Australian state of the service report

30 November 2012

 

The Australian Public Service Commission published its annual State of the Service Report on Wednesday. A chapter on Transparency and Integrity refers to a number of international surveys in which Australia is rated well on good government measures – although in none does Australian score better than New Zealand.

There is not much direct comparability in the rest of the data. The APSC, unlike the State Services Commission, collates returns on code of conduct breaches across the Australian service. Fewer than three employees per thousand breached the code over the last year. The most prevalent offence involved bullying and harassment. It is described as being at a “worrying level”. (Harassment was also the misconduct seen most frequently by respondents in successive New Zealand State Services integrity surveys.)

An employee census suggests that managers’ staff supervisory relationships are poor, as is their performance management. This mismanagement of personality clashes is thought to be behind the growth in harassment.

A graph on the means used to report misconduct shows that whistleblowing is the least preferred method.  There were 54 whistleblowing referrals in the year over which 21% led to investigations.  There were 76 whistleblower complaints in the previous year. Substantial percentage drops included fraud, theft and conflict of interest. Misuse of internet (browsing personal information) and bullying were the growth areas.  

The report recognises the importance of trustworthy officials if the Public Service is to remain a reliable source of information and advice. In 2011–12, most employees agreed that their supervisor (87%) and their senior leaders (68%) often or always act in accordance with the APS Values. These results are similar to last year—89% for supervisors and 70% for senior leaders.  As in the State services integrity surveys, most employees have less confidence that their senior managers lead by example than they have that their supervisor demonstrates honesty and integrity.

 

www.apsc.gov.au/about-the-apsc/parliamentary/state-of-the-service/new-sosr

Uncategorized

,

November 30, 2012

Leave a comment

Will changing the law change the public service?

29 November 2012 

Yesterday in Parliament, debate began on the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill. The Minster of State Services indicated that the legislation would reshape the Public Service so that it was “fit for service”. 

There seems little consensus on some of the major changes. Some of the financial proposals were argued to be unconstitutional.  Labour is opposing departmental chief executives being able to delegate powers to a private entity ( needed for example, for PPP developments ) and unsurprisingly, will not agree to controls on collective bargaining.

Contemporaneously, in the UK, eight submissions to the Public Administration Select Committee have been published that respond to the following questions:

  • Is the Civil Service in need of radical reform?
  • Are the Government’s plans for reform, as outlined in the Civil Service Reform Plan and related documents, likely to lead to beneficial changes?
  • What is the best approach for achieving consensus on the future size, shape and functions of the Civil Service

Few show wholehearted support for the Government’s proposals.

The conclusions forming part of the respective submissions are;

  • “radical reform is needed
  • ”the case for radical Civil Service reform has not being made satisfactorily by the government at present, although some of the individual changes proposed appear desirable”
  • “reform of the Civil Service at all policy and operational levels is essential
  • “radical reform is not helpful … is a recipe for chaos
  • “the Civil Service has no choice but to reform…. The alternative will be to shrink in both stature and capability”
  • “the Civil Service Reform Plan might lead to an opaque and fragmented institutional architecture that simply replaces non-departmental public bodies with a new wave of ever more sophisticated delivery bodies
  • “a search for continuing improvement must be embedded in any organisation ….This is more critical than ever.”
  • “It is important that Civil Service reform includes consideration of public service delivery and accountability for it.”

The Institute for Government submission possibly most resonates government aspirations in New Zealand.  Some observations on effectiveness echo the purpose behind the Better Public Services programme.

“Our research into departmental transformation found that whilst many departments have articulated a different future there were some worrying gaps opening up between the rhetoric of reform and the reality that many staff were experiencing. For many staff the reality so far has been doing similar work in similar ways, but working harder to make up for the absence of former colleagues. When leaders talk about changing the culture and ways of working this is often not perceived to be matched by their behaviour and what is really rewarded and recognised.  These gaps are worrying. They need to be closed, and departments need to do so in a way that is consistent … Long term change requires a broader leadership coalition than is currently the case…”

 

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1211/S00200/state-sector-reform-set-to-be-battleground.htm

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubadm/writev/csr/contents.htm

Uncategorized

, , ,

November 29, 2012

Leave a comment

High status teachers create culture of education

 28 November 2012

The Learning Curve is a new report comparing international education accomplishments. Published yesterday by the Pearson Group for the Economist  Intelligence Unit, this global study doesn’t cast the comforting light on education standards in New Zealand of some recent reports.  

The best rated countries have a “culture of education” flowing from the respect and “high status” given to teachers. New Zealand is placed 8th.  Australia is 13th.

The report rehashes data published by a number of international organisations, overlayed with figures collated every three or four years, in areas such as maths, science, literacy, and rates for school attendance and university graduation.

The political perspective being championed is that promoting a culture that is supportive of education is more important than the amount of money invested. The report notes though that high-quality teaching is the crucial factor for effective education.

There is criticism of countries with education systems geared strongly towards universities.  An example is the United States where a consequence is a large number of graduates in their mid-twenties who don’t have skills and credentials needed to succeed in a technology-driven economy.

The pecking order in the Learning Curve is as follows:

1      Finland

2      South Korea

3      Hong Kong

4      Japan

5      Singapore

6      UK

7      Netherlands

8      New Zealand

9      Switzerland

10    Canada

11    Ireland

12    Denmark

13    Australia

 

http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/country-profiles/new-zealand

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20498356#

Uncategorized

,

November 28, 2012

Leave a comment

Kiwis not interested in whistleblowing

27 November 2012

Ombudsmen have a role under the Protected Disclosures Act to provide advice on how to report serious wrongdoing in a way which ensures the complainant gets the benefits provided by the Act.  However yesterday the Chief Ombudsman expressed concern that the legislation is largely unused.  She suggested a disclosure about the nature of operations at Pike River may have prevented the disaster that flowed from poor practices, subsequently identified in the Royal Commission findings.

The Ombudsmen’s Office receives fewer than a dozen enquiries each year about how to “blow the whistle” when people see things going badly wrong in their organisation. Many of those enquiries are about the workings of the legislation, and do not relate to any specific wrongdoing.

New guidance about the Protected Disclosures Act recently published by the Ombudsmen is obviously not in response to a demand for information, but will help increase awareness of the legislation.  An amendment to the Act in 2009 which enhanced the Ombudsmen’s role to advise on, and to investigate, serious wrongdoing received all party support in Parliament.  

It seems however that there is either little that whistle blowers want to complain about, or given the limited protection afforded by the Act, few are willing to test its benefits.

The State Services Integrity Survey in 2010 ( as in 2007 ) measured the extent to which State servants were familiar with the Protected Disclosures Act. The assessment was that only 35% were aware of the Act. The State Services Commissioner’s subsequent recommendation was that agencies should publish and promote to staff the agency’s protected disclosures policy, and re-publish it at regular intervals.

Agencies seem to have heeded neither the State Services Commissioner, nor that statutory duty  “to publish their policy and to republish it at regular intervals”.

That seems to be maladministration falling within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsmen. Perhaps public sector agencies should be required to report on how they comply with section 11(3) of the Protected Disclosures Act – “Information about the existence of the internal procedures, and adequate information on how to use the procedures, must be published widely in the organisation and must be republished at regular intervals.”

www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/121808/whistleblower-law-little-known-shareholders-assn

www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/1/f/6/00DBHOH_BILL8295_1-Protected-Disclosures-Amendment-Bill.htm

www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0007/latest/DLM53908.html

www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/441/original/making_a_protected_disclosure____blowing_the_whistle_.pdf?1349214579

www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/integrityandconduct-survey2010-findings-summary.pdf

Uncategorized

, ,

November 27, 2012

1 Comment

Free and frank advice now to be “candid and fearless”?

26 November 2012

The House of Lords constitution committee inquiring into the accountability of civil servants published its report last week.

The content may be seen as a case of old bulls and young bulls.  The report emphasises the strengths of Westminster traditions, implicitly cautioning the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office Minister against reacting to their concerns about civil service performance by restructuring the relationship between officials and their Ministers.

The Constitution committee is concerned that Government reform proposals will affect the impartiality of the civil service and its ability to serve successive governments with equal commitment, diminish the importance of merit based appointments and undermine the importance of Ministers receiving advice they may not want to hear.  The committee sees a risk of cronyism in adopting processes similar to either the New Zealand or the Australian model for appointing departmental heads.

The report is readily recognised as a restatement of the Westminster model, although with a few embellishments.

“… the convention that ministers are constitutionally responsible for all aspects of their departments’ business is an essential principle … The convention is clear, straightforward and leaves no gaps.”

“… there is no constitutional difference between the terms responsibility and accountability.”

“… appointments process for permanent secretaries … must conform fully with the constitutional principles of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality…. any modified process should protect the principle of appointment on merit, on the basis of fair and open competition.”

“…we do not recommend any additional powers for the civil service to act as a check on the constitutionality of ministerial actions.”

“…ministers are responsible for the actions of their special advisers. Ministers have a duty to ensure their special advisers abide by the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers at all times.”

“…guidance to civil servants  … in no way have the effect of imposing restrictions on the activities of select committees. It is for Parliament to determine how it scrutinises the executive.” – (relating to Osmotherly rules)

“… where select committees request evidence from other former senior civil service post holders (whether or not they are still in the civil service) … the expectation is that such requests will be acceded to.”

“…select committee should be able to request access to relevant policy advice given by civil servants to ministers… the Government should consider each request on its merits and not reject them out of hand.

“…civil servants …should not be invited to disclose the policy advice they give to ministers: it is for ministers, not civil servants, to waive the confidentiality of such advice.”

An interesting variance creeps into the report. Despite referring throughout the report to “free and frank” advice,  “fearless” the expression used in Australia appears in the Summary where it is stated that advice to Ministers should be “candid and fearless”.  ( That term was used in the UK government’s Scottish independence referendum agreement this year).

In an article on the Institute of Government blog, the Australian academic Patrick Weller implies that governance structures are less important than the people involved;   “So on the key issues – will the civil service become politicised and subservient if contracts and ministerial input are introduced – the answer is far from clear. Many of the oft-repeated fears are not born out in practice. It is not contracts or tenure that by themselves shape the relationship between ministers and secretaries. Less than impressive secretaries remain so under both systems. Secretaries whose appointments are endorsed by ministers are still valued precisely because they speak their mind.”  A similar comment by Hon Trevor Mallard is quoted in the Institute of Government report published last week on Reforming civil service accountability – Lessons from New Zealand and Australia.

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/constitution-committee/news/accountability-of-civil-servants-report/

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5048/guestblog-what-makes-permanent-secretaries-fearless/

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/reforming-civil-service-accountability

Uncategorized

, ,

November 25, 2012

Leave a comment

Institute for Government finds the New Zealand governance model less appealing than some think

 25 November 2012

 Two reports were published in Britain last week relating to the focus on accountability in government. Of particular interest in New Zealand is Reforming Civil Service Accountability – Lessons from New Zealand and Australia,  reporting on the findings of the Institute for Government researchers who visited New Zealand (and Australia) recently.  The second is the Report of the House of Lords Constitution Select Committee inquiry into the accountability of civil servants.

(Research commissioned by the British Government from the Institute of Public Policy Research into similar matters, has not yet been published. The Institute for Government had already begun its research into accountability matters when the Government went to the market to obtain similar research. )

The report is a sound compilation of the Australian and New Zealand models.  It will interesting to see whether the IPPR researchers come to different conclusions despite consulting very siminlar sources.

A possible effect will be to disabuse those who have spoken of adopting antipodean practices to enhance civil service effectiveness. The concluding paragraph of the report is instructive:

“The purpose of international comparative research such as this paper is therefore not to identify a perfect model that can be imported to the UK, since all governments are engaged in an ongoing process of reform, often looking to learn from countries that have followed alternative paths. Indeed, during our research we repeatedly found examples of where Australia and New Zealand were looking to the UK for lessons (drawing on the now-defunct Capability Reviews and the Top 200 network among other things). This serves as a reminder that each Westminster system has strengths and weaknesses. None offer a perfect model that can be exported in its entirety, but all offer lessons that can inform the reform process elsewhere. It is our hope that this paper will help to facilitate this learning process.”

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Reforming%20civil%20service%20accountability%20-%20final.pdf

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/reforming-civil-service-accountability

www.theinformationdaily.com/2012/09/19/contestable-policy-fund-sponsors-institute-for-public-policy-research

Uncategorized

, ,

November 25, 2012

Leave a comment

Kiwis Count still but the media’s not interested

23 November 2012

The adage about good news not selling newspapers may apply with regard to the latest Kiwis Count survey of New Zealanders’ satisfaction with public services. The results have been largely overlooked by the press.  A Google search produces fewer than 30 related hits – half of which are on government websites. But the survey findings are favourable, indicating that satisfaction with the delivery of public services has continued to improve and rates ahead of comparable results in Canada – where the survey was developed.

“…The survey … recorded service quality improving to 74 points out of 100 this quarter, up from 72 points in the last survey.”

“The survey recorded significant improvements for four services: road maintenance by local councils (11 points), obtaining family services or counselling (7 points), registering a birth, marriage, death or civil union (7 points), and enquiring about tax, tax credits, student loan repayments and Kiwisaver (5 points). Increases across 24 services drove the overall increase. No services recorded a significant decrease…”

At a time when papers repeat details about the mismanagement of personal information at several agencies, a comprehensive and statistically reliable survey finding that people are well satisfied with a wide range of public services is apparently not worth reporting. Coverage seems equally poor in the metropolitan and smaller papers.  Radio New Zealand which broadcast a news item when the survey was in train, suggesting that the privacy of respondents may have been breached, doesn’t seem to have given any airtime to the survey findings.

My confusion about the release of this latest information, building data gathered since Kiwis Count began in 2007, meant that my post last Friday was premature and was pulled. It can now be republished – below.

But perhaps Kiwis don’t count as much as the Swiss and the Australians who top the Economist’s Intelligence Unit rankings released today of the best country in which to be born.  New Zealand is placed seventh. The general quality of life rankings reflect GDP, life expectancy, political freedom, job security, climate and gender equality.

1 Switzerland

2 Australia

3 Sweden

4 Denmark

5 Norway

6 Singapore

7 New Zealand

8 Netherlands

9 Canada

10 Hong Kong

 

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9696452/Which-country-has-the-best-quality-of-life.html

www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/112807/ssc-dismisses-breach-of-privacy-fears

www.ssc.govt.nz/kiwis-count-update-nov12

 Kiwis still trust that officials will “do what’s right”

16 November 2012

A test of good government is the extent to which the community trusts its officials.  A measure of that trust is shown in the degree to which people using public services believe they can trust the officials involved to do what is right.

New Zealanders have a healthy skepticism when questioned about their trust of the public service. That result is evident in the latest Kiwis Count survey results released this week by the State Services Commission. Respondents in the 2012 second quarter survey showed a slight, statistically insignificant, decline in trust compared to the first quarter report.  In the survey, 42% said they either  “trust them completely” or “trust them a lot”.  This is reflective of a UMR Mood of the Nation survey this time last year which showed only 34% confidence in public service as an institution.

The Kiwis Count survey has repeatedly confirmed that when participants are asked to think about their most recent experience with public services, and to rate the level to which they can trust them to do what is right, the responses show much greater confidence. In the second quarter survey 75% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they could trust public services to do what is right. In the same way, the rating of most identified agencies was higher than confidence in Public Service as a whole.

But the trust people have in others is not consistently reflective of the trustworthiness of their communities. This is shown in the data collated in the World Values Surveys. People  whose trust in others is the most marked, are not necessarily from integrity rich, corruption free economies.

The top ten countries where survey respondents said “people can be trusted” were

1                     Norway

2                     Sweden

3                     Denmark

4                     China

5                     Finland

6                     Switzerland

7                     Saudi Arabia

8                     Vietnam

9                     New Zealand

10                 Australia

www.jdsurvey.net/jds/jdsurveyMaps.jsp?Idioma=I&SeccionTexto=0404&NOID=104

Uncategorized

, , ,

November 23, 2012

Leave a comment

Woman moving into top roles in US defence industry

22 November 2012

Lockheed Martin has a reputation as an ethics-focused enterprise. Senior executives in the company regularly receive awards for their promotion of business integrity. Lockheed is a major sponsor of the Ethics Resource Center.

This pedigree received a set back this month, which fortuitously for the company, coincided with the Patraeus scandal at the CIA . The nominee as the company’s CEO was forced to resign before taking up the role when an ethics issue involving another Lockheed Martin employee became public.

A “close personal relationship with a subordinate employee” which led to the resignation apparently breached the Lockheed code of ethics and business conduct.

The reaction of the company, applauded by some, is to appoint a woman to the position for which she would have been overlooked but for the ethics breach.  It’s an ill wind….

Lockheed Martin, a competitor of Boeing, is the world’s largest defence contractor, with sales of about US$50 billion annually. In 2005 the CEO of Boeing, the major competitor of Lockheed, resigned after a similar relationship with an employee became public.

Marillyn Hewson the new CEO at Lockheed Martin is reported by Forbes as being a very experienced and effective defence industry manager, “hard as nails” but recognised for her humility. She is a product of the “culture of ethics” for which Lockheed Martin prides itself.

Although this is the first appointment of a woman to lead a major US defence manufacturer, women now hold many senior positions at Boeing and Northrop Grumman also. This is a reflection of dramatic demographic shifts in the defence industry;  “… the day is within sight when a majority of the top executives in the sector will be women…”

www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/11/09/lockheed-ceo-elect-kubasik-fired-over-relationship-with-subordinate/

http://blogs.forbes.com/lorenthompson/

Uncategorized

, ,

November 22, 2012

Leave a comment

More talk about corruption by China’s new leaders doesn’t mean more action against corruption

21 November 2012

Over the last five years it has been China’s second most senior leader, Premier Wen Jiabao who has repeatedly delivered high profile speeches about fighting corruption and the need for Party members to be exemplary in their behaviour. At the start of the 18th National Congress earlier this month, retiring President Hu Jintao echoed the theme that corruption could “…kill the party and ruin the country”.

With the new guard taking over, that theme is unchanged. In his first speech at the Congress, new Party General Secretary and soon to be President Xi Jinping incorporated a couple of paragraphs about fighting corruption. He spoke of the duty to urgently resolve graft and corruption, for the party to enforce strict discipline and to keep in touch with the people.

Then at his first speech to the Politburo he rehearsed references to corruption that Chinese leaders have delivered in recent years and reiterated points he made in his inaugural speech on Thursday.

None of which suggests a change in practice.

Without change, scandals and revelations which have undermined confidence will continue, the nepotism and patronage at the top of the party will bring more scrutiny, and calls will strengthen for fundamental change to political and economic systems.

The new head of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, the party’s s anti-corruption agency, is the sixth-ranking party official and on the seven-man Standing Committee of the Politburo. Critics say that he will follow established policies which will not “set the party straight”.

This approach to fighting corruption has relied on using party oversight against corruption . But “…the more powerful the Discipline Inspection Commission has become, the more serious corruption has become, because if you depend on secretively fighting corruption, you only encourage more corruption.”

All of which suggests the change in China’s leaders is not likely to do much to change the pattern of corruption.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20405106

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2012/10/27/is-wen-jiabao-just-another-hypocrite/

Uncategorized

,

November 21, 2012

Leave a comment

UK Prime Minister frustrated by the civil service

 20 November 2012

Civil service strengths and traditions appear to be challenged by more than the chemistry and physics that the UK Cabinet Office Minister Rt Hon Francis Maude spoke about during his New Zealand visit earlier this month. The Guardian and the Telegraph today carry articles on the changes being driven by Ministers, apparently seeking more than the “accountability” which was the mantra for change until recently.

They report the Prime Minister’s speech to the Confederation of British Industry about placing the public sector “on a war footing”, of “launching a fresh attack on planning rules”, attacking “risk averse” civil servants and the “bureaucratic rubbish” imposed by Whitehall on businesses.

Last year Mr Cameron described civil servants as the “enemies of enterprise”. Today he is accusing some officials of impeding growth by foisting paperwork on businesses and delaying vital decisions for procedural reasons.  

Mr Cameron said that Whitehall must undergo a “…revolution,.. just as it did in wartime, when normal rules were circumvented…convention was thrown out… Everything was thrown at the overriding purpose of beating Hitler. Well, this country is in the economic equivalent of war today – and we need the same spirit…”

He is not blaming all civil servants saying that some of the officials he has worked with are “…as creative and enterprising as any entrepreneur”.  He considers Whitehall as a whole to have become too sluggish, and is frustrated “with a lot of … bureaucratic rubbish…Whitehall has become too risk-averse; too willing to say ‘no’ instead of ‘yes’…”

Which creates the climate for a vituperative columnist in the Guardian to suggest that the Head of the civil service will be unable to deliver corporate leadership based on “engagement…resilience… and change” that he often talks about .

“Kerslake’s problem is, to put it personally, Francis Maude… It’s not just that Maude is directly interventionist in certain areas of civil service management, it’s the suspicion that Ministers don’t share Kerslake’s vision … of a smaller… better integrated and more effective Whitehall…some ministers have no idea where they are going and probably don’t care..”

“We will no longer have a “system” for spending and public services,.. making the role of central departments even less coherent than it is now. Kerslake’s problem becomes one of identifying just what departments’ missions are: in the throes of downsizing and change, as the public service empire splits and shudders, just what are their prime objectives…”  

That sounds like a system breakdown, no less severe than the “organ rejection” Mr Maude referred to in his presentation on civil service reform when in Wellington …

 

www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/9686863/End-of-the-right-to-challenge-planning-rulings.html

www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2012/nov/19/bob-kerslake-francis-maude-whitehall

Uncategorized

, , ,

November 20, 2012

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «