Singapore to strengthen expertise across government

30 May 2013

Lee Kuan Yew, for 21 years  was Singapore’s Prime Minister. In 1990, he stepped aside and for the next ten years as a Senior Minister, mentored politicians selected to preserve the variant on democracy which he had created in Singapore.  He was adamant that North-Western European  style politics would not deliver the security and prosperity Singapore needed.  Soon after stepping down he commented  that, with few exceptions, “…democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries…What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or Europeans value. Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural background, my values are for a government which is honest, effective and efficient…”

Singapore has continued to constrain liberty while championing honest, effective and efficient government. This is reflected in the World Bank World-wide Governance Indicators, where Singapore rates in the 90th percentile on five of the six indicators, placing it among the top 10 countries, but only scores on the 50th percentile for “voice and accountability”.

Singapore was ranked 5th in the 2012 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index.

The enthusiasm for good government will be strengthened with developments announced this week.  A new Public Service Training programme will create a cadre of 500 expert leaders trained for senior positions in economy building, infrastructure and environment, security, social affairs and central administration. The aim is to deepen “… governance capabilities, perspectives and expertise…”

The intention is that sector experts will produce specialist leaders who will then train colleagues throughout Government.  An interesting aspect of the programme is that the curriculum and learning materials will be available, on line, to all public sector employees. Special tuition will be for a selected elite, but all employees will be able to follow the course.

www.igovernment.in/node/44878

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/sc_country.asp

Uncategorized

, ,

May 30, 2013

Leave a comment

BBC wastes “huge amount of money” on scrapped IT – Would Gateway make a difference?

27 May 2013

Last week State Services Commission published an update on the Gateway Review Process. This is the methodology intended to provide assurance to Government that agencies are managing high risk projects successfully. Project failures have a marked impact on public trust and confidence in government. Reactions to Novopay inadequacies make that clear.

The process description is as follows: “…Gateway reviews are conducted by independent experts (private and public sector). At each ‘gate’ the project or programme owner requests a review. SSC sends in a hand-picked team of reviewers to provide peer review support to the project team. The review team spends a week interviewing all major stakeholders and analysing available documentation. At the end of the week they write a short report with recommendations for the project owner.” It costs $75,000 for each review.

A Gateway Bulletin a year ago indicated that 52 projects had been reviewed for 25 agencies.  There is no indication of the extent to which any stages of the Novopay scheme for SBOT employees (which began before SSC introduced the Gateway review process) may have been reviewed

What is intriguing is that the methodology was developed in 2001 by the UK Office of Government Commerce and refined by both the Victorian State and Australian Federal governments before adapted for State Services use in 2007.  But just this week a major UK project has been abandoned – suggesting that relying on a Gateway review may be unwise (assuming there was a Gateway type review.)

The BBC has abandoned an IT project designed to make archived material readily available for news screening.  The Digital Media Initiative, apparently known within the BBC as the “axis of awful” reflects the well-trodden path of failed IT projects. An over ambitious scheme was talked up by the provider (in this case Siemens, who were then given the job without an open tender). Siemens were dropped from the $150 million contract after several unproductive years of development. The job was then managed in-house by the BBC chief of technology (who spent a further $50 million without producing the intended outcome (meanwhile earning a substantial bonus despite the BBC board having directed that the Corporation would no longer pay bonuses).

The findings of investigations by PriceWaterhouse and the National Audit Office are unlikely to compliment the BBC on its project management!

The project seems to have the characteristics of most IT developments.  They are innovative, expensive, and leading edge, but produce nothing until the project is completed. Implementation problems mean that unless additional funding is committed there is no result.  As too often occurs, IT project sponsors must then decide whether problems indicate something fundamental. Will spending more provide the solution, or will it be a matter of throwing good money after bad?

An observation by the BBC Operations Director now closing down the project seems somewhat naïve; “…The lesson isn’t that the BBC shouldn’t be bold and ambitious in charting new territory. The lesson is that we must put in place the right steps to ensure our major infrastructure projects deliver…”

That is what a Gateway review is intended to achieve.

 

www.ssc.govt.nz/gateway

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22651126

www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/The-BBC-announces-the-closure-of-the-Digital-Media-Initiative-DMI

Uncategorized

, ,

May 27, 2013

Leave a comment

Unhapppy employees are susceptible to fraud – EY fraud survey 2013

24 May 2013

Hard times make for more fraud.  That seems to be the conclusion of the Ernst & Young 2013 Fraud Report. Respondents from 36 countries suggest that tighter pay and fewer perks result in opportunism and deteriorating business ethics. Pressure to perform is leading to dubious practices. Employees will do anything “from fudging the numbers to bribing officials and clients…”

These pressures, possibly to be expected in the “spluttering” markets of the developed world, seem to be having a similar effect in the rapidly growing Asian marketplace. The survey results suggest that a demand for growth while reducing pay and rewards seems to produce fraud, bribery and corruption.

Not surprisingly, the report is short on specifics; what tips the balance and how can businesses work out when standards are slipping?  A conclusion however is that senior managers’ have a quite different perception of what is going on in their organisation and how corruption is dealt with, than their employees.

“…Senior staff are considerably more likely to think the company has clear policies, training and sanctions for corruption than their subordinates do—which might mean they’re a little too trusting that such safeguards will catch things before they get out of hand…”

Responses in the State Services integrity survey in 2010 indicated some similarity with the pattern in this Figure – that managers had a more rosy view of the effectiveness of agency integrity policies and the effectiveness of implementation than other employee groups. Contrastingly employees felt their immediate managers were more effective in communicating the importance of integrity than senior managers and much more effective than middle management. And yet they were more likely to respond that middle managers set a better example of integrity and their senior managers.

www.ey.com/GL/en/Services/Assurance/Fraud-Investigation—Dispute-Services/Global-Fraud-Survey—a-place-for-integrity

www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Integrity-and-Conduct-Survey-2010-full-report.pdf

Uncategorized

, , ,

May 25, 2013

Leave a comment

Will joining the Open Government Partnership make Australian more open?

22 May 2013

Good intentions seem to have prevailed as the Australian Government today indicated that it will join the Open Government Partnership and sign up to the Open Government Declaration.   So persistent has been the advocacy by Open and Shut – a privacy blog – that one could wonder if the commitment is a way to silence a critic.

The announcement highlights the contribution Australia can make to supporting the international open government movement and help spread the values of transparency and accountability in the region. The strength of the OGP is that member states are required to develop a national action plan, comprising genuine transparency measures, which is monitored by another member.  That’s the obligation.  The reality may be considerably less. Is participation of the civil society of member states to champion genuine openness when Governments may be more inclined to cosmetic changes a similarly frustrated aspiration?

Ireland has also indicated an intention to seek membership.  However Russia has now decided to pull out.  And perhaps this is the point where the enthusiasm engendered in 2012 runs down and the OGP becomes the very movement that it avowed never to be – just another international NGO.

Membership so far is in three tranches:

– the founding eight:  Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States

– the early adopters:  Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Domincan Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Romania, Slovak Republic, Spain, South Korea, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay

–and those possibly manoeuvred into membership by the founding eight:  Argentina, Costa Rica, Finland, Ghana, Hungary, Liberia, Mongolia, Panama, Serbia, Trinidad and Tobago

The OGP has eligibility criteria which precludes wholly undemocratic states from membership.  That distinguishes it from other aspirational arrangements, like the UN Convention Against Corruption, to which almost all countries rated poorly in the Corruption Perceptions Index have acceded.

New Zealand remains one of a small number of states outside both the UNCAC and the OGP ( some companions include Japan and Germany  – but also Syria and Sudan! )

http://foi-privacy.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/hallelujahaustralia-to-join-open.html#.UZym1rWnpRU

http://www.opengovpartnership.org/eligibility

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2012/07/20/is-the-open-government-partnership-relevant-to-new-zealand/

Uncategorized

, , ,

May 23, 2013

Leave a comment

A gathering of ethical lawyers

21 May 2013

With ethics, as in most things, there can be a difference between theory and practice.

The Wellington Branch of the Law Society held a panel discussion on professional ethics tonight.   Sir David Gascoigne, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, led the panel.  Talking about ethics seems to be both attractive and topical. When the event was promoted, over 120 members of the profession indicated a wish to attend. The first 80 who could be accommodated were asked yesterday to confirm that they would attend – or to advise otherwise so those on the waiting list could take their place.  In the event only 55 turned up.

The “no show” numbers seem common to other professional gatherings.  The Institute of Public Administration  (New Zealand ) finds that members are quick to indicate an enthusiasm for attending presentations, but, with regularity, 30% prove to have other priorities on the day.

Participation tonight may suggest that the problem doesn’t reflect the organisation,  venue, time or topic.  The Society made the arrangements, the venue was in a large commercial practice, the time was early evening to fit with business and personal commitments, and post event refreshments were on offer. It seems reasonable to infer that lawyers professing an interest in ethics would be predisposed to values – to behaving with integrity – and would be ethical in fulfilling their commitments or, as requested, advise if they were unable to do so.

Integrity, according to Harvard academics  Werner Erhard and Michael Jensen, means keeping your word – doing what you say you will do and what you profess to be – and ensuring that you tell people when you are unable to keep your word, or to behave as you have indicated you will.  If typical of their kind, tonight’s 30% “no shows”  may suggest that a number of Wellington’s lawyers lack integrity. That group may be unfortunate in having missed the opportunity to talk about ethics.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/11/09/michael-jensens-and-werner-erhards-talk-on-integrity/

www.wernererhard.com/integrity_paper.html

Uncategorized

, , ,

May 21, 2013

Leave a comment

OK to be less compassionate and less trustworthy, but not to be most arrogant?

20 May 2013

During Budget week the media seems to give more than usual air time to politicians to express their policies, preferences and prejudices. Politicians perhaps more than most of us, consider they have the best insight on the way the world should be. Few public perception surveys would give any credence to that belief, politicians ranking among the most poorly rated occupational groups. On a world stage however one hopes that they all assertively champion our national interest ( whatever they may be). Politicians must always be conscious of how their constituency sees them…. As elections have characteristics of a popularity contest.  But does it really make any difference how we are seen in the eyes of others?

A Pew Survey published last week explored a range of attitudes within the European Union. One interesting but probably trivial assessment was of perceived national characteristics.  The survey shows that Germany is recognised as being the most trustworthy nation in the EU – except by the Greeks,  but also seen by many as the most arrogant and least compassionate.

Those surveyed seem prepared to concede that they may be less trustworthy and less compassionate that other Europeans, but it appears that only the Italians are willing to acknowledge that another national group may be less arrogant than themselves.

2013-EU-12

www.pewglobal.org/2013/05/13/the-new-sick-man-of-europe-the-european-union/

Uncategorized

, , ,

May 20, 2013

Leave a comment

Deloitte certain about need for surveying integrity standards

18 May 2013

The comment in the State Services Commission 2013-2014 statement of intent, that it is “looking at undertaking a survey” in 2013-2014 as a measure of the trustworthiness of agencies and their staff, was published at the same time as Deloitte issued a risk and compliance guideline about the criticality of integrity to an organization (The Deloitte Governance Framework: Framing the Future of Corporate Governance).

“A commitment to … integrity is widely recognised as a “must have” in organisations, yet many people and organizations struggle to put this ideal into practice.” The need is for “… a corporate culture of integrity and ethics, coupled with corporate, environmental and social responsibility…. to build trust and long-term relationships with shareholders, customers, regulators and employees.”

Deloitte regards integrity as so central to business success that organisations should have an individual conversation about their code each year with each employee, manager and director. There must be an expectation that staff, from the time they join an organisation, understand integrity standards and the consequences of any breaches. The recommendation is that staff at all levels affirm in writing that they understand their organisation’s code, are fully compliant and that they are committed to reporting misconduct. Highly effective organisations evaluate and compensate managers who actively promote and model integrity and enforce those standards.

Deloitte identifies systems for measuring compliance, including

  • conducting cultural and ethical surveys and evaluating employee responses
  • reviewing reports to the ethics hotline, whistleblower reports and trend analyses
  • benchmarking against peer, industry, country and corruption indices
  • conducting quality surveys and evaluating employee responses
  • monitoring and evaluating public scrutiny from the media, shareholders, customers and external watchdog agencies

These seem to reflect the more comprehensive evaluation measures of integrity that the Auditor General has specified in the OAG statement of intent, rather than the SSC proposal to use just the Kiwis Count survey and possibly a survey of integrity breaches observed by State Servants.

Deloitte reports that 46% of public company respondents in the United States survey staff regularly. The results indicate how effective the “tone at the top” is being disseminated throughout the organisation – and more directly whether there is modelling by senior managers.

http://deloitte.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2013/05/17/integrity-in-the-boardroom-what-does-it-really-mean/?mod=wsjrc_hp_deloitte

Uncategorized

, , ,

May 18, 2013

Leave a comment

Integrity programme confirmed by SSC as critical to all its work.

17 May 2013

The State Services Commission statement of intent published yesterday in conjunction with the Budget lists its operating intentions.  These will focus on four activities;

  • Leading the System
  • Delivering Performance Excellence
  •  Building System Capability,  and
  • Strengthening Trust and Integrity

The Commission notes that “maintaining high standards is integral to ensuring the State Services are trusted by government and the public…Institutional integrity, a corruption-free bureaucracy and high-quality government institutions create a stable platform for business investment and economic growth… the Integrity … programme is a critical underpinning for all of our work across the State sector…”

SSC indicates that it will measure the effectiveness of its promotion of integrity across the State Services through results collated from the Kiwis Count survey, and in what is a proposal without any commitment, a further State Services Integrity Survey. Such a survey would add to data sets provided by the 2007 and the 2010 surveys. It is interesting to speculate on how likely it is that this survey will be take place.  The wording in the SOI is that “SSC is looking at undertaking a survey…”

There seems to be a worryingly lack of determination in the SSC mission to make a difference in the quality of integrity across the sector.  The target for the Kiwis Count measure of public trust is “at least 70%” of respondents agree that “…you can trust public servants to do what is right.”  But the standard last year was 74%. This suggests that a report at the year’s end could show that the standard of 70% had been exceeded, but having lowered the bar, it need not indicate that integrity standards may well be falling.

Is there an irony here about trusting public servants to do the right thing?

http://ssc.govt.nz/node/8876

Uncategorized

, , ,

May 17, 2013

Leave a comment

“New Zealand – a country that works”

8 May 2013

The New Zealand chapter of Transparency International today released the first wave of its findings to update the 2003 National Integrity Survey.  Work has been underway since the beginning of the year on an expanded version of the NIS template upon which most jurisdictions have been assessed.  TINZ refers to “…moving well beyond the classical NIS with a much more comprehensive and prescriptive approach than ever before…” with what it calls “Integrity Plus NIS” (yet the classical pillared Greek temple provides the model rather than the tangled birds nest advocated by some at Griffith University.)

The findings should give credence to the low levels of public sector corruption in New Zealand reported every year since the Corruption Perceptions Index was established.

A summary of the work to date is referenced on the TINZ website and set out in the chapter’s May newsletter. The NIS model involves the pillars of good government.   Research into the makeup of each of these pillars and the support they give to system integrity is to be released in batches over the next few months.

The release of emergent findings today was an opportunity to recognise the contribution of the late Jeremy Pope both to the creation of Transparency International and to formulating the NIS as a model for consistency in the evaluation of national institutions upon which system integrity depends. Today’s release is also another marker of the centenary of the Public Service Act coming into force in April 1913, and a commemoration of the contribution which an integrity-rich public administration has made to the quality of life in New Zealand.

Today’s release covered the pillars relating to

  • Judiciary
  • Electoral Management
  • Ombudsman
  • Supreme Audit Institution, OAG
  • Media
  • Public Sector Components:
    • Fiscal Transparency
    • Environmental Governance
    • Procurement

The TINZ May newsletter sets out three or four findings about each of these elements. Although none is surprising, the value of the findings lies in the comprehensive research from which they are derived.

Sir Anand Satyanand in chairing the presentation today referred to Kofi Annan, after a visit to New Zealand as the UN Secretary General, declaring that it was “… a country that works…”

http://transparency.org.nz/index.php/indices-reports/new-zealand/parliamentary-submissions/doc_view/182-transparency-times-may-2013

http://transparency.org.nz/

http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/4158/32116_1.pdf?sequence=1

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2012/08/31/integrity-is-more-than-just-measuring-corruption-the-passing-of-jeremy-pope/

Uncategorized

, , , ,

May 8, 2013

Leave a comment

Queensland imposes more transparency on lobbyists

7 May 2013

New obligations on lobbyists came into force in Queensland last week.  They flow from a 2012 amendment to the Right to Information and Integrity Act,

Not only are Ministers and Departments required to disclose contacts made by lobbyists and any document disclosed to the lobbyist but the State’s lobbyists code of conduct now includes requirement that lobbyists also record and declare their contacts with both Ministers and opposition MPs.

The code changes were planned for 1 April but procedural issues delayed the commencement date.

The enthusiasm in most western democracies for transparency obligations on both lobbyists and the lobbied continues to pass New Zealand by.  Engendering public interest in the current Constitution Review seems to be an uphill struggle.  Few seem interested in constraining what may be generally accepted as the way politicians go about their business. In New Zealand, lobbying does not appear to have the undesirable connotation it has elsewhere.

The new Queensland definition of lobbying activity is;

(a) contact with a government representative in an effort to influence State or local government decision-making, including—

(i) the making or amendment of legislation; and

(ii) the development or amendment of a government policy or program; and

(iii) the awarding of a government contract or grant; and

(iv) the allocation of funding; and

(v) the making of a decision about planning or giving of a development approval under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009; or

(b) contact with an Opposition representative in an effort to influence the Opposition’s decision-making, including—

(i) the making or amendment of legislation; and

(ii) the development or amendment of a policy or program of the Opposition; and

(iii) the Opposition’s position or view in relation to State or local government decision-making, including, for example, the matters mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) to (v).

www.integrity.qld.gov.au/page/tools/whats-new.shtml

www.integrity.qld.gov.au/page/lobbyists/code-of-conduct.shtml

Uncategorized

, , ,

May 7, 2013

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «