What goes around ….

12 June 2012

If what goes round, comes around, then it will not be surprising if what’s going round in the British public sector may well come around in New Zealand.

 Senior civil servants, particularly those whose professional skills are in areas like economics and law are abandoning public sector careers. In an unprecedented way, a majority of British Ministers (and the government was formed only 16 months ago) have now been in post for longer periods than their departmental chief executives. Staff turnover in some departments is as high as 30 per cent, according to the Institute for Government. And in the Treasury, the rate at 28%, is described as being greater than McDonalds!

According to the Institute for Government the Civil Service reform plan to be published shortly will need to show Government confidence in the Civil Service and compelling reasons for talented civil servants to stay on. The view is that as no more money can be saved from the back office, the reform plan must be more than a list of random actions.

The recommendation is that the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Cabinet Office repudiate attacks on the Civil Service, so that chief executives can demonstrate their commitment to reform across departments, to improve value for money, policy making and the running of major projects.

Success needs

 • compelling outcomes of reform

 • clear accountability and responsibility in roles of Ministers and their chief executives

• focus on cross-department savings

 • radical ideas for reform

• effective leadership from the top of the Civil Service

• political support from the Prime Minister and senior Ministers.

With very little change in language the prognosis and remedy seem apposite for the situation in New Zealand.

 

 

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/goodbye-minister-civil-service-hit-by-staff-exodus-6579522.html

www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2012/jun/11/whitehall-reform-risks-civil-service-exodus

Uncategorized

, , ,

June 12, 2012

Leave a comment

Does “taking ethical responsibilities seriously” require ethical action?

11 June 2012

What should be the criteria for assessing government service providers?

If a company operates in 125 countries, employs nearly 660,000 staff (making it the largest employer listed on the FTSE) and is chaired by a former Global Chair of Deloittes, should there be any uncertainty about its suitability to contract as a major provider of services to Government?  Is there an expectation that even major transnationals must be evaluated to determine whether engaging them is harmful to the public interest?

The issue is live regarding G4S, the company given major security contracts for the Olympic Games. The Independent on Sunday predicts that Labour peer Lord Hollick will table a question today challenging Ministers to ensure that the British based company does not provide security services in illegal settlements in the West Bank.

The political play will be to see whether the Foreign Secretary’s endorsement of widespread international criticism of Israel’s settlement expansion – which last week included US opposition to the announcement of another 850 Jewish homes in the West Bank – will extend to requiring that a major government contractor excludes itself from associations which harm the standing of the British Government. Although the Foreign Secretary has been critical of the West Bank involvement, 4GS has large FCO contracts to provide security services in the UK and Afghanistan.

Criticism of G4S operations in Israel including their provision of equipment to West Bank military checkpoints, security systems in courts, jails, retail and other commercial premises, and at the West Bank police headquarters.  It has indicated an intention to exit some of these arrangements over the next few years.

The G4S policy “… is always to comply with national law in any jurisdiction in which we operate. We take our ethical responsibilities very seriously and operate to high standards around the world.”  About 70 demonstrators at the company’s annual general meeting protesting against its “horrendous human rights record” in various locations, particularly Israeli prisons, were not convinced.

In New Zealand, the specifications in Treasury guidance have the effect of preventing an agency contracting for the provision of services – or the delivery of those services – in ways which the agency could not lawfully provide or deliver itself. The purpose must be lawful and reflect any relevant statutory framework. Any contract (or grant) must be consistent with the funding agency’s appropriation (and purchase agreement), must comply with good employer and employment equity obligations set by the Department of Labour, and must be compatible with the State Services standards of integrity and conduct ( although there is probably no corporate equivalent of the code obligation on State servants to do nothing that would harm the reputation of their agency or the State services.)

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-asked-why-are-you-allowing-tainted-g4s-to-handle-olympic-security-7827988.html?origin=internalSearch

www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/guidance/mgmt/ngo/tsyngoguide09.pdf

Uncategorized

, , ,

June 11, 2012

Leave a comment

Always someone who will let the side down?

8 June 2012

Yesterday’s post reported on the Transparency International assessment of corruption risks across Europe. TI recognises the variety and variability of that risk. For example, it warns that Scandinavian countries, which score well on the corruption perceptions index, also face integrity threats. The concerns and the recommendations in the TI report have universal application.

Andrew Jackson summed it all up in his Presidential farewell address, 175 years ago, when declaring …. “that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty…”

New Zealand can take comfort from the extent to which the spirit of service has been imbued by most who work in the State Services. Few appear to exploit their official position for personal advantage;  described by Andrew Jackson as flowing …from cupidity, from corruption, from disappointed ambition and inordinate thirst for power…”

Singapore is unique in Asia for the standards demanded of officials – reflected in a year on year improvement in its rating on the Corruption Perceptions Index. But there are always those who will let the side down.

This week, Singaporeans are mortified by the ‘exposure’ of a couple of senior officials.

The head of the Civil Defence Force (fire, ambulance and rescue services) caught in a classic honey trap, has been sacked for consorting with women seeking to influence government contracts. The criminal charge against him is officiously described as “corruptly obtaining sexual gratification from two female vendors and one potential female vendor…on ten occasions”.

The head of the Central Narcotics Bureau, has also been dismissed for “serious personal misconduct.”  Both could face a fine of up to S$100,000 and five years imprisonment if found guilty.

Singapore has tapped into the economic advantage of demanding high standards from its officials. Its reputation for probity in civic affairs has helped make it a darling of investors around the world. Singapore is probably beaten only by Abu Dhabi in the high remuneration given to public servants —a practice they say helps prevent corruption by reducing the incentive to break the law for personal gain.

“Our zero-tolerance approach to corruption in the public and private sectors can only work if Singaporeans continue to be imbued with the right values and recognise that whilst corruption may be a fact of life, it is not our way of life in Singapore,” is the claim of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Civil Service.

Policing a requirement for “…good leadership by example at the top, as well as a population which rejects corruption and does not accept any form of corruption at all…” will reinforce Singapore’s place in the top five countries on the Corruption Perceptions Index.

We should expect no less in New Zealand.   The State Services Commission Statement of Intent has a key integrity measure that over the next five years New Zealand will be in the top five ranked countries on the CPI…. ( the measure previously was to be the top three countries).  In other words, SSC seems to accept that New Zealand agencies need make less effort than those in other jurisdictions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303296604577450152007823124.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.ssc.govt.nz/soi2012

Uncategorized

, , ,

June 8, 2012

Leave a comment

TI highlights corruption risks in Europe

7 June 2012

Money, Politics and Power – Corruption Risks in Europe  is a compilation of research for Transparency International, published yesterday.  The date may be symbolic, being the 68th anniversary of the D Day landings, as “democratic” forces made their big assault against the corruption then dominating Europe.

National Integrity Surveys were conducted in each of the 25 European nations during 2011.  (The New Zealand NIS completed in 2003 is long overdue for a refresh). An assessment of the strengths and weaknesses shown by these surveys gives a convincing picture of the threats to good government.   A conclusion is that even the countries generally regarded as “clean” face challenges, that political complacency about corruption creates widespread risks, and that there are many experiences that should be shared.

Interestingly, the strengths identified in Europe reflect the New Zealand experience – as one of the “cleanest of the clean” – but the five areas of weakness, to some degree, reflect the New Zealand circumstance also. These include:

  • Parliaments are not living up to ethical standards – integrity standards for MPs, such as mandatory codes, conflict regulations, and rules on disclosure of interests are often found wanting.
  • Lobbying remains veiled in secrecy – influence of lobbyists is shrouded in secrecy, to the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, and the implementation of lobbyist registers is lacking.
  • Access to information is limited in practice – freedom of information is affected by poor implementation, institutionalised delays, and lack of public awareness.
  • High corruption risks remain in public procurement – rules are systematically circumvented and done so with impunity.
  • Protection for whistleblowers is lacking – insufficient protection creates real fear of reprisals.
  • Political party financing is inadequately regulated – democratic processes face high risks of being corrupted by loopholes and weak enforcement mechanisms.

Six pages of recommendations to address these concerns will have universal relevance.

 

http://issuu.com/transparencyinternational/docs/corruption_risks_in_europe?mode=window&backgroundColor=%23222222

Uncategorized

, ,

June 7, 2012

Leave a comment

Self service not public service in South Sudan

6 June 2012

South Sudan will have its first anniversary as a state on 9 July.  But because of the self-centredness of the country’s elite, it will have little to celebrate. It will be bankrupt by then. Trustlaw reports that estimated $4 billion of public revenue has been stolen.

The country’s senior officials have already helped themselves to its exchequer!  

Perhaps they would be a congregation deserving of the address by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Jubilee Service for the Queen yesterday about dedication to community and public service, from which happiness can be found.

This week, President Salva Kiir wrote to 75 of his cronies offering an amnesty if they return funds taken out of the country.  The stolen $4 billion is apparently about 30% of total oil receipts allotted to the South since a 2005 peace deal with Sudan have vanished. 

Those who allegedly fought the independence war for their compatriots have, in the event, left those 8.6 million people with some of the world’s worst health and education statistics.  And circumstances are unlikely to improve soon. A feud with Sudan has precluded access since January to the pipeline through which its oil resources could be exported.

The President’s letter comments how  “…once we got to power, we forgot what we fought for and began to enrich ourselves at the expense of our people.”

The country’s anti-corruption committee, obviously lacking the skills of others in government, has recovered about $60 million only of misappropriated funds. The President has written to several heads of state in Africa and the West for help to get the money back from his current and former officials!

www.trust.org/trustlaw/news/south-sudan-officials-have-stolen-4-bln-president

Uncategorized

, , ,

June 6, 2012

Leave a comment

June marks an international focus on public service

5 June 2012

Later this month, the United Nations celebrates Public Service Day. June 25 will mark the tenth year in which the UN has made awards to nominated practitioners and policy makers, to recognise special endeavour in public service. A Public Service Forum including capacity building workshops will be held concurrently with the gathering of World Leaders in New York, to be followed with an Expert Group meeting on “Preventing Corruption in Public Administration”.

The New Zealand recognition of public service is coordinated by the NZ Institute of Public Administration. On 27 June the IPANZ – Gen-I Public Sector Excellence Awards will be announced. The semi-finalists were selected at a ceremony on 15 May.

Although a number of countries mark the UN Public Service Day,  Canada makes a real feast of the anniversary. Under the Serving Canadians Better Act 1992, the third week in June is deemed National Public Service Week. Among the many events programmed in the week  10 – 16 June to mark the occasion, a number of public servants will be announced as winners of the QE11 Diamond Jubilee Medal. These will be among the 60,000 Canadians selected to receive the medal throughout the Queen’s jubilee year. Canada Public Service Awards of Excellence will be made on 11 June. Up to 35 awards are made annually.

Associated events organised by Transparency International are the launch of a Framework for Assurance of Corporate Anti-Bribery Programmes on 21 June, and on 6 June, the release of a study on the causes of corruption in Europe, building on the European Commission’s anti-corruption policy launched this time last year. But more of that on Thursday.

www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/arp/nfpsw-eng.asp

www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/arp/exc-eng.asp

http://beehive.govt.nz/speech/2012-ipanz-gen-i-public-sector-excellence-awards

Uncategorized

, ,

June 5, 2012

Leave a comment

Australian speaker’s expenses are first parliamentary disclosure under FOIA

4 June 2012

The reaction of the Australian Government to the decision by the Information Commissioner that the Senate,  the House of Representatives and Parliamentary Services are subject to the Freedom of information Act is gaining momentum – and mobilising public opposition despite apparent support from many politicians – with a few notable exceptions in the Senate.

As a consequence of the Information Commissioner’s view that parliamentary departments were not excluded from disclosure obligations, the Sydney Morning Herald has obtained – and published – the costs to the Government of the now “stood down” speaker during his short term. In what is reported to be the first ever successful request for parliamentary information under the FOIA, the Speaker’s costs over six months include more than $18,000 for travel and $8,500 for catering.

This has the media keen for more, sensing – as in the UK when MPs’ expenses were revealed – that often the public projection of probity is not the reality. In anticipation that the Attorney General will follow through with her intention to legislate to exclude parliamentary agencies from information disclosure obligations, the SMH reports having made a request for the expenses details of every MP and Senator.

www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/slippers-expenses-out-of-the-bag-but-rest-likely-to-stay-secret-20120603-1zq7t.html#ixzz1wlk2wcrL

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2012/06/01/may-be-australian-information-not-so-free-after-all/

Uncategorized

, , ,

June 4, 2012

Leave a comment

Maybe Australian information is not so free after all

1 June 2012

My post on 11 May 2012 reported the surprise announcement by the Australian Information Commissioner that the House of Representatives, the Senate, and Parliamentary Services Department are subject to the Freedom of Information Act –  and should have been for the last ten years.  This was a reversal of a long maintained interpretation of the law. It was obviously welcomed by open government advocates.

This week, a former Chair of the Australian Public Service Commission, in Wellington together with Richard Mulgan for IPANZ / IPS coordinated seminars on Free and Frank Advice, expressed a view that it was most unlikely that the interpretation would be accepted.  He anticipated immediate pressure to restore the status quo.

Sure enough the news now is that the three Departments have challenged the OAIC interpretation that they are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and have taken the issue up with Attorney General.  She has indicated that she supports their view that the Act was not intended to extend to these bodies.  She said that  “It has been long-accepted practice that the parliamentary departments are exempt from FOI.  The government is currently considering its options to correct this anomaly.”

In New Zealand the Official Information Act is drafted in a way that excludes the interpretational issue facing the Australians.  A schedule to the Act specifies the agencies which are subject to its provisions.  Parliamentary Services and the legislature are not part of the schedule.  

 https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2012/05/11/interesting-times-in-uk-and-australia-for-constitutional-geeks/

http://foi-privacy.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/foi-transparency-and-accountability-for.html

Uncategorized

, ,

June 1, 2012

Leave a comment

What’s in a title?

31 May 2012

The November 2011 paper to Cabinet on Better Public Services flagged a possibility that the State Services Commissioner could be designated with a responsibility as Head of the State Services. That report also identified that advisory boards may become a feature of some Departments.

On 25 January 2012 Cabinet agreed that the State Services Commissioner should be the acting Head of the State Services until statutory amendments formalising that position could be enacted. These developments have gained traction. 

The State Services Commission statement of intent published following the Budget last week drops an expression, without any explanation, about chief executives working with Boards, and a DomPost article featuring the State Services Commissioner this week refers to his title as Head of the State Services (although there has been no sign of the validating legislation.)

 There is an irony in all of this. The UK Civil Service, which has had advisory boards in Departments for several years has still to standardise their use – should they support the chief executive or the Minister? And more dramatically, the creation of the role of Head of the Civil Service in Britain and the establishment of co leaders produces potential for confusion.

With the retirement of Lord O’Donnell as the Head the Civil Service responsibilities in Britain have been split. There is now a Cabinet Secretary,  Head of the Cabinet Office  ( the permanent secretary)  and Head of the Civil Service – well there was. Earlier this month the Head of the Cabinet Office resigned. The new arrangements may have seemed unworkable to him.

The remaining two, the Cabinet Secretary and the Head of the Civil Service appear to have found a way to work through the complication. The Guardian reports that these two travel in the same car to work – presumably demonstrating their commitment to efficiency and effectiveness.  But rather than portraying the mandarins of state utilising the time as champions of good government, the Guardian creates the image of the two as Noddy and Big Ears.

www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/bps-2224147.pdf

www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/bps-2273800.pdf

www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2012/may/25/jeremy-heywood-bob-kerslake

Uncategorized

, ,

May 31, 2012

Leave a comment

Police culture bouncing back

30 May 2012

Yesterday NZ Police released the latest report about organisational culture. This is the fourth audit of progress in reversing the findings of the 2007 Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. In previous years little substantive change had been identified. This year KPMG have reported real improvements across a range measures.

Apparently  this Workplace Survey results are similar to those of other agencies. One finding is that “..Police staff,… are more confident than the rest of the public service that poor performance will be dealt with…”. 

Encouraged by the year’s improvements, a new set of targets for the next four years have been agreed that are “… well above the average set for the wider public sector and they will be a stretch”.  A big stretch is to increase the representation of women in senior positions.

But this “good news” here is not matched in Britain where the Leveson inquiry continues to illuminate dubious police practices.  It appears that police chiefs have come to the conclusion that their officers are no less susceptible to blandishments than anyone else. The allegation that one officer received over stg 80,000 in exchange for information provided to the media seems to have motivated a focus on some practices.

Guidelines in development will prohibit police officers from accepting meals or drinks from journalists. The intention is to standardise  attitudes towards hospitality and gifts. Public opinion was astounded when stories linked to the phone hacking scandal disclosed that senior Met officers regularly wined and dined at top London restaurants as guests of News International, while their less senior colleagues were regular drinking companions of reporters.

The irony is that a blanket rule about the unacceptability of hospitality and gifts relates only to the media- as if the calculating objective of the media is not common to all businesses engaging in corporate hospitality.

These guidelines follow another policy being issued by the Home Secretary that requires all meetings with the media, whether on or off the record, to be formally noted. But is it only police officers who have shown that they let down their guard when experiencing the “kindness” of businesspeople?

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1205/S00981/ssc-report-into-police-culture-shows-big-improvement-on-2010.htm

www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/29/police-meals-drinks-journalists

Uncategorized

, ,

May 30, 2012

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «