UN awards to mark Public Service Day

26 June 2012

United Nations Public Service Day, celebrated on various dates this month in various places, was recognised at the UN Headquarters yesterday.  At a ceremony to mark the occasion awards were presented in a range of service categories.

Awards were made for

  • Preventing and Combating Corruption in the Public Service

 ( Mauritius, Korea, Mexico, Singapore, Turkey and Georgia were recognised in an unusual grouping of winners, reflected also in the other award categories. )

  • Improving the Delivery of Public Services
  • Fostering Participation in Policy-making Decisions through Innovative Mechanisms
  • Advancing Knowledge Management in Government
  • Promoting Gender-responsive Delivery of Public Services

Another series of awards was based on a recent UN e-government survey.

In the global e-government award, Korea, followed by the Netherlands and the United Kingdom were considered to have excelled in establishing a robust telecommunications infrastructure, invested in the development of human capital capacity and expanded usage of e-government facilities.

Awards for outstanding progress in implementing e-government were given to Finland, Israel and Liechtenstein, recognising advances in service delivery, and a commitment to re-think of e-government and e-governance.

The countries recognised for leading e-government in each region were the United States, United Kingdom, Seychelles, Australia and Korea.

Leaders in providing customer focused e-government services were

1st =    Netherlands and Korea

2nd =   Kazakstan and Singapore

3rd =    United States and United Kingdom

New Zealand doesn’t seem to have featured – and probably was not even entered for consideration – in any of the awards.

The IPANZ – Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards, to be announced tomorrow night, will commemorate Public Service Day in New Zealand.

 

www.unpan.org/DPADM/UNPSDayAwards/UNPublicServiceDay/2012UnitedNationsPublicServiceDay/tabid/1527/language/en-US/Default.aspx

www.mch.govt.nz/news-events/news/finalists-picked-2012-public-sector-excellence-awards

Uncategorized

, ,

June 26, 2012

Leave a comment

What is open government?

 25 June 2012

In an interesting juxtaposition, a report on progress giving effect to the NewZealand Declaration on Open and Transparent Government was released at the GOVIS conference in Wellington last week. At the same time the Open Government Partnership – the international open government initiative – reported progress on its 55 members’ action plans.

New Zealand and Australia have been notably absent from any involvement in, let alone commitment to, the Open Government Partnership.( Finland, Iceland, and Singapore are other high ranking countries on the Transparency International CPI that are not involved either.)  The OGP countries’ action plans perhaps indicate why. 

Internationally, open government is about promoting transparency and accountability.  For New Zealand, it is about using public data “to grow the economy, strengthen our social and cultural fabric, and sustain our environment”.  The 2011 Cabinet directive also recognised there would be a contribution to “… a more efficient  and accountable public sector, more services tailored to citizen needs…”

The Open Government programme at the GOVIS conference confirms that New Zealand agencies generally, have aspirations focused on delivering public benefit through the accessibility and reuse of official information.

Internationally, the Open Government Partnership member countries are committed to completing action plans to give effect to the Open Government Initiative. About 40 of the 55 OGP members plans have been reviewed by Global Integrity (a US based NGO) on behalf of the OGP.

Plans are intended as actionable, time-bound and benchmarked commitments towards making their governments more transparent, accountable and participatory.

Findings from the review released last week suggest a reluctance of countries to include SMART measures in their plans. Although 70% of plans include at least four out of the five such measures, fewer than half specify metrics for assessing progress. About 20 countries didn’t include a timeline for their activities.

 The analysis of action plans shows;

  • Early converts to the Open Government movement, like Brazil, Canada and Israel have some of the strongest plans, but so do some newcomers like Jordan and the Dominican Republic.
  • Countries are into grand statements and rhetoric rather than specificity about activities for implementation
  • “Open Government” is not universally understood, with plans including out-of-scope activities relating to democratic rights rather than specifying transparency and accountability targets.

Future action by the OGP includes sharpening these plans. An Independent Review Mechanism will track member progress.

www.opengovpartnership.org/countries/list/e

www.globalintegrity.org/blog/ogp-action-plan-assessments

http://ict.govt.nz/library/2012%20Report%20on%20Agency%20Adoption%20of%20the%20Declaration%20on%20Open%20and%20Transparent%20Government%20June%202012.pdf

Uncategorized

, , , ,

June 25, 2012

Leave a comment

Once were warriors but NZ high on Peace Index

 22 June 2012

The Institute for Economics and Peace  in its sixth annual Global Peace Index published last week has assessed the World to be a more peaceful place than last year – not that many have a choice on where to live!

This year the Index scores 158 countries.  It uses 23 indicators to assess the level of safety and security in society, the extent of domestic and international conflict and the degree of militarisation. The data is collated in the hope that it will help governments create more peaceful societies.

Iceland for the second year in a row is the most peaceful country.

New Zealand holds on to second place – which it shares with Denmark. ( New Zealand was ranked as the most peaceful country in both 2009 and 2010.)

Not surprisingly Syria is the country that has dropped most since last year, falling 30 places to 147th

With the end of the civil war, Sri Lanka moved up 30 places to 103rd.  Australia is ranked 22nd.

Western Europe is substantially more peaceful than any other region. Conversely, the Middle East and North Africa have taking over from Sub Saharan Africa as the least peaceful.  Asia Pacific was the most improved region.

By some unfathomable calculation, a survey finding is that world economies would be US$ 9 trillion better off if there was complete peace.

The ten most peaceful countries are:

Iceland

New Zealand

Denmark

Canada

Japan

Austria

Ireland

Slovenia

Finland

Switzerland

www.visionofhumanity.org/globalpeaceindex/2012-gpi-findings/

Uncategorized

, , , ,

June 22, 2012

Leave a comment

“… It’d be the end of civilisation as we know it!”

21 June 2012

In Britain the Cabinet Minister spent Monday afternoon giving evidence to the Public Affairs Select Committee, justifying the current number of special advisers, despite the Government’s declared policy to substantially reduce staff in support of Ministers. On Tuesday he announced plans to reform the civil service. It is to be smaller and smarter.

The Guardian was not impressed with the Minister’s statement; “ the whole thing was floated on a great flotilla of jargon…  the Minister, used enough jargon to stuff a dead grizzly but sounded more like a vicar in a new parish, listing plans for the coming months.”

The Minister’s proposal includes changing “a focus on process rather than on outcomes, a risk-averse culture, and rampant gradism”. He said the civil service had to be “smaller, pacier, flatter and more digital … transaction and operational”.  There was a need for “sharpening accountability”, “digital project management capabilities” and “delivery through the cadre of permanent secretaries”.

The plan is for a “delivery landscape”…“rigorous daily collective self-evaluation,” … “lean continuing improvement” and a “demanding methodology”.

The Guardian queries how this language will contribute to openness and transparency!

A series of “zero base” reviews of departments, starting with the Department for Education, will ask what work they should be doing and how many staff are needed to do that. Efficiencies will come from pooling of central services, devolving powers and responsibilities to local government and the private sector, abolishing grades to reduce hierarchies, and dismissing the worst performing 10%.

The Telegraph view is that the changes are insufficient. As the 80:20 rule applies in Whitehall, reducing the civil service could improve its work. “There should be no doubt of the importance of Whitehall reform and the size of the potential benefits of getting it right.” But it doubts that the Minister’s proposals will bring about the necessary change in culture.

As  Sir Humphrey once observed: “Real reductions in the size of the Service?! It’d be the end of civilisation as we know it!”

www.civilservice.gov.uk/reform

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/19/civil-service-reforms-flotilla-jargon

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9339642/The-Civil-Service-reforms-are-too-little-too-late.html

http://adragonsbestfriend.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/reform-of-the-civil-service-todays-white-paper

Uncategorized

, , ,

June 21, 2012

2 Comments

New Zealand public sector fraud

20 June 2012

The Auditor General published more details yesterday of the findings of a fraud survey she commissioned from PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2011.  The publication has the effect of reinforcing awareness of the survey findings and serves to remind all agencies of their responsibility “…to minimise risks and limit losses, while working to strengthen and protect our sense of community and values…”

The report outlines the survey findings and international comparisons, confirming the general absence of systemic large scale corruption witin New Zealand agencies, which may well be attributable  to “….the integrity of our standards and controls, underpinned by strong and shared common values…”

The Auditor General notes that risks will  increase as people struggle to make ends meet;  vigilance is necessary – “we cannot be complacent…”

Survey respondents were aware of more fraud in local government (32.4%) than central government (28.4%), and much less in schools (7.7%).  Theft of cash and equipment was more common than fraudulent expense claims, payroll fraud or false invoicing.

The most common reason offenders gave for committing fraud was a belief that they didn’t think they would get caught.

Although comprising only 26% of fraud incidents, managers were responsible for 85% of fraud by value.  International data shows that fraud is increasingly committed by people at a managerial level or above.

The Auditor General confirms that there is a strong correlation between the culture of an agency and the incidence of fraud.  She sets out six behavioural characteristics – not unlike the State Services Commission “six trust elements” – thatwill help keep fraud at bay:

  • setting the tone at the top
  • putting in place appropriate controls, policies and procedures
  • talking openly about fraud and the risk of fraud
  • making sure staff feel safe to report fraud
  • ensuring staff know about fraud policies and procedures
  • telling staff about fraud incidents and how they were dealt with

Agencies can be protected by their values and systems only if there is continual reinforcement of the importance of integrity and trustworthiness, and a culture of “doing the right thing”.

www.oag.govt.nz/2012/fraud-awareness

Uncategorized

, ,

June 20, 2012

Leave a comment

What’s a draft worth?

19 June 2012 

The Australian Information Commissioner published a decision on Friday relating to a refusal to reduce the fee charged by the Treasury for the collation of draft copies of a public report. The central issue was not whether the information should be released but whether the fee set by the Treasury was appropriate.

The report related to carbon price policy. Although the final report was available, development of the underpinning policy was recognised as being a matter of interest to many. The Treasury considered its fee was appropriate as making the drafts available would not lead to better informed public debate.

The Information Commissioner restated the principle that release of documents disclosing government policy is important for accountability. There may be a public interest in the release of the draft of a document that has been finalised and published, particularly where it clarifies public controversy about the process of developing the final version of that document.

But that was not the case with this application. There was no suggestion that disclosure of the drafts might contribute to government accountability in a way that disclosure of the final report had not.

So the issue was whether there was a public interest reason to reduce the fee, bearing in mind that the final report has been made public. The Information Commissioner was not persuaded to waive or reduce the fee.

In New Zealand the situation regarding the release of draft documents is possibly more certain than in Australia.  Release of a draft may in fact be prejudicial to government accountability.  Guidance published in 2001 seems to remain the approach taken by the Ombudsmen.

Drafts are official information, and have no special status under the Official Information Act. However the appropriateness of directing the release of drafts must be case specific. “There is often good reason …to refuse requests for draft documents”.  ”

“  If the end result of disclosure of drafts is to prejudice the quality of the reports or correspondence or advice being generated, then the wider public interest of effective government and administration would not be served. In assessing whether there is any countervailing public interest in disclosure of draft documents, it must be remembered that decision-makers are accountable for the advice they act upon and not for early drafts generated in preparation of that advice that they will often not have seen…”

“Usually it would only be in circumstances where disclosure of drafts would reveal some impropriety in process or practice that the public interest in release would outweigh valid interests in protecting information under the Act.”   

www.oaic.gov.au/publications/decisions/2012_aicmr17.html

 www.ombudsmen.parliament.nz/imagelibrary/100209.pdf

Uncategorized

, ,

June 19, 2012

Leave a comment

“Up Guards, and at em”…Commons Committee reviews special advisers

18 June 2012

Today’s  anniversary of the battle is unlikely to be the Waterloo for special advisers at Westminster.  The Commons  Public Administration Committee is to examine the Minister responsible for the Cabinet Office, and the Head of Propriety and Ethics in the Prime Minister’s Office on the responsibility and accountability of special advisers. The Minister may have an easier ride than his predecessor Liam Byrne when the Select Committee last considered special adviser issues in 2009. (The sparring between the then Minister and the Committee reported in 20 of the 45 pages of the Committee transcript reflect the tensions of officials having political functions.  The Committee repeatedly referred to the reptilian nature of special advisers, not helped by a series of integrity breaches at that time.)

Today, the Minister is likely to face criticism about the part played by Adam Smith, the special adviser whose actions in the name of the Culture Minister in the B Sky B furore, precipitated his resignation.  In what may be a preemptive measure the Culture Minister last week, when announcing a new special adviser, remarked that the Government will be…”at least as transparent about the work of special advisers as the Labour administration”.

The Committee remains dominated by Conservative members. Interestingly the only committee member who participated in the 2009 hearings (Paul Flynn – Labour) was then concerned about the gross hypocrisy of the media. The Leveson inquiry will have provided him with ammunition to renew that approach.

There are eleven written submissions being considered by the Committee (link below). Most don’t appear to shine much new light – that by a former special adviser to Gordon Brown being a notable exception.  Democratic Audit (a Rowntree funded NGO) comments that the distinction between the integrity obligations of special advisers and other civil servants is not justified. A common code would bring greater accountability – and would make the UK framework more like New Zealand’s.

“41.It is also problematic that the Code of Conduct for special advisers exempts them from ‘the general requirement that civil servants should…behave with impartiality and objectivity’. (Cabinet Office, 2010b, p.3). Surely it is possible for a responsible individual to combine party political commitment with these qualities. An amendment to the Code of Conduct, removing or at least qualifying this exemption, is desirable. “  (Presumably the interpretation of impartiality would have to exclude political neutrality – which is central to the role and accountability debate!)

A submission by the Constitutional Unit at University College London includes some dated comparisons with Australia, Canada and New Zealand.  The Unit has a 15 month research project into special advisers underway (also funded by Rowntree).

A contemporaneous but unconnected opinion on A Dragon’s Best Friend blog reflects the experience of a former civil servant advocating greater training for special advisers.

The Lords Constitution Committee which has programmed a review of special advisers also, has not published progress yet.  It had requested submissions by 8 June.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubadm/uc504-i/uc50402.htm

www.parliament.uk/business/news/2012/june/opposition-debate-on-culture-secretary/

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-hunt-pledges-government-will-be-transparent-over-special-advisers-7851074.html

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

www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/special-advisers/Constitution_Unit_Submission_on_Special_Advisers_FINAL.pdf

http://adragonsbestfriend.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/training-for-ministerial-special-advisers/

http://adragonsbestfriend.wordpress.com/2012/05/26/in-defence-of-ex-special-adviser-adam-smith/

www.parliament.uk/business/lords/media-centre/house-of-lords-media-notices/2012/april-2012/civil-servants-inquiry/

Uncategorized

, , ,

June 18, 2012

Leave a comment

Corruptio optimi pessima

15 June 2012

Few will be surprised by the responses of the British Prime Minister to the Leveson inquiry.  Over the last few months the evidence has familiarised all who are interested with the interconnectedness of politics, press, and the police. A constitutional convention that good government is strengthened by the independence of these agencies, preserved by their arms length relationships, has taken a serious knock.  Ministers – and would be Minister – have been shown to be very close to the media.

David Cameron’s diaries reveal that during opposition he met Rupert Murdoch ten times, James Murdoch 15 times and Rebekah Brooks 19 times. And that is likely to disregard weekend meetings and social events .  He said that he had over 1,400 meetings with “media figures” in his five years as leader of the opposition. That works out at 26 per month.

Politicians and the press have become “too close”, Mr Cameron told the inquiry.  In what is an argument for lobbying disclosure he admitted that.. “Politicians do have an interest in not being investigated…”  transparency initiatives have helped mitigate that closeness. “…the pendulum needs to swing back a bit…” He acknowledged that the closeness between Ministers and publishers has prevented successive governments from reforming the media.

Apparently another three people were arrested yesterday in connection with News of the World payments to police officers.  That brings the total to 33.

Corruption of the best, is the worst!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9331009/Leveson-Inquiry-Prime-Minister-David-Cameron-gives-evidence-live.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/14/operation-elveden-three-arrested

Uncategorized

, , ,

June 15, 2012

Leave a comment

Look to the US for lobbing in action

14 June 2012

I hoisted my colours in yesterday’s post on lobbying. As decision makers in all jurisdictions have been shown to be susceptible to the charms of lobbyists, more of the same will not strengthen public trust in government.  That underpins the OECD expectation that Member states will introduce controls as a pragmatic resolution of the misuse of economic power and a defence against the blandishments of the lobbying industry.  “Pay to play” seems inherently undemocratic.  But only a minority seems to think that way. Although politicians in opposition seem to appreciate the merits, when in Government, there is an almost universal diminution of enthusiasm to regulate.  

The  influence of big business can be corruptive. As with most things, abusive practices are readily identified in the United States.  And Northrop Grumman, in the news this week, is an illustration of institutionalising lobbying.

Northrop Grumman’s business is almost totally dependent on government. Its products are expensive – eg $1.45 trillion for the F-35 project –and as the World’s fourth largest weapons maker, the company’s wellbeing is closely related to decisions of the US Government. Any reduction in the Defence budget impacts on it.

So it needs to have the ear of decision-makers.

That requires someone on the “inside” with access to politicians who make the spending decisions.

Last year, when Republicans won a majority in the House of Representatives, the House Armed Services Committee recruited new professional staff. An appointee was a Northrop Grumman vice president. He left the private sector, where he had a salary of $500,000 or so. His career move was to become a public servant serving the Committee on a $120,000 salary.   Oh and before he resigned, Northrop Grumman made sure he had a bonus of more than $490,000.

Coincidentally, the Chair of the Armed Services Committee receives larger campaign contributions from Northrop Grumman than any other politician. Not surprisingly his activities all favour Northrup Grumman, and the preservation of billion dollar contracts awarded to that firm.

This “reverse revolving door” where lobbyists become government officials has been criticised for its “pernicious affect” on public policy. 

In his Bill of Rights report on a Bill intended to police lobbyists,  the Attorney General has found that controls proposed in the Bill cannot be reasonably justified because of their effect on the freedom of expression.

http://www.republicreport.org/2012/grumman-500k-mckeon/

Uncategorized

, ,

June 14, 2012

Leave a comment

Lobbying opposed on Bill of Rights grounds

13 June 2012

The Attorney General has reported to Parliament that lobbying controls are an unjustified limitation on freedom of expression. ( The same Law Officer whose Government is promoting the Community Services and Orders Bill that will detain former offenders at the conclusion of court ordered sentences because of their potential to reoffend. )  Proposals in the Bill before the House to impose controls on lobbyists are a watered down emulation of measures which have long been established not only in the United States Congress but in almost every other American State legislature and in many city jurisdictions. Lobbying controls have a long history in Canada, are in vogue at Westminster and Canberra, and also in a growing number of democratic countries.

The Attorney General’s assessment that lobbying controls, prima facie, unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression, suggests he marches to a different beat from the rest of the Western world. The importance of transparency and trustworthiness is acknowledged as a justifiable trade-off for constraining freedoms in jurisdictions with which New Zealand likes to compare itself. Lobbying controls were recently introduced in the European Parliament, although the Transparency International report on corruption risks in Europe published earlier this month identified a weakness of lobbying controls as a major risk in much of Europe.  The OECD expects member states to give effect to the Principles of Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying adopted in February 2010. It will be surveying compliance with those principles in 2013.

The notion of openness regarding the lobbying of decision-makers has never been a matter of public concern in New Zealand.  An absence of media interest is probably the reason why there is little public comprehension of the issues or concern about the implications. We seem oblivious of movements which have given rise to dozens of organisations like the Sunlight Foundation and OpenSecrets.org.  Wikipedia suggests that in the United States $30 billion was spent lobbying between 1998 and 2010, invested in influencing decision makers, presumably because the “cause” is not self evidently worth supporting.

There may be a rationalization.  The parliamentary whipping regime in New Zealand means that individual MPs have little influence on law making. Power rests with Cabinet to decide the legislative programme and with Ministers to exercise statutory discretions. Unlike political practices in the United States, there is little advantage for interest groups to compete for the support of individual legislators.  All that is needed here is to capture the support of one or two of the most senior Ministers.

Ironically in almost every country where lobbying research has been undertaken, the corrupting influence of lobbying is uncovered.  New Zealanders must either be genuinely different not only from the Danes and Finns with whom we compete for recognition as having a corruption free public sector, but the British, Canadians and Australians with whom we have much, culturally and often genetically, in common.

www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/DA3E13C9-FE3B-40FF-87A9-CBED0321A9E9/223921/DBHOH_PAP_23052_AttorneyGeneralReportoftheunderthe.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States

www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/57/44641288.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/mainstatistics.do?locale=en&action=prepareView

Uncategorized

, , ,

June 13, 2012

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «