Things ain’t wot they used to be

2 February 2012

If New Zealanders are anything like the British, the likelihood is that we are experiencing an “integrity crisis”. An academic suggests such a crisis may be afflicting the United Kingdom. The possibility is that we are become increasingly dishonest and don’t find lying as unacceptable as we used to. The younger we are the more dishonest we are likely to be. Survey findings indicate that the British have a growing dislike of benefit fraudsters but are less concerned about extramarital affairs, taking drugs, drinking and driving, handling stolen property and keeping money found in the street. This decline in personal integrity may reflect a paucity of role models.

Personal integrity is critical to the health of society according to the Essex Centre for the Study of Integrity.

The Independent suggests that “Scandals surrounding MPs’ expenses, greedy bankers, bribes to policemen, dodgy journalism, and football finance have raised question after question about integrity in public life. So it can hardly be a surprise to discover that low-level dishonesty among ordinary people has been on the rise, too.”

“Corruption neither filters down from the top of society, nor rises up from the bottom,… It is a cultural growth which spreads with the warp and weft through the whole social tapestry. As a result, we are all more likely to dodge taxes, keep money we find in the street, or fail to leave a note after damaging a parked car. Women, it seems, may have slightly more integrity than men; but social class and occupation do not appear to have any significant effect on honesty.”

“What the evidence from the Centre for the Study of Integrity survey reveals is that it is no good expecting change at the top unless we are all prepared to change our behaviour, too.”

The US National Business Ethics Survey published last month predicts that there will be a growing deterioration in workplace ethics. Perhaps that will happen here also.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9037421/Rise-in-dishonesty-signals-looming-integrity-crisis-in-Britain.html

www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-in-matters-of-dishonesty-we-are-all-in-it-together-6293967.html

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2012/01/06/declining-workplace-ethics-anticipated-in-us

Uncategorized

, ,

February 2, 2012

Leave a comment

What is happening with the commitment to transparency?

1 February 2012
Is it misguided idealism that I am disappointment at the apparent lack of interest shown by more than 70% of State Services agency chief executives to model integrity?
Two years ago the State Services Commissioner introduced a requirement that the chief executives of Public Service departments and Crown entities ( excluding tertiary education institutes and Crown research institutes ) would publish their expenses, travel, hospitality and gifts after each half calendar-year. Media reports at the time suggested that some were resistant although disclosure of officials’ benefits has long been the practice in Canadian and United States jurisdictions and the British Civil Service adopted frequent disclosure obligations on a broad range of senior officers in 2010.
The State Services Commissioner’s guidance is that “… Chief executives … are expected to disclose their expenses every six months and make this information publicly available on their agency’s website and data.govt.nz ”
Chief executives were notified in November 2010 and again in June 2011 of what was required. The effect was that 89 agencies complied returning their chief executive expenses for July – December 2010, and 109 published the data for the January – June 2011 period. A number those agencies were from the wider State sector, and like the Auditor General, published a return although not subject to the Commissioner’s mandate.
Currently there are 115 “qualifying” agencies – 32 departments, 45 Crown agents (including 20 district health boards) 21 autonomous Crown entities and 17 independent Crown entities.
The Commissioner’s guidance anticipated that disclosures for July – December 2011 would be published by the end of January. Seventy nine agencies have not responded – the State Services Commission, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Treasury are among those apparently defaulting agencies.
Autonomous Crown entities and independent Crown entities have been the most responsive with almost 50% publishing within the timeframe; 20% of DHBs have responded, as have 40% of the other Crown agents, but only 11% of departments.
Chief executives are responsible for imbuing their staff with the spirit of service, managing their agencies with efficiency and effectiveness, implementing the Government’s open government and better public services policies, and as leaders, walking the talk. Showing a nonchalance regarding a high profile transparency practice is not a good look.
(Update 1800hrs:  Now at 46 agency returns – another 5 by Departments)
2 Feb 2011 – Correction:  Apparently I am wrong.  Agencies are expected to provide returns by 3 February.  Currently at  63 (of 115)  now posted with one day to go.

Uncategorized

, , ,

February 1, 2012

Leave a comment

Press freedom – reporting the news not being the news

31 January 2012
 
Last week Reporters without Borders published its tenth annual World Press Freedom Index. In compiling the 2011-12 index, the constraints on the media in 179 countries were evaluated. Unlike many other indices, the assessment methodology does not form part of the published report.
 
As in previous years the leading countries are those recognised for their commitment to good government – having a respect for democratic principles, a focus on the rule of law and a concern for public integrity. Finland and Norway share the top place. The Netherlands (and surprisingly, Estonia) are next equal. New Zealand slipped to 13th, dropping 5 places since the 2010-11 index.
 
Countries in the top 20 places are rated as in a “good situation”, with the next 30 countries in a “satisfactory situation”.  Notable compared with the previous index are the dramatic improvements of Cape Verde (9th) and Namibia (20th). Most marked is Niger now ranked 29th (up 75 places) after a renewed government emphasis on openness.
 
The top 15 places are:
 
Finland
Norway
Estonia
Netherlands
Austria
Iceland
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Cape Verde
Canada
Denmark
Sweden
New Zealand
Czech Republic
Ireland
 
The United Kingdom is in 28th place, Australia at 30th place, and the United States, at 47th, just falls within the satisfactory situation grade. The compilers appear sensitive to the reaction by governments to abuse by the media of the rights of others. For example, potential responses to the Wikileaks saga and that at News International – first at News of the World and now at the Sun – seem to have influenced index calculations.
 
Reporters without Borders note that the results have a correlation with a respect for basic freedoms. “This serves as a reminder that media independence can only be maintained in strong democracies and that democracy needs media freedom.”  That freedom comes when countries enforce access to information laws and ensure the traction of policies they have for open government.
 
It is interesting to compare the latest Freedom House Freedom of the Press survey.  That has a much more US sympathetic analysis.  The top 25, rated as having a “free” press are:
 
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Iceland
Luxembourg
Belgium
Denmark
Switzerland
Andorra
Netherlands
Lichenstein
Palau
New Zealand (13th)
Monaco
United States (15th=)
Marshall Islands
Germany
San Marino
St Vincent
Portugal
Estonia
Costa Rica
United Kingdom
Canada
 Australia (25th)
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, , , ,

January 31, 2012

Leave a comment

Government’s everywhere lose trust and confidence

30 January 2012
 
The 2012 Edelman Trust Barometer published last week (see blog post “Does a trust barometer just measure hot air? ) disclosed a substantial drop in public confidence in government in the 25 countries that contribute to the barometer. Edelman comments that a  drop in confidence to 38% shows that citizens around the world don’t trust governments to resolve the political and economic troubles they face. In half the countries the drop in confidence was more than 10%. This included Japan and China, where there is usually a higher than average confidence in government.
 
In only eight countries did more than 50% of the population have confidence that the government will “do what’s right”. Almost half of survey respondents said that they didn’t trust their government to tell the truth.
 
People in Japan are shown to have lost trust since the earthquake and tsunami – perhaps unsurprisingly having regard to what is now known about the crisis at the nuclear power reactor – with Brazil being the only surveyed country where there was an even more dramatic loss of trust in government. Substantial falls in confidence in Germany, Spain and France are probably euro related, but governments in Indonesia, South Korea and Argentina lost the confidence of their citizens at a similar rate.
 
The barometer measures trust in a number of job classifications. In the most dramatic drop in the history of the barometer, trust in government officials or regulators has fallen from 43% to 29%. The only comparable fall is trust in chief executive officers where the decline was 12%. Interestingly people show growing confidence in “a person like yourself”, increasing 22% to 65%.
 
Of the 25 countries surveyed, only in Singapore do people believe that government leaders can be more trusted to tell the truth than business leaders.
 
In a striking disconnect, the barometer measures the difference between the importance people place on aspects of government and their assessment of the government’s practice. Although 67% expected government to listen to peoples’ needs and feedback, only 12% believed the government did so. Whereas 66% expected the government to have open and transparent processes, only 16% thought that was the case. And while 65% expected the government to communicate frequently and honestly, again only 16% thought that happened.
 
These results are disturbing from the perspective of officials committed to serving their communities. The only consolation that can be taken is that New Zealand data is not included in the barometer.
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, , ,

January 30, 2012

Leave a comment

Vatican politics short on charity

29 January 2012

The Vatican appears to be embarrassed by a leak to the media of arrangements between senior Vatican officials and contractors to provide overpriced services to the department that manages the Vatican buildings, streets, gardens and museums.

An archbishop who spent two years as the department’s deputy chief, was concerned about the premium being paid to contractors. He wrote alerting the Pope and the Vatican Secretary General to the circumstances. Aware that by calling for transparency and competition he was treading on toes, he also referred to moves to oust him from office.

He reported finding a “disastrous situation”, “chaotic management” and corruption.

While he turned around a budget deficit equivalent to US$ $9.8 million in 2009 to a surplus of US$28 million in 2010, the campaign against him was successfully coordinated by factions within the church hierarch. Although appointed until 2014, he was promoted as nuncio in the United States in October 2011 – a plum role but which conveniently removed him from oversight of contracting processes.

On Wednesday the correspondence to the Pope was carried in the Italian media. The Vatican communications office has criticised this disclosure but has not denied the authenticity of the letters. It is said to be “shaken” by the resulting scandal.  Publishing the letters referring to corruption, nepotism, cronyism and bankers “who looked after their own interests” rather than those of the Church was, oddly, castigated as poor journalism and as a cause of “sadness” to the Vatican.

To some, the archbishop was a “ball breaker” upsetting long standing arrangements. Despite reversing the budget deficit, in 2011 unattributed articles referring to his inefficiency were published by Il Giornale, a national paper. Rather than applaud the archbishop’s success the Vatican communications office this week sought “to defend the honour of morally upright people who loyally serve the church”.

Which goes to show that even whistleblowers with a godly connection can be victimised when work colleagues close ranks.

http://news.yahoo.com/corruption-scanda … 55276.html

http://easttexascatholic.com/2012/01/27/vatican-downplays-charges-of-financial-corruption/

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/disclosetv-the-vatican-shaken-by-corruption-january-28-2012/

Uncategorized

, , ,

January 29, 2012

Leave a comment

Does a trust barometer just measure hot air?

 

27 January 2012

The Edelman Trust Barometer was released this week. Based on international responses in 25 countries, this is Edelman’s 12th annual trust and credibility survey. New Zealand is not included – although Australia is. The survey measures aspects of public opinion relating to media, government, NGOs and business.

It doesn’t make good reading for government agencies, with public confidence showing a dramatic fall. Government is now the least trusted institution. While trust levels in business dropped 6% and by 5% in NGOs, levels of trust and confidence in government on average dropped 11% from the 10 year high in 2011. NGOs remain the most trusted of the institutions. The only category where there was an improved rating in 2012 was of the media as perceived by the informed public – but not by the general public.

Last year Banks and Financial Services were the least trusted industry groups and their ratings have declined further in the latest survey (47% and 45% respectively). The Japanese and Koreans now have as little trust in their banks as do Europeans.Technology remains the most favoured industry (79%)

One feature of the results is to divide respondents into “trusters”, “distrusters” and those who are neutral. Interestingly the neutral grouping has increased, with less polarisation. People in China are great trusters (76%) and those in Russia the least trusting (32%). Australians are neutral (52%) but the British are distrusters (41%). The Irish who on the 2011 barometer were assessed as even less trusting than Russians have moved up 15% to the same level as the British.

Whether this reflects public opinion in New Zealand is uncertain. The annual UMR Mood of the Nation survey results usually published in late December or early January have not yet found their way onto the web. They provide a useful comparison of changing opinion.

http://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanInsights/2012-edelman-trust-barometer-global-deck

Uncategorized

, ,

January 28, 2012

Leave a comment

More integrity talk than action?

26 January 2012

 
The Canadian Government has been rebuked by a coalition of federal and provincial information commissioners. The Federal information Commission on behalf of 12 information agencies wrote to the Government with proposals for opening up government, pressing for greater integrity to counter growing constraints on accessing official information. Although the Conservative Government has campaigned strongly on integrity to win the last two elections, the 30 year old information legislation has been circumvented with the commissioners referring to an alarming backsliding in the availability of information.
 
Agencies are slow to respond to requests for information, and after long delays up to 80% of requests are not actioned. The commissioners  want “increasing public integrity” from the Government, describing this as a “grand challenge”.
 
Ironically the Canadian Government indicated at the Brazil conference of the Open Government Partnership in December 2011 that it is developing its open government commitments. It has announced that, at the May 2012 OGP meeting, it will join the initiating eight States in signing the Open Government Declaration –as have another 42 countries.
 
New Zealand and Australia which compare well internationally in the effectiveness of  access to information laws, have made no official statements about committing to the Open Government Partnership.
 
Canada ranks in 10th place on the TI Corruption Perceptions Index (between Australia and Luxembourg). The UK is 16th and the USA is 24th.
 
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, ,

January 27, 2012

Leave a comment

Disclosure is good but transparency is better

25 January 2012 

The Transparency International website includes a blog. Four or five posts each month reflect the international character of TI and the universality of corruption. A contribution last month explored why New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries continue to dominate top ratings in the Corruption Perceptions Index.
 
In “What makes New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and others “cleaner” than most countries?” the author highlighted how …” these countries have a broad consensus that fighting corruption involves public participation and transparency mechanisms such as disclosure of information.”  There has been recent research into the influence of Scandinavian national integrity systems in reinforcing good government.
 
These national integrity systems are institutions like the parliamentary agencies that scrutinise the spending, effectiveness and lawfulness of government and other mechanisms for ensuring the separation of powers, the rule of law, the openness of administration and support for democratic processes. Their effectiveness can be assessed from the way they influence the national culture and inspire public spiritedness.
 
Through an EU funded project (ENIS) TI is reviewing how these work in 26 European countries.  Sweden, Denmark and Finland have been completed recently, and Norway’s “tools” were evaluated in 2011. However it is more than eight years since an evaluation by TI of New Zealand systems, since when there has been strengthening of some aspects. TI would be keen for funding assistance to update its asssessment.
 
Of course anti-corruption attitudes are helped where a country has a high GDP, low inequality, high literacy rates and a concern for human rights, shown by a focus on issues such as gender equality and the freedom of information. Government openness, community activism and social trust flow from the resulting transparency and accountability.
 
The half yearly publication by State Services chief executives of their expenses, gifts and hospitality, commented upon in yesterday’s post, is a recent New Zealand measure to strengthen openness and accountability. But that disclosure, required by the State Services Commissioner, is not the same as transparency. The Trusted Adviser blog this week explores the distinction between disclosure and transparency. “.. disclosure is a necessary condition for transparency. But it is hardly a sufficient one.”
 
“If disclosure isn’t accompanied by an ethos of transparency, it can be positively harmful. ….A trustworthy person (or agency) will not settle for disclosure, but seek to offer transparency. ..Trust relies on both data and intent.”  That sentiment should be motivating chief executives as they compile the schedule of their expenses, gifts and hospitality for publication next week.
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, , , ,

January 25, 2012

Leave a comment

Tone at the Top

24 January 2012
 
 
State Services agency chief executives are required by the State Services Commissioner to disclose their expenses, gifts and hospitality twice annually. The returns for the July – December 2011 period are due for posting on websites by 31 January. As they are posted they appear on www.data.govt.nz. A number of agencies have already published this data.
 
One of the early returns is that by the Office of Film and Literature for the Chief Censor. The Chief Censor is unique in his openness. As in previous returns, he goes an extra mile in disclosing not only all hospitality accepted regardless of value; he lists invitations received but not accepted.
 
This complies with the general guidance given to State servants by the State Services Commissioner about the trustworthiness requirements of the code of conduct. “…Organisations’ policies on accepting gifts and hospitality vary, depending on their business. In all cases, it is expected that gifts will only be accepted following a transparent process of declaration and registration. To avoid misperceptions, it is essential that the process is public…”
 
However, the declaration template for chief executives requires only “accepted gifts and hospitality over $100” to be listed. This is an unfortunate practice as it implies that staff need do nothing more. The great value in the Chief Censor’s return is that it is an exemplar. Staff can see the type of gifts and hospitality that have not been accepted and perhaps should not be accepted, and those that are acceptable.
 
The 6 Trust Elements which underpin the code of conduct include the expectation that managers model required standards – that they walk the talk. Promoting integrity-rich behaviour in agencies is very difficult where there is one rule for the boss and another for their staff.
 
The willingness of the Chief Censor to go beyond the minimum is heartening. Perhaps his practice will be contagious.
 
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, , ,

January 25, 2012

Leave a comment

Rising high in the Ethisphere

23 January 2012
 
Last week the Ethisphere Institute – a US think tank promoting business ethics, anti corruption systems and sustainability – published its 2011 list of the 100 most influential people in business ethics.
Understandably the top slot has been awarded to Anna Hazare who has motivated substantial revisiting of corrupt practices in India. The attention he has focused on anti corruption through his hunger strikes, and championing the Lokpal Bill seeking the appointment of an Ombusdman to investigate corruption, has captured world wide attention.
 
But intriguingly the list includes very few  nationals from the countries rated best in 2011 for corruption control in the World Bank’s governance indicators – and then only because of roles they hold in international organisations. Perhaps unsurprisingly there are many Americans in the list. What is interesting is that two British opinion setters feature in the top ten names – the retiring Director of the Serious Fraud Office (5th) and the Guardian reporter who has led the charge against News of the World (10th).
 
A similar US centric perception seems to apply to Ethosphere’s recently published list of the World’s Most Ethical Companies. There is no reference to companies from the jurisdictions rated least corrupt – Sweden, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Singapore etc. The majority of businesses, selected because they have leading ethics and compliance programmes, particularly compared with their peers, are US based transnationals. However, notable is that of the five banks on the list of 110 most ethical companies, three are Australian – ANZ Banking Group, National Australia Bank and Westpac. This year there are 36 companies new to the ethical list, and 26 have fallen off – a consequence of integrity breaches and litigation.
 
 

Uncategorized

January 24, 2012

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «