Transparency International CPI 2012 to be released on 5 December

19 November 2012

Transparency International has announced that the 2012 Corruption Perceptions Index will be released on 5 December – there will be 176 countries in this year’s Index compared with the 182 countries ranked in 2011.

Reports this week of corruption proceedings being taking against Ministers in numerous jurisdictions may in some way reflect an awareness of the reputational implications of the CPI and perhaps indicate that there is some attempt to enforce UN Convention Against Corruption obligations.

The resignation of the Transport Minister in Egypt (112th= on the CPI) following deaths of children when a train collided with a school bus on a rail crossing probably was unrelated to personal malfeasance – unlike the indictment of the Transport Minister in Kosovo (also 112th =) on charges relating to organised crime.

In Russia (143rd  on the CPI)  the Defence Minister has been removed from office despite being a close supporter of President Putin as the media reported his involvement in corrupt property deals involving over US$100m.  In Uganda (also 143rd=) three Ministers were acquitted of corruption charges after at trial ended this week.

In Romania (75th on the CPI) proceedings have started against three Ministers accused of corruption, while in Brazil (73rd) a Minister and close colleague of the former Prime Minister has been sentenced to nearly 11 years for election fraud.

All of which makes last week’s other corruption news involving Ministers, from Australia (8th on the CPI), seem of little consequence. Queensland’s Housing Minister resigned after making false declarations in the Lobbyist register, and falsifying his official diary to disguise that, on a part-time basis, he was continuing his medical practice. Queensland’s Arts Minister has also been found to have made false declarations to the Lobbyist Register.

www.transparency.org/news/

www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/bruce-flegg-resigns-as-housing-minister-in-newman-government/story-e6freoof-1226516219749

No maudlin regard for British civil service traditions

15 November 2012

Rt Hon Francis Maude, the UK Cabinet Office Minister, spoke yesterday to the Institute of Governance and Policy Studies in Wellington.  Meanwhile the Prince of Wales and Camilla, also visiting New Zealand, were on a waterfront stroll to meet Wellingtonians.

Mr Maude showed an enthusiasm and commitment to the reform of government services in Britain although I suspect he will have made few converts to his philosophy. The audience was flattered that he should look to New Zealand structures for a key to achieving “more for less”, to  “pilfer (New Zealand practices) for the greater good” but was unlikely to be convinced that he would deliver on both his “real cash savings” and “big society transformation”.

Mr Maude explained the aspiration for mutual and social enterprise models. Staff became engaged and motivated by change and innovation. By encouraging forms of mutual ownership and social enterprise, workers in the public sector would be able to take control over their work, the way that their organisation is run and how its services are delivered. He saw these forms as the way of delivering local services adapted to local needs. He used health, housing and education illustrations of how structures that empowered public servants to reshape their workplace result in better services for the community.

He indicated that IT is an important facilitator of change. Transparency is not a soft option – and the enthusiasm in Opposition for openness changes after a year in Government – but Open Government was integral to digital transformation. However the “treacle” must be removed from online systems if agencies are to create the “irresistible services” which will bring savings to government.

Mr Maude seemed proud of substantial and ongoing reductions in public sector spending in Britain. Capability and leadership were still necessary.  That motivated measures to improve the accountability of departmental heads to their Ministers.  In responding to current challenges, the Government needed to be brave and decisive. And once made, Ministers’ decisions needed to be implemented.  Departmental heads must not only act with pride, passion, pace and professionalism, but must be accountable for that implementation.  Mr Maude said that officials who are honest, have integrity, are impartial and act objectively are of little use if they sit in a room and do nothing – which of course reflects a simplistic meaning of honesty, integrity, impartiality and objectivity!

That may explain the resignation soon after Mr Maude became Minister, of the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office.  His view was that “the independence of our Civil Service is something to be cherished and something that the rest of the world admires … There … is not much wrong with the Civil Service. It’s a great organisation led by really good people that the private sector would give its right arm to have…” Becoming a house-husband when his wife was appointed vicar in a Manchester parish took priority over supporting Mr Maude with his reform of the civil service.

Yesterday’s knowledgeable audience was probably not impressed by Mr Maude’s unconvincing response when challenged to explain the outcomes that would flow from the effectiveness to which he repeatedly referred. The suggestion was that his focus was really still on efficiency, of better delivery of services, not on delivering a better community through those services.  

The effectiveness driver across the New Zealand State Services is a concentration on outcomes produced by better public services, on results that produce improvements in the lives of New Zealanders.

The Guardian today carries the report of an “exclusive” interview with Mr Maude.  Responding to criticisms about the growing fragility in the Civil Service, Mr Maude observed that cultural, not structural reform of Whitehall is needed. “We are building up strong networks, and we need to build up a common culture and a common ethos …There are things to be done, but this is about behaviour and culture. This is chemistry, not physics…”

In his IGPS presentation yesterday he spoke of the reforms being about “chemistry and biology, not engineering and structure.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9477551/Why-are-Whitehalls-top-mandarins-running-for-the-exit.html

www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2012/11/almost-50bn-more-of-spending-cuts-needed-say-think-tanks/

www.ssc.govt.nz/bps-results-for-nzers

www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2012/nov/14/francis-maude-fragile-whitehall-criticism

Nor all that glisters, gold? Looking at our goldfish bowl

14 November 2012

UK Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude is in New Zealand to verify studies suggesting that arrangements between Public Service chief executives and their Ministers may be suitably transplanted to Britain.  He is seeking increased responsiveness from the Civil Service.  Today he will speak to the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies at Victoria University about “Civil Service Reform: the British Approach”.  The audience will be intrigued to learn about the Minister’s perception of the New Zealand Public Service and what he sees in Wellington practices that would have effectiveness improvements for the Civil Service.

The Minister is managing the UK Civil Service reform programme. As part of that programme the Institute for Public Policy Research has been contracted to review a number of civil service models and to assist evaluate these alternatives. The IPPR research team was in New Zealand last week, and the Minister is here to see New Zealand’s accountability processes for himself.  Interestingly, the politics of IPPR are seen as left of centre, so its recommendations may not have a natural fit with the Minister’s preferences. However he was impressed apparently, by a 2006 international comparative study prepared by IPPR.

The Minister has spoken of obstruction by senior civil servants and indicated an interest in departmental heads entering into performance contracts that include delivering on ministerial objectives. He has said that he doesn’t want to politicise the Civil Service, but wants to sharpen accountability.

This visit comes directly on the heels of the launch by Transparency International NZ yesterday of work that will culminate in mid 2013 in a new and improved National Integrity System assessment.   Presentations by the Auditor General, former Governor General, and the State Services Commissioner among others, referred to the centenary this month of the Public Service Act.  They complimented generations of public servants who built the tradition of public sector integrity and trustworthiness, reflected in the very high placement of New Zealand on the Corruption Perceptions Index. This was facilitated by the politically neutral, professional Public Service created by the 1912 Act.

The extent to which the politically neutral character has survived and to which free and frank advice is given to, and received by, Ministers has been questioned.  However there doesn’t seem to be any published material by a (former) chief executive referring to such diminution of these standards of professionalism.

Is a constraint on the ability of New Zealand chief executives to provide frank and unwelcome advice indicative of the “accountability” sought by the UK Minister?

 

http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/events/14-nov-rt-hon-francis-maude.pdf

Transparency International builds strong coalition to update NZ’s National Integrity System assessment

13 November 2012

The New Zealand chapter of Transparency International launches work on updating the National Integrity System assessment today. TI (NZ) has gathered influential partners to steer the collation and analysis of good-government measures which will have international comparability. “A National Integrity System is the sum total of institutions, processes, people, and attitudes that collectively work to create trust by ensuring that entrusted power is exercised with integrity in any given society.”

TI (NZ) proposes to enhance the “standard” NIS carried out by TI in more than 100 countries, by including more consultation and more detail about public, private and NGO sectors – echoes of the Open Government Partnership – and “an active implementation phase” promoting recommendations flowing from the NIS assessment.

The initial New Zealand NIS, undertaken in 2003, was a very quiet affair, published by TI (NZ) without the contribution which the State Services Commission sought to make. Today the Auditor General, as the Platinum Partner of TI (NZ), will share the launch platform with State Services Commission, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Ministry of Social Development, Ministry of Transport, Statistics New Zealand, Serious Fraud Office, VUW School of Government, Office of the Ombudsmen, Human Rights Commission, Bell Gully, Deloitte, KPMG, PwC and the Gamma Foundation.

In addition to plenary sessions with prominent presenters, the launch will include 20 topic workshops on 13 integrity pillars –adapted from Jeremy Pope’s metaphor that an integrity system is an ancient Greek temple with mutually reinforcing pillars. The notion of pillars is obviously thought relevant for this rework of the New Zealand NIS despite Professor Sampford suggesting that the NIS in Australia when assessed in 2005 was better portrayed as a birds nest – although the model illustrated in a joint Griffith University / Transparency International (Australia) publication is very geometric .

 

www.transparencynz.org.nz/National-Integrity-System-Assessment.htm

www.transparencynz.org.nz/index.php/indices-reports/new-zealand/nat-integrity-study

www.griffith.edu.au/arts-languages-criminology/key-centre-ethics-law-justice-governance/research/integrity-anti-corruption/projects/?a=37155

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

www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis/

Falling on one’s sword seems contagious

 12 November 2012

Resignations ‘as a matter of honour’ have been in vogue over the last few days.

In New Zealand, the Minster of Labour with responsibility for workplace health and safety, and in particular mine safety, has resigned following the publication of the Royal Commission report into the Pike River Mine explosion.  “At the end of the day, 29 men died under my watch…I value my integrity and I thought it was the right and honourable thing to do.”

The Director of the CIA has resigned, confessing that he “… showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair …. such behaviour is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours…”

And the Director-General of the BBC has resigned because of poor management of investigations into and reporting on high profile paedophilia incidents involving the BBC.  He said that  “I have decided that the honourable thing to do is to step down.”

The Commons Liaison Committee report Select committee effectiveness, resources and powers was issued on 8 November 2012.  That day, content relevant to the accountability of Ministers to Parliament was added to a revision of the House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/31 Individual ministerial responsibility. That paper also picks up a number of the submissions to the Lords Constitutional Committee on Accountability which is to report before the end of 2012;  in particular the remark of the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee about the continuing accountability to the Public Accounts Committee of Ministers and Departmental Heads after transferring to other responsibilities.  This reflects a move beyond traditional views on ministerial responsibility – and ultimately when resignation is expected.

The circumstances at Pike River, and the mismanagement in the last month of information by the Accident Compensation Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development highlight the evolving application of Westminster traditions in New Zealand.

Professor Bob Gregory wrote about Ministerial accountability in the New Zealand setting in 2007. His paper featured a Minister’s observation after a fatal incident involving the Ministry of Works in the 1940s;  “I may be responsible but I am not to blame”, seems now to have become: “I am neither responsible nor am I to blame”. Prof Gregory noted that where administrative mistakes or errors of judgment occur, it has become common for Ministers rather than to accept responsibility for the administration of a portfolio that Ministerial office entails, not only hand the responsibility to chief executives for defending their departments actions in public, but also publicly criticise them in the process.

Prof Gregory pointed out that there is a misunderstanding about the principles of responsibility and accountability in politics and public management. Accountability is about answering to someone else for the actions that one has taken or not taken. Responsibility is about issues of moral agency and choice, often in the face of conflicting duties of obligation. Being responsible for some undesirable outcome is to be held culpable in that it would not have happened but for one’s actions, or one’s failure to act. People are blameworthy when they’re negligent in fulfilling some duty of obligation, in failing to act reliably or in a trustworthy manner. It is in fact possible for someone to be fully accountable, yet totally irresponsible.

It appears that the CIA Director and the BBC Director General were responsible and have accepted that they are accountable for their actions.  The Minister of Labour was not responsible for the Pike River Mine disaster but, being accountable, has resigned.

www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/constitution/CivilServ/ACSEvidenceFINAL.pdf

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20284126

www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-09/cia-director-petraeus-resigns-citing-extramarital-affair.html

www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7909810/I-value-my-integrity-says-Wilkinson

http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/events/downloads/Political%20neutrality%20Ross%20Tanner.pdf

UK to go digital by default when digital is the fault in NZ

9 November 2012

The Parliamentary Order Paper this week looked as if the Government was seeking to add some symmetry, with the State Sector and Public Finance Bill listed for First Reading contemporaneously with centennial celebrations for the Public Service Act 1912. The Bill is the vehicle for embedding the Government’s better public services programme, strengthening coordination across the public sector, and facilitating enhanced State Services leadership.   But the House rose at the week’s end with the Bill being the next matter for consideration. 

The State Services Commissioner confirmed at celebrations on Wednesday night that Rt Hon Francis Maude, the UK Cabinet Office Minister would be in Wellington next week furthering his interest in the New Zealand approach to the accountability of officials to Ministers and to Parliament. Perhaps the plan now is that visitor will be in the House when the Bill has its First Reading.

Mr Maude is a champion of IT as the new way of government. Not only is he an enthusiast for commitments under the Open Government Partnership – and UK is a co chair this year of the OGP – but he wants speedier conversion to IT as the way for delivering services.  Just when on line services have come to an emergency stop in New Zealand and all agencies are conducting an intensive security audit, Mr Maude has launched a Digital Strategy. 

 Over the last week, the Minister has given two key speeches outlining the Digital by Default approach. This sets deadlines by which Departments must redesign their services for on line delivery.  Digital capability is to be entrenched in every level of the Civil Service. The Minister wants “…every single Government service to be available to everyone”…” If central government agencies deliver through the online channels proposed by the Digital by Default policy, the Minister expects annual savings of up to £1.7 billion on current costs.

He spoke of a 21st century government needing to be a “digital-savvy Government”.

I wonder if he will be briefed on how some New Zealand agencies, sensitised to privacy risks by recent high profile problems, are now imposing checks on IT use which neutralise some of the productive advantages of going digital.

www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/francis-maude-speech-ft-innovate-conference

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/francis-maude-speech-event-it-professionals

NZ celebrates public service centenary – while Whitehall contemplates transformation

8 November 2012

 

The Institute of Government has published its report on Transforming Whitehall Departments. The finding is that departments are “fragile, morale is at risk and leaders will need to work very differently if more cuts are to come”.

 

The assessment much of which may have equal application to New Zealand found that chief executives were struggling to balance the demands of reorganisation and ministerial priorities. Ironically, the focus is adjusted to “back office” functions, identifying the strategic role of HR, finance, internal communications and IT.

The importance of working together, which is core to Better Public Services programme in new Zealand, is emphasised. “…It is essential that leaders throughout Whitehall work together more effectively across departmental boundaries to find the best options for savings and new ways of working … With the danger of declining staff engagement, the onus is on leaders to ensure the motivation and capability is there to see them through…”

Three major risks identified in the report are fragile leadership, siloed departments, and falling staff engagement.

So nothing that would surprise a New Zealand public servant celebrating the centenary of the enactment of Public Service Act 1912. At last night’s IPANZ celebration, the Governor General, the Speaker and the State Services Commissioner all gave very well thought out and well received speeches about the intentions for and outcomes of the legislation. Each applauded the tradition of service, the contribution to the well being of New Zealand and the continuing integrity of the public service created by the 1912 Act.

 

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/news/latest/study-shows-government-will-struggle-make-more-cuts-without-radical-new-thinkin

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229207/How-Whitehall-mandarins-claim-struggling-cope-spending-cuts.html

 
 

NZ Public Service centenary celebrated today

 7 November 2012

 The New Zealand Public Service was created a hundred years ago today;  7 November is the centenary of the enactment of the Public Service Act 1912. The Act excluded Ministerial  involvement in appointments, promotions and remuneration of government employees, which had been commonplace at that time.  In the new service these employment decisions were beyond the reach and influence of Ministers. The legislation facilitated an apolitical, career service that could support successive governments, regardless of the politics of the majority party. It created a politically neutral, permanent, professional  service.

What is largely unmarked, is that the other government services in New Zealand that were not incorporated into the Public Service – and for a long time remained larger and of no lesser national importance,  the Post and Telegraph  and the Railways Departments were similarly politically neutral, permanent and professional.

Although only a few provisions in the Act came into force on enactment, 7 November can be regarded as the foundation date.  New Zealand moved away from having a “civil service” at that point.  The term Public Service  reflected the language of the new legislation. Australia had led the way ten years earlier, establishing a Federal Public Service to support the newly created Commonwealth. Canada has a Public Service also, unlike Britain (and the United States) where the the language is still of a civil service.

The Public Service Act resulted in a shape and culture that has remained largely unchanged.  The essence of this culture is the separation of  ‘political’ and ‘administrative’ functions, both in conduct of the Government’s business and in management of the Public Service itself

An Institute of Public Administration celebration tonight, to be attended by the Governor General, will commemorate the centenary.  It will recognise  accomplishments and the service contributions of public servants throughout 100 years.

The United States presidential election taking place concurrently, provides focus to the substantial differences between the Westminster and the Washington models. Institutional democracy in the United States involving the selection of senior officials at the same time as the President is being elected, highlights the alternative to the politially neutral New Zealand model – although of course processes in the United States are very strict in ensuring that officials in the permanent ranks of the civil service avoid any political conflicts of interest.

And the resignation of a Minister this week because of serious maladministration in part of her portfolio, is an echo of  the Westminister tradition at work in New Zealand.

In an interesting coincidence a report on possible changes in the British Civil Service will be published today by the Institute of Government.

www.ssc.govt.nz/publications-and-resources/8394/all-pages

www.ipanz.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=166

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/events/transforming-whitehall-departments

Painting the globe red – the Parihaka problem?

 6 November 2012

Yesterday was the anniversary of the occuption of Parihaka. It was the low point of the principles underpinning British involvement in New Zealand. It can possibly be seen as Anglo Saxon avarice overtaking humanitarianism.

 An article in yesterday’s Telegraph indicates how the British Government’s interest leading to the Treaty of Waitangi was truly exceptional.   That article reports the territorial aspirations of the British. It highlights how there are only 21 countries which now encompass territories that Britain has never invaded. Although most were through formal government action, a number were the consequence of officially endorsed piracy.

New Zealand was unique;  it was different.  The establishment of the colony resulted from an extraordinary alignment of the socially well meaning and the politically well connected.  There was a remarkable blend of romanticism and Christian idealism associated with the British Government’s consideration in 1839 of the situation in New Zealand and of how the interests of its “natives” would be best served.

The instructions of the Secretary of State to Captain Hobson exemplify this.  Lord Normanby’s expectations of British involvement in New Zealand – then seldom less than 6 months sailing time from  Britain –  are extraordinary in light of contemporaneous attitudes to the hardship of British subjects in Ireland. While many in Ireland,  only 2 days travel from London,  starved from official neglect, Lord Normanby’s instructions to Hobson included the expressly humanitarian  prescription that;

 “…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…”

And elsewhere the British Government and its surrogates were pillaging, occupying and claiming sovereignty. Those characteristics were constrained in New Zealand by the administrations of Governors Hobson, Fitzroy and Grey (when influenced by Attorney-General Swainson), that strove to adhere to the Normanby instructions. Only in 1856 with responsible government, did acquisitiveness dominate policy, and mischiefs take place (which now require massive settlement payments).

Countries never invaded by the British:

Andorra, Belarus, Bolivia, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Rep of Congo, Guatemala, Ivory Coast, Kyrgyzstan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mali, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Mongolia, Paraguay, Sao Tome and Principe, Sweden, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Vatican City.

http://parihaka.com/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html

http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/LordNormanbysBrief.html

New Zealand more prosperous than most of the OECD

5 November 2012

New Zealand is the World’s 5th most prosperous country according to the Legatum Prosperity Index 2012 published last week (the same ranking as last year). This is the average on the eight elements which comprise the Index, being;  Economy; Entrepreneurship and Opportunities; Governance; Education; Health; Safety and Security; Personal Freedom, Social Capital.

New Zealand was among the leaders for Education (ranked 1st ), Governance (ranked 2nd ), Personal Freedom (ranked 2nd ) and Social Capital (ranked 4th).

The overall Prosperity rating for New Zealand was affected by deteriorating evaluations for the Economy (27th) and Safety and Security (20th). Ironically, although the Government is seeking better outcomes from schools, and has strained relationships with teachers’ groups, Legatum rates New Zealand as the top jurisdiction for Education (up from 2nd last year.)

Switzerland, the only country that scores best on two elements, is the 9th for overall Prosperity because its Education is rated 32nd.

The Central African Republic has the worst overall Prosperity rating, although it has the lowest measure in only one element – Education.

There were 142 countries assessed for the Index this year (compared to 110 in 2011). None of the Pacific Forum countries is included.

There has been little movement among the top ten jurisdictions.  Although there is little consistency in the ratings of the eight elements, the Social Capital measurement relates more closely to the overall prosperity rating than any other.

I am unsure why the Prosperity Index is not included among the 30 open source data sets that make up the Global Observatory Catalogue of Indices.

Legatum Prosperity Index 2012

    E’my Op’ties Gov’nce Ed’n H’lth S’ty Frdm Soc Cap
1 Norway 2 4 13 6 4 2 6 1
2 Denmark 19 1 3 16 16 8 7 2
3 Sweden 5 2 4 12 14 6 5 9
4 Australia 10 8 8 2 17 19 3 3
5 NZ 27 13 2 1 20 13 2 4
6 Canada 8 16 6 3 15 9 1 8
7 Finland 16 3 5 8 12 3 19 5
8 Netherlands 14 10 11 11 7 18 9 6
9 Switzerland 1 7 1 32 3 10 22 11
10 Ireland 25 14 14 14 11 4 4 7

www.prosperity.com/Ranking.aspx

 www.prosperity.com/

www.integritytalkingpoints.com/2012/09/23/new-catalogue-of-indices/

www.theglobalobservatory.org/indices/351-indices.html