Captains – if not the kings – depart

15 May 2012

The head of the UK civil service uses twitter. In a tweet last week he indicated that more was needed to deal with poor performing officials. This responded to reports that Ministers are determined to change the culture of the Civil Service. They say “lazy” civil servants are tolerated because managers do not want to have “difficult conversations” with them.

Plans for tackling performance involve a more rigorous assessment of the 434,000 working in departments, agencies and quangos. This, just a month after the Civil Service introduced a new performance management process, involving ranking of competence.

Senior civil servants, alarmed by a claim by the Paymaster and Minister of the Cabinet Office that the Civil Service could be cut by 70%, have been assured by the Civil Service Head that “…there are absolutely no plans to cut the civil service by either 70 or 90 per cent.”

The Whitehall Watch blog explores poor performance and what the real consequences may be.

“Of the just under half-a-million civil servants, the vast majority are in low ranking jobs doing relatively routine work that does not carry responsibility for a great deal of money. ‘Under-performing’ at these levels can have important, but not exactly disastrous, consequences.”

For the 5,000 in the Senior Civil Service grades the picture is rather different.

“Many of these people are responsible for, or make a big contribution to, important decisions about multi-million or even multi-billion projects and programmes. “Under-performing” at these levels can have dire consequences. The major IT project that get’s the rubber stamp without proper scrutiny and ends up costing 3 or 4 times as much, or not working at all; the un-security-cleared official who gets access to material he shouldn’t; … the defence purchasing decision that turns out to be completely wrong; the failure to ‘speak truth to power’ and tell Ministers a policy is heading for the rocks ….Let’s be clear then – losses to the ‘public value’ of tens of billions of pounds can be caused by “the Mandarins” that will dwarf any losses sustained by the hundreds of thousands of ordinary civil servants, a small minority of whom might be under-performing…”

There is also a reverse logic. If senior officials can cause such substantial harm, there must be an argument for ensuring that when they perform well, they are recognised with substantial remuneration.

The blogger suggests that the focus of the new drive to tackle “poor performers” and reduce civil servant numbers “will be directed at the poor bloody infantry.”

In New Zealand, “the poor bloody infantry” is not the only target for efficiency. “Elite” units like the State Services Commission have reorganised with fewer positions. And Ministers have excluded “frontline staff” from reducing staff numbers. An illustration of what’s happening is the restructure of the Department of Corrections announced earlier this month. Reductions there target the “colonels” and “captains”.

www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/9260385/Government-needs-to-do-better-at-tackling-poor-performers-says-Sir-Bob-Kerslake.html

 

 

www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10803302

Uncategorized

, ,

May 15, 2012

Leave a comment

24% see widespread corruption in New Zealand business

14 May 2012

Gallup has published findings of a corruption survey conducted last year reflecting responses given to interviews with 1000 participants in each of the 140 countries making up this Business Corruption Index. Unlike the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index which evaluates perceptions of the extent to which the public administration is corrupt, the Gallup survey measures perceived corruption within business.
 
As can be expected the countries that rate poorly on the World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index are largely those where corruption is a serious business issue.  The United States is an exception.
 
Results vary widely – even within regions. “… In Asia, for example, 13% of Singaporeans perceive corruption as widespread, (Singapore ranks first on the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Index). In contrast, nearly 90% in Indonesia perceive corruption as widespread in their businesses (Indonesia’s Ease of Doing Business Index ranking is 129th).
 
New Zealanders appear to have less confidence in the integrity of business than in public services. Business in New Zealand was seen by 24% of its citizens as widely corrupt – while 60% did not consider business corruption to be widespread. Overall New Zealand ranks in the Gallup survey as the 4th least corrupted business sector. (It is third in the Ease of Doing Business Index.)
 
The better rating countries, where there is seen to be less widespread corruption in business are;
1st     Singapore  (13%)
2nd    Rwanda     (15%)
3rd     Denmark   (21%)
 
 Australia ranks 12th (32%) and the United States 43rd (62%)
 
According to the World Bank, corruption is “one of the single largest obstacles to economic and social development.” Strong leadership, policies, laws, and greater transparency are necessary to fight corruption, which in turn may actually promote job creation and economic development”. Developing nations may suffer more because corruption can stymie financial development and foreign investments, and foster income inequality.
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, , ,

May 14, 2012

Leave a comment

Interesting times in UK and Australia for constitutional geeks

 
 
11 May 2011
 
The Westminster model of government is likely to get a bit of a shake-up as a consequence of developments this week.
 
In Britain the Speech from the Throne referred to three constitutional items; Lords reform, Scottish independence and changing the rules of succession. Changes to the House of Lords is the most dramatic and could lead to a breakdown between the coalition partners. There is a lot of resistance among Conservative MPs. Issues include – the powers of the Lords, the proportion of elected members, the electoral system, the proposed 15 year non-renewable terms, and keeping bishops in the Lords.
 
The UK and Scottish governments will soon start negotiating about an independence referendum. The UK government wants there to be a single question, just on independence; the Scots want a second question, on full devolution.
 
Another issue relates to succession to the throne, affecting countries where the Queen is head of state. The male primogeniture rule and the discrimination against Catholics are to be resolved.
 
In Australia, new guidelines issued this week by the Information Commission show that the Freedom of Information Act applies to Commonwealth parliamentary departments. This was not anticipated. Previously the interpretation has been that – as in New Zealand – Parliamentary agencies are not subject to the information release provision. The guidelines continue the exemption on the Budget Office.
 
“ Three of the Commonwealth Parliamentary departments (the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of the Senate and the Department of Parliamentary Services) are subject to the FOI Act because they were established by, or in accordance with, s 54 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 and they have not been exempted. The fourth Commonwealth Parliamentary department, the Parliamentary Budget Office, is exempted because it is expressly deemed not to be a prescribed authority…”
 
Where the disclosure in New Zealand of MPs’ travel and expenses was a consequence of a direction from the Speaker, the equivalent information in Australia will now be available by law.
 
 

Uncategorized

, ,

May 11, 2012

Leave a comment

What makes for an effective code?

 

10 May 2012
 
Chicago has an Ethics Reform Task Force exploring how principles underpinning that city’s administration could be restructured to moderate the series of integrity breaches which afflict the jurisdiction. The Task Force has been “picking the eyes” out of the expansive range of ethics policies and practices from across the US.
 
Five years ago the State Services Commissioner directed a similar exercise to determine the nature of the integrity regime that he should set across the State Services. This included exploring the approach taken in numerous jurisdictions and assessing whether processes could migrate effectively to New Zealand. It was in May 2007, following wide consultation, that the Commissioner decided to adopt a homegrown structure which was published the following month, and came into force in December 2007.
 
One of the submissions to the Task Force made earlier this year was from the Executive Director of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board. There is orthodoxy in paper’s analysis of the expectations most citizens have of their officials. The suggested framework for regulating those expectations is traditional. It is a good summary that all who work within such frameworks, are likely to benefit from reading.
 
“The purpose of government ethics laws lies in promoting both the reality and the perception of integrity in government by preventing unethical conduct (conflicts of interest violations) before they occur.
 
“… government ethics laws
 
• Promote both the reality and the perception of integrity in government;
• Focus on prevention, not punishment;
• Are not intended to (and will not) catch crooks, which is the province of penal laws, law enforcement agencies (including inspectors general), and prosecutors;
• Recognize the inherent honesty of public officials, whom these laws seek to guide;
• Do not regulate morality (most are really conflicts of interest laws not ethics laws); and
• Require that the public have a stake in the ethics system….”
 
 
The paper concludes with with the observation that…
 
“…Virtually alone among laws enacted by government, an ethics law regulates the very persons who enact it. Not surprisingly, therefore, the road to ethics reform more often than not proves long, rocky, and arduous, fraught with obstacles along the way. Yet success requires only good faith and hard work – and a clear understanding of the purpose, principles, and structure of an effective ethics law…”
 

Uncategorized

, ,

May 10, 2012

Leave a comment

Fears about New Zealand’s fiscal fidelity unfounded?

9 May 2012
 
For some Europeans, yesterday’s big event was the 67th anniversary of the end of War in Europe. It also marks the launch of the 2012 Basel Anti Money Laundering Index. This is a composite ranking that analyses countries’ risk regarding money laundering, terrorism financing, and related factors such as corruption and political risk.
 
 
New Zealand is rated as the 6th least at risk of the 140 assessed . Although not one of the two “low risk” countries – these are Norway and Estonia – New Zealand is in an adjacent group, following Slovenia, Sweden and Finland.  Australia is ranked 18th least risky – despite the shift to surplus in last night’s Budget being ahead of all other OECD countries.
 
 
The three most risky countries are Iran, Kenyan and Cambodia.
 
 
Scores making up the AML Index are a combination of indicators structured around anti-money laundering, counter-terrorist financing laws, financial regulations, political disclosure and  related factors dealing with corruption and financial risks. The Index enables proper country risk assessment, accessible to all financial institutions, that provides a consistency not previously available. To date there has been no universally agreed definition by either governments or institutions that prescribes whether a particular country represents a higher risk.
 
 
The developers believe that the independent and academic character of the compilation, aggregating data from recognised source agencies including the World Bank, FATF, World Economic Forum, and Transparency International will ensure that the Basel AML Index will be accepted as the worldwide standard.
 
 
New Zealand’s low risk ranking on this Basel AML Index Index conflicts with harsh criticism made last year when Nicholas Shaxson auggested that New Zealand was institutionalising tax evasion. He predicted that before long, it would be counted among the rogues, with a black record on the Financial Secrecy Index.
 
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, , ,

May 9, 2012

Leave a comment

Malignancy test for special advisers

7 May 2012
How malign are SPADs – the special advisers to UK Ministers?
The Constitutional Unit at the University College London has Rowntree Trust funding to explore who special advisers are, what they do, and why it is that Ministers regard special advisers as a vital resource. The irony is that the House of Lords Constitutional Committee, which has now begun a similar exercise, may come up with answers long before the 15 month UCL project is completed.
At the project launch last week, reference was made to the high profile resignation of the special adviser to the Minister of Culture which raised questions about the accountability appointees to that function; to whom are they responsible and what is the appropriate role of the Minister for whom they work?
Special advisers have now become a fixture in Whitehall – as they are in Wellington. But how accurate is the common perception that they wield an inappropriate amount of power as spin doctors and politicians in waiting?
The lead researcher has indicated that “spads” are here to stay. There are now 83 of them at Westminster, up from 66 when the coalition took office. The plan is to interview many of the 350 people in the UK who have held special adviser appointments  and the Minsters they have supported, to assess processes of accountability and how to improve effectiveness.
The research questions are:
  • Why do Ministers appoint special advisers?
  • Who are the special advisers, and what are their characteristics? (age, skills and experience)?
  • How are they recruited? What are their subsequent careers?
  • What are the roles and functions of special advisers?
  • What has been their impact on the workings of government? How can their role and effectiveness be improved?
Studies of this sort have been done in numerous jurisdictions; and material compiled from a 2008 OECD survey is possibly the best summary of comparative arrangements.
Research by the UK Institute of Government for its 2011 report on the Challenge of Being A Minister found that the use of special advisers was the fourth most frequently identified factor in ministerial effectiveness, mentioned by just over 40% of interviewees.
Of the current British Cabinet, both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor had been special advisers. There were at least five in the Brown Cabinet.
The UK has a special code of conduct for special advisers – reflecting that “special” status.  In New Zealand all members of the Public Service are subject to the State Services Commissioner’s code of conduct – and Ministerial Advisers as employees of the Department of Internal Affairs, are public servants. The code for public servants cannot have variations, as it can for people working for Crown entities, to reflect their political responsibilities.

Uncategorized

, ,

May 8, 2012

Leave a comment

Tough at the top

7 May 2012

 
The indignation of the media at handling by the State Services Commissioner of a complaint about the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing is outdone this weekend by the Scottish media coverage of the Head of the Scottish Civil Service. He has been accused of being a lackey of the ruling Scottish Nationalist Party.
 
The essence of public service professionalism is impartiality – the ability to serve the Government regardless of the party in power. The Scottish Government permanent secretary has been accused of failing to uphold this principle in what The Scotsman describes as a “… rare public criticism of a leading mandarin by all three opposition parties…”
 
The issue relates to the local body elections last week (incidentally, in which the SNP did less well than anticipated by many). The Civil Service Head has a role to monitor ministers’ compliance with the Ministerial code. He rejected a complaint that a Minister breached guidelines when making a Government announcement in the first week of the three week election campaign. The announcement of funding, exempting many from local authority rates rises, was seen by Opposition MPs as Government interference to benefit its adherents in local government.
 
There was no adverse action taken by the permanent secretary on the basis that the public interest statement was made on the first available occasion.
 
This is seen as a partisan rationalisation by opposition parties,  disregarding  the responsibility for fairness in reviewing complaints under the code. “This is yet another decision that questions his impartiality. …(he) needs to be reminded that he works for the public, not for the SNP…  The checks and balances that the permanent secretary is supposed to be providing in his role are being sorely missed and (he) seems content to cheer on (the First Minister) rather than scrutinise his conduct…”
 
The matter will be referred to the Head of the UK Civil Service. A previous complaint about a breach of impartiality standards was rejected in 2011 by (the then) Sir Gus O’Donnell. His decision was that comments made on the Scottish independence campaign, “should not be seen as inconsistent with the civil service code”.
 
There is a certain simplicity in media criticism. Decisions in these circumstances by the Scottish Civil Service Head, and similarly the UK Civil Service Head and the State Services Commissioner, will not have been made without advice from the respective Solicitors General. Actions will be based on that guidance about legal duties.
 
 ( The Head of the Scottish Civil Service is an Englishman, who only moved to Scotland two years ago on being appointed to that position. He is a UK civil servant and subordinate to the Head of the UK Civil Service.)
 
 
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, , ,

May 7, 2012

Leave a comment

Is playing tax codes fair game?

4 May 2012
 
Does the community expect higher ethical standards from people who work for government than its members set for themselves?
 
The Cabinet Manual requires all employees in the State sector to act with a spirit of service to the community and meet high standards of integrity and conduct in everything they do. “…In particular employees must be fair, impartial, responsible and trustworthy…”
 
And the same high standards are required of members appointed to Crown entities. They too have a statutory responsibility to perform functions with a spirit of service. Board members who comprise part of their agency, are bound by the code of conduct for the State Services, applied by statute to “…an agency (including its employees)…” which also requires all who work for it to be fair, impartial, responsible and trustworthy.
 
So if it is lawful, is it ethical?
 
Last night there was discussion on the Guardian Public Network about fraud in the UK. Public sector fraud is extensive. The network encouraged commentators to share ideas on improving structures and processes to reduce payroll and procurement fraud – conduct which of course should be alien to public spirited and ethically minded officials.
 
Ironically, although the British National Fraud Authority has recently reported a reduction in tax fraud, a leaked the Treasury memo published yesterday – on World Press Freedom Day – identified more than 2000 contractors in public sector agencies who have minimised their tax liability by their remuneration going to private companies rather than being paid as personal income. The Guardian reports that Ministers were surprised, which seems rather unworldly of them, as earlier this year there were disclosures that large numbers of senior civil servants had similar arrangements. The Treasury has identified more than 1600 contractors who have been working with agencies for longer than six months, but not paid through the payroll.
 
The remedy proposed by the UK Government is that individuals on contracts of longer than six months, paying more than NZ$ 450 per day, who don’t provide an assurance about tax and national insurance payments, will have their contracts terminated. A similar measure in New Zealand would not be welcomed by many who contract their services to agencies , or the appointees to boards who seek to ways around guidance on the Fees and Travelling Allowances Act and related tax obligations.
 
Should public spiritedness require something better?
 
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, , , ,

May 4, 2012

Leave a comment

An outline of lobbying regimes

3 May 2012
 
A useful summary of a number of lobbying regimes was published yesterday as a Parliamentary Research Paper.
 
Pleasance Purser has collated the characteristics of lobbying controls applying to elected and appointed officials (and former officials) in the national jurisdictions of Australia, Canada, United States and France, together with the EU.  The OECD Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying are also included. At a time when there is continuing media and blogger criticism of improper influence on decision makers in much of the OECD, and concern about pay to play expectations, there is surprisingly little literature about comparative lobbying regimes.  A 2008 OECD research paper Lobbyists, Governments and Public Trust which led to the publication in 2010 of the OECD lobbying principles is readable primer.
 
The Purser paper includes an outline of each regime with a potted history, a specification of scope – what lobbying is and which lobbyists are covered, together with codes of conduct, compliance structures and cooling off requirements. Interestingly, the Wikipedia “lobbying” entry has well referenced descriptions of these elements for the UK and the US but fewer specifications for Australia and France. It doesn’t have an entry for Canada despite the strident advocacy of Canadian organisations like Democracy Watch.
 
Political interest in raising awareness of the influence of lobbyists and in policing their activities has a short history in New Zealand. By contrast, in North America and increasingly in Europe the lobbying industry is being challenged by transparency pressure groups. These groups also target the potentially corrupting influence of the revolving door, and Minister’s’ political advisers, elements which have yet to prove troublesome in New Zealand.
 
Public debate flowing from the Private Members Bill to introduce lobbying controls could be better informed as a consequence of the Purser paper. The dissatisfaction in Canada with the regulation of lobbyists may encourage the Greens to look to other jurisdictions for a more effective model.
 
 
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, , , , ,

May 3, 2012

Leave a comment

May day is a constitutional marker

 
2 May 2012
 
May day has a number of associations – with the start of the northern summer, fertility and workers’ rights – among others. Perhaps it marks constitutional change also. 1 May 1707 was the commencement date of the Act of Union – the amalgamation of the Scottish and English Crowns and the “takeover” of the English government by Lowland Scots. A much less significant constitutional development occurred with the publication yesterday of Cabinet Circular CO (12) 3 – National-led Administration: Constitution and Operating Arrangements. Replacing CO (09) 7 with the same title (which is now on the cancelled circulars list) this new Circular confirms arrangements between the National Party and its three support parties.
 
The relationship of support party Ministers to Cabinet is set out, including their right to receive Cabinet Papers relevant to their portfolios. They may opt out of receiving such papers if they wish.
 
Incorporating Cabinet Manual practices, the Circular confirms that support parties are to be consulted about the legislative programme, major policy, budget parameters, and government appointments. It also confirms the meaning of Ministerial Responsibility regarding support party Ministers – that these Ministers are only bound by collective responsibility relating to their own portfolios. When they speak about matters outside their portfolio, they speak as political party leaders or MPs, and do not necessarily support the government position.
 
There is no reference in the Circular to an individual minister’s responsibility, or the consequences of the behaviour of a ministerial adviser to a support party Minister embarrassing the government. Neither is there clarification how chapter 3.21 of the Cabinet Manual about ministerial responsibility may be affected, nor mention of the injunction in chapter 3.17 that “… staff in Ministers’ offices must take care to ensure that they do not improperly influence matters that are the responsibility of others….” whatever that may mean.
 
Perhaps once underway, the review of ministerial responsibility and special advisors by the House of Lords Constitutional Committee will help our understanding. That Committee begins gathering oral evidence from expert witnesses later this month.
 
 
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, , ,

May 2, 2012

2 Comments

« Older posts
Newer posts «