Manna from News International

24 August 2011

Scandal linked to the News of the World will not go away. The issue in the British media this week is that when Andy Coulson was working for the Conservative Party as David Cameron’s adviser, he received substantial payments from the newspaper. The report is that Coulson who left as editor of the News of the World six months before taking up the job with David Cameron, began receiving payments totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from News International on top of his $275,000 civil service salary. Coulson has portrayed these as redundancy payments, but there is public scepticism. The payments had apparently ended by the time of the election, following which Coulson becoming a ministerial adviser.

Similar payments received by a State servant would be considered misconduct. The code of conduct requires that State servants decline benefits that place them under any obligation or perceived influence. This flows from the obligation to avoid actions which may diminish public trust in the State services. It means that State servants must be very careful about accepting any advantage that is not provided by their employer and be aware always of the public perception that can result from accepting favours.

This standard has more general application with regard to gifts and hospitality. But any cash payment under any guise, made to a State servant, because of their role as a State servant, is unlikely ever to be acceptable.

In the United States, civil servants must comply with very prescriptive obligations. This month the compulsory disclosure threshold for reporting of gifts, reimbursements and travel expenses has been amended. The requirement now is to disclose benefits from any one source of “more than $350”; although there is no requirement to disclose items worth “$140 or less”..

In New Zealand, agencies’ policies on accepting benefits, including gifts and hospitality vary. In all cases, the State Services Commissioner’s expectation is that any benefits will only be accepted following a transparent process of declaration and registration. To avoid misperceptions, it is essential that the process is public.

www.channel4.com/news/pm-under-fire-over-nows-payments-to-coulson

www.oge.gov/ethics_guidance/advisories/2011/la-11-05.pdf

www.ssc.govt.nz/node/1914


Uncategorized

, , ,

August 24, 2011

Leave a comment

New policy advice on costing policy advice

23 August 2011

A further product of the Review of Expenditure on Policy Advice was published yesterday.  Treasury has set out requirements on funding related actions to be taken by departments that have a policy advice function.  This was one of the deliverables announced in the Government’s April response to the Review.  That response set out a programme for governance, knowledge management and funding activities. The outcome of the measures now prescribed by the Treasury will be that by the 2012 Budget a direct comparison will be available between agencies on the cost of providing policy advice to Ministers.

The proposal for a Review influenced Act Party support for the National led government.  Dr Scott, a former ACT candidate was appointed to chair the Review.  But those who anticipated a critical report are unlikely to take much comfort from this tame outcome. The expectation of many was that the Review would uncover widespread waste and featherbedding. The findings were quite different.

The essence of the Review report was that specific cuts to policy advice spending were not needed.  What the Government then proposed was a structure to identify and manage the costs of policy advice.

Yesterday’s Treasury Guide for Departments on the Reorganisation of Appropriations for Policy Advice provides a definition of what is to be regarded as policy advice.  It relates to the support given to Ministers, through briefing papers, policy papers and  Cabinet papers. It specifically excludes outputs like departmental policy material, Ministerial correspondence, support for Ministers in their Parliamentary functions and Crown entity governance matters.

The intention is to clarity the cost of policy support given to Ministers, prescribing greater use of multi class output appropriations to avoid double dipping by departments.

The Treasury has mandated that 29 specified policy Departments  are to give effect to the process set out in the guide. Compliance fits within both the obligation on agencies and their staff to conform to the public service principle of being “responsible” and the code of conduct standards about using resources carefully and working to improve the performance and efficiency of organisations.

www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/guidance/mgmt/rapa/02.htm

www.treasury.govt.nz/statesector/policyexpenditurereview/summ-repa-apr11.pdf

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2011/05/10/providing-efficient-and-effective-policy-advice/

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2011/05/11/perhaps-a-case-of-%E2%80%9Cscotts-wa-hae%E2%80%9D/

Uncategorized

, , , ,

August 23, 2011

Leave a comment

Met cops more criticism

22 August 2011

All organisations have a responsibility to protect personal information.  It is particularly important that the staff of government agencies do so. Many people are willing participants on social media and show little reticence about the web publication of their personal details, but the release of person information by a government agency often gets wide media attention. People want to have control over what is published about them. The choice must rest with them not with governments. The obligation of State servants to be responsible and trustworthy includes only using information for lawful purposes.

British media yesterday reported on an almost systemic breach of privacy rules by police officers.  The Metropolitan Police is again on the wrong side of public confidence. Over the last ten years 142 Met officers and 66 other staff have been disciplined for misusing the national computer system. Forty five of those involved were dismissed or prosecuted.

Apparently many senior officers believe that there is frequent abuse of rules on accessing police databases.  The 400 officers across all UK police forces that were disciplined for information related offences over the last ten years are a small percentage. A concern is that half of these incidents are reported to have occurred during the last three years, suggesting that standards are not improving.

A Met detective was arrested and suspended on Friday on matters relating to the News of the World phone hacking inquiry and the disclosure of police information to the newspaper.  Ironically the Assistant Commissioner conducting the inquiry is concerned that details of the arrest had been leaked as her inquiry is meant to be subject to a particular emphasis on security.

One of the recommendations of the New Zealand Law Commission in its review of the Privacy Act is for the enactment of an obligation to notify an individual if their personal information is improperly disclosed. Jurisdictions in Canada and the US have mandatory breach notification legislation. Australia and Britain have good practice “voluntary” regimes. The likelihood is that in the cases where UK police officers have been disciplined for improper disclosures, the individuals concerned would have been notified.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8713194/Hundreds-of-police-officers-caught-illegally-accessing-criminal-records-computer.html

www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/2011/08/key_recommendations_-_for_report_release.pdf

www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/19/phone-hacking-detective-arrested

Uncategorized

, , ,

August 22, 2011

Leave a comment

Clean and green or good and open?

19 August 2011

Government is about allocating resources. Politics is the art of allocating those resources in a way which ensures support from the community. Political parties gain popularity when their allocation priorities reflect the priorities of the community.

An interesting commitment made yesterday by the Government, in what seems likely to promote its environmental credentials in time for the election,  is to follow the practice of other OECD states and legislate for the publication of an environment report.

A Ministerial statement is that “We need to strengthen the integrity of New Zealand’s clean, green brand ….we are the only OECD country not required by law to produce independent state of the environment reports…”

Of course there are other areas where a lack of interest by successive New Zealand governments marks the country out from others in the OECD.

An irony is that the reason for a ‘state of the environment’ report is to strengthen the integrity of the clean, green New Zealand brand.   But the OECD obliges its member states to have processes in place to ensure transparency in lobbying so that there is increased integrity in government and openness about the influences and interests that are served by the allocation of public resources.

To date, New Zealand is almost unique among the OECD,  and countries aspiring to become part of the OECD, in totally disregarding the OECD Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying. The proposal to legislate measures for environmental integrity rather than integrity in government may well reflect the preference of New Zealanders – of a priority for being clean and green, rather than having open government.

The OECD has instructed that a report on progress in implementing the Principles be completed by February 2013. Perhaps a focus on lobbying and how influence is exerted over decision makers will be inevitable before too long.

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1108/S00408/govt-proposes-new-environmental-reporting-act.htm

www.oecd.org/document/48/0,3343,en_2649_34135_44644592_1_1_1_37447,00.html

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2011/02/25/oecd-drives-transparency-in-lobbying/

Uncategorized

, , , ,

August 19, 2011

Leave a comment

Some Indians won’t stand for it any more…

18 August 2011

The last Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index placed India 87th of the 178 countries surveyed. More than 45% of Indians report paying bribes to receive services from public sector agencies. Corrupt practices linked to the Commonwealth Games last year gained attention of the international media.

Part of the “season of scams” at that time included $40 billion in revenues lost from the crooked sale of 2G telecoms licences; and over $40 billion was stolen in Uttar Pradesh from schemes subsidising food and fuel for the poor. In March the Economist described India as “a rotten state”.   The Indian Parliament was told this week that the economy has lost an estimated $462 billion in illicit transfers. That provides background to a dramatic mobilisation this year of communities across India seeking an effective response to corruption.

A growing movement has formed about Anna Hazare, an Gandhian type of activist, who has being using hunger strikes for publicity. His prominence is a reflection of cynicism about the government’s commitment to controlling corruption. Proposed official action is decried as being likely to produce an ineffectual series of committees that will enable the political and commercial elites to continue transferring assets out of India. Many of the largest corruption incidents currently in the news, involving about $25 billion, are linked to prominent members of the ruling Congress Party.

The movement’s leaders are promoting legislation that will criminalise the transfer of funds. They want any  investments banked offshore (estimated to involve up to U$1400 billion) on which tax was not first paid, declared to be the “wealth of the nation”. Demonstrations, unconnected with existing political parties, are occurring across India. Hazare was detained this week on charges of inciting disorder as he began a hunger strike.  More demonstrations led to government intervention and his release.

The harm done by corruption in India is illustrated in the World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index. New Zealand is the 3rd easiest place to do business based on the 9 index components. India is at 134th place.

www.economist.com/node/18332796

www.ndtv.com/article/india/who-is-anna-hazare-96883

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Indian_anti-corruption_movement

http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/economy/indias-illicit-financial-outflows-estimated-at-36462-bn_576896.html

Uncategorized

, , , ,

August 18, 2011

Leave a comment

Uncontrolled flight….

17 August 2011

A recent thread in Integrity Talking Points is the duty which employees have, not to bring disrepute to the organisation they work for.  Generally, what someone does away from the workplace should not be a concern of their employer unless the incident, the employee and the employer would be interconnected in the eyes of a reasonable member of the public. Obvious examples are when employees wear their employers uniform or use their employer’s resources at the time of the precipitating behaviour.  But publicity or the potential for publicity that could bring the employer into disrepute seems also to meet the misconduct test.

The State Servants are required by the code of conduct to…”avoid any activities, work or non-work, that may harm the reputation of our organisation or of the State services”.

Behaviour that is unlawful or displays a breach of trust fall reasonably readily into the category of activities to be avoided. Employees in the State sector after all, are obliged to be responsible and trustworthy.  But what other circumstances cross the line into being disreputable and punishable by an employer?

A titillating article in the media reports the internet publication of photos of a pilot and a cabin crew member. The photos feature the pair in compromising activities in an aircraft cockpit, wearing recognisable parts of their employer’s uniform. They lost their jobs. Did their behaviour harm the reputation of the airline? Was the behaviour unlawful or untrustworthy?

Would New Zealanders expect Air New Zealand to dismiss employees in similar circumstances?  Air New Zealand is not included in the SSC list of “wider state sector organsations”. But as Air New Zealand is majority owned by the government, do its staff fall within the Cabinet Manual specification that all employees in the State sector are to be “fair, impartial, responsible and trustworthy”?

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2011/08/03/high-speed-low-responsibility/

www.stuff.co.nz/travel/international/5452570/Cathay-cockpit-romp-forces-rethinkhttp://ssc.govt.nz/state_sector_organisations

Uncategorized

, ,

August 17, 2011

Leave a comment

Opening up on the centenary of the Official Secrets Act

16 August 2011

It is a century this week since Britain enacted government confidentiality with the Official Secrets Act 1911.  The Act was reconfigured several times and replicated in a number of jurisdictions including Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  In 1911 Britain and Germany were competing to outgun each other with battleships. HMS New Zealand, launched in July 2011  a gift to the Royal Navy from the people of New Zealand, was a product of the arms race at that time.

The Official Secrets Act was rushed through in a wave of anti German sentiment at the time of a gun boat incident at Agadir, a port in Morocco. Section 1 of the Act targeted spies gathering defence secrets in the shipbuilding yards. But section 2 targeted civil servants, soldiers and sailors who handled any official information. Up to 2000 separately worded criminal charges could be prosecuted under the Act. The two World Wars and the Cold War entrenched the spirit of the legislation.  Ironically though it was an incident relating to the Falklands conflict – a Victorian–like squabble over a colony – that led to an attitude change in Britain and, ultimately, to freedom of information laws.

A dramatic change in attitude to the purpose and “ownership” of government records occurred in New Zealand in 1982 with the repeal of our Official Secrets Act and the passing of the Official Information Act, intended… “ to make official information more freely available, to provide for proper access by each person to official information relating to that person, to protect official information to the extent consistent with the public interest and the preservation of personal privacy…”

However, four generations of officials, vaccinated by the Official Secrets Act, seem to have predisposed State servants to combating access to information.  There seems to be a collective mindset that has difficulty operating in the setting established by the Official Information Act,  where the purpose is to progressively make information more available. Repeated criticism by Ombudsmen of Minsters and agencies which fail to meet the disclosure standards of the Act, suggest that Governments cannot cope with transparency.  The ideal of open government is championed, but the practice is difficult to embrace.

This week the Government has taken a further step in reinvigorating the availability of information.   The Declaration on Open and Transparent Government commits agencies across the State sector to taking active measures to “release high value public data for re-use”.  Ministers believe that more open data will benefit the public and the economy.

“Improving online access to government data has many potential benefits. These include creating business opportunities and new services, increasing government accountability and improving policy development by encouraging greater external analysis and community engagement.”

Officials should now feel fully empowered to make non-personal information available. The Act expects it, Ministers are encouraging it, the State Services code of conduct requires it – imposing a responsibility “for facilitating speedy responses to information requests.”

http://www.ict.govt.nz.

Uncategorized

, , , ,

August 16, 2011

Leave a comment

Building beyond bullying

15 August 2011

The Public Service Association is reported to be surveying at their homes, the union’s members who work for the Department of Building and Housing, because of the extent of bullying in the Department. Bullying in the workplace is a common New Zealand circumstance, and a number of surveys show that government agencies are seldom better than other employers. The PSA has said that in the Department of Building and Housing the environment is “beyond the point that is acceptable’ (whatever that may be).

In the State Services integrity and conduct surveys in 2007 and again in 2010, the misconduct most frequently observed by respondents was abusive and intimidating behaviour towards staff. Of particular concern is that this bullying by managers was the only measure in the survey that deteriorated substantially between the two surveys. Whereas 36% of State servants observed abusive behaviour in the 12 months prior to the 2007 survey, this deteriorated to 38% in 2010.

From an ethics perspective, bullying is concerning not just because of the misconduct itself but because managers should be setting the tone of their agency and modelling standards expected of their staff. A bully is not being fair. Being fair is a primary requirement of State servants. Unfair managers will be unable to meet the other integrity principles of being impartial, responsible and trustworthy.

Research last year by the US Workplace Bullying Institute found about 50% of the U.S. workforce had been bullied by someone at work or had witnessed a colleague being mistreated. The State Services surveys didn’t provide any description of harassment, but the US survey listed unwarranted or invalid criticism; blame without factual justification; being treated differently than the rest of your group; being sworn at or threatened; exclusion or social isolation; being shouted at or humiliated; excessive monitoring or micro-managing; and being given work unrealistic deadlines.

Forty percent of female State servants report they have observed abusive or intimidating behaviour, but “only” 33% of men had that experience. The US research was that men are more likely to participate in aggressive bullying behaviour (60%), however when the bully is a woman her target is more likely to be a woman as well (71%) – as in the circumstances reported in the Department of Building and Housing

The State Services Commission recommended 8 priority areas for agencies if they were to moderate the misconduct highlighted by the 2010 integrity survey. A focus on bullying was not included, possibly because the need was obvious. Any attention given to acting with integrity and modelling expected standards would diminish the frequency of bullying. As in new Zealand, no United States jurisdiction has yet treated bullying in the workplace in the same way as sexual harassment, prescribing an offence and stipulating management processes. However 16 states have proposals to legislate.

www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/82430/union-surveys-staff-over-‘bullying-culture’

www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Integrity-and-Conduct-Survey-2010-full-report.pdf

www.ethicssage.com/2011/08/workplace-bullying.html

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2011/07/08/753/

Uncategorized

, , ,

August 15, 2011

Leave a comment

Supporting trust and trustworthiness

12 August 2011

Transparency International has widespread recognition for the credibility of its research into corruption and its advocacy of processes that support good government.  TI has expanded substantially since its foundation – driven by a New Zealand executive director – and the publication of the first Corruption Perceptions Index in 1996.

Important resources in TI’s research repository are the surveys of national integrity systems which comprehensively analyse  a country’s integrity infrastructure.  These are an evaluation of 13 institutional pillars which support the rule of law, and ensure sustainability and the quality of life.  The pillars represent the checks and balances that protect against the misuse of power.  The existence of powerful, effective, apolitical audit institutions is one of the pillars.  Good government , economic efficiency and a healthy democracy will not be possible otherwise.

The Office of the Auditor General is New Zealand’s principal audit institution. It was rated highly in the New Zealand NIS prepared in 2003. The OAG plays a major role in the promotion of integrity.  Its 2011 Statement of Intent represents the OAG’s outcomes, impacts and outputs in a triangular diagram, with the apex being a “trusted public sector”.     These are achieved if the 4000 agencies in the public sector maintain high standards of trustworthiness.

This week the Auditor General published guidance on the appointment of public sector auditors.  These are the professional contractors engaged to assess and scrutinise the compliance of agencies with their statements of intent and the way public money has been spent.  These audits are broader than the standard commercial undertaking and may examine whether a public sector agency:

  •  fairly reflects results in their annual reports;
  • complies with statutory obligations;
  • operates effectively and efficiently;
  • is being wasteful through any act or omission;
  • shows any sign of a lack of probity by acts of the entity or anyone working for it;
  • shows any sign of financial imprudence through acts of the entity or anyone working for it.

Each is a component of the statutory responsibility that agencies are managed in an efficient, effective and economical way, and that the conduct of their employees reflects the Cabinet Manual obligation to be fair, impartial, responsible and trustworthy.

www.transparency.org/about_us

www.transparency.org/policy_research/nis

www.oag.govt.nz/2011/appointing-auditors-and-setting-audit-fees/part2.htm

Uncategorized

, , , ,

August 12, 2011

Leave a comment

Lobbyists flourish in Queensland

11 August 2011

There is exponential growth in lobbying in Queensland. Australian jurisdictions are legislating to improve the regulation of lobbyists. Some of the very first measures taken by the incoming New South Wales government were to require greater openness in the operations of lobbyists.  At an international level, the OECD is expecting member states to promote transparency in lobbying and to control the extent to which there is a revolving door between government and business.  But New Zealand seems unwilling or uninterested in acting on the probability that vested interests buy influence –  that  government policy is arranged to fit in with those interests.

Over the last year the number of registered lobbyists has doubled in Queensland.  There are now 135 firms employing more than 350 people to lobby the various levels of government in the State. The effect is that there is a lobbyist for every two politicians, with more than 2800 business using their services. As the requirement to register as a lobbyist does not apply to accountants and lawyers who are also active in influencing government, the reality is that the numbers lobbying politicians are even greater.

The Premier claims that Queenslanders have easy access to her Ministers, that her door is always open.  But the growth of professional lobbying implies that effective influence flows from paying for access to decision makers. However she has promised a reconsideration of controls as part of a review of the Integrity Act.

In July, the views of a former lobbyist for New Zealand farming interests were published in the Farmers Weekly. He supported the necessity for statutory controls on lobbying. He championed a publicly accessible register of lobbyists, the interests they serve and the people in government that they meet. He advocated arrangements similar to those in Australia, Canada and the United States where it is simple to find out who works for business (and other) interests.

Inevitably there is some knowledge in the market. “ For example we read in the Dominion Post that the American drug companies have engaged Wellington lobbying company… to try to screw Pharmac in the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations. Interestingly we read that the principal …  has photo access into Parliament to go and talk to who he wants whenever he likes. I’d love to know what other organisations have employed lobbyists for the same negotiations and if it is likely to affect agriculture in the talks.”

The major political parties show no interest in increasing scrutiny of the inner workings of the political process, despite OECD recommendations. What is good for Europe and North America seems to be too constraining for New Zealand. This is a departure from the usual New Zealand focus on transparency, integrity and good government.

www.couriermail.com.au/news/lobby-industry-booming/story-e6freon6-1226111951454

www.nzfarmersweekly.co.nz/article/8931.html

Uncategorized

, , , ,

August 11, 2011

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «