Integrity Talking Points

UN International Anti Corruption Day on Friday

7 December 2011

Friday, being 9 December, is marked by the United Nations as International Anti Corruption Day. The event was first marked in 2003. Promotion of the occasion has increased its recognition in a number of jurisdictions. But the probability is that in New Zealand, neither the media nor agencies with a responsibility for raising awareness of the corrosive effects of corruption will do anything to support the international movement.

The irony of course is that New Zealand rates as the least corrupt public sector, despite the minimal public discussion of corruption and measures to eliminate it. Countries with a much higher incidence are those that have campaigns to raise awareness and “say no to corruption” type campaigns.

The United Nations champions the UN Convention Against Corruption and the convention mechanisms as the primary tool for countries to combat fraud. The Secretary general is calling for a worldwide denunciation of corruption including extortion and bribery. Organisations are being urged to adopt an ethical culture as the best antidote to corruption. The UN Ethics Office promotes accountability, integrity, transparency and an environment where staff feel protected from retaliation as best way to expose unethical behaviour.

Tomorrow and Friday yet another UN agency, the Office of Internal Oversight Services in New York, is bringing organisations together from around the world to promote the importance of these elements.in strengthening anti-corruption aspirations.

The message for this year’s campaign, with the acronym of ACT, is “against corruption today”.

ACT against corruption today!

http://live.worldbank.org/qa-about-anti-corruption

www.unodc.org/yournocounts/en/about-the-campaign/index.html

www.afp.gov.au/what-we-do/campaigns/anti-corruption-day.aspx

Uncategorized

Anti Corruption Day, Beith Atkinson, UNCAC

December 7, 2011

Leave a comment

Is it dishonest for police to work undercover?

5 December 2011

The Occupy movement in London is upset at measures taken by Police to monitor their demonstration.

The Independent yesterday reported an incident of demonstrators identifying a suspected police officer who had infiltrated a group who were attempting to take over a building near Piccadilly Circus. Campaign leaders have criticised the activities of plainclothes police as “underhand” and “utterly unwelcome,” calling it “a form of deception, [running] utterly counter to principles of accountable policing”.

But do undercover operations counter principles of accountability and good government?

The duty of State servants to act with integrity is so that there will be confidence in their trustworthiness and to promote trust government. In guidance about the standards of integrity and conduct for the State Services, the State Services Commissioner includes being honest as a trustworthiness standard.

The British Network for Police Monitoring however considers that… “use of plain clothes police can cause an unpleasant level of distrust among demonstrators, even those who are law-abiding. Nobody wants to go on a demonstration where you are not sure whether the person next to you could be recording what you say for the police file. That is not the sort of society we want to live in. .. This is an invasive policing tactic that has no regard for civil liberties. Those engaged in protest already feel under siege from aggressive and disproportionate policing.”

The State Services Commissioner’s guidance about the meaning of trustworthiness has specifically addressed this issue. “Honesty does not necessarily mean continuous, full disclosure. In some circumstances, full disclosure is a requirement. Other circumstances may require care. For example, the courts have recognised that organisations with responsibility to enforce legislation cannot be required to openly disclose their evidence-gathering activities. It is sometimes necessary to disguise the way these activities are carried out. But these circumstances are rare. Unless there is a lawful reason for doing so, we must not act on the premise that the end justifies the means.”

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-moment-protesters-found-a-plainclothes-cop-in-their-midst-6270908.html

www.ssc.govt.nz/node/1914

Uncategorized

Beith Atkinson, Occupy St Pauls Movement, standards of integrity and conduct, undercover police, Understanding the code of conduct

December 5, 2011

Leave a comment

Does CPI reflect good luck or good management?

2 December 2011

The New Zealand Chapter of Transparency International seems embarrassed about the least corrupt public sector accolade awarded to New Zealand in the 2011 CPI. The local membership has a less rosy view of New Zealand’s circumstances than the expert assessors appointed by their Berlin-based parent organisation.

Yesterday’s TINZ media release is not just false modesty. It reflects a concern that agencies with a leadership role in the New Zealand public sector appear unwilling to exercise the institutional muscle which will counter deteriorating standards. A string of contributors to media blogs echo that view that all is not well despite the Index findings.

The reality of course is that the CPI is a perceptions based tool, applied consistently across the 183 countries assessed this year. The perceptions of New Zealand are still favourable, despite a number of survey respondents earlier this year indicating that they had paid bribes for public services. (A comment from several seasoned police officers is that receiving bribery offers is not unusual; allegedly what is unusual is any corrupt response to those offers.)

A pragmatist would observe that New Zealand’s least corrupt status in the CPI for the last 5 years, in the face of little structural emphasis on anti corruption, proves that action is unnecessary. What is relevant is the inherent culture of the community. New Zealand is blessed with a remarkably uncorrupt community.

But the Singapore experience may contradict that theory. Singapore progressively improved its standing on the CPI; 5th in 2004, 4th in 2008, 3rd in 2009 and 1st = in 2010. Transparency International warns against viewing the CPI as a time series. Year on year comparisons can be misleading. This year it has slipped again to 5th place. But comparisons with other countries in the same year’s Index are valid.

The difference between Singapore and New Zealand is that a fraud by two Singaporean officials involving more than $12 million, had a reputation-crushing effect. Four years ago, a similar fraud by an IT manager at Otago DHB, involving over $17 million, was generally regarded as isolated and aberrant.

The score attributed to New Zealand in this year’s CPI is 9.5 ( the highest ever awarded.)

A concern however should be the scores in Pacific public sectors;

Samoa (69th) 3.9; Vanuatu (77th) 3.5; Tonga (95th) 3.1; Solomon Islands (120th) 2.7; Timor Leste (143rd) 2.4; Papua New New Guinea (154th) 2.2.

http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/in_detail/

www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-28/two-convicted-in-singapore-s-biggest-public-fraud-since-1995.html

http://oag.govt.nz/whats-new/2011/corruption-perceptions-index-2011

Uncategorized

Beith Atkinson, Corruption Perceptions Index

December 2, 2011

1 Comment

Corruption Perceptions Index – New Zealand stands out

1 December 2011

New Zealand remains on top. The Transparency International CPI continues to rank New Zealand as the country perceived as having the least corrupt public sector. This year Denmark has slipped to 2nd place, and has been joined by Finland. And followed by Sweden and Norway. The United States ranks 24th, two places lower than last year.

The CPI released today, assessed 183 countries on a composite of 17 expert and business surveys. The survey catchment is broadening. In 2010 CPI ranked 178 countries.

Afghanistan, despite ten years of western influences, comes in 180th of the 183. Only North Korea and Somalia are deemed to be more corrupt

http://www.transparency.org/

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1112/S00005/new-zealand-tops-latest-global-anti-corruption-index.htm

Uncategorized

December 1, 2011

Leave a comment

What will the CPI bring this year?

1 December 2011

The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2011 will be released today at 2pm New Zealand time. The Index rates perceptions held by expert assessors of the level of public sector corruption. In last year’s Index New Zealand shared top place with Singapore and Denmark.

Media coverage during the year of fraud-related developments may affect the perception. Included for the first time in the TI Bribe Payers’ Index, a surprising number of New Zealanders self-reported paying a bribe for services. The Auditor General’s public sector fraud survey published in November and the PriceWaterhouse Coopers New Zealand edition of the Global Economic Crime Survey released this week, both challenge the traditional understanding that New Zealand is largely devoid of corruption.

The PWC statistics suggest that economic crime is worsening. Of the 78 participating jurisdictions New Zealand experiences more fraud than average, moving to 4th place in the extent of reported fraud (from 8th in 2009), ahead of United States and Australia. Responses from the (small – 93 organisations) sample suggests that 60% of government agencies experience fraud.

A disturbing report yesterday is of a former Serious Fraud Office chief prosecutor being charged with forgery. The allegations, derived from an initial court appearance, shatter the perception that New Zealand State servants, imbued with the spirit of service, are committed to trustworthy behaviour that will strengthen public trust in government.

www.pwc.com/nz/en

www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/bpi

www.nbr.co.nz/article/fraud-increase-new-zealand-gb-105355

www.3news.co.nz/Ex-SFO-prosecutor-charged-with-forgery/tabid/423/articleID/234733/Default.aspx

Uncategorized

Beith Atkinson, corruption, public trust, Transparency International CPI

December 1, 2011

Leave a comment

Recovering ill gotten gains

30 November 2011

The experience in Victoria and Western Australia (see yesterday’s Integrity Talking Points) of gift giving to officials who respond to the attentions of commercial interests, must be that the trustworthiness of officials is questioned and trust in government is undermined. The purpose of codes of conduct is to create a climate which strengthens the resolve of officials to resist these corrupting influences.

Today is St Andrew’s Day, the patron saint of Russia, Romania, Ukraine, Greece, Scotland, and parts of Portugal, Italy and Malta. His small part in biblical stories, as a fisher of men, is helping with feeding the 5000 with loaves and fishes. Would this type of hospitality be a benefit which an official should declare and register? And the New Zealand connection is that the St Andrew’s cross (from the Scottish saltire) forms part the Union flag in the upper quarter of our flag.

This week on the international stage, measures have been announced for calculating and confiscating the proceeds of activities that breach the OECD Anti bribery Convention and the UN Convention Against Corruption.

The OECD recognises that countries’ ability to seize illegal gains is integral to the international fight against bribery and corruption. All countries that join the Anti-Bribery Convention and UNCAC are expected to engage in this fight. To arm governments effectively, the OECD and the World Bank/UNODC Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative have released guidance on the Identification and Quantification of the Proceeds of Bribery. This sets out measures that governments can use to impose appropriate penalties when companies bribe officials to win contracts or gain undue advantages.

The Identification and Quantification of the Proceeds of Bribery report examines methods for calculating the gains made by companies that pay bribes. Drawing from cases in Indonesia, South Africa, the United States, it shows the most accurate methods for calculating profits, and what can be recovered in a particular legal regime.

The OECD has developed the material to overcome the view in many countries, that penalising bribery is too complicated to be seriously pursued. The report shows what has worked when calculating and seeking to recover proceeds of bribery. Whether more enforcement actions follow is another matter. Last year only three of the 34 OECD Convention states prosecuted companies for bribing foreign officials and few UNCAC actions were raised outside of the United States. New Zealand is rated among the non enforcers of the OECD Convention and remains outside of UNCAC.

www.oecd.org/daf/nocorruption

www.oecd.org/document/28/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_49103132_1_1_1_1,00.html

www.oecd.org/document/24/0,3746,en_2649_34859_1933144_1_1_1_1,00.

Uncategorized

Beith Atkinson, gifts and benefits, OECD anti bribery convention, UNCAC

November 30, 2011

Leave a comment

Time for an open season on gift giving?

29 November 2011

A report of a Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commission investigation published last week exemplifies why agencies are expected to have rigorous gifts and benefits policies. The CCC found that there has been widespread acceptance of unreported gifts by State and local government officials in return for approving the purchase low grade, increasingly expensive, toner cartridges on a scale vastly greater than the needs of the procuring agencies.

The payments made to the officials were “modest” with the most extreme case involving about $3,000 worth gifts, provided over three years. The cost to the Western Australian Government was an overpayment for toners of more than $415,000.

In June this year, the Victorian Ombudsman reported that employees in a number of that State’s agencies had been suborned in a similar way. In return for small gifts, officials committed their agencies to purchasing toners which progressively increased by $200 over five months, costing $270 more than the approved supplier price. One official bought a quantity amounting to 40 years supply for his agency, although the toner cartridges had only a 24 month “life”. Creative administrative and auditing processes were put in place to avoid triggering inquiries.

When organisations discuss the need for strict gift policies, the frequent response by staff is that they would not be corrupted by benefits, and particularly those proffered by vendors; that gift … “cannot be seen as compromising integrity”. T

The Victorian and Western Australian experience demonstrates that many do not resist the corrupting influence of gift giving, and that traders provide benefits to officials for a business purpose. In commerce, operating costs are not increased gratuitously. It is for that reason that the Auditor General reiterated guidance about organisations having a clear policy on accepting gifts and services in her report of public sector fraud, published earlier this month.

Being open about the acceptance of gifts is fundamental. Where there is no transparency the implication is that there is a reluctance to disclose. The underpinning suspicion is that reluctance masks an intention to deceive. The State Services Commission guidance about gifts remains best practice: “… 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.”

www.ccc.wa.gov.au/Publications/MediaReleases/Pages/MediaRelease24Nov2011.aspx

www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/15/3244229.htm?site=melbourne

www.oag.govt.nz/2011/public-sector-fraud/index.htm

www.ssc.govt.nz/node/2255

Uncategorized

Beith Atkinson, gifts and benefits, toner fraud, Victorian Ombudsman, Western Australian Crime and Corruption Commission

November 29, 2011

Leave a comment

Election produces a Government – now to brief Ministers

28 November 2011

When polling results on general election night indicate that parties are likely to coalesce speedily into an arrangement that will have the confidence of Parliament, central agency chief executives can breathe easily. The intricacies of caretaker government are avoided and the complications of providing information for coalition negotiations are minimised. There was certainty by midnight on Saturday that the Prime Minister would again lead the Government in the next Parliament. However, until again being sworn into office his status is as Prime Minister of the Caretaker Government.

Much of the State Services Commission 2011 election guidance for State servants has served its purpose. The focus now must be on the Appendix 5 to the Guidance. This appendix guides Departments on the preparation of their Briefing for Incoming Ministers. It sets out how chief executives fulfill the Cabinet Manual requirement to brief their Minister as soon as the Minister takes up office, on the Department and the portfolio.

The guidance emphasises that the written briefing is only part of the information provided to a Minister. It is to be made available when the Minister is sworn into office. It should reflect the Minister’s awareness and experience of the portfolio, and take account of commitments made in the government formation process. It must be tailored to the Minister’s needs. The format specified by the State Services Commissioner is that briefings must be short, setting out key organisational and policy information, identifying key decisions facing the Minister over the following few months, and detailing entities for which the Minister is responsible and to which appointments must be made.

Guidance about BIMs released in conjunction with each of the last five elections has been very similar. This takes account of the MMP environment and the need for departmental advice to be shaped by the needs of the Minister. The process is quite different from the “Black Book” previously maintained by departments and which was “frozen” on election night to reinforce the neutrality of the advice prepared by officials.

The current guidance makes it clear that BIMs are not prepared for the media, despite the pattern that many Departments have adopted, although inevitably there will be Official Information Act requests to disclose BIMs. A directive in earlier editions of the guidance, that BIMs were not to be commercially printed has been moderated in the current of the guidance. The guidance now paradoxically indicates that BIMs must be prepared in the normal format of advice to the Minister and “do not need to be commercially printed”. However, it seems unlikely that any Department is commercially printing their “normal departmental advice” to Ministers!

www.ssc.govt.nz/node/8390

www.dpmc.govt.nz/cabinet/elections/index.html

Uncategorized

Beith Atkinson, Briefing Incoming Minister, Cabinet Manual, General Election Guidance 20111

November 28, 2011

Leave a comment

Corruption Perceptions Index – do we see clearly?

25 November 2011

Transparency NZ had its annual general meeting last night, followed by two presentations; on the integrity challenges facing a New Zealand company developing a joint venture business in China, and a research report on the composition of the New Zealand Corruption Perceptions Index data and the way that Index is used by the media and government.

The 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index will be launched in Berlin on 1 December. There was no awareness shown by any attending the TINZ AGM of imminent changes to the Index. Although recognising that the Index relates to perception, reflects corruption in the public sector only and has some questionable statistical components, there was no certainty about how this year’s evaluation will affect New Zealand’s place. Ranked least corrupt for several years, and never having slipped below 4th place since the Index began in 1995, the jingoistic hope is that New Zealand retains its place.

This aspiration is shared by the State Services Commissioner. The Commission’s 2011 – 2013 Statement of Intent sets out an objective, that the State Services are trusted by the public. The measure set by the Commissioner is that on average over the next five years New Zealand will be ranked among the top 3 countries on the CPI.

“By independent assessment, New Zealand has one of the most corruption-free public sectors in the world. Launched in 1995 and run annually, Transparency International’s 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index is an aggregate indicator that ranks nearly 200 countries by their perceived levels of corruption and is based on the results of surveys by ten independent institutions that measure the extent of corruption in the public and political sectors. The State Services Commission will be using New Zealand’s ranking in the index as a means of tracking the State sector’s collective level of trustworthiness and the effectiveness of our own Integrity and Conduct work programme.”

The Auditor General in her Statement of Intent for 2011 – 2013 uses the CPI as a measure of the Trusted public sector, specifying that “New Zealand’s score on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index is maintained or improved.”

The Auditor General (who attended the TI AGM) recently published the results of a survey on fraud awareness, prevention, and detection in New Zealand’s public sector as part of her agency’s focus on fraud prevention. On the State Services Commission website, only three of 449 word search references to Transparency International relate to matters added to the site in the last 12 months (linking to the Annual Report and the Statement of Intent.)

www.transparencynz.org.nz/index.php/component/content/article/25-mem-details/107-the-2011-ti-nz-annual-general-meeting

www.ssc.govt.nz/soi2011

www.oag.govt.nz/2011/statement-of-intent/index.htm

www.oag.govt.nz/2011/public-sector-fraud

Uncategorized

Beith Atkinson, OAG, OAG fraud survey, State Services Commission, Transparency International CPI

November 25, 2011

Leave a comment