Letter writing advice from UK Education Minister

2 July 2013

 

The Mail on Sunday has published letter writing guidance which the British Minister responsible for Education emailed to his departmental staff.  Apparently Michael Gove believes that the quality of official correspondence will be improved if those tasked with drafting letters adhere to his 10 golden rules.   This is obviously a reversal of the practice of free and frank advice from officials to ministers.  The Guardian  republished the story yesterday.

Gove’s golden guidance:

1.     If in doubt, cut it out.
2.    Read it out loud – if it sounds wrong, don’t send it.
3.    In letters, adjectives add little, adverbs even less.
4.    The more the letter reads like a political speech the less good it is as a letter.
5.    Would your mum understand that word, phrase or sentence? Would mine?
6.    Read the great writers to improve your own prose – George Orwell and Evelyn Waugh, Jane Austen and George Eliot, Matthew Parris and Christopher Hitchens.
7.    Always use concrete words and phrases in preference to abstractions.
8.    Gwynne’s Grammar is a brief guide to the best writing style.
9.    Simon Heffer’s Strictly English is a more comprehensive – and very entertaining – companion volume.
10.  Our written work should be the clearest, most elegant, and most enjoyable to read of any Whitehall department’s because the Department for Education has the best civil servants in Whitehall.

A debate about the grammatical correctness of the guidance now seems inevitable.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2351777/JAMES-FORSYTH-Dear-Sir-Humphrey-Please-stop-churning-pompous-windy-letters-Yours-sincerely-Michael-Gove.html

Uncategorized

July 2, 2013

Leave a comment

Will Kiwis keep counting if service quality doesn’t change?

28 June 2013

Human nature is to be excited by change – by circumstances changing for the better – or the worse.  We mightn’t like change but it captures our attention. More of the same is inherently uninteresting. May be that is why the media seems to have largely ignored the latest six monthly release of Kiwis Count survey statistics. The survey measuring New Zealanders’ satisfaction with 42 public services, was initially published as an annual point in time result. For the last four quarters, the results have been compiled on a continuing basis.

Results published this week suggest that there has been no substantial change in satisfaction levels since last quarter – which in turn is no different from the results compiled 12 months ago. The overall service quality score of 72 was the same for these other periods.  (A two point blip reported six months ago has no certain explanation.)

Minor changes included eleven insignificant improvements in service quality, and 22 insignificant decreases. Nine services were unchanged.

The service quality score was 68 in the first survey  rising in the second year to 69 and then to 72 where it seems to have stabilized. Canada’s Citizens First survey on which Kiwi’s Count is based is reported to have a similar initial progression and then become resistant to change.

A key way to improve satisfaction is to concentrate on the “drivers” of satisfaction – the short list of things that impact on satisfaction.  Providing an experience that meets users expectations has been found to be the most important influence on service satisfaction.

So what is the correlation between New Zealanders’ experience of public services (Kiwis Count), Better Public Services (with the ten results areas)  and the Effectiveness and Efficiency of agencies (Performance Improvement Framework).

The announcement yesterday of the reappointment of the State Services Commissioner for a further three years emphasised the leadership needed to deliver the Better Public Services programme. Will Kiwis Count continue now that a performance plateau seems to have been reached, or become a lesser priority like the State Services Integrity and Conduct survey?

http://www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/kiwis-count-update-mar13.pdf

Uncategorized

, , ,

June 28, 2013

Leave a comment

Second Reading of State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill

27 June 2013

Parliament completed the Second Reading debate on the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill on Tuesday.  The ritualistic joust took place between Government  and Opposition MPs although the vote replicated earlier divisions where Labour members have voted with the Government (together with ACT, Dunn and Horan,) and the Noes have comprised the Greens, Maori , NZ First and Mana.  The Second Reading passed with a 95 – 25 split.

The Bill amends the successor legislation to the Public Service Act 1912, all of which was in force a century ago -by 1 April 1913.  At that time the Post Office and Railways Department had already been set up as separate parts of the Administration.  The remaining agencies were constituted as the Public Service. That term reflected developments in both Canada and Australia. The colonial civil service, transplanted from Britain to the three Dominions gained a new character as the respective nations’ Public Service.   The British civil service which embodied the best traditions of the East India Company, continued as the model in Indian, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.  Most European countries used the term Civil Service.  Germany, Greece, France, Spain, Ireland etc. have a civil service as do Brazil and Japan. The United States kept the term civil service for its departments of state, while its public service is the collective for all public employment, and in particular elected officials.

But civil service has had no legal meaning in New Zealand (or Australia) for over 100 years. State Services seems to have meaning only in Tasmania and in New Zealand, flowing from its creation under the State Services Act 1962.

An  irony in the Second Reading debate on the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill is that while Parliament sought to prescribe functions and meaning to the Public Service and to the State Services, two MPs repeatedly referred to the civil service.  One spoke of a career as a public servant then strayed into using civil service parlance. The contributions of another long serving former Minister and prominent Member were peppered with references to the civil service.

The Select Committee was similarly inaccurate in its use of language when reporting on the Bill.  The Committee noted when explaining a new ability of chief executives to delegate roles and functions to non Public Servants, that “…We recommend amending this provision to require the delegate also to comply with the public servants’ code of conduct.”  The code of course was applied by the State Services Commissioner to agencies of the State Services – which include not only Public Service, Non Public Service  and Parliamentary departments, but Officers of Parliament, as well as most Crown Entities and their subsidiaries, and some other (5th Schedule”) agencies.

www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/Daily/2/b/d/50HansD_20121128-Volume-686-Week-29-Wednesday-28-November-2012.htm

www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/DC828B85-8FD7-4D92-947F-36267AE5E69D/271235/DBSCH_SCR_5855_StateSectorandPublicFinanceReformBi.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84BMKUL2sTA

Uncategorized

, ,

June 27, 2013

Leave a comment

New OECD push for lobbying controls

26 June 2013

New Zealand has never shared the enthusiasm throughout the rest of the OECD for constraining lobbying and lobbyists.  Two years ago member states were expected to commit to regulating the lobbying industry. Most made some attempt.  New Zealand showed no interest.  The Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying gained no traction, and have no “existence” here.

Even the Greens’ Lobbying Disclosure Bill , due for report back from Select Committee in July, has little relationship to the Principles.  And the Bill’s future may be limited, with many of the 105 submissions, including that from the Office of the Clerk, being very critical.

This week the OECD is having another attempt to raise awareness and generate renewed enthusiasm for regulation to moderate the effect lobbying. The rationale remains that lobbying can pervert public decision-making through undue influence, incur high financial cost and undermine citizens’ confidence in their governments.

Advocates for enhanced measures point to the global crisis as a consequence of inadequate protection of the public interest and the need for open, balanced and informed public decision-making processes. The “How to Win Back Trust”  forum taking place in Paris will consider challenges in designing and implementing cost effective compliance systems. The search is for practical ways to improve transparency and integrity in lobbying for the benefit of all. One of the sessions explores Open Government as a constraint on improper lobbying.

It may be significant that the annual report last week on  Open Government in New Zealand had no reference to lobbying – and the MFAT website has no reference to the OECD Forum this week – in fact the OECD page on the MFAT website has not been updated for nine months.

 

 www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/Lobbying-Forum-Agenda.pdf www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/004D2123-F995-46A1-9CFC-56D3AD81DD24/247708/50SCGA_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL11278_1_A281807_ClerkoftheH.pdf www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/OECD/index.php https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2011/02/25/oecd-drives-transparency-in-lobbying/

Uncategorized

, , ,

June 26, 2013

Leave a comment

New Zealand still going solo on open government

25 June 2013

New Zealand is navigating an independent course to open government.  The Minister of Internal Affairs made no reference to New Zealand playing a part in the Open Government Partnership or committing to the Open Government Declaration last week when announcing the results of the second annual report on adoption by Departments of the New Zealand Open and Transparent Government declaration.

Comparable countries seem to be aligning with the OGP – with Iceland and Australia having both sought admission in the last two months -raising the membership to nearly 60 countries although in the same period Russia has suspended its membership.

New Zealand would be unlikely to face any difficulty in complying with OGP requirements – which emphasise civil society participation in identifying useful data for including in national action plans; the stretch needed in plans to achieve new and different advantages from data publication; and the relevance test determined through an independent review mechanism process. The rationale for Australian membership of the OGP seems to be related to fulfilling a leadership role in the region.

The Minister disclosed progress made over the past year by Departments. The survey suggests that 10 Departments are now compliant with the declaration, with a further 16 planning to be compliant next year.  However the report that high value public data is being released seems to be challenged by remarks posted to the NZ Government On-Line Groups discussion thread. One contributor claims that data posted by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment falls short of the aspiration, despite the Ministry having been highly rated for its compliance with the Open and Transparent Government declaration.

The following Table extracted from the survey shows that the committed adopters are publishing over 400% more relevant data than the cautious agencies like NZDF, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the Department of Corrections.Comparison of Departmental Adoption of the Declaration

http://groups.open.org.nz/groups/ninja-talk/messages/topic/7qgfI2xcVhIGUxswVPZK4x

http://ict.govt.nz/programmes/open-and-transparent-government/declaration-open-and-transparent-government/2013-report-adoption-declaration-0/

http://blog.opengovpartnership.org/2013/06/ogp-rules-of-the-game/

Uncategorized

, ,

June 25, 2013

Leave a comment

Will Australian protected disclosure law be more effective than NZs?

24 June 2013

The Public Interest Disclosure Bill passed in the Australian federal House of Representatives last week.  This reflects endeavours over five years – although bill itself was only introduced to Parliament in March this year. Despite its political sensitivities the Bill seems to have Senate support and despite many opposition proposals for change (one being successful) and 73 Government amendments, it passed through the House of Representatives within three months.

The purpose of the Act is similar to New Zealand’s Protected Disclosures Act, with a similar process for disclosures to be made to the agency or other specified authorities.  The range of conduct which constitutes “disclosable conduct” is broader than in the New Zealand Act, for example specifying wrongdoing such as the abuse of public trust and scientific misconduct in the reporting of research.

A substantial variation from the New Zealand model is allowing a public interest disclosure to be made to the media in some circumstances. The information disclosed must be no more than is reasonably necessary in the public interest (which seems to invite interminable litigation). A number of Government amendments reframe the distinction between internal and external disclosures   A Green party amendment included in the Act is that wrongdoing that increases the risk of danger to the environment is an external disclosure that can be disclosed to the media.

The Act makes clear that information is not disclosable if it relates only to government policy, or action taken by a Minister.

A topical feature is that intelligence agencies are covered by the legislation so that a staff may disclose unlawful conduct – but not outside of Government.  What is lawful will be for the Inspector General of Intelligence to decide.

The New Zealand experience is that few protected disclosures seem to relate to matters of substance, often being associated with personal grievance issues. The apparent absence of protected disclosures relating to recent high profile incidents including agencies mishandling personal information, Novopay, GCSB etc suggests that the Protected Disclosures Act is not seen by public servants as a realistic tool.  That may flow from uncertainty about the effectiveness of protection.

The Australian legislation gives a focus to protection  The Bill, as introduced, included a six month imprisonment penalty for breaching immunity provisions.  Last week’s amendments included increasing that penalty to two years imprisonment. This may give sufficient confidence to officials to disclose wrongdoing in government. Where an official who has made a disclosure brings an unsuccessful Court action for a breach of their protection rights, the Court cannot make an order that they pay the defending party’s costs unless the court is satisfied their claim was vexatious or that they acted unreasonably, and the other party was forced to incur costs.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5027

Uncategorized

, ,

June 24, 2013

Leave a comment

Civil servants can be no better than their Ministers?

21 June 2013

The UK civil service may be adapting some New Zealand public service structures to improve accountability arrangements, but leadership failings in Britain identified by the National Audit Office are unlikely to find ready solutions in New Zealand governance practices.

The NAO considers that Ministers are not getting the “skilled, unified, open and accountable” service they expect. It has found that “there are significant skills shortages, particularly in the areas of commerce, project management, digital delivery and change leadership….” Only four out of 15 Permanent Secretaries at major delivery departments had significant operational delivery and commercial experience. The story behind the report is not comforting reading.

It implicitly criticises the heads of the civil service over the last 20 years of making what a Guardian Professional Leaders’ article calls “some pretty duff decisions” which may help to explain the NAO’s repeated findings of ineffectiveness and inefficiency.  Many civil servants apparently have similar views about their leaders. The report incorporates annual effectiveness survey statistics for the period 2009 -2012.  Although the most recent survey has the best ratings, only 39% have confidence in decisions made by senior managers and only 29% consider change in their department to be well managed.

Perhaps the Guardian article expresses the reality of the NAO report. It suggests some of the most obvious reasons for serial underperformance in civil service management, cultural deformation and the persistence of unskilled generalism at the top of Whitehall can be found with the influence of Ministers, parliamentary positioning and “the messy interaction between political necessity and administrative logic”.

“The senior civil service isn’t some hulking reactionary beast fighting off Ministers avid to cleanse and modernise. Roles are shaped and maintained – especially those around policy and political management – because they are what Ministers want. Departmentalism …  a source of cost and inefficiency, isn’t a bureaucratic trick: it results from political ambition and the democratic necessity of checking and balancing Prime Ministers and Chancellors.”

“And what the NAO can never speak about, because convention forbids any mention of ideology or political values, is the effect on the system of Ministers’ prejudices and partisan commitments. Morale at the top of Whitehall is low .. because the Cameron government not only wants to shrink the state, but publicly despises much of what civil servants hold dear.”

There is no comment by the NAO about the contribution of Ministers. The Guardian article notes that “unless and until we look at Ministers, their practices and ideologies, we are potentially left blaming the senior civil service for doing what the political system requires of it.”

www.nao.org.uk/report/building-capability-in-the-senior-civil-service-to-meet-todays-challenges-2/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2013/jun/21/nao-capability-inquiry-civil-service

Uncategorized

, , ,

June 22, 2013

Leave a comment

Strengthening a values-based culture in the Australian Public Service

20 June 2013

New values and culture statements for the Australian Public Service were launched this week.  The values, with an acronym of I CARE are about being

Impartial :  The APS is apolitical and provides the Government with advice that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence.

Committed to Service:  The APS is professional, objective, innovative and efficient, and works collaboratively to achieve the best results for the Australian community and the Government.

Accountable:  The APS is open and accountable to the Australian community under the law and within the framework of Ministerial responsibility.

Respectful:  The APS respects all people, including their rights and their heritage.

Ethical:  The APS demonstrates leadership, is trustworthy, and acts with integrity, in all that it does.

The Australian Public Service Commission has developed a model for strengthening a culture based on these values. The model involves organisational building blocks reflecting commitment, leadership, management systems and assurance. It is designated as “a plan for integrating the APS Values into the way we work”.

The language and purpose of these building blocks have much in common with the “6 Trust Elements” promoted by the State Services Commissioner as essential for strengthening public trust in Government.

Strengthening a values-based culture: A plan for integrating the APS Values into the way we work

    Integrating the APS Values into the way we work  
The building blocks for a Values based culture What this means for the APS What this means for the agency
Commitment 1.The APS Values are the basis for the way we do business.
  1. The agency’s strategic plan and operational/business plans reflect the APS Values.
  2. Agency communications with employees support and reinforce the APS Values.
  3. On-boarding and other learning and development activities incorporate ‘how to live’ the APS Values, including how to make good values-based decisions.
Leadership 2. Leaders integrate the Values into their agency’s decision-making processes and culture and consistently reflect the Values in their own behaviour.
  1. Leaders take a stewardship role and build the APS Values into the governance practices of their agency and wider APS.
  2. Leaders build a culture of trust with employees and agency stakeholders and clients.
  3. Leaders model the APS Values, have the highest standards of behaviour and take sound, reliable, fair and ethical decisions.
  4. Leaders coach and guide others to take sound, reliable, fair and ethical decisions.
  5. Leaders make clear that conduct consistent with the APS Values is expected and deal appropriately and effectively with unacceptable behaviour.
  6. Leaders guide employees in understanding the relevance of the APS Values to their day-to-day work.
Management Systems 3. The APS Values are integrated into day-to-day operations.
  1. Management practices support values–based decision making. The APS Values are reflected in management policies and procedures, including employment policies.
  2. Where judgement is required in decision making, guidance material appropriately reflects the APS Values.
  3. Performance Management Frameworks take into account the way in which employees uphold the APS Values, recognising that the Values provide the basis for how organisational goals are achieved, and the importance of appropriate behaviours in the workplace.
  4. Reward and recognition schemes reinforce and promote values-based behaviour.
Assurance 4. Mechanisms are in place to provide confidence that decisions and actions in the APS are based on the APS Values.
  1. The integration of the APS Values into the agency is constantly assessed, including through staff and client surveys, and lessons learnt are applied.
  2. Areas of risk in upholding the APS Values are identified, evaluated and managed.
  3. Unacceptable behaviour is addressed. Suspected breaches of the APS Code of Conduct are managed in a fair, timely and systematic way.
  4. Employees know how to report misconduct and are confident in doing so. Employees are aware of the statutory review of action scheme.
  5. Employees are aware of the Ethics Advisory Service and agency support processes.
  6. Internal control systems, such as internal audit and fraud control, work effectively to identify behaviour inconsistent with the APS Values.
  7. Decision-making processes are transparent and open to appropriate scrutiny, supported by appropriate record-keeping processes.

www.apsc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/17836/APS-Values-and-code-of-conduct-page-2.pdf

www.ssc.govt.nz/node/5390

Uncategorized

, ,

June 20, 2013

Leave a comment

US Supreme Court paid poorly by NZ comparision

19 June 2913

The Center for Public Integrity has commented on the wealth of United States Supreme Court judges as disclosed in their recent financial disclosures, feigning surprise that the majority are millionnaires. As the disclosure requirement excludes reporting the value of their homes,  calculations of judges “net worth” must be inaccurate.

The pecking order is reported as follows:

(1)  Justice Ginsburg appears to have the highest net worth at $18.1 million

(2)  Justice Breyer is second at $17.1 million.

(3)  Justice Sotomayor is ranked third with her $10.3 million enhanced with book royalties.

(4) Chief Justice Roberts has a net worth up to $6.6 million, ranking him fourth..

The others are assessed to have a worth of between $4.2 million (Justice Scalia) and $330,000 (Justice Kennedy)

The US Supreme Court pays moderately – with the Chief Justice’s salary of US$223,000 and associate Justices earning US$213,900. They are able to enhance that with speaking engagements and writing.  By comparison the salary of the New Zealand Chief Justice is NZ$471,000 and the other Supreme Court Judges earn NZ$442,500.

United States Supreme Court judges have the same remuneration whether they are working or choose to retire. New Zealand has a defined benefit superannuation scheme with the Crown’s annual contribution of up to 33.75% of a judge’s salary.

www.publicintegrity.org/2013/06/14/12827/majority-supreme-court-members-millionaires

www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2012/0424/latest/DLM4940708.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_judge_salaries_in_the_United_States

Uncategorized

,

June 19, 2013

Leave a comment

“Hard pounding this, gentlemen; let’s see who will pound longest” Wellington at Waterloo

18 June 2013 

Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo and my birthday – and the day in 1976 of my commissioning as a Gordon Highlander from Sandhurst (and why you might ask was a New Zealander doing that!)

As a consequence I look for something significant to mark the day.

How about this beginning to an article in today’s  New York Times –  relevant for its Napoleonic connection but only tangentially with  Waterloo and today’s date.

“David Green, the director of Britain’s Serious Fraud Office, is in a combative mood. On his desk at his office, a stone’s throw from Trafalgar Square in London, sits a souvenir plaque commemorating the signal that Admiral Horatio Nelson sent to his fleet on the eve of the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. It says, “England expects that every man will do his duty.”

The column that follows explains how the SFO director will do his duty by undoing those involved in rigging the London interbank offered rate (Libor ) through criminal prosecutions.  The intention is to bite, not bark as predecessor SFO directors are alleged to have done.

Earlier this month he said that “…I am in the business of doing justice and restoring public confidence in the rule of law. The public need to have confidence that white-collar criminals are dealt with as criminals, that they are not given some special rosy path with a cop-out sentence at the end of the day…”

Doing his duty apparently is “…to revive confidence in his office as a top-tier prosecutor of serious fraud and corruption.”  The Libor case will be the biggest ever attempted by Britain’s SFO.

And to complete the cycle, my spouse’s birthday is on the anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/britains-top-fraud-prosecutor-aims-to-add-bite-to-its-bark/

Uncategorized

, , ,

June 18, 2013

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «