Will SSC survey find an outbreak of integrity?

16 February 2014

The results of the 2013 State Services Integrity Survey are to be published next month. Employees in 40 of the 160 or so agencies in the State services were invited to participate – 15000 responded.  The 2013 survey has a broader focus on workplace behaviours than surveys SSC  conducted in 2007 and 2010. Those previous surveys were closely aligned to the US National Business Ethics Survey which the Ethics Resource Center undertakes biennially.

The results of the 2013 National Business Ethics survey were published last week. A finding is that worker misconduct is being seen less frequently in United States workplaces than for many years. Respondents saw 14% less misconduct in their workplaces in 2013 than they did in 2007  – down to 41% in 2013 compared with 55% in 2007.

Only 9% of employees felt pressure to compromise their standards in 2013, down from 13% in the previous survey in 2011.

The drop in observed misconduct can be attributed to employers doing a better job of applying the “6 trust elements” – and in particular, expecting compliance with integrity standards, taking action where breaches occur, and staff knowing that there will be consequences for misconduct.

According to the survey, the percentage of companies with a “strong” or “strong-leaning” ethics culture increased to 66% in 2013 from 60% in 2011. Organisations now provide more ethics training than in previous years and a greater number include ethical conduct as a measure in performance evaluations.

A concern is that too many managers are not “walking the talk” and don’t model ethical behaviour. “Ethical lapses” were more common at the upper levels of businesses, and senior managers appear to be more likely than lower-level managers to break rules. According to the NBES, in 2013,  60% of misconduct was committed by managers -with senior managers committing 24% of observed misconduct, middle managers were identified 19 % of the time and first-line team leaders identified 17 % of the time.

It would be surprising if this level of misbehaviour were to be reported next month in the State Services integrity survey.

http://www.ssc.govt.nz/integrity-and-conduct-survey-2013

http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2014/02/04/employees-ethical-behavior-is-best-in-20-years/

Uncategorized

, , ,

February 15, 2014

Leave a comment

Press freedom in New Zealand still among World’s best

14 February 2014

Something has stimulated greater pessimism in the measure of Press Freedom in New Zealand than in 2013. Is it an establishment reaction to Dotcom challenges?

What otherwise has occurred in New Zealand over the last twelve months that would detract from the perception that we have an effective and unconstrained media?

The Reporters without Borders annual World Press Freedom Index has downgraded New Zealand, placing it 9th, one position lower than 2013.  New Zealand remains among Scandinavian and Scandinavian–like countries that make up the top ten places –  flanked by Iceland and Sweden.

The pecking order at the top of the Index is largely unchanged from 2013 although the assessment methodology has changed substantially.  The new methodology has resulted in the United States –“land of the free” – slipping 13 places to 46th (while Samoa is 40th and Papua New Guinea is 44th).

The Index reflects seven criteria:

  • level of abuses
  • extent of pluralism
  • media independence
  • environment and self-censorship
  • legislative framework
  • transparency and
  • infrastructure.

A characteristic identified in a number of developed states is that national security pressures are seen to be undermining the right to inform and be informed.

The 2013 Transparency International report on New Zealand National Integrity Systems – the Integrity Plus report – reported that the independence of the New Zealand media and its activities in informing the public about government activities and cases of corruption and maladministration are extremely valuable in the national Integrity System context.

Transparency International noted that to sustain this level of benefit, more monitoring and oversight of the integrity of the media is needed, whether by self-regulation or public agencies.

 

Press Freedom Index 2014

1          Finland

2          Netherlands

3          Norway

4          Luxembourg

5          Andorra

6          Liechtenstein

7          Denmark

8          Iceland

9          New Zealand

10        Sweden

(Australia 28th, United Kingdom 33rd, United States 46th)

 

http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

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

Uncategorized

, , , ,

February 14, 2014

Leave a comment

What are acceptable incentives to motivate public servants?

16 January 2014

The Guardian reports that the UK Home Office is rewarding staff who manage asylum cases so that tribunal orders for deportation are upheld. What the agency sees as recognising positive performance and ensuring service targets are met, human rights groups view as a corrupting influence because the civil servants’ sense of fairness is being undermined. The concern is that recognition of this type is a clear incentive to bad practice.

The circumstances relate to the review stage of failed asylum applications. The process at that point has determined that there is no right to entry, that the claimant should be deported. The role of staff is to defend that decision at the tribunal review. Critics consider a 70% success rate is a consequence of incentives and brings the fairness of the system into question.

In terms of public management there is no conflict in an incentive provided to staff by their employing agency. An employee may accept any benefit which the agency proffers. The circumstances are wholly different from something of value being provided by another party. An employing agency may choose to reward those performing agency functions through salary or other means.

A number of jurisdictions regard high levels of remuneration and substantial incentive payments as a key to preventing corruption, eg Singapore, Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi. In New Zealand the State Services Commission guidance on chief executive remuneration recognises payments as a performance incentive and the most recent update maintains this incentive element at 15% of chief executives’ base salary.

Guidance on strengthening corporate integrity published in September 2013 by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime which manages the UN Convention Against Corruption, recognises the value of good practice incentives. The benefit can be in encouraging a commitment to compliance programmes. Such incentives have a particular role in circumstances where there is a low risk of misconduct being detected. The Home Office may well have assessed that a sympathy for claimants was a more likely response from those who process reviews and that incentives in the form of vouchers for up to £50 would be effective. They would recognise positive performance  including exceeding their casework targets, and minimize any loss of role focus.

Interestingly those who believe there is no harm in accepting benefits – like low value entertainment from a contract provider– on the basis that they would not be corrupted for the price of a dinner or similar benefit, may well be among those who regard the Home Office bonus scheme as corrupting, and that the officials involved would be incentivized to disregard fair procedures.

http://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/Publications/2013/Resource_Guide_on_State_Measures_for_Strengthening_Corporate_Integrity.pdf

www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/civilservice/Mayseminar/Mukherjee.pdf

www.ssc.govt.nz/ce-terms-and-conds

Uncategorized

, , ,

January 17, 2014

Leave a comment

Integrity takes a knock at NYPD

14 January 2014

Last week’s news about “New York’s finest” is a colourful departure from the honest behaviour expected of public sector employees. The prosecution has begun of 106 sometime employees of the City of New York Police Department (NYPD) and the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) for defrauding their disability insurance scheme. More prosecutions may follow.

Benefits of up to US $50,000 a year are being paid in response to claims based on an inability to work caused by post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression – many attributed to 9/11 events.  After a two year investigation, a  wide ranging scheme involving hundreds of claimants has been untangled.  Four “masterminds” apparently trained claimants how to qualify for these pensions by feigning symptoms of psychiatric illness. The estimated cost to date is $400 million.

An equally concerning aspect of this incident is that the frequency of disability claims on dubious grounds was well known in the NYPD. To date there has been no report of frequent – or indeed any – whistleblowing of possible fraud by former colleagues of claimants. The blue line seems to have held together.

The effect of traumatic experience on police is well reported – and in  New Zealand there was a Police Early Retirement Fund  to facilitate departures when officers lost the ability to meet performance standards. The scheme acquired a pejorative reputation because of a number of claims made on it, and was closed under a cloud of suspicion in 1991.

Honesty is essential for integrity. It is one of the trustworthiness standards in the Standards of Integrity and Conduct for the State Services.  The SSC guidance indicates that public trust in the State Services will be determined primarily by the degree to which New Zealanders believe that at all times agencies and their staff act with honesty. State servants are expected to respond to what they believe to be true, and to act always with a focus on accuracy and authenticity.

The State Services Commissioner explains that “…Honesty is frequently associated with professional courage. We must not act with guile for administrative convenience or to conform to political arrangements. We must not deceive or knowingly mislead. Being honest requires us to set out facts and relevant issues truthfully and to correct any errors as soon as possible. We must be careful about providing only some of the facts about an issue if we anticipate that we may encourage misunderstanding. Providing only half the facts may mean we are telling only half the truth. Honesty means that we are truthful and open…

This obligation is not only work-related. It arises at any time when the consequences of dishonest conduct may have an impact on public trust or on the confidence that Ministers, Parliament, or others in the State Services, can have in our organisation….”

www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/nyregion/retired-new-york-officers-and-firefighters-charged-in-social-security-scheme.html

www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/2001-2/buchanan.htm

www.ssc.govt.nz/node/1914

Uncategorized

, , ,

January 14, 2014

Leave a comment

Independence of Judges and the Police Commissioner not just a constitutional nicety

10 January 2014

The Turkish experience where the Government is taking measures to disarm the capacity of the police and the judiciary to challenge apparent corruption illustrates the importance of an independent judiciary and entrenching the responsibility of executive enforcement agencies to act independently of Ministerial direction in operational matters. These are strengths of the New Zealand national integrity system recognised in the recent Integrity Plus assessment.

The NIS assessment rated the NZ judiciary at 5 (out of 5) for its independence in law, its independence in practice, and for the extent to which it provides effective oversight of the executive.

Similarly NZ Police was rated as 5 (out of 5) for being independent by law, and for its independence in practice. The rating was only 3 however for the transparency in practice, of its activities and decision making processes.

In Turkey, although the Prime Minister has spoken of relentlessly pursuing corruption, activities by the police and the courts in targeting widespread bribery closely connected to the Government have led to a purge of police ranks. Numerous allies of the ruling elite have been arrested on corruption charges, including sons of at least three Ministers (who in turn have resigned), Apparent retaliation by the Government has followed these arrests. It has replaced the heads of organised crime, anti-terrorism, anti-corruption and criminal intelligence units and relocated about 400 other senior police. The Prime Minister said he would prosecute senior judges if he had the power, after they criticised a Ministerial direction that police were to keep their superiors informed of operational matters. Turkish legal experts have described the direction as “a clear breach of the principle of the separation of powers, and of the constitution…”

(In the New Zealand situation this would seem to be a legitimate expectation, in line with the Cabinet Manual obligation that Chief Executives ensure that there are “No Surprises” for their Ministers.)

The Prime Minister claims that corruption allegations are made by politicised sections of the police and the judiciary, aimed at undermining his rule. There may well be strengthening opposition within the police and judiciary to the Government’s increasingly non-secular policies. Yet for a number of years the police and the judiciary were seen to be giving effect to the Government’s strategy of curbing the secularist power of the military.

Section 16 of the Policing Act sets out the rresponsibilities and independence of the NZ Police Commissioner
• (1) The Commissioner is responsible to the Minister for—
• (a) carrying out the functions and duties of the Police; and
• (b) the general conduct of the Police; and
• (c) the effective, efficient, and economical management of the Police; and
• (d) tendering advice to the Minister and other Ministers of the Crown; and
• (e) giving effect to any lawful ministerial directions.
(2) The Commissioner is not responsible to, and must act independently of, any Minister of the Crown (including any person acting on the instruction of a Minister of the Crown) regarding—
• (a) the maintenance of order in relation to any individual or group of individuals; and
• (b) the enforcement of the law in relation to any individual or group of individuals; and
• (c) the investigation and prosecution of offences; and
• (d) decisions about individual Police employees.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0072/latest/DLM1102195.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17988453

Uncategorized

, ,

January 10, 2014

Leave a comment

Giving effect to an anti corruption mantra of Vision, Vigilance, Action

9 January 2014

About half of the presentations delivered at the Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference (APSACC) in Sydney in late November are now published on the APSACC website.

Last year’s biennial conference was the fourth with APSACC becoming established as a leading forum for the promotion of anti-corruption strategies. The scale of the conference has increased with more than 60 sessions – many concurrent – run over two days of the conference. Speakers included Dr Peter Eigen, a co – founder of Transparency International, whose keynote address emphasised the role of civil society organisations in the control of corruption, and doing so by working closely with governments and business. However that contribution, and a number of others by international expertise like Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn, who has headed the New York City Department of Investigation for more than ten years, are not yet published on the website.

Material that is available reflects the range of conference topics, including case studies on corruption, investigations, fraud prevention, and controls on lobbying, tendering and secret commissions. The New Zealand contribution was a Serious Fraud Office presentation on supporting whistleblowers – somewhat ironical when from a public sector perspective the Protected Disclosures Act is intended to obviate the need for the spectacular form of whistleblowing encouraged by enforcement agencies in places like the United States and Britain.

APSACC seems to provide neutral ground, where many in Australia’s Commonwealth and State governments with responsibility for probity and transparency can engage not only with like-minds but with the organisations they regulate. Nevertheless the sponsors are government agencies in the main, including the various anti corruption, integrity, crime and misconduct commissions. There is not much of a funding taint from commercial interests.

http://www.apsac.com.au/2013conference/abstracts.html

Uncategorized

, ,

January 9, 2014

Leave a comment

Are we leaders in the public sector digital revolution?

8 January 2014

 “Why New Zealand and UK are leading the public sector digital revolution” was the title of an article in the public leaders section of yesterday’s Guardian, released jointly by the British Cabinet Office Minister (Maude) and New Zealand’s Minister of Internal Affairs (Tremain).

The substance is about technology for enabling access to government information. Open Government requires evolving systems to meet the demands of users. In both countries initial arrangements to coordinate agency information had proved inadequate. A different approach was necessary. Over the last 15 months, new arrangements have centralised all British departmental material on Gov.uk. New Zealand is now beta testing Govt.nz  which applies much of the British experience.

The article hangs on the contribution of the UK and NZ as “world leaders in transparency” and the need for effective  technology to deliver the aspirations of the Open Government Partnership – that governments must be more transparent, accountable and responsive to their citizens.

The involvement of NZ as the 61st member of the OGP is recognised also in the recommendations of “Integrity Plus”, the National Integrity Systems assessment prepared for Transparency International NZ.  The second recommendation in the report published in November is that “…The Ministry of Justice initiate a cross-government programme of wide public consultation to develop an ambitious New Zealand Action Plan for the international Open Government Partnership…”

As an OGP member, New Zealand has committed to preparing a national Action Plan containing new initiatives developed together with civil society, and to submit to regular, formal, independent monitoring by domestic civil society of progress in implementing the Action Plan.

The OGP places importance on the involvement of civil society to ensure that governments don’t retreat from commitments. The NZ National Integrity Systems assessment is that civil society is strong – although one of the lowest NIS ratings relates to engagement by the business sector with civil society in combatting corruption.

 

www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2014/jan/07/new-zealand-uk-digital-revolution#start-of-comments

 www.transparency.org.nz/docs/2013/Integrity-Plus-2013-New-Zealand-National-Integrity-System-Assessment.pdf?PHPSESSID=d5bec5a99bcb9bd0068d9ac98ea2df52

Uncategorized

, ,

January 8, 2014

Leave a comment

NZ’s low levels of corruption validated by NIS assessment

7 January 2014

“Integrity Plus”, the supersized national integrity systems assessment published by Transparency International NZ last November provides a substantial evaluation of the way our institutions, laws, procedures, practices and attitudes contribute to the exercise of power with integrity.  There has not been any substantive critique yet of the assessment, which to a large degree confirmed the general view of many who have an interest in these matters – that New Zealand’s national integrity systems remain fundamentally strong and rate highly on a broad range of transparency and good governance indicators.

The summary is that “…by international standards there is very little corruption in New Zealand. It is clear that New Zealand remains legitimately highly rated …(for) transparency and quality of governance…”

What appears as a collective passivity and complacency is a concern to the assessors.  Politically there is no imperative for a stronger measures, there is no concerted attention given by civil society to integrity matters,  the public sector commitment is resource constrained, and the commercial sector is largely uninterested.

The primary recommendation is that New Zealand ratifies its membership of the UN Convention Against Corruption and implements a national anti corruption strategy, as encouraged by UNCAC.  Transparency International NZ has continually criticised New Zealand’s tardiness in committing to UNCAC, although membership cannot be seen as necessarily making a difference to the anti corruption environment in any of the 140 States parties. 

( Interestingly, despite the United States championing UNCAC membership, the Financial Transparency blog this week noted that “…U.S. Department of Justice reported that HSBC wilfully failed to apply money laundering controls to $881 million in drug trafficking proceeds. The investigation compelling(ly) revealed that senior officials at HSBC were complicit. Despite the magnitude of this crime and the intent behind their actions, no one at HSBC went to jail. While the United States does have strong anti-money laundering structural reforms, in practice, the nation is still behind…”  )

 

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

www.financialtransparency.org/2014/01/04/transparency-priorities-for-2014/

 https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2013/12/10/nz-national-integrity-survey-a-case-of-to-the-pure-all-things-are-pure/

Uncategorized

, ,

January 7, 2014

Leave a comment

Governments must act lawfully!

6 January 2014

The stary of a new year is as good a time as any to be reminded of one of the fundamental principles of good government. Governments must act lawfully!

This was an emphasis in the Auditor General’s report on the Mangawhai community wastewater scheme published in November – but which a google search indicates has not been considered printworthy by others.

“Legislation enacted by Parliament is more than general guidance. Every public entity is exercising the power of the state. The essence of the rule of law is that the power of the state must be exercised in accordance with the law. Compliance with the law is not optional, and near enough is not good enough. There have been too many examples in recent years of public sector entities being too cavalier about matters of legal compliance. All public entities need to pay careful attention to both the spirit and the letter of their legal obligations if they are to retain the trust of the people they serve.

It is also fundamental that public entities should be able to demonstrate what they are doing and why, when that is questioned. Public entities should expect to be tested, whether by members of the public, the media, or the courts. This is accountability in action, and public entities need to be ready to explain themselves.”

There is nothing novel in the way that obligation is expressed.  It reflects the State Services code of conduct.  The Standards of Integrity and Conduct for the State Services require that “We must act lawfully and objectively”.  Understanding the Code for Conduct – Guidance for State Servants explains the obligation as follows:

“We obey the law. This means we must act within the letter and spirit of the law. We recognise that the purpose of many of our organisational policies and procedures is to give effect to the requirements of the law. When making decisions, we must act within the scope of the power or discretion conferred on us, and within our delegated authority. The exercise of executive powers must comply with both New Zealand law and any international conventions given effect through statute.

It is important we show an objective and balanced approach to our legislative responsibilities. We respect the traditions of liberal democratic government and the rule of law. We do not act arbitrarily or oppressively in giving effect to law. Actions that are unreasonable or unjust can be unlawful. We must maintain accurate, complete and accessible records of the decisions and actions we take.

Many organisations have responsibility for administering and enforcing particular pieces of legislation. This responsibility must not blind us to the equal importance of other laws…”

http:// www.oag.govt.nz/2013/summary-mangawhai

http://www.ssc.govt.nz/node/1913

Uncategorized

, ,

January 6, 2014

Leave a comment

Surveys show few agencies are more trusted than NZ Police

10 December 2013

NZ Police today published the fifth report on implementation of recommendations from the 2007 Bazley report into allegations of sexual assault by Police and the deliberate mishandling of investigations into complaints of assaults on women.

Actions to implement the inquiry’s  60 recommendations,  included establishing a code of conduct  and other measures aimed at strengthening public trust and confidence in the Police.

A continuing irony is that despite increased scrutiny, NZ Police remains one of New Zealand’s most trusted public agencies –rating up to 200% better than politicians and double the rating of public servants generally.

Today’s results show a significant increase in the Employee Engagement Index within NZ Police – and  significantly higher  than the State Sector Benchmark. Most agencies would be satisied to gain Index figures similar to those shown for the NZ Police.

Despite the furore over the way that the Roastbusters matter was handled, up to 84% of surveyed members of the public said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the service they received .from the Police. The numbers engaged in untrustworthy behaviour are small by the rate of scandals within the traditional professions.

The 2013 OECD Government at a Glance statistics show that NZ Police scores higher than the average rating for Police  Forces throughout OECD.

www.police.govt.nz/news/release/commission-inquiry-police-conduct-fifth-phase-review

www.oecd.org/gov/GAAG2013_CFS_NZL.pdf

Uncategorized

,

December 11, 2013

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «