Integrity Talking Points

10 October 2014

Last night the State Services Commission enhanced its integrity guidance with the publication of a revised edition of Questions and Answers about the Code of Conduct. The SSC website notes that this Update incorporates 2013 amendments to the State Sector Act.

The content is substantially unchanged, providing a heartening endorsement that the State Services Commissioner is committed to the principles and practices underpinning the Standards of Integrity and Conduct for the State Services when they were first applied to agencies in 2007.

It will be equally heartening if the Commissioner, giving effect to the explicit leadership responsibility introduced as part of the 2013 amendments, uses the Update to stimulate renewed enthusiasm for, and understanding of, the code – and as expressed in the Purpose added to the Act in 2013  “… promote and uphold a State sector system that…is imbued with the spirit of service to the community; and…maintains appropriate standards of integrity and conduct…”

The changes are summarised in a paragraph added in the answer to the question – What is the History of the Code of Conduct? (page 4). This explains that;

“…The amendments in 2013 to the State Sector Act set out, for the first time, the principal ways that the Commissioner is to provide leadership and oversight. This role includes the Commissioner promoting the spirit of service to the community, and working with State Services leaders to ensure that the State Services maintain high standards of integrity and conduct, are led well and are trusted.

The amendments also applied the code of conduct to all individuals working as contractors and secondees in relation to a function, duty, or power of an agency, extended the mandate of the Commissioner to apply the code of conduct to companies named in Schedule 4A of the Public Finance Act 1989, and empowered the Commissioner to tailor the code of conduct for particular people or groups within an agency…”

These statutory changes specify that

• the standards of integrity and conduct apply to contractors and secondees working in an agency and not only its employees;
• companies listed in Schedule 4A to the Public Finance Act may be covered by the standards of integrity and conduct in the same way as departments and Crown entities
• different standards of integrity and conduct may be applied to different groups within an agency and not as previously specified, to an agency (and everyone working within it).

The explanation of this third point indicates the possibility of the Commissioner issuing a code of conduct for Ministerial advisers.  Some have advocated this for many years.  Comparable jurisdictions treat the political staff in Ministers’ Offices differently from other agency staff.  A Kiwi Blog post in November 2008, when the National-led Administration was newly in place, suggested that such a code would “not be a bad thing”.

The Update commentary is as follows:

“…The 2013 amendments to the State Sector Act allows (sic) the Commissioner to apply a variation of the code of conduct to any people or groups of people undertaking particular function (sic) in an agency to which the code has been applied, in light of the legal, commercial, or operational context of the agency, people or groups involved. This increased flexibility will be used in circumstances where it is unreasonable for a generic code to apply to individuals or groups of individuals. Consideration is being given to having a variation of the code of conduct for Ministerial Staff⁴. This group of employees is often referred to as Ministerial Advisers.

⁴The State Sector Act defines this group of people as Ministerial Staff. Ministerial staff means the employees (including acting, temporary, or casual employees) who are employed on events-based employment agreements by the department that is responsible for the employment of ministerial staff across Minsters’ offices; and to work directly for a Minister in a Minister’s office rather than a department…”

The Update identifies the expanded list of agencies to which the standards of integrity and conduct can be applied.  It lists recent international measures which validate the integrity-rich character of the New Zealand State Services. It includes one or two oddities – including explaining that an agency has the right to “deviate” from the code.  The State Sector Act, subject to written Ministerial consent, permits derogation from a standard.

The “big news” is the prospect of a code of conduct for Ministerial Advisers. And that then gives rise to a question whether such a code would be consistent with the empowering legislation. The Purposes section added to the State Sector Act in 2013 explicitly refers to “… upholding  a State sector that …maintains political neutrality…”  As the intention behind issuing a Ministerial Advisers’ code would be to recognise that political neutrality standards do not apply to that group of State servants, lawyers may argue such a code would be ultra vires.  But a legal challenge is improbable; such a code will inevitably be “a good thing”.

http://ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/code-q&as-updated-oct2014.pdf

www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/11/a_code_of_conduct_for_ministerial_staff.html

http://ssc.govt.nz/node/9580

http://ssc.govt.nz/node/9581

http://www.ssc.govt.nz/code-organisations

9 October 2014

The British Civil Service appointed a Chief Executive last week. This new role seeks to bring a proven business focus to organisational change. The appointee has been part of the Civil Service for only eight months, moving from an oil industry career.  He has postgraduate qualifications in engineering and business management and an MBA. His role in the BP – Amoco merger may well be seen as pertinent expertise for delivering on Ministers’ demands for a smaller, more effective Civil Service.

And he is appears to be motivated by public spiritedness. Eight years ago his BP salary package was the equivalent of NZ$ 3 million. His chief executive salary at about NZ$ 400,000 puts him among the fifteen highest paid civil servants (the remuneration of none has changed much over the last four years).

This is likely to be seen as a private sector cuckoo in the public service nest. He appointee’s well-known view is that “… the Civil Service is too focused on policy-making rather than leadership on big projects.” Reportedly he would like to see “…a cadre of project managers brought into Whitehall operating on a payment-by-results basis, so a bank of experience is built up …”

Moves are already afoot to change the character of the Civil Service by opening senior appointments below permanent secretary to external candidates.  A culture is sought that will embody accelerated decision making, improved policy making and stronger programme and project management.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/news/latest/ifg-statement-appointment-john-manzoni-chief-executive-civil-service

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/9131/civil-service-reform-two-years-on-some-optimism-and-a-little-fear/

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/may/31/senior-civil-servants-salaries-data

8 October 2014

When business gets underway later this month in the 51^st Parliament, bills returning to the Order Paper are likely to include the Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Legislation Bill. This is the measure introduced mid year to effect the statutory changes necessary for New Zealand to meet obligations of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. Some interest groups – most notably Transparency International – have persistently advocated that the New Zealand Government should demonstrate a commitment to UNCAC.  This presumably has been for some sort of solidarity reason, as the vast majority of member states seem unmotivated by their UNCAC obligations.  New Zealand is ensuring it has the legislative framework to give effect to those obligations – although as an original signatory, it has taken 11 years to do so.

In the face of United States diplomacy, New Zealand and several other integrity-strong states held out from UNCAC until they could ensure appropriate domestic structures. But the pressure to gather up all jurisdictions is illustrated by the sweep around the least developed nations over the last 18 months, with countries like Myanmar, Sudan, Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, Swaziland, Solomon Islands, Micronesia, Kiribati, Oman and Palestine becoming members. Nauru and the Cook Islands were already members! And gradually the signatories taking a more deliberate approach to UNCAC, have enacted regulatory provisions. With Germany announcing in September that it will ratify UNCAC, the only early signatories yet to ratify are Japan, Barbados, Bhutan, New Zealand – and Syria!

The parallel OECD Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials (the Anti Bribery Convention) has a more apparent influence on New Zealand’s integrity structures, although Working Group reviews criticise New Zealand for not identifying, and prosecuting, its nationals who offend against the convention. The State Services Commissioner’s Understanding the code of conduct – Guidance for the State Servants  explains that the standard “We must act lawfully and objectively” requires compliance with both New Zealand law and any relevant international conventions.  It species that “…those of us working internationally must be aware in particular of the obligation to support the New Zealand commitment to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials and report to the appropriate authority any incidents involving the bribery of officials…”

The annual assessment of measures being taken by OECD members to combat bribery should be released next week. The likelihood is that New Zealand will again be listed among the reticent enforcers.

http://www.examiner.com/article/department-of-homeland-security-official-took-bribes-cash-and-eggrolls

https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=ind&mtdsg_no=xviii-14&chapter=18&lang=en

www.ssc.govt.nz/node/1913

7 October 2014

The majority of voting New Zealanders appear to have been persuaded that the economy is being satisfactorily managed and that “more of the same” is more attractive than policy alternatives. That was the perspective reflected in the Global Competitiveness Report released a fortnight before the election. Economy watchers were heartened last year when New Zealand ranked among the top 20 for the first time since the survey, compiled annually by the World Economic Forum, began. And this year the rating improved. New Zealand is now ranked 17^th – up eight places since 2012.

A reason why emigration has slowed, fewer New Zealanders are attracted to Australia, and there is less inclination to stay once there, may be explained by the declining comparative competitiveness of Australia. It is now 22nd in this survey compared with 15^th place in 2012.

The data is collated into a series of 12 pillars. New Zealand is the World leader in the institutions pillar. Trustworthiness underpins the weight that can be given to these indicators which, in turn, are incorporated in numerous other international survey ratings. The New Zealand Initiative which helped collate the data puts New Zealand’s advantage down to its institutional strengths and the wellbeing of the education, health and labour sectors. It recognised that investments in things like the rule of law and property rights are paying dividends now. “The results can be seen in our high rate of GDP growth.”

The  Worldwide Governance Indicators are due for publication shortly.  If the movement in this year’s Global Competitiveness Report is replicated, then the trend may result in a ranking improvement and  New Zealand once more being among the half dozen countries placed in the top 10 on each of the six governance indicators.

http://business.scoop.co.nz/2014/09/05/nz-climbs-to-17th-on-global-competitiveness-index/

http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015/

http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015/economies/#economy=NZL

27 June 2014

The Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill was introduced in Parliament this afternoon. The Bill targets organised crime and contains anti corruption measures required if New Zealand is to honour obligations imposed by the UN Convention Against Corruption. The majority of UNCAC States Parties  have neither the legislative framework nor the enforcement capacity to deliver on the UNCAC. New Zealand has deferred ratification until there is a genuine ability to comply.

Once the statutory changes are in place, law enforcement agencies will be required to police international banking transactions, helping government to detect money laundering.  The Police Financial Intelligence Unit will be advised of all international wire transfers of more than $1000 and all physical cash transactions of more than $10,000. This strengthens existing reporting obligations.

Other changes mean that courts would no longer need to find that a person intended to conceal a transaction for them to be found guilty of money-laundering.  Police will be able to share personal information (names, fingerprints and criminal record) with other jurisdictions.

The seven year penalty for bribery and corruption offences involving public sector officials will be extended to the private sector.

Transparency New Zealand which has campaigned religiously for New Zealand to ratify UNCAC will soon be able to tick off a major element in its National Integrity Systems “Integrity Plus” assessment.  It is unlikely that there will be a substantial change in corruption prosecutions, but tools will then be available when breaches are uncovered.

The only States then not having ratified will be Japan and Germany, Sudan and Syria, Bhutan and Barbados.

Coincidentally, there is an imminent visit by a working group to assess measures by New Zealand to comply with the OECD Anti Bribery Convention – which did not necessitate empowering legislation as in the case of  UNCAC .

http://my.lawsociety.org.nz/news/organised-crime-and-anti-corruption-bill-introduced

www.transparency.org.nz/2013/New-Zealand-to-Ratify-UNCAC.htm

www.transparency.org.nz/2013/Integrity-Plus-2013-New-Zealand-National-Integrity-System-Assessment

www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html

25 June 2014

The United Nations encourages Member states to recognise Public Service Day on 23 June each year.  This year the day was marked as part of a UN conference in Korea.  Each year, a highlight is the announcement of the UN Public Services Awards. These reflect a programme that promotes the role, professionalism and visibility of public service.  It encourages exemplary public services and recognises that democracy and successful governance are built on competent public administrations.

The UN awards aim to discover innovations in governance, reward excellence in the public sector, motivate public servants to further promote new approaches, enhance professionalism, raise the image of public services, strengthen trust in government and collect and disseminate successful practices for replication by others.

The UN awards are in four classes with regional winners in each.

• Improving Delivery of Public Services – South Africa, Austria, Singapore and Turkey
• Fostering Participation in Policy Making Decisions – Thailand and  Brazil
• Whole of Government Approaches in the Information Age  – Korea, Uruguay and Bahrain
• Promoting Gender Responsive Delivery of Public Services  –  Morrocco, Thailand, Brazil and Oman.

Public Service day is not marked in New Zealand , although about the same time each year the  Public Sector Excellence Awards, championed by the New Zealand Institute of Public Administration, are announced.  The rationale for the IPANZ Excellence Awards is similar to that of the UN awards. They will be presented in Wellington on 2 July 2014.

http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN93094.pdf

http://www.ipanz.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=173