Australian approach to post election Ministerial briefing

10 October 2013

Although there are similarities in the public administrations of Australia and New Zealand, some practices are quite different. What is considered unparliamentary behaviour, perhaps, is one.  But the post election period highlights a substantive difference in the preparation for a new government.

Departments in New Zealand follow procedure specified in the Cabinet Manual and guidance published by the State services Commissioner which make it clear that briefings are to be tailored to the needs of the new Minister, and therefore whether they have previous knowledge of the portfolio. The type of  information needed is identified, and the format is specified – in the style of other Departmental advice, not prepared for public release and recognising that it is the start of an on-going series of briefings.  Because the briefing is shaped to the needs of a known Minister, of necessity, it must be finalised after the election and negotiations to form a government have been completed.

However that was not always the case. Until the 1980s each Department compiled a “black book” setting out pertinent issues in anticipation of a change of Ministers. The briefing was “locked down” on the eve of an election as an act of political neutrality. The reverse is now the case.  The briefing for an incoming Minister is worked on after an election to make sure the content meets the needs of the appointee.

The Australians manage matters differently. Each Department prepares post-election briefings during the election campaign, to be handed to a new Minister, as soon as the election result is clear.

Three briefings are prepared to meet the election outcome – either for the extant Minister, a new Minister from the returning administration , or for a new administration. But whereas New Zealand requirements are for the briefing to be targeted by post election editing, the Australia practice is still for the briefings to be frozen at the eve of the election.

The Australians differentiate the content by colour – red, blue and green.  In New Zealand there is no longer any currency for the term “black book” once  commonly used.

Some New Zealand agencies have shown a reluctance to conform.  They find the Cabinet Manual too prescription. They want to convey their world view to their Minister. They want the briefing to look good and, anticipating the Minister will be respond to Official Information Act requests, package the briefing in a media friendly format.

The requirement for the incoming briefing to follow the form of other ministerial documents reflects the concern of one State Service Commissioner who felt some briefings were becoming more like tourism brochures intended to be republished by the media.  At that time the content was not focussing on the immediate needs of a Minister taking on a new portfolio.

Australian Ministers traditionally have been reluctant to disclose the content of Departmental briefings, finding reasons for delaying disclosure or discouraging requests by setting high fees for the information release. The new Prime Minister in Canberra may be keen to make the state of the economy – as pictured in the post election briefings – readily available for publication. However he has previously spoken of the inappropriateness of disclosing what should be some of the most sensitive of Public Service advice.
www.cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/3.5

www.ssc.govt.nz/node/8390

www.crikey.com.au/2010/08/27/the-red-and-blue-the-real-story-of-post-election-briefings/

http://foi-privacy.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/incoming-government-briefs-whats.html

Uncategorized

, , ,

October 11, 2013

Leave a comment

Will Open Government deliver on its promise?

7 October 2013

A Cambridge academic writing in the Guardian Public Leaders’ forum has questioned the fad for openness – open data, open policymaking, open governance etc.  With New Zealand indicating interest in joining the other 60 countries committing to the Open Government Partnership, how much transparency, public participation and collaboration, will result?  “…If the hype gets too far ahead of the reality we risk losing the public’s trust…”

The enthusiasm that President Obama expressed on first taking office and which was picked up by British Ministers apparently has a new convert in the New Zealand Prime Minister.  But developments to date largely focus on digital services which are a poor substitute for substantial openness, for increasing community participation in “…deciding on priorities or setting an agenda…” The fear is that “…we will have beautiful tools that don’t make any impact on how policy is made or how the public actually interacts with government…”

“…being digital is not the same thing as being open.”

The proposition is that governments must acknowledge how much control of the decision-making process at all levels they are willing to cede, and what they will do with community input. Growing interest in open government “… should not be squandered for a lack of clear thinking on how openness can be achieved and where it can add to engagement and legitimacy…”

www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2013/oct/04/open-government-better-service-delivery

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2013/10/01/is-open-government-what-ministers-really-want/

Uncategorized

, ,

October 7, 2013

Leave a comment

US Budget blues put ethics discussion on hold

3 October 2013

A reasonable expectation of an interest group with a focus on ethics in government would be that its membership has a genuine commitment to public service and integrity.   It seems just a little odd then that the US Interagency Ethics Council: Standards of Conduct for Federal Employees (IEC) has postponed a meeting that today was to be addressed about current events by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics.

The OGE is one the smallest of Federal Offices, and is affected like most other agencies by opposition to passing legislation to fund the Government for the next two months. Either the OGE Director is not willing to speak or the audience will not turn up, suggesting that their interest is limited to days when they are on paid duty – although a more charitable view would be that the proposed venue is not accessible because of the funding crisis.

Republicans wanting parts of the Administration’s Affordable Care Act dropped in return for voting through the Budget have brought about the first disruption of this kind since 1996 when, for 26 days, government services were suspended.

If the discussion was intended to discuss trustworthiness, the IEC commitment would not have been wasted. This month the results of a survey asking about confidence in Federal government workers showed more that 35% of the sample had little or no confidence, deteriorating 12% since 2011.

Only 19% said they have “a lot of confidence” in Federal workers. However 73% said working for the US civil service was a desirable job.

www.iecjournal.org/iec/

Uncategorized

, ,

October 2, 2013

Leave a comment

Gangs to unpatch in public

2 October 2013

Yesterday the State Services Commission posted  on its website details of the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Act 2013 which has been in force – and almost unknown to most agencies – for the last seven weeks.  Presumably that lack of response by agencies has prompted the move to raise awareness of the law.

A random search of agency websites – including the agencies most likely be visited by gang members- suggests that none have seen the need to specify prohibitions on access to public places covered by the statute. All of which raises the question of why a majority of MPs gave House time to its enactment. Perhaps because it was a private member’s bill promoted by a National MP, party colleagues were compelled to give it support. New Zealand First MPs, Peter Dunn and Brendan Horan also gave their support.

The effect is that the insignia of 34 specified gangs cannot now be worn in the premises of Public Service departments , local authorities, Crown entities, schools– more broadly defined than a  school board of trustees (which is a Crown entity)  district health boards and the Police. Numerous other public premises don’t appear to be covered, including Parliament and parliamentary agencies, the NZ Defence Force, the Universities and Wananga, State Owned Enterprises (also Air NZ and the Reserve Bank) the Waitangi Tribunal, and Maori TV. A possible advantage of the Act will be as a machinery of government teaching aid – helping illustrate components of the Crown!

The nine section Act extends to six pages (excluding the cover and legislative history) of which nearly three pages comprise the interpretation section. Part of that interpretation concedes that a tattoo is not insignia – meaning clothing of a gang colour and marking may constitute an offence if worn in agency premises, but not a facial or other explicit skin marking.

Gang insignia have long been precluded in prisons – for prisoners and visitors – under prison manager rules.

The SSC guidance includes a sign recommended for display in premises where gang insignia is proscribed.

www.ssc.govt.nz/implementing-gang-insignia-prohibition-legislation

www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2013/0056/11.0/DLM4301602.html

Uncategorized

, ,

October 2, 2013

Leave a comment

Is open government what Ministers really want?

1 October 2013

The Open Government Partnership blog showed satisfaction when the Prime Minister said that New Zealand would commit to the OGP by the end of the year.  That would make New Zealand member number 61.  Steven Price on his media law journal scoffs at the report that the Prime Minister was accepting a British invitation to join. The OGP of course is an international organisation and all countries meeting its membership conditions are encouraged to join.  But  Mr Key was in Britain as a guest of the British Government (and the Monarch) and UK is co chair this year of the OGP, which makes joining at the British behest diplomatically advantageous. On measures specified by the OGP New Zealand scores full marks – 16 from 16 criteria – so there is no stretch required to “join up”.

In the UK an irony is that the open government may not be all it is claimed to be, The Scottish Government scores more poorly than any organisation in Scotland in complying with freedom of information laws.

In 2012 there were 1,900 requests across all agencies with about 70% responded to within the required 20 days, but many agencies do not respond to requests as required.  The proportion of appeals against Government agencies has almost doubled to 31% in two years (local government accounts for 43% of appeals). Fewer than half of Scots are confident they would get a timely response to an information request.

Closer to home there is also disgruntlement. The Prime Minister commented that the OGP reflects New Zealand’s values, but he has not responded to calls for openness regarding the terms of the Trans Pacific Partnership to which New Zealanders are also likely be committed by the year’s end.

http://blog.opengovpartnership.org/2013/09/ogp-civil-society-newsletter-27-september/

http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=615

http://blog.opengovpartnership.org/

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-government-is-worst-offender-over-foi-1-3119436

Uncategorized

, ,

October 1, 2013

Leave a comment

UK’s Guardian Public Services Awards

26 September 2013

The Guardian can probably be considered a civil servants’ newspaper.  It seems to be more supportive of those delivering services than championing the policies of any particular government or party. The Guardian Professional Networks – which encompass 16 interest areas –  are a source of innovative and challenging ideas.

The 10th annual Guardian Public Services Awards are currently being decided.  The New Zealand Institute of Public Administration would love its Public Sector Excellence Awards to receive sponsorship to the extent given by the Guardian to this UK event. This year’s five finalists have been selected and the paper’s readership has been invited to select the best candidate.

Mike Bracken of the UK Cabinet Office created Government Digital Service which helps people use government services and has built the framework for on-line government services. In what must be a peculiarly British evaluation, he is said to be “…a bit Marmite for the public sector” … who has delivered a huge government transformation project.

Sue Bruce, the first female chief executive of Edinburgh city council is recognised for her leadership of a council employing 15,000 staff.

Carl Haggerty, digital communications manager at Devon County Council has encouraged greater involvement in local government. His skill is promoting democratic participation “…in a ubiquitous digital climate…”

Lynne Owens, the chief constable of Surrey Police made exemplary contributions to the Metropolitan Police. “…She signifies a new kind of leader in the Police… focused on her staff, with a different way of exerting authority…”.

Keir Starmer, appointed Director of Public Prosecutions although he had no prosecution experience, made “some really brave decisions” relating to domestic abuse, assisted suicide, and  prosecuting more rape and child abuse cases….”

 

www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network

www.ipanz.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=171

Uncategorized

, ,

September 25, 2013

Leave a comment

Ethics in public service

25 September 2013

The Ethics Challenge in Public Service: A Problem-Solving Guide by Carol W. Lewis and Stuart C. Gilman has been released in a 3rd edition.

(Stuart Gilman provided guidance to the State Services Commission when the Standards of Iintegrity and Conduct were first promoted in 2007.  The “6 Trust Elements”, the framework for that code, were derived from his paper on Ethics Codes and Codes of Conduct as Tools for Promoting an Ethical and Professional Public Service: Comparative Successes and Lessons prepared for the OECD and World Bank.)

The Ethics Challenge in Public Service  is widely used as a resource for Public Sector Ethics courses. The authors place importance on ethics for establishing and preserving the public trust that is essential for effective government. Codes are necessary to ensure consistency across government. Individual moral frameworks are not sufficient; “…although self-sufficiency may be popularly admired, it is inadequate in a head-on collision over contending ethical values and principles.”  Common sense is not sufficient either – “…:  “common sense is only as virtuous as the decision maker’s character and only as useful as the situation is simple…”

A code provides a safety valve in agencies, preventing conformance with misguided practices of managers. “Clear ethical standards give public employees more workplace self-rule by ensuring that they know the standards to which they will be held accountable. This limits the pressures supervisors and political leaders can put on public employees to act in ways contrary to the code.”

The “6 Trust Elements” can be identified in much of the writing – the need to have a code, to promote it, to integrate it into the way an agency operates, for managers to lead by example, for prompt action to be taken on breaches, and for staff to know the consequences that flow from such breaches.

Integrating expected behaviour is important – of ethical behaviour being the norm in an agency and of work groups talking about integrity. But if there is no example, if ethics training is not important, a culture of integrity will not emerge.  Managers must lead by example, they must encourage conversations about doing the right thing. But also “…responsible managers try to reduce temptation through routine procedures and controls…” An ethical organization is the core of what we understand public service to be in democracies.”

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=UYhDA4h43sIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

www.ssc.govt.nz/node/5390

www.oecd.org/mena/governance/35521418.pdf

Uncategorized

, ,

September 25, 2013

Leave a comment

Governance Report 2013 has new perspectives

24 September 2013

The Governance Report 2013 takes a new approach to evaluating good governance – described as “…the effective, efficient, and reliable set of legitimate institutions and actors dedicated to dealing with matters of public concern, be it in the field of financial markets (the focus of this edition) or other policy fields, and across local, national and international levels..”

The Hertie School of Government researchers have packaged a range of recognised datasets to produce a some unique perspectives. Some of the findings cast a new light on the Scandinavians – and New Zealand – often ranked as among the states having the richest governance characteristics.

“,,,The Report does not deal mainly with the technical aspects of today’s policy challenges (e.g. issues such as what might be the best technology to reduce greenhouse gases); rather, it uses such policy challenges as a lens through which to explore how different actor groups have adjusted and could adjust to the new types of challenges brought about by the new policy-making realities…”

The compilers consider they have a novel and systematic way to address  conceptual issues, examine current governance challenges, assess innovations, and develop informative and illustrative indicators. They seek to answer the follow sorts of issues:

*  What are current and emerging governance problems?  From transnational perspectives, which policy fields are well managed, which are struggling, and what problem areas are threatening to become ungovernable?

*  Where are innovations taking place, and where are they not; and what blockages exist – institutional or otherwise?

*  How can we recognize and assess whether state and non-state actors have adjusted to these new and still evolving conditions of public policy-making? How successful have their adjustments been?

* In the light of the experience gained to date, how could the governance of the different actor groups or concerns be improved? What new policy thinking, capacities and institutions might be required? What new, innovative ways and approaches to policy-making hold lessons and promise for others?

The presentation of data in the numerous graphs in the Governance Report can give quite a different picture of the world.

The dashboard on trade openness shows Costa Rica as the most open country followed by New Zealand, New Zealand ranks among the “less virtuous” on greenhouse emissions and Kyoto commitments, it doesn’t stand out for “ideal points estimates” in UN General Assembly voting, the New Zealand nuclear policy doesn’t  have any uniqueness in international comparisons, but New Zealand is outstanding for effectiveness, transparency and legitimacy.

Enhanced credibility can perhaps be given to the researchers.  Another research paper on the Hertie SOG website accurately predicted the outcome of the German election.

http://mark-kayser.com/papers/AnheierStanigKayser2013.pdf

Uncategorized

September 24, 2013

Leave a comment

NZ joining OGP seen as a good thing

22 September 2013

The announcement that New Zealand will seek membership of the Open Government Partnership was blogged favourably on Open and Shut – the Australian privacy blog, which periodically bemoans the reluctance of the Australian government to do anything more than talk about OGP membership.

The application process is formally structured, with specified dates by which aspirant states are required to comply.  To become part of the  “Group Four” nations which will become members from April 2014 New Zealand will have to apply by December and by the end March have a draft action plan developed in concert with civil society on how it will give effect to the OGP principles (as the NZ chapter of Transparency International released a media statement applauding the New Zealand move there will be civil society support).

By April 2014 New Zealand must have presented its plan to the OGP steering committee, and begun putting the plan into action. Then by September 2015 it will report on progress with implementing the plan and confirm whether it intends remaining a member.

This structure is intended to ensure that real change is effected and the OGP does not develop the talkfest characteristics of most international organisations.  Russia, which joined the Second Group indicated in May this year that it will not continue as a member.

There are several websites promoting awareness of the OGP, through news and blog items. The Freedom website although reporting the Prime Minister’s statement, spelled his name incorrectly.

An interesting post on the Global Integrity website last week suggests that the US President, criticised by many for having no strategic approach to foreign policy,  in fact is promoting open government as the Obama Policy!

“Here’s the argument:

  • Open government is one of the few policy issues of interest to this administration that cuts across both domestic and international lines and has commanded the President’s personal attention and engagement. It was his senior aides in the first term that conceptualized and helped launch the Open Government Partnership, a ground breaking partnership between 60 governments and civil society to advance the open government agenda internationally. While domestic open government reforms are indeed very incomplete, the president and a number of close advisors have done more to push the agenda than a number of his predecessors combined.
  • While observers like Inboden rightly point to certain key foreign policy cabinet officials being distant from the president (e.g. Kerry, Hagel, Clinton), he chose to install a close advisor and open government champion in the form of Samantha Power as ambassador to the UN. Fellow OGP architect Jeremy Weinstein, who left the White House to return to Stanford two years ago, has been recently called back to serve as Power’s chief of staff in New York.
  • An open government approach helps to explain, at least in part, why we might be perceiving a hesitation on the part of the president to micromanage other countries’ internal processes (or conflicts). Open government, for all its warts, relies on an approach of governments hashing out their challenges with domestic constituencies and local stakeholders, not with elite power brokers and kingmakers at the international level….”

www.opengovpartnership.org/countries

www.opengovpartnership.org/timeline-all-ogp-participating-countries

www.globalintegrity.org/blog/obama-doctrine-open-government

www.freedominfo.org/news/

www.freedominfo.org/2013/05/russia-leaving-ogp-provides-no-explanation/

www.globalintegrity.org/blog/obama-doctrine-open-government

Uncategorized

, ,

September 22, 2013

Leave a comment

NZ will blend its open government processes into the OGP

19 September 2013

New Zealand will be joining the Open Government Partnership.  This must be wholly unconnected to the invitation to a family weekend at Balmoral, but after meeting yesterday with the UK Prime Minister – and the UK is the current co chair of the OGP – John Key indicated that he will take up the British invitation to formally express New Zealand’s intention to join the OGP later this year.

The OGP currently has 58 countries (and nine civil society organisations) committed to transparent and open government and combatting corruption.

The membership is a mixed bag with Northern European countries with aspirational values New Zealand shares, but also much of Central America and Eastern Europe with quite different motivations – yet apparently keen to adopt the underpinning Open Government Initiative. The propensity of some for corrupt and undemocratic politics must bring the genuineness of their declarations into question.

Although over the last 18 months the OGP has been recruiting hard in a largely uninterested community, Mr Key indicated that he was pleased the UK had made the invitation to join. In Australia where the previous Government had published plans to become part of the OGP had but done nothing about it, the possibility is that the Abbott administration will see signing up to the Open Government Initiative as a fitting illustration of its manifesto to restore strong, democratic and effective government.

The strength of the OGP is the involvement of civil society to avoid the partnership becoming just another side show in the international circus. Member states are required to publish a concrete, succinct and action-oriented plan with declared implementation time frames.  New Zealand already has an open government plan more reflective of the OGP expectations that the initiatives published by many of the member countries.

www.opengovpartnership.org/ogp-action-plan-template

www.opengovpartnership.org/guidance-countries-joining-ogp-after-april-2012

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/?s=OGP

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1309/S00355/pm-meets-with-uk-pm-david-cameron.htm

Uncategorized

September 19, 2013

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «