Lobbying in EU is comprised of hidden influence and privileged access

16 April 2015

A Transparency International report assessing standards of lobbying across the European Union published yesterday produced some disheartening although not unexpected results. The authors of “Lobbying in Europe: Hidden Influence, Privileged Access” suggest that lobbying reform is overdue.

Of the 19 countries assessed, only three scored more than 50% when measured against international lobbying standards.  Political decision makers in most of the jurisdictions are largely unprotected from those with money and influence.

The report rates Slovenia as best protected because it has a sound anti lobbying framework. Cyprus and Hungary score worst, having few effective controls.  Italy, Portugal and Spain are not much better, having “risky” lobbying practices and close relations between the public and financial sectors.  Ironically intensive lobbying has been effective in hobbling reform proposals.

Alcohol, tobacco and cars are noted as common lobbying tools.

To ensure that lobbying does not lead to corruption, the report lists remedial characteristics. The recommendation is that all countries and EU institutions must:

  • Regulate lobbying to cover everyone who engages in lobbying activities and all key lobbying targets.
  • Establish mandatory registers of lobbyists, their clients, their targets, and how they seek to influence decisions.
  • Track and publish external influences on legislation and record the contact between lobbyists and public officials
  • Establish or amend minimum “cooling-off periods” before former public and elected officials can work in lobbying positions that may create or be seen to create conflicts of interest.

The report also recommended that anyone seeking to influence public policy must publish information on their advocacy and lobbying activities and expenditure.

Country / Institution % Score

 
Slovenia 55
European Commission 53
Lithuania 50
United Kingdom 44
Austria 40
Ireland 39
Latvia 39
European Parliament 37
Netherlands 34
Poland 33
Czech Republic 29
Estonia 29
France 27
Slovakia 26
Bulgaria 25
Germany 23
Portugal 23
Spain 21
Italy 20
Council of the EU 19
Hungary 14
 Cyprus  13
Coincidentally a presentation in Wellington yesterday, coordinated by Transparency International NZ, explored the implications of anti bribery legislation needed before New Zealand can comply with requirements for ratification of the UN Convention Against Corruption.  The conversation on occasions widened into discussing the corrupting effects of lobbying and buying access to and influence through political decision makers.  

 
There seemed to be a general belief among speakers that the absence of lobbying controls in New Zealand has a corrosive and corrupting potential. There remains little evidence of political will to give effect to the obligations New Zealand has, as an OECD member state, to give effect to the Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150415/1020912740.html

http://transparency.org.nz/UNCAC-Ratification

http://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/oecdprinciplesfortransparencyandintegrityinlobbying.htm

Uncategorized

, ,

April 16, 2015

Leave a comment

Sagging a little on Open Government

14 April 2015

Last week State Services Commission announced a proposal for a Stakeholder Advisory Group that would help shape the way New Zealand gives effect to its commitments as a member of the Open Government Partnership.  The SSC website seeks expressions of interest from interested parties willing to serve on the Stakeholder Group.  SAG seems to be an unfortunate acronym for enthusiasts who will be paid an allowance and travel expenses for attending up to seven meetings a year which are intended stimulate Open Government principles across the public sector.  A cross section of the community is invited to show interest, with particular reference to the inclusion of Maori, Business, Civil Society –being the community and voluntary sectors, and Academia.

A google search suggests that few in these target groupings have awareness of, or interested in, the aspirations of the Open Government Partnership. This of course is not a surprise. There is almost no familiarity with the OGP or of New Zealand’s action plans and the compliance regime concomitant with membership.

This despite results of the 2015 Open Government Index conducted by the World Justice Programme showing that New Zealand is perceived as the second most open administration measured on the  dimensions of published laws and government data, right to information, civic participation and complaints mechanisms. New Zealand is achieving the characteristics promoted by the OGP although not yet having completed the full requirements of membership

(see Correction below).

Australia appears less committed than New Zealand to the OGP.  The Australian Freedom of Information blog – Open and Shut which is critical of the reticence of Australian Governments to give effect to platitudes about information freedom – had a post on 11 April suggesting that good government could be reclaimed if there was a genuine commitment to the Open Government Partnership, and a “meaningful” relationship with civic society to develop action plans required by the OGP.  Although not an OGP member Australia nevertheless is ranked 9th on the 2015 Open Government Index.

http://www.ssc.govt.nz/open-government-partnership-sag

http://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/ogi_2015.pdf

http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/OGPCalendar_notes%20FINAL_0.pdf

http://worldjusticeproject.org/open-government-index

Correction:

Andrew Ecclestone (SSC) has confirmed that New Zealand fulfilled the OGP membership requirements by publishing its action plans. The specification on the OGP website that membership involves countries submitting a letter endorsing the Principles of the Open Government Declaration is now satisfied with the publishing of its approved action plan.

The following website guidance is no longer the practice:

“To join OGP, countries must commit to uphold the principles of open and transparent government by endorsing the Open Government Declaration …. Through endorsing this Declaration, countries commit to “foster a global culture of open government that empowers and delivers for citizens, and advances the ideals of open and participatory 21st century government.” The Declaration has been endorsed by 65 OGP countries, and the countries that are currently developing action plans will send a letter endorsing the Declaration together with their final approved action plan. : http://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/open-government-declaration#sthash.Bm68tJZc.dpuf 

Uncategorized

, ,

April 15, 2015

Leave a comment

Special election guidance for special advisers in UK

10 April 2015

This year’s General Election guidance published for the UK  civil service contains a page expressly for special advisers – the British equivalent of  Ministerial Advisers. The guidance highlights how different special advisers are from “ordinary” civil servants . Their special character relates to the acceptability of involvement in party political activities which would be quite unacceptable under the political neutrality obligations of other civil servants.

If special advisers wish to help in the election campaign they must first resign, distancing themselves from all connections with departmental resources and information. The appointment of those who remain in office supporting Ministers through the purdah period, will automatically terminate on the day after the election.  They may then be reappointed if their Minister is returned to Government. However they are not permitted to engage in election related duties.

There seems to be a tolerance in New Zealand for Ministerial Advisers supporting their Ministers at election time. They remain on their Minister’s staff until the Minister loses the warrant – either by resignation as a consequence of the election result or the Prime Minister assigning their portfolio elsewhere. That is one of the events on which their events based contracts is predicated. Although, in theory, still subject to the same political neutrality obligations as other departmental staff under the Standards of Integrity and Conduct for the State Services, amendments in 2013 to the State Sector Act anticipated the Ministerial adviser role becoming more openly partisan.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/419219/General_Election_Guidance_2015_for_civil_servants.pdf

www.parliament.nz/resource/0000250037

Uncategorized

, ,

April 10, 2015

Leave a comment

More than talk needed to combat corruption in parts of the OECD

9 April 2015

Events over the last few weeks have highlighted how Mexico, an OECD Member state and  Brazil an aspirant for OECD membership, are far from meeting the anti corruption expectations held of Member states.

An OECD Integrity Forum was held in Paris on 25-26 March as part of the OECD Integrity Week – designated the week after the United States has its Integrity Week ( although the OECD Secretary General commented that the OECD didn’t need a special integrity week as every week is an integrity week. ) The Forum is part of what the OECD calls its CleanGovBiz Initiative which encourages governments to reinforce their measures to establish integrity, build trust and counter corruption.

During the week there was a meeting of SPIO – the  OECD Working Party for Senior Public Integrity Officials. The agenda covered

  • Sharing experience, good practices and lessons learnt
  • Analytical tools, peer reviews and comparative data indicators
  • Member state contributions to the Government at a Glance publication
  • Support for CleanGovBiz and other anti corruption initiatives
  • Monitoring implementation of the Council’s integrity recommendations

Meanwhile Mexico and Brazil were in the international headlines.  In Brazil investigators uncovered a scam by which nearly $2 bn dollars – and possibly as much as $5 bn  -has been diverted from the Treasury over the last decade.  The sums involved are much greater than the suspicious payments made by Petrobas – the national oil company – in a separate corruption arrangement.  A tribunal sitting in up to 30 panels to consider appeals against tax demands made on major taxpayers has engaged in extensive slashing of corporate taxes in return for between 1-10% of the sums involved being channeled to the panel members .  Apparently some of the country’s biggest firms are involved – including banks and manufacturers – together with a number of multinational companies.

In Mexico, survey results indicate that the majority of the population believe corruption has increased dramatically over the two years of the current government. Examples of misuse of power abound.  Officials are embezzling public funds for personal property acquisitions, the military and police have been involved in executions and “disappearances”.  Political parties are considered to be the most corrupt institutions, followed by senior public officials, judges, and then State and Federal governments. 36% of survey respondents say that corruption is Mexico’s biggest problem, with 28%  even more fearful of their personal security.

www.business-anti-corruption.com/country-profiles/the-americas/mexico/snapshop.aspx

www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21647664-scandal-tax-agency-may-dwarf-one-surrounding-petrobras-taxmen

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-10/latin-america-won-t-tackle-corruption-at-summit-of-the-americas

 

Uncategorized

, ,

April 9, 2015

Leave a comment

Does Sunshine Week have a disinfecting effect?

8  April 2015

The United States was ranked 11th in the Open Government index published by the World Justice Project during the mid March Sunshine Week.

Sunshine Week has been celebrated for the last ten years across the US public sector, from Federal government to local authorities. The celebration takes place in the week encompassing 16 April, the birthday of President Madison, recognised as the father of the Bill of Rights.  There are weak echoes in some other countries.

There may be a less consistent application of access to government information in the United States than in the higher scoring states, but the United States Freedom of Information focus during Sunshine Week has a much greater profile than equivalent measures in most other places.  One illustration is an on line collation of FOI cartoons published in the media during the week.

Good intentions of course are not enough. The Federal Government response rate to FOI requests tells its own story – possibly putting the responsiveness of New Zealand agencies to Official Information requests into a new light!

US law specifies that agencies should respond by disclosing records within 20 business days of a FOIA request, unless subject to one of the exemptions relating to national security,  personal privacy, privileged communications, or maintenance of the law – not unlike New Zealand.

Published statistics on FOIA request handling indicate that in 2014,

  • about 49% were released in part,
  • about 9% were denied.

That leaves a backlog of nearly 160,000 unanswered information requests. This gave rise to increasing numbers of complaints about time delays and processing costs.

There were numerous activities coordinated across the US to raising the profile of open government and promoting processes for accessing information. Not that Congress seems to share the enthusiasm of civil society, with proposed amendments to the FOI Act making no progress.

A bill introduced this year seeks to promote openness and prohibit non disclosure except where there is ‘foreseeable harm’ to government interests – it would limit non disclosure to a 25-year maximum period, unless privilege is claimed as advice to government.

Bills were also introduced during Sunshine Week by which agencies would have to make information fully searchable, and more information would be made available on research funded by the Federal Government.

http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/opengov/

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/03/17/sunshine-week-what-can-the-government-do-to-be-more-transparent-for-you/

www.mcclatchydc.com/static/features/sunshine/Sunshine-Cartoons.html

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/?s=sunshine+week

Uncategorized

, ,

April 8, 2015

Leave a comment

Why are we not interested in the Open Government Index?

7 April 2015

This time last year a post about the rule of law reflected on the release by the World Justice Project of the Rule of Law Index. The post was titled “New Zealand again rates well in Rule of Law Index – but who cares?”  And New Zealand was placed 6th at that time.  Two weeks ago the World Justice Project published the Open Government Index.  New Zealand is ranked second of the 102 countries included  – the runner-up to Sweden as the country best adhering to the characteristics of open government – but that result stimulated even fewer articles in the New Zealand media about the World Justice Project than last year.

The agencies that could be anticipated acknowledging this recognition and which echo media announcements of the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index when published each year – also perhaps feel that Open Government ratings are less newsworthy.   Although the New Zealand Open Government Action Plan targets being ranked in the top ten places on the Index there has been no reference to the Index result on either the SSC website or on the open government website  http://www.ICT.govt.nz .

New Zealand is well regarded for its commitment to the good government implications of open government despite being a late – and possibly reluctant – applicant for membership of the Open Government Partnership. But then Australia which is also in the top ten is an even more reluctant participant in the 4th tranche of the OGP.

2015

Open Government Index
1 Sweden
2 New Zealand
3 Norway
4 Denmark
5 Netherlands
6 Finland
7 Canada
8 United Kingdom
9 Australia
10 Korea

What this may confirm is that the substantial contributions which the Gates Foundation makes to the Rule of Law Project, are not conditioned on high profile promotion of the Index and its funders.

The Open Government Index scores participating countries on four dimensions:

  • Publicised laws and government data ( New Zealand  ranked 1st )
  • Right to information        ( New Zealand ranked 2nd )
  • Civic participation        ( New Zealand ranked 6th )
  • Complaint mechanisms  (New Zealand ranked 6th )

http://worldjusticeproject.org/open-government-index

http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/opengov/#/groups/NZL

www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/nz-ogp-action-plan-jul2014.pdf

www.opengovpartnership.org/blog/alejandro-ponce-and-stephen-lurie/2015/03/26/are-ogp-member-countries-actually-more-open

http://integritytalkingpoints.com/?s=rule+of+law

Uncategorized

, ,

April 6, 2015

Leave a comment

Not for glory, nor riches, nor honours….

6 April 2014

In the UK, now a month out from a general election, the civil service has begun operating under pre-election constraints.  The Government has gone into purdah!  As in New Zealand, the expectation of officials is that in the lead up to an election they avoid any activity that could question their political neutrality and that agencies’ resources are not used for party political purposes.

The somewhat questionable use of purdah to describe the separation of political process from public administration during an election period no doubt reflects imperial influences on the civil service.  (When Britain managed its empire, colonial administrators were part of the civil service in the colony where they served and were only indirectly part of the Colonial Service which like the Foreign Office was not part of the UK civil service.)

Purdah in Urdu and Persian is the word for curtain and is used to describe the custom of screening women from men.  In election terms it is the screening officials from activities which could be seen as helping a political party. It also involves suspending initiatives which could be seen as politically contentious or making major decisions which with minimal impact can be postponed until there is a mandate following the election

Election guidance for civil servants has some content similar to the guidance issued by the State Services Commissioner for the last 20 years before New Zealand general elections, and some notable differences. These include concerns in the UK about providing briefings to Ministers during the election period, the use of statistics, census and survey data to support public communications in the election period, and ensuring that Ministers do not use departmental letterhead where they have added political content to correspondence prepared in departments.

Guidelines on costing party political policies and preparing briefings for incoming Ministers which form appendices to the New Zealand election guidance don’t form part of the UK version.

The guidance for civil servants notes that it doesn’t apply to officials working in the devolved administrations of Scotland and Wales. Those civil servants owe loyalty to the devolved administrations.

And that point has pertinence today, the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Arbroath, the 1320 affirmation of Scottish independence from England, sent to the Pope of the day.

 “….For, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself…”

 

https://civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2015/03/30/what-purdah-means-for-civil-servants/

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN05262/election-purdah-or-the-preelection-period

www.ssc.govt.nz/election-guidance

www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN05262/election-purdah-or-the-preelection-period

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

Uncategorized

, ,

April 6, 2015

Leave a comment

Possibly disastrous – certainly unpalatable

4 April 2015

The good intentions of politicians are often seen by cynical observers to be tainted by self-interest – usually to their financial advantage.  Perhaps that is why JK Galbraith noted that “…politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable…”

A media focus last week was on New York’s unpalatable politicians.  Ethics reforms were being enacted late on 31 March to take some heat out of a growing perception that corruption was rife in the Empire State.  A number of the State’s politicians have been convicted of offences including misuse of public money and fraudulent allowance claims. A Speaker of the State Assembly, elected for the eleventh time on 7 January 2015  resigned on 30 January when arrested on charges of extortion and undeclared payments of more than $4 million from law firms that specialise in property-tax avoidance.

Last week he attempted for a second time to have the charges struck out as not being sufficient to constitute a bribe! His defence is that “…there is simply nothing wrong with an attorney earning referral fees for the business he brings in…” Although first elected in 1976 and the fourth in seniority of the 150 New York assemblymen his notion of ethical conduct seems undeveloped.

The New York Governor’s response was to introduce ethics reform as part of the State budget.  Politicians who have legal practices will be required to disclose the names of clients paying fees greater than $5,000. However the effectiveness will be diminished because the law will not apply to existing clients and excludes retainer payments for general advice.  The law may well be “largely meaningless”. The introduction of an electronic recording system to verify attendances for which politicians claim allowances may be more effective in countering the lack of integrity implicit in the history of false claims.

Community groups have been critical about the tactics used by the government. The Bill was introduced only 12 hours before budget legislation had to be enacted. There was no opportunity for public scrutiny or comment. “It is unacceptable in a functioning democracy that an ethics bill about the disclosure of legislators’ outside income hasn’t even been disclosed to the public”. The claim by the Governor that New York  “will now have the nation’s strongest and most comprehensive disclosure laws for public officials” is sad if true.  Proposals that were not enacted mean there is little change in “pay to play” in New York State government;

  • Unconstrained access by politicians to secondary employment means conflicts are inevitable
  • An individual can still give up to $60,800 to a candidate’s election campaign
  • As a limited liability entity is treated as an individual and not a corporation, the wealthy can create numerous entities and donate the maximum through each of them
  • Unlimited contributions can be given to political party “housekeeping” accounts for operating expenses (allegedly a total of $133 million over the last 15 years has been paid for access and influence).

www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/17019/new-york-lawmakers-pass-ethics-legislation-critics-say-measure-falls-short

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

Uncategorized

, , ,

April 4, 2015

Leave a comment

Does Press Freedom mean much?

24 February 2015

Last week New Zealand media were chuffed to report an improved ranking in the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index for 2015.  New Zealand moved up the Index to 6th, from 9th place in 2014. In this index, like almost every measure that relates to good government, Scandinavian countries dominate and Scandinavia –lite New Zealand tags along. Although what is interesting with Scandinavia is how Iceland (now 20th) has lost some of its mojo over the last five years –it was 2nd in 2010. Estonia has demonstrated over the decade how it can claim to be more Scandinavian than European.  It remains in the top 10 this year, while from old Europe, only Netherlands and Austria make the top 10.

Just ahead of Iceland, both Luxembourg (18th) and Switzerland (19th) are slipping in the Press Freedom Index just as they are slipping in the Corruption Perceptions Index. The banking sector particularly in Switzerland has been shown again, through the actions of HSBC, not to comprise honourable and discrete institutions as portrayed for generations.  What the Press Freedom Index may suggest is that the lack of an investigative media facilitates and encourages  corrupt influences within both government and business.  Many national assets can be diverted by powerful  interests.

On the Press Freedom Index,  Greece is among the poorest scoring of European states . At 91st, it is at the mid point on the Index (and ranks only 2 places ahead of Fiji). It also ranks among the more corrupt administrations on the Corruption Perceptions Index.  Graft is palpable.  The media is owned by oligarchs with a vested interest in financial power. There is no effective policing of grand corruption, said to involve about $20 billion each year. The economy is imploding from institutionalized greed . The central bank has been unable to protect the exchequer from Ministers authorising highly questionable loans. The absence of an effective and inquisitive media seems likely to precipitate the decline into a failed state. That may well be Greece’s future.

2015 World Press Freedom Index

1 Finland
2 Norway
3 Denmark
4 Netherlands
5 Sweden
6 New Zealand
7 Austria
8 Canada
9 Jamaica
10 Estonia

 

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite2_1_17/02/2015_547365

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31516416

 

 

Uncategorized

, ,

February 24, 2015

Leave a comment

Interesting the conflicts that worry the commentariat

23 February 2015

When last week the Labour Party leader stirred what seems a minor storm in the political tea cup, a TV journalist predicted an end to the media honeymoon that followed Andrew Little’s selection three months ago.  The excitement followed a report that he had failed to pay for professional services despite several approaches to his staff.  What didn’t excite interest was that the provider was apparently an employee of a TV company and under standard obligations of trust and confidence  could only have been selling his services to the Labour Party if he had the imprimatur of his employer or he was in breach of employment duties.

A much more concerning story would be if providing services for the Labour Leader was approved secondary employment for TV company staff.  Last year an employee for Maori Television found that political interests are not acceptable for high profile staff in an agency funded from public money (although Maori TV is a statutory body – an agency associated with a portfolio –and has stakeholder Ministers,  its staff are not State servants subject to the Standards of integrity and Conduct for the State Services).

Last week’s event that should have ruffled many more feathers among those concerned about ethical standards in politics is the report of the appointment of the former Minister of Health for six years (and Minister of State Services for half that time) who five months after leaving office was appointed as a director of nib – a large Australian medical insurance provider and second largest in New Zealand.

New Zealand governments have shown no interest in regulating revolving doors – despite  requirements that the OECD has of its Members, and the constraints legislated by most comparable jurisdictions.  OECD  guidelines on managing conflicts of interest have a particular focus on the movement of regulators from the public sector to the commercial world which they have regulated – influenced by a United States Revolving Door Working Group  report  “A Matter of Trust – How the Revolving Door Undermines Public Confidence in Government – And what to do about it”.  Ministers moving into industries where their portfolio experience has direct relevance or into lobbying where familiarity with systems and officials provides advantage , are in all jurisdictions,  an insidious  corrosion of trustworthy government.

The 10 Principles for Lobbying and Integrity adopted by the OECD in 2010 included a provision “…..Countries should consider establishing restrictions for public officials leaving office in the following situations: to prevent conflict of interest when seeking a new position, to inhibit the misuse of ‘confidential information’, and to avoid post-public service ‘switching sides’ in specific processes in which the former officials were substantially involved. It may be necessary to impose a ‘cooling-off’ period that temporarily restricts former public officials from lobbying their past organisations….”

Although many of the Principles are reflected in New Zealand’s public  integrity framework, Ministers seem very reluctant to limit their post-political career opportunities.

When in 2011, a senior Minister announced an intention of leaving politics to seek opportunities in business, he stood down from the role of Minister of State Owned Enterprises – although retaining the Justice and Commerce portfolios – only to walk through the revolving door into a banking sector role related to those portfolios, in a time showing scant regard for the 18 February 2010 resolution of the OECD that its Members  take into account the 10 Principles in their rules, practices and policies, and that non Members adhere to those Principles.

http://business.scoop.co.nz/2015/02/13/nib-appoints-tony-ryall-to-nz-board/

www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/Lobbying-Brochure.pdf

www.opengovguide.com/standards-and-guidance/revolving-doors-accountability-and-transparency-emerging-regulatory-concerns-and-policy-solutions-in-the-financial-crisis/

Uncategorized

, ,

February 23, 2015

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «