New Aussie rules for public service

8 February 2013

The Australian Parliament passed the Public Service Amendment Act yesterday. There are some aspects in common with the changes that will be made to the Federal Public Service and the proposals in the State Sector and Public Finance Amendment Bill to improve aspects of the New Zealand Public Service. (Public submissions on that Bill closed yesterday.)

On a commencement date yet to be announced, the Australian legislation will;
• revise governance arrangements for Australian Public Service leadership, and strengthen the independence of Secretaries
• provide a clearer, shorter statement of the Australian Public Service Values
• state more clearly the role of the Australian Public Service Commissioner as a central authority for the development and stewardship of the Australian Public Service
• amend the Merit Protection Commissioner’s review functions, the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct and the handling of misconduct, and
• improve aspects of the Public Service Act to address a number of operational matters that have arisen since the last major changes in 1999.

The Australian legislation has a focus on culture. The Values, Code of Conduct, and the Employment Principles are codified through the new law. By comparison, the New Zealand proposals have an outcome focus, facilitating Better Public Services and cooperation across government. Several expressions for example “stewardship” find their way into the amending legislation in both countries.

In what is a memorable (but corny?) acronym the Australians now list their five values (reduced from 15) as ICARE – Impartial, Committed to service, Accountable, Respectful, Ethical. But, perhaps something to do with being Australian, the actual order in the statute is CEARI.

The four headings under which the 18 standards of integrity and conduct for the New Zealand State Services are grouped seem to have been largely forgotten (and no revitalisation is evident in the amending legislation). They were deliberately not referred to as values to avoid any confusion with Department-specific values already in place in much of the Public Service. Interestingly a short-lived notion when the code was being developed in 2006 was to have an acronym Integrity FIRST – reflecting the obligations to be Fair, Impartial, Responsible, Selfless and Trustworthy. However the then State Services Commissioner considered this to be more crass than clever. Selfless was dropped and the standards were grouped about being Fair, Impartial Responsible and Trustworthy.

The Employment Principles restate that the Australian Public Service is an impartial, fair, diverse, merit based, career service.

www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/current-circulars-and-advices/2013/circular-20132

www.apsc.gov.au/aps-reform/leadership-and-strategic-direction/ps-act-amendment/information-for-employees

Uncategorized

, , ,

February 8, 2013

Leave a comment

Are NZ public servants more responsive than UK civil servants?

7 February 2013

“How to be a civil servant” published at www.civilservant.org.uk comprehensively packages information about the British civil service, including material on its history, role, responsibilities, and relationships with the EU and Parliament. It has recent articles on civil service reform.

A new post this week asks “Is New Zealand’s approach better?” It compares and contrasts the effectiveness of Minister / Chief Executive relationships in New Zealand with the equivalent Minister / Permanent Secretary relationship in the United Kingdom.

It concludes that New Zealand chief executives are more responsive to Ministers’ ideas and beliefs. By contrast, their British counterparts appear “… slow, cautious, uncommitted and sometimes downright obstructive…” It comes down to a choice between New Zealand’s exciting free market Ministerial ideas, and the United Kingdom’s rather dull and risk-averse approach…”

www.civilservant.org.uk/nz.pdf

Uncategorized

, ,

February 7, 2013

Leave a comment

Building a treaty on idealism

6 February 2013 Waitangi Day

New Zealand’s “national day” too often seems to be an occasion when people are polarized by their opinions on how best to resolve the consequences of colonization. How should we address the interests of people descended from the tangata whenua before European migation (and the questionable land sales, confiscations, conquests, assimilation, intermarriage, and disadvantage that followed).

The official aspirations for settlement in New Zealand were short lived. The motivations of the Melbourne government when selecting and instructing the founding officials for the new colony were not sustained after 1841 when Tories led by Peel became the government.

The liberal idealism shared by the cabal appointed to administer the founding colony – Hobson (Lieut Governor, Martin (Chief Justice), Swainson (Attorney General), Outhwaite (Registrar ), Shortland (Colonial Secretary), and Selwyn ( Bishop) – reflected the expectations of Lord Normanby, the Secretary for the Colonies (ironically also Secretary for War) set out in Captain Hobson’s Instructions.

The Instructions run to numerous pages. They begin by recognising the national advantage to the Great Britain of colonization but that there were higher motives that constrained such an enterprise. Hobson’s task was to ensure those higher motives were not abused.

An example of those expectations is the following extract:

All dealings with the natives for their lands must be conducted on the same principles of sincerity, justice and good faith as must govern your transactions with them for the recognition of Her Majesty’s sovereignty in the Islands. Nor is that all: they must not be permitted to enter into any contracts in which they might be ignorant and unintentional authors of injuries to themselves. You will not, for example, purchase from them any territory the retention of which by them would be essential or highly conducive to their own comfort, safety, or subsistence. The acquisition of land by the Crown for the future settlement of British subjects must be confined to such districts as the natives can alienate without distress or serious inconvenience to themselves. To secure the observance of this – will be one of the first duties of their Official Protector.

Soon after giving Hobson his instructions, Lord Normanby moved to the role of Home Secretary. Lord Russell took over as Secretary for the Colonies, and in 1841 he in turn was replaced by Lord Stanley as secretary, when Melbourne was succeeded by Peel as Prime Minister.

The success of colonial interests in having Shortland removed as acting governor after the death of Hobson shows how the “higher motives” of the Whigs degraded as the interests of the colonists – and the New Zealand company – gained traction with the Tory administration.

The idealism which created the environment and made possible the unique characteristics of the Treaty of Waitangi, was lost thereafter.

And the players- Normanby is a Taranaki town (population 820). Russell in the Bay of islands has a similar population (although the original Russell designated to be the capital has reverted to its original name of Okiato and is unpopulated). Stanley gave his name to the Falkland Islands capital (population of 2000). Peel wasn’t adopted as a place name except for a Canterbury forest and several streets. Lord Melbourne is the only politician in the Treaty story to have a substantial geographic marker.

www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/LordNormanbysBrief.html

Uncategorized

, , ,

February 6, 2013

Leave a comment

Must agencies always act with integrity?

5 February 2013

The Guardian scoop yesterday was about the use of the identities of dead children by British undercover police officers in the 1990s. The Metropolitan Police SDS – Special Demonstration Squad – authorised aliases based on the identities of dead children to enable infiltration of protest groups. This covert use of identities was without the knowledge of children’s parents.

The report claims that for over 30 years police officers trawled through births and deaths records in search of suitable matches. The search for a “match” was known among officers involved as the “Jackal run”. Some then spent the next ten years using the stolen identity. Undercover officers were issued with official documents to support the assumed identity, including driving licences and national insurance numbers.

The Met has explained that the practice is no longer used. But why not? If it was appropriate at one stage why is it no longer so?

The Standards for Public Life in the UK are built on seven principles. These are:
Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership.

On the face of it, the practice of assuming the identity of a dead child would lack integrity, openness and honesty, and possibly several more of these principles. Should more have been expected of the Police?

The State Services Commissioner in Understanding the Code of Conduct – Guidance for State Servants provides a summarised explanation of the 18 standards in the New Zealand code. The explanation of being honest seems apposite to the British situation. A paragraph of that explanation is as follows:

“…Honesty does not necessarily mean continuous, full disclosure. In some circumstances, full disclosure is a requirement. Other circumstances may require care. For example, the courts have recognised that organisations with responsibility to enforce legislation cannot be required to openly disclose their evidence-gathering activities. It is sometimes necessary to disguise the way these activities are carried out. But these circumstances are rare. Unless there is a lawful reason for doing so, we must not act on the premise that the end justifies the means…”

Is the deceit involved in establishing an alias for undercover operations necessary in terms of the definition? Is it a lawful reason? Does the end justify the means?

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/03/police-spies-identities-dead-children

www.public-standards.gov.uk/About/The_7_Principles.html

http://ssc.govt.nz/node/1914

Uncategorized

, , , , ,

February 5, 2013

Leave a comment

Trust in US Government Remains Low

4 February 2013

A survey of public opinion two weeks ago shows that 73% of Americans say they can trust government only some of the time, or that they can never trust the government. Just 26% say they can trust the government always or most of the time. This annual Pew survey shows that a very similar level of distrust has persisted for the last seven years – trust that eroded during the Bush presidency has never been regained. Over that period trust in the federal government to do the right thing always or most of the time has tracked below 30%.

Just 20% of respondents say they are basically content with the federal government – a rise from a nadir of 11% in 2011. 58% say they are frustrated with government while 19% say they are angry (fewer than the 26% who, in 2011, said they were angry with the government.)

Hispanics have more trust always or most of the time in the government (44%) than blacks (38%) or whites (20%). People under 30 have more trust in government than others. And unsurprisingly, more Democrats (38%) than Republicans (15%) say they can trust the government most of the time.

The extent of New Zealanders’ trust in institutions and government agencies will be updated in the 2013 UMR Mood of the Nation report, publication of which is imminent. Although the Pew survey shows low public trust in the United States Government, in the OECD Better Life Index, Americans at 76% say they have more positive experiences in an average day than the OECD average (72%). 78% of New Zealanders have these positive experiences in an average day.

www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june13/pew_01-31.html

www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/new-zealand/

www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/united-states/

Uncategorized

, ,

February 4, 2013

Leave a comment

Sourcery or an apprenticeship – experience as a Ministerial adviser

1 February 2013

The Constitution Unit of University College London has researched the frequency of special advisers – the counterparts of ministerial advisers in New Zealand and Australia – becoming Ministers. The findings suggest that a role of special adviser provides the ladder to a political career, but there is no assurance of becoming a Minister.

Although former special advisers are to be found in many senior political positions, the speed with which both the British Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have progressed from special adviser to Minister and then to their leadership roles is exceptional.

The research shows that 16 former special advisers became a Minister over the last 30 plus years ( Cabinet has 22 members at any one time. ) Although there were four former special advisers in the Gordon-Brown Cabinet, that was the highest ever. As fewer than 5% of special advisers have progressed to Cabinet since1979, it is a misperception that special advisers are Ministers in waiting.

Few Ministers have been special advisers. This means most in Cabinet have not had that experience and confirms that politics does not have a natural career path. The Constitutional Unit blog suggests though, that the skills of the leaders of both the Conservative and Labour parties in Britain are due to the skills and political networks that they developed during their time as a special adviser.

A former ministerial adviser in Australia last year blogged about the contribution of ministerial advisers – and referred to Eichbaum and Shaw’s findings that New Zealand public servants had confidence in their ministerial adviser colleagues. However a preponderance of 112 reader responses was critical of the contribution of ministerial advisers.

The benefits of special adviser experience advocated by Lord Adonis as an apprenticeship for aspirant British Ministers may be less self evident than he believes.

http://constitution-unit.com/2013/01/30/former-special-advisers-in-cabinet-1979-2013/

www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4277148.html#commentsSoucery or

Uncategorized

, , ,

February 1, 2013

Leave a comment

Arms dealers exploit integrity weakness in many countries.

31 January 2013

The defence industry is big business. Its marketing practices have a widely corrupting influence. A Transparency International survey has confirmed that “…corruption in defence is dangerous, divisive and wasteful: everyone pays the cost…”

The Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index published this week, surveys public opinion in 82 countries (which in 2011 were responsible for 94% of military spending globally). The survey found that in nearly half there was little oversight of defence policy, that information about defence spending was largely inaccessible, that legislative scrutiny of military spending was poor and that there was an equally poor framework of regulatory oversight in about 35% of those countries. Of the governments 70% are described as having “…high to critical levels of corruption vulnerability…”

Survey results of the participant countries fell into seven groups.

Australia and Germany produced the most satisfactory results, with systems given an A grade. B grade ratings were given to Austria, Norway, South Korea, Sweden, Thailand, United Kingdom and the United Kingdom. Singapore which is usually classified among integrity leaders, rates as a D+.

The poorest standards were exhibited in nine countries embroiled in various degrees of military chaos – Algeria, Angola, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Libya, Syria and Yemen. They have few systems which constrain corruption.

New Zealand was not included in the survey.

http://government.defenceindex.org

http://government.defenceindex.org/results/overall

Uncategorized

, ,

January 31, 2013

Leave a comment

Civil servants peeved with pay and political leaders

30 January 2013

A union survey of Britain’s senior civil servants suggests that more than 60% are so unhappy at work that they are contemplating resigning. Nearly 25% working in Whitehall, disgruntled with their pay falling behind the private sector and criticism from Ministers, say they want to leave immediately. The tensions between Ministers and their senior officials are described as a “cold war”.

Historically the FDA – formerly the First Division Association – has many interests in common with Ministers, regardless of the party in government. Half of the heads of Britain’s 3,500 agencies are FDA members. The tradition of respectful relationships is breaking down, each publishing harsh observations about the other.
The Chair of the Public Administration Select Committee, currently investigating the civil service, has questioned “…the wisdom of Ministers publicly criticising their civil servants because it undermines trust in their leadership…”

The FDA of course, is seeking to pressure the Senior Salaries Review Board that is to report within two months on the effect of the four year pay freeze, and the remuneration structure for senior civil servants that is seen as problematic. It has made a 90 page submission to the review board.

While the union suggests that there will be a mass exodus if the economy provides alternatives, the Cabinet Office has said that its 2012 culture survey of 300,000 civil servants shows that overall engagement (at 58%) is the same as in 2009, and across the civil service 89% find their work interesting. Ministers are reported to be confident that the civil service will not lose its most valuable staff when the economy improves.

www.fda.org.uk/Media/Whats-new/Government-faces-an-exodus-of-talent-from-a-demoralised-senior-civil-service-warns-FDA.aspx

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/28/top-civil-servants-ready-quit

Uncategorized

, ,

January 30, 2013

Leave a comment

Senior Chinese politician netted by anti corruption measures

29 January 2013

When there are “slim pickings” in the way of integrity news, a corruption story often seems to emerge in China. Over the weekend a Hong Kong paper reported that Li Jianguo, the Vice Chairman of the Peoples’ Congress – the national legislature– has been hospitalised because of psychological stress. The implication is that he is one of the “tigers” targeted by the anti corruption campaign announced earlier this month by President Xi Jinping, the new head of the Chinese Communist Party.

Until now, Beijing based officials have seldom been punished for corrupt practices, the focus being on those with a regional power base. Bo Xilai, who was chief in Chongqing until his arrest in 2012 after the death of a British businessman, was one of the most prominent. He was a candidate for the standing committee of the Politburo. His trial is anticipated in March.

Li, appointed last year as one of the 25 Politburo members, may well become the most senior political figure to be charged with corruption; although over the last 18 years, three others elected to the Politburo have been removed from office and disgraced as corrupt.

Ironically a finding in the 2013 Edelman Trust Barometer is that public trust in China has increased 18% since 2008. The barometer shows that the Chinese have a higher level of trust in their business and government leaders than the public in any of the other 25 countries recently surveyed. The Chinese were higher “trusters” than nationals in any of the other countries surveyed in 2011 and 2012.

www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/27/us-china-corruption-idUSBRE90Q02B20130127

www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/trust-2013/trust-around-the-world/

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-21231198

Uncategorized

, , ,

January 29, 2013

Leave a comment

Choosing who we trust

28 January 2013

The 2013 Edelman Trust Barometer published last week shows a general improvement in the level of trust people have in institutions compared with the previous survey, rising to 57% from 51% in 2012. However respondents don’t think so highly of the leaders of those institutions. Public trust in business, government and media leaders has fallen. There is “a very significant crisis of leadership” … as…”leaders are just not seen as leading.” Too many of us think our leaders “just can’t get around to telling them the truth.”

The survey released each year just ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos, indicates that some gathering in Switzerland – like the heads of financial institutions – rated particularly poorly, no doubt because of facilitating market manipulation and money-laundering. While 50% of respondents trusted business in general to do what is right, only 18% trusted business leaders to tell the truth. Government was even worse, with 41% trusting government to do what’s right but only 13% believing what leaders said.

Leaders’ truthfulness score in the survey was described as “pretty pathetic.” “Trust is now being placed in an expert, such as an academic (69% considered an academic or expert as a credible spokesperson) or in a peer (61% looked to “a person like yourself”). That compares with 41% viewing CEOs as trustworthy.

The online survey involved 31,000 people in 26 countries. Australia is included but not New Zealand. The greatest improvement in public trust levels since the previous survey in the participating countries, were in Germany, France, United Kingdom and the United States. Trust levels in Australia slipped.

www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/trust-2013/building-trust/

www.slideshare.net/EdelmanInsights/global-deck-2013-edelman-trust-barometer-16086761

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2012/01/30/governments-everywhere-lose-trust-and-confidence/

Uncategorized

, ,

January 28, 2013

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «