Is there an erosion of public sector integrity?

15 December 2015

Bryce Edwards column today – The struggle for integrity – is a worthy compilation of media and blog items highlighting some of this year’s challenges to good government in New Zealand.  They reflect amazement at the Ombudsman’s inquiry conclusion that agencies are generally responsive to Official Information Act requirements, alarm at perceived politicisation of agency governance, concern at minimalist commitments to open government and almost exasperation at an apparent ambivalence about some forms of corruption. Collectively these suggest borer may be eating into the foundations of our public sector, diminishing what has to date been internationally recognised for its comprehensive strength and resilience. The integrity of the system may be threatened.  The range of issues comprising that threat illustrates the real meaning of integrity – it is not simply probity and rectitude.  Integrity is necessary for trustworthiness. That comes only from wholeness, coherence, completeness  and high-mindedness in all things.

And that is the meaning of integrity in the State Sector Act.  Integrity is not a mere standard. As the State Services Commissioner explains in the Introduction to Understanding the Code of Conduct; “The standards set by the code of conduct relate to matters of integrity and conduct. Integrity is the inclusive and all-embracing description of these ethical requirements. The headings under which the standards have been grouped – Fair, Impartial, Responsible and Trustworthy – are indicative of integrity. Integrity itself is pervasive and implicit in all the standards.

Many organisations have values statements or express their service commitment in terms of principles and values. Obligations in the code of conduct to be Fair, Impartial, Responsible and Trustworthy should not detract from using these other arrangements also, to promote integrity.”

Do the links in the Edwards article really point to a discernible deterioration? Is there a weakening in the transparency and integrity that glues respect for the rule of law, support for the democratic process and the spirit of service?

Perhaps the 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index will substantiate any change. For many years the CPI has been published on the UN Anti Corruption Day – 9 December.  That was not the case this year – and there is no easily found explanation for a delay in releasing the CPI, apparently until late January 2016.

The President of the New Zealand chapter of Transparency  International in a recent radio interview raised the possibility of New Zealand slipping from its current 2nd place ranking  – on the coat tails of Denmark. New Zealand was last ranked 3rd in 2003 along with Denmark.  That year Finland was perceived to have the least corrupt public administration with Iceland in second place.

Integrity is a state of mind; it is not a set of rules.

 

http://eveningreport.nz/2015/12/15/bryce-edwards-political-roundup-an-erosion-of-integrity-in-2015/

www.ssc.govt.nz/node/1910

www.un.org/en/events/anticorruptionday/

www.transparency.org/research/cpi/cpi_2003/0/

Uncategorized

, , ,

December 16, 2015

Leave a comment

Openness and accountability is more than a game

9 December 2015

“Not a game of hide and seek” was released yesterday.  This reports on the Chief Ombudsman’s investigation into compliance with the Official Information Act and the leadership provided by central agencies. In 144 pages the report identifies and analyses concerns. It has few unpredictable findings but sets out 48 remedial recommendations to strengthen a culture of openness and to reinforce capability, policies and resources. The conclusion is that the OIA is fundamentally suitable, if not always working in practice!

The Chief Ombudsman was encouraged by her findings. She acknowledged that the framework for this constitutionally important measure is sound, although she is disappointed that improvements recommended by the Law Commission have not found favour with the Government. She saw a “genuine desire” to make the OIA work, but the way it is applied has its challenges.  We all need to play our parts with greater commitment. Progressively increasing the availability of official information  is much more than a game.

In contrast, this week the Victorian Government seems to be acknowledging that its anti-corruption agency is as toothless as critics anticipated, when 2011 legislation set up the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission. Successive Victorian Governments were reluctant to replicate the Independent Commission Against Corruption model (ICAC) developed in NSW. When the IBAC was established, its powers and capabilities were intentionally limited. Political attitudes have now changed as the extent of corruption is evident in the State’s education administration.  These limitations will be reversed by legislation being introduced before Christmas.

In a related move, statutory changes will broaden the Auditor-General’s powers to investigate and “robustly audit” Public-Private Partnership arrangements made by agencies – notably in the education sector.

www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/ckeditor_assets/attachments/401/oia_report_not_a_game_of_hide_and_seek.pdf?1449533878

www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-08/legislation-goes-to-parliament-to-give-ibac-new-powers/7009310

Uncategorized

, ,

December 9, 2015

Leave a comment

Tora, tora, tora

7 December 2015

The Japanese code for achieving surprise in the Pearl Harbour attack 74 years ago today, could hardly apply to the Cabinet reshuffle.

Today’s confirmation of media predictions that the former Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections will regain those warrants adds some symmetry to the saga of Dirty Politics. The Minister, among others featuring in Nicky Hager’s book, was alleged to have leaked information for use by bloggers to smear and vilify prominent political opponents. Biting the hand that may have been feeding him, a blogger then leaked an email that purported to establish that the Minister had been “gunning” for the head of the Serious Fraud Office when she was its Minister. She was removed from office, but a lengthy inquiry found no corroboration of conduct breaching ministerial obligations specified in the Cabinet Manual.

Leaking by State servants is unethical and unacceptable.  Understanding the code of conduct- Guidance for State servants specifies that it is a breach of trust to disclose in any way, information learned through our work,  unless we have permission to do so. Misuse of information by an official “in the service of the Sovereign” for gain is a serious offence under s 105A of the Crimes Act. The leaking of agency information has been expensively reviewed by several inquiries in the last 10 years –  including a 2006 Telecom sell-down memo leak by a messenger in DPMC, and the leaking of a 2013 Cabinet paper on restructuring MFAT.

The Cabinet Manual is less explicit about equivalent limitations on the activities of Ministers, except where sensitive commercial information is involved. Whether motivated by the public’s right to know, or by more self interested reasons, there is little clarity about what is unacceptable. Ministers no doubt have developed views on what is a justifiable leak and what is less ethical. A leak by implication is irregular. A leak breaches obligations of confidentiality. By definition it is unlikely to be authorised.

It is interesting to speculate on the source of the widespread media reports that today’s Cabinet reshuffle would involve the reappointment of Judith Collins as Minster of Police and Corrections. In interviews, the Prime Minister repeated that he was unable to disclose information until a planned media conference.  He hadn’t briefed his Cabinet. The reshuffle would have been a political matter.  Departmental officers were unlikely to have been involved. It seems improbable that the Ministers involved or their political advisers would knowingly upset the Prime Minister’s announcement. Perhaps the explanation is truly Machiavellian – the use of immoral means as a political method;  “politics inhabits a world of dark suspicious and hidden dangers, where the only reality is power.” Whatever the source,  there was no surprise when the appointment of the Minister of Police and Corrections was announced.

www.ssc.govt.nz/node/1913

cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/8.2#8.6

 

Uncategorized

, ,

December 8, 2015

1 Comment

New Zealand Easiest place to do Business after Singapore

29 October 2015

This week the World Bank released the 2016 Ease of Doing Business Survey.  This is the 13th annual report investigating regulations that enhance business activities and those that constrain it.  The survey comprises qualitative indicators measuring 11 areas of the business environment in 189 economies (Hong Kong and Taiwan are included.)

The Bank provides this business objective data for governments to use in improving regulatory policies and encourage research on important dimensions of the business environment.

2016 Ease of Doing Business
1 Singapore
2 New Zealand
3 Denmark
4 South Korea
5 Hong Kong
6 United Kingdom
7 United States
8 Sweden
9 Norway
10 Finland

Since 2008, New Zealand has ranked either as the 2nd or 3rd most easy economy for doing business.  In the latest survey it again ranked in 2nd place.  Of the eleven ease of doing business indicators New Zealand currently is the leader in

  • Starting a business
  • Registering property
  • Getting credit
  • Protecting minority investors

Although the trading focus for New Zealand is with the other 11 Trans Pacific Partnership member states (enhanced this week with Indonesia enter the Partnership – and possibly China in the very near future) the Ease of Doing Business among the TPP member states is variable.

TPP Members
84th Brunei
48th Chile
1st Singapore
13th Australia
14th Canada
34th Japan
18th Malaysia
38th Mexico
50th Peru
7th United States
90th Vietnam
109th Indonesia
84th China

www.doingbusiness.org/rankings

www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/~/media/giawb/doing%20business/documents/profiles/country/NZL.pd

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/27/indonesia-will-join-trans-pacific-partnership-jokowi-tells-obama

www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/1871975/china-should-join-us-backed-trans-pacific-partnership

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index

Uncategorized

, , ,

October 29, 2015

Leave a comment

Scots in general agreement on register of lobbyists

22 October 2015

The Scottish Government is proposing to register lobbyists who engage with Minsters and Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs). The Committee on Parliament’s Standards held an inquiry into lobbying and this week published the findings from its public consultation.

Although there was some momentum when the Greens promoted a Lobbying Disclosure Bill in 2011,  New Zealand remains among the minority of developed economies where there is no pressure to implement the OECD Principles on Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying.

The Scots look likely to legislate.  Although there were fewer than 70 submissions, an analysis of the consultation in July and August indicates that most agreed that registering lobbyists would

  • avoid eroding the openness, ease of access, and accountability of Parliament, while being proportionate and simple;
  • promote transparency, public trust and understanding of lobbying – although many were not sure there was evidence of a problem;
  • be encouraged if there was no fee for individual lobbyists – but that responsibility for registering should rest with organisations not individuals.
The majority thought that for fairness, both consultants and in-house lobbyists should be required to register – and no type of in-house lobbyists should be exempt from registration. However there was less certainty about whether unpaid lobbyist should have to register.

Although Ministers and MSPs should be covered, unlike the UK provision where only Ministers are covered, some thought coverage should also extend to Ministerial staff and civil servants and not exclude minor and infrequent lobbying. Most proposed restricting regulated conduct to face to face meetings.

Lobbyists should disclose their employer and the organisation for whom they were lobbying, the nature of the lobbying and how the lobbying was being funded, with a code of lobbying practice. There was uncertainty about who was best to maintain the register and the enforcement processes needed to ensure compliance.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/10/2647

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/member/2012/0015/latest/DLM4303335.html

http://www.slideshare.net/OECD-GOV/progress-report-on-implementing-the-oecd-principles-for-transparency-and-integrity-in-lobbying

http://whoslobbying.com/nz

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/parl-support/research-papers/00PLLawRP12041/lobbying-regimes-an-outline

Uncategorized

, ,

October 23, 2015

Leave a comment

Is Vanuatu becoming another of the world’s basket cases?

14 October 2015

Is Vanuatu becoming another of the world’s basket cases?

The New Zealand chapter of Transparency International has for years endeavoured to strengthen the  anti corruption influence of its sister chapters in the Pacific, particularly in Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. Some funding has come from New Zealand aid.  There is a poor return for these efforts. Only Fiji and Papua New Guinea were included in the 2014 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index .  Samoa was rated in 52nd place.  Papua New Guinea remained in 144th . There are too few measures to rate the increasingly chaotic state of the public administrations in Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

Events in Vanuatu over the last weekend show how much of a struggle will be required to make difference.  Friday began with the national press in a self-congratulatory mood. Despite major political turmoil it appeared that the judicial and legal systems were “working” – the courts were acting constitutionally, giving effect to the separation of powers. A Supreme Court judge had convicted 15 Members of Parliament on bribery and corruption charges. They had accepted dubious loans and made gifts to other MPs. The 15 included the Deputy Prime Minister, two Ministers and the Speaker. Sentencing was set down for 22 October. The MPs faced up to 10 years imprisonment, and a loss of their parliamentary seats. This followed a Constitutional Court ruling that a related Ombudsman’s report into the activities of the MPs was void.

The weekend was dramatic.  The President was visiting Samoa.  The Constitution provides for the Speaker to act in his place. The President returned on Sunday night to find that the Speaker had exercised the Presidential power to pardon offenders. He pardoned himself and his co defendants – except for one who had pleaded guilty. He said the move was necessary in the best interests of the country.

He also suspended the Ombudsman – a former President – for gross misconduct. The Ombudsman claims the suspension is void.

The President believes the pardons issued in his absence were unlawful; “the power of mercy is vested in the President not an acting President”. He stated that “we as a nation have to stop these crooked ways”.  Constitutionally the power relates to pardoning a sentence, not the conviction. Convictions on offences with a penalty of 2 years imprisonment or more, would prevent the MPs remaining in Parliament.

Nothing has been said or done by the Prime Minister.

Woman against Crime and Corruption have described the pardons as a national disgrace.

 

https://vanuatudaily.wordpress.com/

Uncategorized

, ,

October 14, 2015

Leave a comment

Where is a good place to die?

6 October 2015

New Zealand rates highly as a good place to die!  Because of the availability, cost and quality of end of life care, it has kept its high overall score on the Quality of Death Index–  although the United Kingdom and Australia seem to be better.

The Index of 40 countries reflects four qualitative – but differently weighted – categories, being

  • Quality of end of life care (40% weighting)
  • Availability of end of life care (25%)
  • Basic End of Life healthcare environment (20%)
  • Cost of end of life care (15%)

Interestingly all European countries on the Index have a better end of life environment than both New Zealand (28th) and United Kingdom (29th) but are marked down for the quality of that care. Their costs are generally higher. As an exception to almost every index reflecting social standards, none of the Scandinavian countries rank in the top ten.

Japan, with its outstanding longevity, is 23rd.

United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand also topped the Quality of Death Index when last published in 2010.

In many parts of the world, hospice and palliative care is either non-existent or in its infancy. The WHO suggests that about 5 billion people live in countries with poor access to pain control medication. And in developed countries, medical services all too often focus on preventing death rather than helping people meet death without suffering pain, discomfort and stress.

Of the 40 countries on the Index, 30 are OECD members, and the other 10 are less developed economies for which statistics are available. These BRIC countries were the lowest ranked. India is 37th overall and China is 40th.

            2015  Quality of Death Index

1 United Kingdom
2 Australia
3 New Zealand
4 Ireland
5 Belgium
6 Austria
7 Netherlands
8 Germany
9= Canada
9= United States

 

http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/eb/qualityofdeath.pdf

www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/worlds-15-best-places-to_n_660997.html

 

Uncategorized

,

October 7, 2015

Leave a comment

New Zealand edges up on WEF Competitiveness Index

30 September 2015

The World Economic Forum today published the results of the 2015-2016 Global Competitiveness Index. The findings confirm that subdued economic growth is the new normal  – with lower productivity growth and high unemployment in most economies. The consequences of the 2008 financial crisis are still with us – as has been evident from the performance of all stock markets over the last two months. Economic difficulties have been aggravated by conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, terrorism and the migrant crisis.

There has been little change in the top ten most competitive economies.  As in last year’s survey Switzerland ranks best.  Finland, slipping from fourth to eighth, was the notable change in the top ten.

New Zealand’s competitiveness ranking moved up again this survey to 16th place ( it was 17th last year and 18th in 2013.)

Competitiveness is measured on ten pillars.  New Zealand’s place on those pillars is:

Financial Market Development                  1st

Institutions                                                      3rd

Health and Primary Education                    5th

Labour Market Efficiency                              6th

Goods Market Efficiency                              8th

Higher Education and Training                   10th

Technology Readiness                                 15th

Macro-economic Environment                   22nd

Infrastructure                                                  28th

Market Size                                                     66th

The ten most competitive economies are:

  • Switzerland
  • Singapore
  • United States
  • Germany
  • Netherlands
  • Japan
  • Hong Kong
  • Finland
  • Sweden
  • United Kingdom

New Zealand is 16th;  Australia is 21st.

http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2015-2016/economies/#indexId=GCI&economy=NZL

http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2015-2016/competitiveness-rankings/#indexId=GCI

Uncategorized

September 30, 2015

Leave a comment

Expat survey rates Singapore Sweden and New Zealand as best places

24 September 2015

Respondents to the latest HSBC Expat Explorer Survey published this week, give particularly high ratings to Singapore, New Zealand and Sweden.  This survey, conducted over each of the last eight years, evaluated 39 countries on the perceptions of nearly 22,000 migrant participants regarding

  • economics (covering personal finances, local economy and working life),
  • experience (covering lifestyle, people and setting up) and
  • family (covering relationships, education, and raising children).

Singapore scored highest overall—and ranked second for economics, third for experience  and third for family.

New Zealand, ranking second overall, was rated highest for experience.

Sweden came third overall, polling best for family life.

Despite, at first blush, these countries being seen as culturally different as they are geographically separated, migrants like them because of the personal opportunities they offer, their lifestyle advantages and the well being they afford to migrant families.

A characteristic they have in common is their reputation for good government – the fair, impartial, responsible and trustworthy exercise of official functions which strengthen social commitment and community participation. In the eyes of new arrivals they best reflect the ideal of “government for the people”. However although they rate well for orderly and contented communities and score similarly on the 2014 Corruption Perceptions index (New Zealand 2nd, Sweden 4th and Singapore 7th) they are more spread on indices like the Peace Index 2015 (only New Zealand is in the top 10 countries.)

Sweden of course is the largest of the Scandinavian countries. New Zealand often appears on international measures like a Scandinavian state transplanted to the South Pacific; Singapore similarly stands out in Asia because of its Scandinavia-like values.

This week the Prime Minister of Singapore spoke of his country being exceptional “…because it has kept its system of government clean… Singapore is special, and is able to stay special, because we have a clean system…. To have a clean system, you must have people who are trustworthy, who are honest, who you can rely upon and who will not be saying one thing, doing another or putting their hands into their kitty.”

HSBC Expat Explorer Survey 2015

(Economics, Experience, Family)

  1. Singapore  (2 – 3 – 3)
  2. New Zealand  (16 – 1 – 2)
  3. Sweden    (6 – 15 – 1)
  4. Bahrain       (8 – 7 – 6)
  5. Germany      (3 – 12 – 5)
  6. Canada      (11 – 6 – 8)
  7. Australia      (15 – 4 – 12)
  8. Taiwan      (18 – 5 – 15)
  9. United Arab Emirates (4 – 18 – 16)
  10. Switzerland (1 – 26 – 25)

https://expatexplorer.hsbc.com/survey/

www.visionofhumanity.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Peace%20Index%20Report%202015_0.pdf

www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results

www.straitstimes.com/politics/for-singapore-to-remain-special-keep-graft-at-bay

Uncategorized

, , ,

September 25, 2015

Leave a comment

Should we show more enthusiasm for open government?

23 September 2015

Open Government seems to be back on the agenda in Australia.  A sense of satisfaction is evident in Peter Timmins’ post today on Open and Shut.  He has unceasingly advocated that Australia should be a leader in international measures to improve the accessibility and usability of government information.  His blog records his increasingly exasperated exhortations to Ministers to fulfill a 2013 commitment to join the Open Government Partnership. Now the new Prime Minister appears to be breathing life into what was an increasingly moribund looking obligation to give effect to the Open Government Declaration.

Australia and New Zealand “signed up” as part of the class of 2013, intending to file the requisite action plans in 2014.  New Zealand met the deadline, but with diminishing political enthusiasm, it looked like Australia would withdraw, as Russia did last year.  New Zealand has the status of implementing the first action plan cycle along with many of the other 66 member states. Australia, still developing its action plan, remains on the fringes of the OGP.

This week the Prime Minister has indicated that Australia should be a member of the D5 – another open government ginger group – made up of United Kingdom, New Zealand, South Korea, Israel and Estonia (all OGP members also.) He apparently has “put down a marker that he is serious about the shift to 21st Century openness”, which,  by inference, was not the perspective of his predecessor.

Ironically, while Open and Shut urged Australian Ministers to follow the New Zealand lead, there is a sense of disillusionment among Open Government enthusiasts in New Zealand because of the unimaginative character of our action plan.  The website inviting public feedback on the action plan solicited 18 comments during August, but hasn’t attracted any further responses this month.

A major point of difference between the Open Government Partnership and other international bodies is meant to be the central role which civil society plays alongside governments in the development, implementation and monitoring of national action plans. There seems to be limited interest outside Wellington in generating this civil society.

http://foi-privacy.blogspot.co.nz/2015/09/heads-up-for-open-government.html#.VgKN4dJUC00

www.opengovpartnership.org/

www.govt.nz/browse/engaging-with-government/ogp/

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2012/07/20/is-the-open-government-partnership-relevant-to-new-zealand/

Uncategorized

, , ,

September 23, 2015

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «