrity Commissioner and set out how conflicts of interest are managed and reported.’

We encourage all boards to view this recommendation as a key strategic governance consideration to ensure their decision-making is free from undue influence. It is important that HHS boards have a timely, documented plan that identifies any conflicts and how they will address them. 

How should all boards manage conflicts of interest?

Having a policy for conflicts of interest, maintaining a register of conflicts, and discussing concerns as the first item on meeting agendas are all well-known better practice principles.

Another important aspect that boards should not overlook is cultural and behavioural – ensuring that the board creates and promotes a culture of disclosure. Boards should create an environment where directors feel supported to declare interests early, including perceived or potential conflicts. Early disclosure allows boards to manage risks before decisions are made.

Boards can do this by ensuring discussions on conflicts of interest are regular, supportive, and encourage the recording of all disclosures. Boards should ensure they inform new members about their conflicts of interest policy and provide training on how to manage them. For HHSs, this applies not only to the new clinician board members, but to all new board members.

Where a board member has disclosed a conflict, they should discuss with other members and the meeting chair whether it is appropriate for them to:

  • not participate in any discussion related to the matter (but stay in the meeting as an observer)
  • remove themselves from the meeting for that specific agenda item
  • abstain for voting on the matter.

Managing conflicts of interest for government boards is fundamental to maintaining public trust.  Now is the time for boards to ensure they have a conflict management plan, and that they are encouraging a culture of conflict disclosure to ensure their decision-making is independent and made without influence.  

Resources

Related article