EU finds corruption remains a European problem

17 February 2012
 
A European Commission corruption survey published yesterday has confirmed that corruption remains a serious problem in much of the EU. A substantial majority of Europeans believe that corruption is a major concern, with half indicating that corruption is getting worse.
 
The Greeks (at 98%) unsurprisingly are more concerned than the Danes (19%).
 
A failure of governments and institutions to act with integrity seems to be a major influence. When people experience corruption they are most likely to trust the police (42%) and the judicial system (41%). Politicians are not trusted (6%).
 
There is a perception that bribery and the abuse of positions of power takes place in all areas of public service.
Politicians are seen as corrupt (57%). This hasn’t change since the 2009 survey.
Officials involved in awarding contracts are also poorly regarded (47% corrupt).
Crime is seen to be part of the business culture (67%).
Corruption is seen as linked to organised crime (57%).
 
The comprehensive report on the results reflects on
  • extent of corruption in EU Member States
  • where governments face the biggest problem with corruption
  • corruption as part of business
  • how corruption has changed in the past 3 years
  • awareness of corruption related problems
  • services / sectors facing the biggest corruption problems
  • direct experiences with corruption
  • causes of corruption
  • strengths and weaknesses in the fight against corruption
  • links between corruption and organised crime
 

Federal ICAC now off the Australian wishlist

16 February 2012

 
This week the Australian Government Labor Party has resisted moves to introducing a Commonwealth anti corruption agency.

A move to set up a broad based federal agency mandated to tackle public sector corruption throughout Australia has been rejected. The proposal came from the joint parliamentary committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. This would provide what some see as a much needed detection capability and reassure public opinion about the trustworthiness of government agencies.

The committee thought that a superagency would be beneficial, saying that ”more needed to be done” to detect and prevent corruption across Commonwealth agencies. The Commonwealth Ombudsman, academics and anti-corruption experts were in agreement.

The Government however thinks otherwise. It is opposed to an over-arching corruption watchdog, telling the committee that its policy on preventing corruption was ”based on the premise that no single body should be responsible”. 

New South Wales was the first state to set up an anti corruption body based on the Hong Kong anti corruption commission model, and Western Australia and Queensland have had equivalents for some time. Victoria has been shepherding legislation through its parliament for several years to enact its independent body against corruption. Tasmania has had an integrity regime for two years but seeks to curtail its mandate.

The existing Commonwealth anticorruption agency has a constrained role, having no jurisdiction over many parts of government. Countries which are party to the UN Convention Against Corruption have obligations to maintain an anti corruption enforcement body that is independent of the Police.

Australia, although an UNCAC member, doesn’t have such a body. The New Zealand Serious Fraud Office fits within the prescription, although New Zealand is not yet a convention member. At least we have the structure in place should there be more enthusiasm here to challenge corruption.

That band wagon has disparate supporters. New Zealand First advocates an independent anti corruption authority as one of the key processes for ensuring honest government. WhaleOil was complimenting Victoria a year ago on its proposals and championing similar measures for New Zealand.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/labor-rejects-call-for-national-corruption-agency-20120214-1t468.html?skin=text-only

www.whaleoil.co.nz/2011/02/what-national-should-be-doing/

Rethinking Freedom of Information in Britain

15 February 2012
 
The British Government is questioning the effectiveness of the Freedom of Information Act. A Ministry of Justice assessment is that people are no better informed than before enactment seven years ago, Westminster is not working any better and public trust in government is falling.
 
Officials feel that the media abuses rights provided by the Act, using it for fishing expeditions which impose substantial processing costs on the Crown.
 
The Chair of the Justice Select Committee (Alan Beith) is reported as saying that Ministers and civil servants want to reduce the “costly burden” the Act creates. The insider’s view seems to be that the Act impacts on the efficiency of government, provides a tool for the vexatious and imposes disproportionate costs in preparing information for release. Departments handle up to 2500 requests a year, with each local authority receiving about half that number. Those numbers are growing at up to 15% annually.
 
There seems some inconsistency in this report. Concurrently, the Civil Service has implemented measures that facilitate open government with projects like Direct Government and a data.gov site for opening up government . A fortnight ago a new site called gov.uk was launched. This is described as “the single, citizen-facing government website for all British-government information”. The UK is one of the countries developing a commitment to the Open Government Partnership.  These are vehicles for making information held by government more accessible by citizens.
 
The Justice Select Committee may perhaps be exploring the contribution it can make to reducing the costs of administration, of doing more with less, rather than planning a retreat from the principles of accessible information and open government.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Swings and roundabouts in agency effectiveness survey

14 February 2012

The 2011 Mood of the Nation data is now available on the UMR website.

One component about which a more complete picture can now be painted than posted yesterday, shows changes in public opinion about the effectiveness of selected Government agencies.

The results of telephone polls in November 2010 and in November 2011 of 750 people asked how good a job they thought the following agencies are doing, were;

                                              2010       2011

NZ Fire                                   94          90
NZ Police                               77           78
NZ Customs                          71           73
Conservation                       71           65
MAF                                       62            57
National Library               55            52
MoD                                        53            51
IRD                                         51             51
MoH                                       48             51
MoT                                        48            45
MoJ                                        44            43
ACC                                       35            38
Treasury                             34            38
DoL                                        39            33
MSD                                      30             26
TPK                                       25            23

In polls earlier in the year, assessing occupational respect, the pecking order was

Nurses                        8.6
Doctors                       8.3
Teachers                    8.0
Police                           7.9
Dairy farmers           6.8
Builders                       6.8
Public servants         6.2
Business leaders        5.9
Lawyers                       5.6
Bankers                        5.3
Politicians                   4.6
Real Estate Agents    4.1

www.umr.co.nz/Reports/UMR%20Mood%20of%20the%20Nation_Final.pdf

Confidence in most agencies falling away

13 February 2012
 
Although UMR website is not yet showing the annual Mood of the Nation survey released usual in late December, the media is carrying reports of two of the datasets for 2011 that have formed part of the Mood survey series for 20 years.
 
These indicate the level of confidence New Zealanders had in a range of institutions and in selected Government agencies.
 
The Fire Service remains the service in which the greatest number of respondents have a “great deal or a lot” of confidence. However a drop of 4% since the previous survey reflected a general falling away of confidence levels.
 
National Library – which has become part of the Department of Internal Affairs since the previous survey, was the agency in which respondents had the next greatest levels of confidence, up from 6th place in 2010. Despite this rating, actual confidence levels dropped from 55% to 50%.
 
In 3rd place, the Ministry of Health at 51% moved up from 11th place in 2010, (with 48%).
 
Although there has been a 3% increase in confidence to 38% in the Accident Compensation Corporation, there was declining confidence shown in the Departments of Corrections and Conservation, and the Ministries of Social Development, Maori Development, Defence, Justice, and Agriculture and Fisheries
 

www.stuff.co.nz/national/6407706/Kiwis-confidence-in-police-soars

www.umr.co.nz/Reports/UMR%20Mood%20of%20the%20Nation_2010.pdf

Does unregulated lobbying inevitably become unethical lobbying?

11 February 2012

The movement to tidy up lobbying in the United States is getting a new, improbable, voice in Jack Abramoff. In Canada, Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition are campaigning to plug what they see as gaping holes in the Lobbying Act which enable secret, unethical lobbying of the government. New Zealand of course, places no constraints on lobbyists and few obligations on Ministers and officials on whom lobbyists exercise their craft.
 
A Canadian select committee, currently undertaking a mandatory five yearly review of that country’s Lobbying Act, has been urged that extensive change is needed, not only to make the law effective but to meet the requirements of the Open Government Partnership. (Canada as indicated that it will join with almost 50 other countries in the Partnership later this year; the New Zealand Government has not indicated interest in the Partnership, possibly because membership requires controls on the lobbying of decision makers.)
 
Democracy Watch describes recommendations to end secret lobbying as … “simply… that every politician, political staff person, appointee and decision-making public servant … disclose the identity of anyone who communicates with them in any way about their decisions, and the details of the communication…”
 
On the other side of the argument, the Government Relations Institute is seeking to liberalise statutory constraints, amend the Lobbyists’ Code, limit the extent to which disclosure of clients and costs is required and reduce the current five year limitation on registration as a lobbyist when a Minister leaves office.
 
Among the amendments proposed by Democracy Watch are measures that
* require lobbyists to disclose the amount they spend on lobbying campaigns (as in 33 U.S. states);
* improve the searchability of the lobbyist registry
* prohibit lobbyists from working for government agencies or serving in senior positions for political parties or candidates for public office, and from having business connections with anyone who does;
* amend the MPs’ code of conduct to prohibit lobbyists working as volunteers in secret for any MP;
* ban all senior politicians, staff appointees and senior officials from lobbying (paid or unpaid) for five years for anyone they had dealings with during their last five years in office, and ban all junior politicians, staff appointees and officials from doing the same for one to three years depending on their decision-making power;
* treat anyone from the private sector seconded to an agency under the”employment exchange program” in the same way as a senior public office holder becoming a lobbyist;
* ban lobbyists from becoming members of Cabinet for at least four years after they are elected to Parliament;
* require the Commissioner of Lobbying to conduct random audits of everyone covered by the Lobbying Act and the Lobbyists’ Code;
* prohibit the Commissioner from giving secret advice;
* ensure that the Commissioner must investigate and rule publicly on all complaints (including anonymous complaints) ;
* require the Commissioner to disclose the identity of rule-breakers and to penalize rule-breakers with significant fines;
* ensure all Commissioner decisions can be reviewed by the courts;
* give opposition party leaders a veto over the appointment of the Commissioner;
* require the Commissioner to publish bi-annual reports to a parliamentary committee that include comprehensive details about complaints and their investigation;
* make the Lobbyists’ Code part of federal law.
 
 

Poacher turned gamekeeper

 
9 February 2012
 
Jack Abramoff is set to be the new trick among Washington opinion setters. The rogue turned goodness-champion has been given a platform for his advocacy. Often referred to as a disgraced Republican lobbyist, who made his name buying influence in Congress, he was imprisoned for three years on corruption charges and conspiring to defraud Indian tribes of more than $20 million. He ‘brought down’ more than ten prominent politicians when he fell from grace. However, something in the fundamentalism of the United States seems to have afforded him redemption and a market for his book “Capitol Punishment – The Hard Truth about Washington Corruption from America’s Most Notorious Lobbyist”.
 
Ironically Abramoff may well have a niche exploiting the characteristics that the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movement have in common. Though poles apart both movements get traction from their condemnation of the influence money buys in Washington. They advocate changes to a system that, they contend, enables only those with influence to benefit from government. Abramoff of course is an expert in that space!
 
Even the Obama reelection campaign has abandoned the high ground, swallowed its principles, and adopted the super PAC system to raise funds. Playing to more restrictive rules than the opposition is a loser’s game. The democracy which the US promotes around the world is collapsing under the weight of the opportunism it tolerates at home. Support for the occupy movement indicates the discontent of many who feel that government is ‘fixed’, that politicians are as untrustworthy as the board of Fifa.
 
Abramoff gained notoriety through the golf trips he organised and the boxes he arranged at major sporting events to provide opportunities to network with decision makers. He speaks eloquently of the corrupting purpose of such arrangements. (The declarations of gifts recently disclosed by several State Services chief executives suggests a naivety about why they were invited to major sporting events!)
 
Now Abramoff who specialised in corrupting politicians is emerging on the international stage a ”watchdog blogger”. If the message in his book reflects a genuine change of heart, he will be putting his skills to work lobbying for change in the dark art of lobbying.
 
Some of the fallout may be an appreciation in New Zealand of the need to put into place the Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying. To date, there has been no acknowledgement here of the craft of lobbying, no interest in imposing controls, and no political appetite to conform to the rules that OECD expects of all its member states.
 
 
 
 
 

Brits’ kingdom united in tackling public sector fraud

8 February 2012 

 
The British Government has launched an All of Government attack on public sector fraud. The measures – aimed largely at those misusing government services rather than corruption by civil servants – seeks to reduce the NZ$60 billion believed to be syphoned unlawfully from the public purse annually. This is a second phase for the Fraud, Error and Debt Taskforce which over the last year is reported to have saved more than NZ$100 million that would otherwise be lost to HM Revenue and Customs.
 
Ministers published “Tackling Fraud and Error in Government” at a public sector conference this week. They expect joint action across government, and a common commitment by all civil servants to reduce levels of fraud and error. The belief is that by giving effect to a national fraud strategy – “Fighting Fraud Together” – not only will there be significant financial benefits but a reduction in the harm resulting from fraud and error in the public sector.
 
The focus is on prevention rather than detection or punishment. The plan is to “embrace the power of data analytics” to prevent fraudulent applications for grants, benefits and services. Ministers require a new seriousness in tackling fraud. They want a zero tolerance culture with “swift and sure justice for those who defraud the public sector”. The programme will involve cross-agency cooperation and new ways of information sharing to identify and eliminate threats.
 
“All civil servants will be required to undertake a fraud awareness e-learning course. There will also be better vetting processes in place to help prevent staff and insider enabled fraud.”
 
 

Canadians not too keen on whistleblowing either

7 February 2012

Yesterday the Canadian Federal Integrity Commission released the findings of qualitative research undertaken in December to assess the attitudes of Canadian public servants to whistleblowing and the disclosure of wrongdoing in the workplace. It is a very readable report which is probably just as applicable in New Zealand.

Canadian officials don’t have a clear idea of the sort of misconduct for which there are statutory protections. Few had much idea of the mechanisms for reporting. The general view is that whistleblowing is perjorative. It has negative connotations for many – “carrying a grudge, seeking vengeance, snitching, not being a team player and seeking attention” although some associated it with principled people who were “courageous, brave or altruistic”.

There was consensus that there is a responsibility to disclose wrongdoing when encountering it. However the same sorts of constraints were identified that New Zealand State servants alluded to in the 2010 Integrity and Conduct survey – about the certainty or proof, the gravity of the wrong doing, its frequency or consistency, the effectiveness of other ways to resolve the situation and the possible negative impact on the work setting.

Managers said the “right things”. They unanimously referred to the responsibility to disclose, the need for rectitude, professionalism and ethical conduct, discussing issues with staff and giving serious attention to reports of wrongdoing.

Participants in the survey had no difficulty in specifying the conditions that would encourage them to report wrongdoing and those things that put them off!  But a discouraging finding is that “most employees see reprisals for disclosing wrongdoing as a real possibility, primarily because of the subtle form they can take.”

The New Zealand experience is unlikely to be any different. Although a primary recommendation of the State Services Commissioner after the 2010 integrity survey was that agencies should do more to promote awareness of the Protected Disclosures Act, the probability is that there is no agency that has a continuing programme to familiarise staff with those provisions.

The views of Canadians are summed up in the belief that the wise official knows that you “Don’t stick your neck out”. The common perceptions were:

“Disclosing a wrongdoing is a career-limiting move.”

“There is no real protection for disclosers of wrongdoing.”

“It’s typically the disclosure of wrongdoing that gets punished, not the perpetrator(s).”

“These types of stories never end well.”

“Show me that these stories have happy endings,” said one respondent. “Show me the discloser who got a promotion and the wrongdoer who lost his job.”

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Public+servants+fear+subtle+reprisals+whistleblowing+report/6097766/story.html

http://fairwhistleblower.ca/files/fair/docs/opsic/2011-12_PSIC_Perceptions_Study.pdf

Briefings for incoming Ministers released

3 February 2012
 
All agency Briefings for Incoming Ministers, prepared following the 2011 general election, were released this week on the Beehive website. The list on that site covers 74 briefings, although several entries are not agency-specific – for example there are briefings for Regulatory Reform, Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit and Natural Resources Sector, in addition briefings by the responsible departments. The Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Social Development included multiple briefings within their listing.
 
There has been increasing conformity with the Cabinet Manual and the State Services Commissioner’s guidance on preparing BIMs. That guidance encourages agencies to prepare a snapshot of their responsibilities including an outline of major policy matters that an incoming Minister will encounter in the first few months in office. The audience is the Minister not the media. This is confirmed by the direction on size. “The initial briefing should be short, reflecting the time pressures on the incoming Minister. A briefing should normally be between five and 50 pages in length, depending on the size and complexity of the Department.”
 
Intriguingly the Tertiary Education Commission seems to be the least conforming agency! Its briefing is 68 pages, taking 38 pages before introducing issues that the Minister will need to consider in the coming months!  Substantial parts of its briefing are also withheld.
 
Treasury, which in times past has been voluminous in providing its briefing, maximised its 50 pages (although it also prepared the additional regulatory reform and CCMU briefings already mentioned.) NZ Police briefed its Minister in 48 pages and Education in 47 pages. The Department of Internal Affairs (40 pages) and the Ministry of Social Development (32 pages) prepared a number of supplementary briefings for other portfolio Ministers they support.
 
Although the sole purpose of the briefings is to assist Ministers, the content is subject to the availability principles of the Official Information Act. The speediness with which the Government has published the briefings contrasts dramatically with the reluctance of state governments in Australia to disclose their equivalent briefings. This is discussed in an entry on Peter Timmins “Open and Shut” information blog. He is not impressed by the reluctance of the Victorian government to publish BIMs;
 
“At least reasons given for the need for confidentiality in Victoria last week would have given the ‘Yes Prime Minister’ team, currently playing in Melbourne, some good local lines – release would ”delay the operation of effective government in Victoria,” damage government’s relationship with the public service, and mislead the public. Sir Humphrey’s best of course was “Minister, you can be open or you can have government but you can’t have both.”