I don't know exactly what the rules are, so I'm making an assumption here. I assume that when you talk about hiring people on a temporary basis or in term positions, it is a detriment to hiring people. I'm guessing the reason is that people who are really well qualified are not going to put their careers at risk by going into something that is uncertain, whereas those who are very capable would probably go somewhere where they can be hired right off the bat.
I think a lot of people would benefit from this, particularly young people, whom I think we should be recruiting into the civil service so that we have a long-term institutional memory, and so on. The employer can hire them without having to make a long-term commitment before they have really good evaluations. You can learn quite a bit about people by interviewing them and reading their résumés, but until they have actual work experience, you don't know.
In this way, you could hire young people and identify those who are really strong. You'd then have policies that could bring them into permanent positions in the civil service after about two years. It would be a good policy. Would you agree or disagree with my statement?