Is national jubilation confidence or relief?

25 October 2011

 

The success of the All Blacks this weekend and the massive displays of public enthusiasm which followed, suggest not only satisfaction and relief at the outcome of the Rugby World Cup, but that New Zealanders have been very interested and involved in the tournament. It may be hard to find many who have not been caught up in the drama of the Cup final. A year ago, in the UMR survey of Interest in Sport, 70% responded that they were very interested or fairly interested in rugby. Figures for netball were 58%, football 54%, league 52% and cricket 48%.

 

Weekend successes for New Zealand national teams in rugby, netball and cricket would probably mean that a survey taken now would reflect greater levels of interest.

 

Sunday’s match against France was, of course, on the anniversary of the 1917 Russian Revolution. Were it not for the fact that struggle was against the French team, the attrition among the All Blacks perhaps could be seen as more reminiscent of the Western Front. And that too has a memorable connection.

 

On 23 October 1918 one of New Zealand’s Victoria Cross winners was killed in action at Beaudignies. Sergeant Henry Nicholas, a carpenter from Christchurch, was serving with the Canterbury Regiment. He was awarded the VC for his part in the New Zealand Division attack on Polderhoek Chateau on 3 December 1917. He led an attack on a strongpoint that was inflicting heavy casualties on advancing troops. He used grenades and a bayonet to overcome the 16 men in the German position.

 

　

 

www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10761378

 

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

 

www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/le-quesnoy/the-liberation-of-le-quesnoy

 

Uncategorized

, , ,

October 26, 2011

Leave a comment

Good government needs more integrity not less

21 October 2011

The Canadian Public Service is to get a new code of conduct.  Ironically criticism this week is about the weakening of obligations which are rumoured to form part of the revision. Allegedly the Government is seeking to standardise obligations for officials and their Ministers.

The existing code, which came into force in 2003 requires that “In carrying out their official duties, public servants should arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest from arising.” Canadian Ministers are not subject to the same perception constraint and have less demanding expectations regarding the disclosure of interests.

The New Zealand situation is different. The Cabinet Manual setting out the ethical standards required of Ministers repeatedly refers to the importance of perception when managing conflicts of interest. Para 2.64 makes it clear that “Public perception is a very important factor”.

The Standards of Integrity and Conduct for the State Services specify that being trustworthy requires officials to “…decline gifts or benefits that place us under any obligation or perceived influence”

The importance of integrity and conduct in the New Zealand State Services got its yearly fillip this week with the State Services Commissioner’s annual report on the State Services, which forms part of the SSC Annual Report – a report within a report. The Commissioner highlights only two elements – the Performance Improvement Framework and Integrity and Conduct; the essence of good government is effectiveness and integrity.

www.hilltimes.com/civil-circles/2011/10/17/revised-public-servants%E2%80%99-code-of-ethics-may-be-weakened-claims-watchdog/28496

www.cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/node/89#2.56

http://ssc.govt.nz/ar-2011

Uncategorized

October 21, 2011

Leave a comment

Doing business still easier in New Zealand than elsewhere

20 October 2011

New Zealand has maintained its place as the 3rd “easiest” place of Doing Business for the fourth year in row.　

The World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index was released this afternoon. The Index is an aggregate ranking of economies based on ten areas in the business life cycle – ranging from the complexity of a start-up through to a winding-up. The premise is that economic activity requires good rules that are transparent and accessible to all. The indicators of business show how easy (or how difficult) it is to operate within the regulatory environment of the 183 participating economies. While fewer and simpler regulations often imply higher rankings, this is not always the case. Protecting the rights of creditors and investors, as well as establishing or upgrading property and credit registries, may mean that more regulation is needed.

 

Regulation however involves a relationship with officials and the potential for processes to be corrupted for preferential treatment. This makes for interesting juxtapositions between the Ease of Doing Business Index and the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index. Although Singapore and New Zealand are equally least corrupt on the CPI, and respectively 1st and 3rd on the Ease of Doing Business Index, Saudi Arabia is 12th on Ease of Doing Business but 50th on the CPI. Similarly, Georgia at 16th on Ease of Doing Business is 68th on the CPI.

 

NZ dropped 2 places in the World Economic Forum’s 2011 Global Competitiveness Survey, which is a comparable assessment published last month, slipping from 23rd to 25th. Intriguingly China, was in 26th place, improving from 27th in 2010.

 

The Worldwide Governance Indicators (also developed by the World Bank) to be published later this month, will provide another comparison between standards of transparency and integrity in New Zealand and the rest of the World.

　

www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/FPDKM/Doing%20Business/Documents/Annual-Reports/English/DB12-FullReport.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_Doing_Business_Indexhttp://transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/resultswww.weforum.org/news/us-competitiveness-ranking-continues-fall-emerging-markets-are-closing-gap

　

Uncategorized

, , ,

October 20, 2011

Leave a comment

Lobbying looks bad … but not so bad when you’re the Government

19 October 2011

Do politicians’ perspectives change when they move from Opposition to Government?

In Opposition, UK Conservative MPs were vocal about the need for controls on lobbying. In Government, they seem tolerant of wide “corporate networks of influence” .

In February 2010 the OECD recommended member states give effect to Principles on  Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying. A feature is to register lobbyists and their contacts with decision-makers. Most member states have programmes to give effect to the Principles  –  New Zealand being the notable exception. The European Union also introduced lobbyist controls.

The UK coalition agreement of May 2010 included a commitment to “…regulate lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists and ensuring greater transparency.” A register, promised by David Cameron on becoming Prime Minister, has not been introduced.

The resignation of the Minister of Defence last week was precipitated by public distaste for his extensive and improper contacts with interest groups through his “friend and personal adviser” (who is now subject to Police investigation for falsely representing a Parliamentary connection). The resulting scandal has renewed the enthusiasm of MPs in Opposition for controls. Conservative MPs who dominated Public Adminstration Committee in 2009 when it called for a compulsory register, may now be less insistent.

The Shadow minister for the Cabinet Office, calling for greater transparency, claims that a register of lobbyists that records meetings between lobbyists and Ministers, is now essential.

 

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8832910/Liam-Fox-inquiry-fails-to-identify-Adam-Werritty-backers.html

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/16/lobbying-links-coalition

www.oecd.org/document/48/0,3746,en_2649_34135_44644592_1_1_1_1,00.html

Uncategorized

, , ,

October 19, 2011

Leave a comment

First Bribery Act (UK) catch is a tiddler

18 October 2011

The Bribery Act (UK) which came into force in July this year, was designed to cope with white collar crime.  It addressed concerns that the criminal law did not meet obligations under the OECD Anti Bribery Convention and the UN Convention Against Corruption. The Act has been described as “the toughest anti-corruption legislation in the world”, having more stringent characteristics than the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (USA).

Ironically the first conviction is of a minnow, not one of the big fish the new law seeks to net. Last week a magistrate’s court clerk pleaded guilty to accepting 500 pounds to “get rid of a speeding charge for someone by keeping the details off a court database”. There has been no news published about the Serious Fraud Office investigation into corrupt practices at News of the World which would be likely to involve charges under the Bribery Act.

However in the United States, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is the tool being used by the Department of Justice to investigate News International’s responsibility for the bribes paid to British police officers. Such payments by a US company would contravene the OECD Convention against the bribery of foreign officials. Department of Justice actions under the FCPA have had a number of dramatic results. The $.8 billion paid by Siemens, is the largest fine for bribery in modern corporate history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_Act_2010

www.trust.org/trustlaw/news/court-clerk-becomes-uk-bribery-acts-first-victim/

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8645223/Phone-hacking-Serious-Fraud-Office-considering-investigation-into-News-Corp.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act

www.fcpablog.com/blog/2011/10/17/sixty-four-million-reasons-to-comply.html

Uncategorized

, , ,

October 18, 2011

Leave a comment

Tasmania revisits need for Anti Corruption Commission

17 October 2011

Last year, for the first time, all Australian jurisdictions appeared convinced that there was a need for powerful anti-corruption commissions. Embarrassing incidents were repeatedly occurring, despite the efforts of agencies with ethics leadership responsibilities.  There seemed a common commitment to imposing controls. Those States without anti corruption agencies agreed that variants of the New South Wales model should be adopted.

Tasmania set up an Integrity Commission, and Victoria  legislated for an Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (although the State still hasn’t got around to bringing it into force.)

But Tasmania’s anti corruption regime is unravelling. The super cop, a former Assistant Commissioner with the West Australia Police,  has resigned  12 months into her five year appointment.  Politicians are now questioning the need for her agency.  Although 164 cases have been referred to it, the Commission has found no evidence of systemic corruption. Tasmanian lawyers are calling for a review. Politicians are suggesting that the agency budget could be better spent elsewhere. A cynic could suggest that groups which are subject to the Commission’s investigation powers would feel more comfortable if it were to be disbanded.

The Integrity Commission was set up  to restore public trust in government after a string of scandals. A strongly focus has been to promote integrity among MPs, Ministers and their staff, public servants and Police.  Trust is said to be hard earned,  easily spent, and difficult to recover.  Tasmania perhaps has quick powers of recovery.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/anti-corruption-laws-can-they-deliver

Uncategorized

, , ,

October 17, 2011

Leave a comment

Is the DomPost editorial correct?

14 October 2011

The editorial in the Dominion Post today revisits the disregard for gift and hospitality policies at the Treasury.  It makes the inevitable linkage between an inadequate policy for managing retail deposit guarantees and a willingness of staff to be entertained by the industry that it regulates.

The editorial illustrates why integrity is expected of all who work in government agencies.  Reputational harm is just a bout of bad behaviour away. The editorial should be compulsory reading for all in leadership positions. Few are likely to read the Deloitte report. Fewer still are likely to be familiar with relevant guidance published by the State Services Commissioner and the Auditor General.

The spotlight on the Treasury could illuminate equally poor practices in many agencies.  All should be adopting the good practice recommended by SSC and to which the Treasury is now committed; of requiring gifts and hospitality to be recorded on an intranet register  and periodically published. 

Some key points identified on page 13 the Deloitte report have undiminished application throughout the State sector:

  • “The requirement to decline gifts or benefits that place us under any obligation or perceived influence” (Standards of Integrity and Conduct)
  •  “There will usually be perceptions of influence or personal benefit if we accept gifts, hospitality or “quid pro quo” exchanges of favours” (Understanding the code of conduct – Guidance for State servants)
  •  “It is expected that gifts will only be accepted following a transparent process of declaration and registration…it is essential that the process is public” (Understanding the code of conduct – Guidance for State servants)
  •  “Offers of hospitality, as with gift offers, must always be assessed in terms of the purpose of the donor” (Understanding the code of conduct – Guidance for State servants)
  •  “Receiving hospitality is usually inappropriate if it extends beyond courtesy” (Understanding the code of conduct – Guidance for State servants)
  •  “Clear processes for registering conflicts, declaring gifts and benefits, and proper use of organisational resource should, for example, be the accepted and expected way things are done” (Implementing the Code of Conduct – Resources for Organisations)
  •  “Public servants must not…solicit or accept gifts, rewards or benefits which might compromise, or be seen to compromise, their integrity and the integrity of their department and the public service” (Public Service Code of Conduct (previous version of the Code of Conduct).

Collective squirming at the Treasury is a reminder to us all that trust is hard earned and easily spent.

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/5782710/Editorial-Treasury-out-to-lunch

http://treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-speeches/media/07oct11

http://treasury.govt.nz/downloads/pdfs/deloitte-gift-oct11.pdf

http://ssc.govt.nz/code-guidance-stateservants

Uncategorized

, , ,

October 14, 2011

Leave a comment

Is a propensity for corruption sex related?

13 October 2011

The award of the Nobel Peace prize to three women this month raises the profile of sexual equality and a belated focus on female accomplishment.  A Transparency International blogger, exploring gender equity and the relationship to corruption has revisited the question of whether women are less corrupt than me.  There seems to be some substance to this proposition. The World Bank has published research on the topic. However as much of the source material relates to developing countries, and recent Transparency International material relates to Rwanda,  this may just be reflective of social circumstances and opportunity.
 
The  outcome of the trial this week of the former Ukrainian Prime Minister and her sentence to seven years imprisonment for abuse of power is an extraordinary juxtaposition with reports of corruption in many of the states surrounding Ukraine – and indeed many states elsewhere!.
Apparently a common view of international lawyers is that her administrative actions were not criminal,  there being no evidence of personal benefit resulting from the selling of gas to Russia at rates that favoured the Russians.
 
Women may have less opportunity for grand fraud, and at the “petty fraud” level, a well established pattern seems to be that women are less spectacularly corrupt!  Where theft by employees is detected, a generalisation is that men are caught stealing large sums; women steal smaller sums over a longer period. This is borne out by media reports of employees convicted of theft in New Zealand.
 

Uncategorized

, ,

October 13, 2011

Leave a comment

Changing of the Guard

12 October 2011

An interesting change in governance arrangements at the top of the British Civil Service has been announced contemporaneously with news that Sir Gus O’Donnell will retire at the end of the year.  O’Donnell is both Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service.  The roles will be split in future.  A new Cabinet Secretary has been announced, but the Civil Service leadership position will be opened up to existing permanent secretaries.

There is no commentary so far on the policy reasons behind separating the positions.  O’Donnell was seen by some as very  close to the former Labout Government, and less able to provide incoming Ministers with the oversight of the Civil Service that was expected. This may reflect the commitment of the Government to substantially reduce Civil Service size and funding.  Civil servants were called “enemies of enterprise” by the Prime Minister earlier this year. However, yesterday the Prime Minister described him as “the outstanding civil servant of his generation”.

A job to be completed by O’Donnell before he leaves is to investigate whether there has been a breach of the Ministerial code by the Minister of Defence in allowing a “close friend”  to have access to departmental offices and officials and possibly to get a commercial advantage from the relationship.

O’Donnell was in Wellington 18 months ago for a meeting with counterparts from Australia, Canada and New Zealand.  Reports at that time indicated that he recognised the contribution which New Zealand’s Cabinet Manual made towards constitutional stability in an election period.  Provisions which he replicated in Britain proved their worth in the formation of the British Administration following the 2010 General Election. This is the background to the Prime Minister’s praise that O’Donnell’s support, during the formation of the coalition Government, was invaluable.

“He has given dedicated and professional service under five Prime Ministers, the last four of whom he has worked with very closely. I know that they will join me in thanking him for all his hard work, patience, loyalty, good humour and sound judgment.”

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/734a0094-f3fa-11e0-b221-00144feab49a.html#axzz1aTRxoJqi

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/top-civil-servant-sir-gus-odonnell-to-retire-2368908.html

Uncategorized

, , ,

October 12, 2011

Leave a comment

Are we more or less engaged?

11 October 2011

Employee engagement has currency as a measure of organisational effectiveness. For several years, the State Services Commissioner has encouraged agencies to survey employees to establish a benchmark and periodically evaluate how improvements are being effected.  The Gallup Q12 is the SSC-favoured tool.

But if tools like the Q12 are a reliable indicator of employee engagement, then few agencies are achieving their objectives.  Scores are not improving.  A number of agencies have published their employee engagement “scores” in annual reports. Will embarrassing results mean this openness does not continue in reports to be Tabled over the next few weeks?

Employee engagement is a product of US business management, and a Q12 question about “having a best friend at work” is a particularly “American” characteristic.  Research by Kruse and Karsan suggests “a fairly straightforward conclusion: the three drivers of employee engagement are growth, recognition, and trust (neatly acronymized as GReaT, or just GR8 for short)…..

  • growth can come from advancing up the ranks of a company, but more important is the sense that you’re growing as an individual; you are learning new things…
  • recognition …  it’s more about feeling appreciated on a daily basis. It means you are being thanked, and that your ideas count….
  • trust …works on two levels. We need to believe that our leaders are honest and ethical, but also we need to trust that they’ll get us to a better place in the future. It’s about knowing what the future vision is and trusting that our leaders are going to successfully guide us there….”

Perhaps a focus on these GReaT elements , which can be more readily and cheaply measured, might give a more realistic assessment of what is “going on” across State sector agencies?  “Growth, recognition and trust” could be a mantra to accompany that of the  principles of public service – of being “fair, impartial, responsible and trustworthy”.

Uncategorized

, , ,

October 11, 2011

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «