What can the public sector learn from bankers?

20 August 2012

The Chairman of the Bank of China has “got” the message that seems to escape his colleagues in the West. He wrote an article in the China Daily about of the importance of culture in organisations and because of its key influence on economic, political and social stability, the necessity that the banking sector reestablishes a culture of integrity and is inspired to fulfill its responsibilities.

The article repeats much of what has been said about the finance sector. It refers to the collective misdeeds, broken ethical norms and greed often reported in relation to the exploits of Barclays, Citigroup, JP Morgan and indeed most in the sector. Unsurprisingly the Chairman sees the same cause as almost everyone other than bankers! It is the demise of business ethics;  “Values of an organisation are shaped by its corporate culture. …profit making activities must be legal and morally acceptable. Experience shows that misbehaviour in the banking sector often stems from the belief that only bonuses can reward people.  Remuneration structures often linked to short term performance have created incentives for dishonesty…. Leadership plays an important part in shaping the culture of a bank.  Clearly the tone at the top is a key factor influencing how a bank operates….qualified leaders motivate subordinates to work for the good of a bank not just for themselves…the nation’s top bankers must be accountable and of high integrity, no matter how intensified the competition becomes. ..”

In a further twist on Barclays ethical lapses,  the Commons Treasury select committee report on its inquiry into the Libor manipulation includes what is tantamount to an allegation of deceit about the actions of Barclays (now former) chief executive.  That then led a director of the bank to complain that the report references to evidence falling well short of  the standard that parliament expects, were unacceptable character assassination;  “it is one thing to attack a man’s judgement or his decisions, but quite another to attack his integrity”.  But what is the integrity of institutionalised misrepresentation as occurred with Libor?

Which perhaps confirms how perceptions differ between UK bankers and the chairman of the Bank of China.  In China corruption is real and the need to change seems to be appreciated.  In Britain, according to media commentary, banking standards were maintained by the power of the “governor’s eyebrow”. Allegedly prior to the creation of the Financial Services Authority, all it took was a raised eyebrow from the governor of the Bank of England, to put a stop to bad behaviour. The Select Committee seems to have found that the eyebrow may not have been as effective as the “pin striped old guard of the Square Mile” proclaim.

The observations of the Bank of China’s chair may have equal relevance to the public sector. The pursuit of efficiencies expected by governments encourages emulation of the private sector.  And too often that seems to be adoption of that sector’se least endearing characteristics!

Of course terms like accountability need meaning.  And how is that to be effected. If leaders are paid for short term performance, they may well be away from the position when chickens come home to roost.   That is why the House of Lords select committee on the constitution seems keen that former chief executives are examined as a matter of course by a select committee investigating any matters relating to their time in office.

The five Heads of the Civil Service who gave evidence were united in debunking the value of such a practice.  They recommended there be no change to the status quo, that the incumbent carries responsibility. Human nature is that senior leaders believe their house is in order when they hand over to a successor – any evolving fault rests with that successor.  An incumbent facing an imploding project will find cause in the mismanagement of predecessors.  The Constitution Committee seems unconvinced; current practice means accountability is avoided by those who were rewarded for short term gain and moved on.

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2012-08/13/content_15669500.htm

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9378274/Mervyn-Kings-management-coup-puts-Barclays-at-risk.html

Tuvalu flags away Iranian tankers

17 August 2012

Sunday Morning with Chris Laidlaw on Radio NZ on 5 August included an interview with a former Prime Minister and Governor General of Tuvalu. The program was part of the New Flags series.  Sir Tomasi Puapua was the second Prime Minister of Tuvalu – and its third Governor General. Discussion centered on the rejection of British independence arrangements for the Gilbert and Ellice Islands colony by the Polynesians in the Ellice Islands, who feared the dominance of the much more numerous Melanesians in the Gilberts.

On 1 August 1978, Tuvalu – the eight islands standing together – went its own way.  The new state’s few resources were migratory tuna  It was left little by the departing British.  Puapua spoke of measures explored to acquire revenue; stamps, selling its url  “.tv”  for commercial marketing, and establishing a shipping register.  The only continuing success, a trust fund providing capital support for the government  created by New Zealand, Australia and the UK, was subsequently  supported by South Korea and Japan.

But the sense of desperation to stay afloat fiscally, is metaphorically reflected in the campaign by some to portray the country as drowning in the tides of global warming. The capital at Funafuti is worse off than the other atolls because pits dug in 1942 to provide building material for a runway  (needed for the US attack on Japanese forces occupying Tarawa in the Gilberts) have become brackish and affect horticulture. Desperation has promoted an acceptance of the unconventional and novel.

This year, Singaporean interests that manage the shipping register were off the mark quickly when Iran needed to reflag its tanker fleet to circumvent US sanctions.  Twenty two vessels were registered. The fiscal benefit to Tuvalu is uncertain. 

Tiny Tuvalu (population 10,000) though extremely religious, had no capacity to play David to the US Goliath. Yesterday the 22 ships were deregistered.

In 1986 Tuvalu stood up to US displeasure as an active participant in the drafting committee of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Though a minnow among a shoal of minnows, it was onside with Australia and New Zealand.  Giving succour to Iran may have been brave for a country with such dependence on the charity of others, but possibly reflects the diplomatic immaturity of being 189th of the 192 States Members of the United Nations.  

www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/20120805

www.undppc.org.fj/_resources/article/files/TuvaluTrustFundProfile.pdf

What’s happened to joined up government?

16 August 2012

 

 

Management speak has its fads. In the 90s the language of new public management in Britain was laced with “joined up government”. The expression rubbed off and got traction in other jurisdictions, including New Zealand, but the outcomes sought seem too few and far between. There is an occasional use of “joined up” in Better Public Services Cabinet papers – the aspiration remains but term may be passe. The reference now is to a connected, collaborative public sector.

 

Whether joined up or connected, agencies working together is a key to effective government. A criticism of the UK civil service is that departments do not work together. Better performance needs better cooperation across the sector. This was advocated by a Guardian article this week.

 

“There are many good things about Whitehall: it punches its weight against other OECD countries and possesses one of the most dedicated and talented workforces in the world. But large groups of intelligent people can sometimes behave in stupid ways. The civil service is capable of delivering extraordinary results, but it can also be guilty of weak performance management, inefficiency and bureaucracy. Any serious approach to transforming the civil service has to tackle Whitehall’s two greatest vices. The first is its aversion to serious accountability, which is a real problem but not a very big one. The second is Whitehall’s culture of departmentalism, which is real, big and ought to be the focus of Maude’s next wave of reforms.”

 

Next month when the Westminster holiday is over and Parliament resumes, the Lords Constitution Select Committee will be compiling its recommendations to address the issue of accountability. But there is not much optimism about workable measures to dismantle “departmentalism”. Numerous attempts at decentralisation have come unstuck and the recent drive for “localism” seems to have fared no better.

 

“Joined up” hasn’t worked, and now “cross cutting” seems to be going the same way.

 

The Better Public Services approach seems to anticipate blending functions. Proposed State Sector Act changes will integrate departmental agencies within the umbrella of lead departments. The plan may well be that structural coalescence will evolve as the sectors responsible for the Results for New Zealanders achieve operational integration.

 

The process set out in Better Public Services is that targets requiring a stretch beyond immediately deliverable results will highlight opportunities for new ways of working together. Capacity and capability will only come from working together as agencies will not have resources to work alone. Innovation and improvement created by a drive for results will produce the connected, collaborative public sector that to date has been elusive.

 

This expectation has a foundation in the State Services code of conduct standard that “we must be responsible”. As explained in Understanding the Code;

“…We must always act in the public interest. This requires us to understand the communities we serve and appreciate the important duty we have to rise to public need when circumstances demand. Our work involves delivering the quality services that the Government expects of us, and contributing to the results that New Zealanders are entitled to…”.

 

www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2012/aug/13/tinkering-edges-civil-service-vices?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

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

www.ssc.govt.nz/node/1913

 

 

Olympic experience makes UK Minister think better of the public sector .

15 August 2012

Public servants are not all so bad after all! Now that the Olympic Games are over the British Defence Minister has acknowledged that the private sector is not up to delivering some services for government – not something that comes naturally from a Conservative politician. He has spoken of rethinking his scepticism of the sector and appreciating the capacity of the armed forces. With Government policy of increasingly contracting out services, this is a surprising admission.

He said the story of G4S and the need for the military to step in to provide Games security was informative. Just two weeks before the Games opening ceremony the company could not meet its £284 million contract to provide 10,400 staff.

Being lean may suit the private sector which often has lower resilience requirements than government. And because the Army is dependent on territorial soldiers to make up the capacity lost through major reductions in regular force numbers, the Minister needs to find ways to encourage part-timers. A law change is likely that will make it illegal for employers to ask whether a potential employee is a member of the reserves in the same way that asking about sexuality or an intention to have children is unacceptable.

An interesting contrast is shown in the Scottish Government’s Procurement Bill that has the purpose of making the public sector market more diverse. The Bill will increase opportunities for sub contractors by requiring advertising in a process similar to GETS in New Zealand. This week the Scottish Government indicated that it would increase SME participation to 45% – only Slovenia, Germany, Luxembourg and Ireland among EU states give SMEs a greater access to public procurement. Yet 80% of the EU have a higher SME participation than the UK as a whole.

Parliamentarian’s expenses for last quarter

14 August 2012

Sometimes we don’t see the good things we have going for us. Sometimes other do.

Yesterday an Australian blogger bemoaned the fact that Australian government integrity measures
do not extend to the publishing of MPs expenses as in the New Zealand model, and particularly, the itemised character of those disclosures.

What precipitated the comment was the publication last week of the expenses disclosures for the
April -June quarter.  Total expenditure by MPs for the period was $1.93 million.  This excludes expenditure by Ministers which is separately reported. Their spending for the period was $1.16 million.   Spending by the Minister of Foreign Affairs was greatest at $266k.  The Trade Minister was next at $241k followed by the Prime Minister at $185k.

A number of other jurisdictions have systems that present the information in different ways. In Canada for example, Ministers’ expenses are posted on a departmental site which includes the disclosures by senior officials.  This makes comparison of like office holders slightly less easily accessed.

http://www.foi-privacy.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/water-and-wine-trans-tasman-comparisons.html

www.dia.govt.nz/ministers_expenses

www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/Expenses/c/0/f/00NZPExpenses020820121-Members-expenses-disclosure-from-1-April-2012.htm

www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/mg-ldm/2011/pgmo-pldcm06-eng.asp#toc6

Britain finds £5.5 billion in efficiencies

13 August 2012

Last week the British Government announced public sector efficiency savings. The Cabinet Office minister spoke of £5.5 billion over the last year, which he said had been saved without harming front line services.  Savings of £20 billion were to be achieved over the coming year. The Minister acknowledged that such a four fold increase will not be easy, and that the policy has met with significant resistance in Whitehall. But he was infuriated “…that for years governments frittered away billions of taxpayers’ pounds on wasteful consultancy, superfluous advertising, disastrous IT projects, and on renting property even when there was state-owned freehold space vacant nearby.”

The Guardian’s perspective reflects the Whitehall resistance referred to by the Minister.  Its report was that  “…the government’s leading axeman and his team at the efficiency and reform group continue to maintain that cuts to back-office service don’t harm frontline services.”

The use of the term efficiency is interesting. The language that accompanied the new public management movement was of economical, efficient and effective services. That is the language of the State Sector Act. The Crown Entities and Public Finance Acts refer to efficiency and effectiveness (although the State Owned Enterprises Act includes none of the terms.)  The Better Public Services Cabinet Papers indicate that the statement of chief executives’ responsibilities in the State Sector Act is to be restated in amending legislation to include “the efficient, effective and economical management of the activities of the department”.

In public management jargon, being economical relates to inputs, efficiency relates to outputs, and effectiveness relates to outcomes. In these terms the focus of the British Government on efficiency could be viewed as a reduction of outputs- rather than a drive to get results. That is what its critics say is happening. Spending has been cut back, with the result that less is being done.  

The Whitehall Watch blog notes that

 “…to be fair to Government, sometimes it is necessary to cut spending (inputs) whatever the affect on outputs. And sometimes areas of Government spending can be cut altogether because they are not priorities or they are not working. But what is wrong is to claim these as “efficiency savings” because they are not…”

“NOT ONE of the ‘savings’ listed by Government today is an efficiency saving on the information we have – they are all just cuts to inputs. Many of them have the potential to not only damage immediate outputs but to cause longer-term problems that will cost Government dearly..”.

“Independent Audit – government claims their figures have been “independently audited” and when I first called the Cabinet Office they first claimed this was “by the NAO”. When I queried this the position started to shift and it appears they have been “independently audited” by some internal audit process and whilst they “welcome” audit by the NAO this has not yet happened…”

“NB – just in case anyone thinks this critique is “political” – I said exactly the same things about the “efficiency” claims of the last Government…”

The Better Public Services Report aspiration that in New Zealand the State sector  does more with less, is framed in appropriately effectiveness focused terms.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9461856/Francis-Maude-quadruples-Whitehall-savings-target-to-20-billion.htmlterms.

http://whitehallwatch.org/2012/08/09/lies-damned-lies-and-government-efficiency-savings-yet-again-this-is-starting-to-get-boring-4/

www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2012/aug/10/efficiency-savings-corrosive-public-services

www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/bps-2306571.pdf

Does UNCAC membership make business less corrupt?

 10 August 2012

Siemens AG has been involved in some of the largest breaches of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This week the Securities and Exchange Commission is trying to effect summonses on senior Siemens managers who have refused to submit to US jurisdiction, relating to bribes of more than $100 million to Argentinian officials to secure government contracts.

Three years ago Siemens reached a $1.6 billion deal with US and German authorities to settle another bribery case, also involving Argentina.

But yesterday, Siemans joined other major German companies in lobbying for tighter laws on public sector bribery.  Ironically, Siemans, as much as others in the business sector apparently want Germany to become part of the UN Convention against Corruption.  

Germany – together with Japan and New Zealand – is among the small number of countries not party to UNCAC. Germany has to tighten statutory controls on the conflicts of parliamentarians, to meet convention obligations. New Zealand’s outstanding constraints include issues relating to the soliciting bribes .

Currently, a German MP can accept payments in return for voting in party meetings although paying for parliamentary votes does constitute criminal bribery. Because there are numerous examples of bribery in German politics, Transparency International ( which is based in Berlin) is supporting the call from business for law change.

“German parliamentarians are not only harming Germany’s reputation, the reputation of the parliament, but also the German export industry,” the group said in a news release. “Germany’s failure to ratify this convention makes life harder for German companies abroad.”

Transparency International NZ is also concerned about the lack of progress over the last ten years in making New Zealand law compatible with UNCAC. TINZ claims that “for the sake of our international reputation – and our economy – it’s now past time for ratification to be made a political priority, as well as a priority for New Zealand business…Transparency International’s own research shows that the majority of NZX50 companies do not have policies in place that prohibit bribery by staff. This shows that it is both government and business that is lagging far behind most other OECD countries…”

http://blog.transparency.org/2012/08/09/german-business-ceos-join-chorus-calling-for-uncac-ratification/

www.transparency.org.nz/index.php/component/content/article/8-news/125-time-for-action-on-corruption-in-new-zealand-approve-uncac

www.interest.co.nz/news/59557/new-zealand-yet-ratify-important-un-treaty-against-insidious-plague-corruption-nearly-9-y

Should all public spending be public knowledge?

9 August 2012

 Accountability has many forms.  A current focus at Westminster is to establish a process by which civil servants fulfil their accountability obligations not only to Ministers but through Select Committees to Parliament. In Wellington accountability is to be measured by delivery on 10 results for Better Public Services. In Canberra the focus of a Commonwealth Accountability Review is to make financial information more available and useful to the public.

Open and Shut blog yesterday highlighted a submission to the review by the Australian Information Commissioner.  His proposal is to ensure greater openness through the disclosure on websites of spending by agencies on:

  • Educational expenses and study leave paid to staff
  • Expenditure on executive coaching, leadership training and media training
  • Paid parental leave
  • Employee expenses as a proportion of the agency budget
  • Expenditure on hospitality and entertainment
  • The value of consultancies awarded by the agency
  • Discretionary grants made by the agency
  • Expenditure on legal services
  • Expenditure on corporate cars
  • Expenditure on taxis
  • Expenditure on advertising
  • Expenditure on media monitoring
  • Expenditure on media subscriptions
  • Expenditure on staff travel
  • Measures taken to absorb the efficiency dividend
  • Staff numbers employed in ongoing, non-ongoing and contract positions, and at SES level
  • Expenditure on entitlements of current and former parliamentarians.

Where there is a commitment to open government, there can be little justification for keeping such spending beyond the knowledge of the public and the scrutiny of Parliament. It will be interesting not only to see what political willingness there is to give effect to the recommendation, but whether there is any urge in other jurisdictions for the provisions to be replicated.

www.finance.gov.au/about-the-department/media-centre/secretary/media-releases/2012/mr_270312.html

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

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01lpwq0

www.foi-privacy.blogspot.co.nz/

What are the ethics of banking?

8 August 2012

 The code of conduct of Standard Chartered Bank is called “Leading by Example”. The chief executive comments that… “It takes years to build a brand, and can take only seconds to destroy it. The Code of Conduct is our toolkit to prevent this happening. I expect every member of staff to know and follow it. We all have a role to play, every one of us can make a real difference. Everyone has individual responsibility and accountability.”

 Those ‘seconds to destroy’ struck this week.

 After a ten year money go round with Iranian assets, Standard Chartered Bank is now classified by US authorities as a rogue institution. Standard Chartered until this week has avoided the tarnish experienced by almost all other international bankers.  But its reputation has been shattered as light is shone on manipulating markets to disguise $250 billion of Iranian investments.  United States sensitivity to all things Iranian means that the fall out may “bring down” British banking regulators, including the likely successor as Governor of the Bank of England, because they held prominent roles at Standard Chartered during the relevant period. The chief executive who launched the code of conduct was seen as the next chief executive at Barclay’s Bank –but probably not now.

 A report this week claimed that the bank had hidden transactions by wiping out codes in the payment system that would have identified Iranian clients.  Exposing the US in this way “to terrorists, weapon dealers, drug kings and corrupt regimes” has led to nearly 25% loss of shareholder value in two days. Included in the report is an account of a London based director, unimpressed with a warning about Iran, castigating…”you f..king Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we’re not going to deal with Iranians.”

All of which suggests that Ethisphere, the anticorruption magazine that publishes an annual list of the World’s Most Ethical Companies is as susceptible as any of us to being misled by the front of respectability projected by banks. Standard Chartered Bank has been listed among the five most ethical banks for several years – the others being National Australia Bank, Westpac Bank, ANZ Bank and Robobank.

 When will they ever learn…?

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9457539/Years-of-wrongdoing-alleged-at-Standard-Chartered.html

www.standardchartered.com/en/resources/global-en/pdf/sustainabilty/Code_of_Conduct.pdf

http://ethisphere.com/ethisphere-institute-unveils-2012-worlds-most-ethical-companies/

Does the NZ public sector only look good from afar?

7 August 2012 

Two views of the New Zealand public sector were aired yesterday.  

Sir Kenneth Keith on a home visit from the International Court of Justice (where he has been a member for 6 years) spoke to Transparency International (NZ) about “Bringing the lamp of scrutiny to dark places”. (This address title comes from a judicial observation in a Canadian case relating to the role of Ombudsmen who not only shine the light but do so “even over the resistance of those who would draw the blinds.”)

His address traced the evolution of the Official Information Act, punctuated with anecdotal recollections from an extraordinary career, in the public service, academia and the judiciary. Sir Ken spoke with admiration of many of the senior officials who championed the legislation, and his audience no doubt inferred criticism of some officials over the last 30 years in whom the expectations of the long repealed Official Secrets Act seem more engrained than the purpose of the Official Information Act “…to increase progressively the availability of official information…”

Meanwhile yesterday’s Guardian carried a contribution from the National Secretary of the NZ Public Service Association.  Her advice to the UK Minister for the Cabinet Office, seeking civil service reform, was not to look to New Zealand for processes to replicate. He should reconsider his admiration of New Zealand public management as it has resulted in “…a separatist, corporate, contract-based model  that has created an extraordinarily fragmented system … in which too often the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing…”  She sees it as a failed experiement, not the formula for accountability and an outcome focus.

A common feature to the themes of both is the perceived intolerance New Zealand officials have for corruption; from a generation with leaders who were committed to better and open public services, to the current public sector, committed equally to an ethos of hard work and imbued with strong spirit of service, regardless of the structures imposed upon them.

www.transparency.org.nz/index.php/home

www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2012/aug/06/new-zealand-contractual-civil-service-model