UK Minister behind civil service cuts to stand down

11 February 2015

Ten days ago the British Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude indicated that he would step down at the mid year general election. Presumably that will mark the end of his Ministerial oversight of the civil service reform programme.  Despite continuing criticism throughout the 4.5 years of his aggressive programme of cuts and restructures there has been little sense of relief voiced so far by his opponents.

He claims savings in the last year of more than £14 bn, cutting the civil service by 20%, and reducing quangos by about 35% .  Critics question the real benefits, and suggest that plans to recoup $21 bn lost through benefit fraud and tax avoidance have come unstuck.

The civil service now 90,000 positions fewer than in 2010, is less well paid and in retirement will have reduced pension benefits – although many have been “bought out” with substantially enhanced packages.  Opponents believe that the Minister has been politicising senior appointments although the First Division Association acknowledges that some reforms have made the civil service more effective and resilient.

The Minister championed the Government Digital Service combining all agency websites into the gov.uk site. Although some targets will be missed there has been a digital transformation of government, gaining recognition for Britain as a world leader in open government, evident in December 2014 when the self designated D5 (UK, South Korea, Estonia, Israel and New Zealand) combined for a “summit” of globally advanced states.

Mr Maude has advocated open government as a vehicle for strengthening public trust, that “transparency is an idea whose time has come”. He committed Britain as an early adopter, and foundation member of the Open Government Partnership. Some see that movement as fast losing its effervescence. New Zealand’s reluctant involvement may prove prescient. The Minister’s visit to New Zealand two years ago does not seem to have influenced the way he reengineered the machinery of government in the UK.

Plans for converting agencies into mutuals – small, employee-led organisations – seem to have lost momentum, with mutualised services like hospitals and the pension services provider failing to meet objectives. Although involving many fewer than the targeted 1 million civil servants, Mr Maude is proud that there are more than 100 mutuals.

Some anticipate that he will be elevated to the House of Lords. Whether he will put his passion for change into the hamstrung reforms of that place may be known within the next 12 months.

 

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11382694/Francis-Maude-to-stand-down-from-Parliament.html

www.opengovpartnership.org/country/united-kingdom

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/sprint-15-francis-maude-speech

What will change now Australia is to have “good government”?

10 February 2015

“Good government starts today” the Australian Prime Minister announced after defeating the “spill” motion in his caucus. Which of course prompts questions about the willingness of his Cabinet to function at standards below those of good government over the last 18 months , despite the oft repeated refrain about “the Government’s whole mission being  to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia.”  His election campaign was about trust but a “trust deficit” soon caught up with him.

The underwhelming levels  of confidence of  Australians, not only in Federal politics but to an even greater degree in States’ legislatures,  is typified in the New South Wales parliamentary research unit’s publication Integrity in Government – Issues and Development 2011-2015. That briefing paper explores recent legislative measures initiated with varying success to the strengthening of government integrity in New South Wales.  It paints a sad picture of political ethics.  There seems to be a continuing taint of Ministerial corruption regardless of the party in power, which no doubt will be a focus of the electorate in the lead up to the NSW election on 26 March.  The January success of the Labor Party campaign in Queensland suggests that electorate wanted dramatic change. The situation may not be much better in other States.

The ethics challenge that New Zealanders see in Australia is measurable according to Legatum and accounts for the prosperity difference between the countries.  In the 6th annual Prosperity Index published in November last year New Zealand climbed two places to 3rd overall on the eight measurements. Australia is 7th.

What won’t help is the retirement on Waitangi Day from the Federal Parliament of Senator John Faulkner.  In a sea apparently awash with self-interest, he is recognised by the media as that aberration – a politician of integrity. He has been described as a man of “principle” and “integrity” who has “fought corruption and the abuse of power wherever he has found it”.

Over the 25 years he has been in Parliament he has become the conscience of the Labor Party – but appears to have gone too far at the ALP conference last year, upsetting union leaders  by promoting  different candidate selection procedures for the Senate.  He criticised the ALP for its continuing support of corrupt politicians.  He didn’t get support for change and shortly after announced his intention of retiring.  The confidences of his time as the Senate opposition leader, and as a Minister in three administrations are apparently secure.  Unlike many retiring politicians he has said that “there will be no autobiography or memoir, no career in lobbying or in the media”.

 

www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/5C7BBC0570C4E287CA257DD300028C91/$File/Integrity%20in%20government.pdf

www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/politics-news/veteran-labor-senator-john-faulkner-to-retire-early-2015/story-fn59nqld-1227152233364

www.li.com/about/press-releases/new-zealand-in-global-top-three-for-prosperity

 

Are elected judges compromised by the election process?

28 January 2015

Electing judges seems inherently wrong to someone brought up in the traditions of the English legal system – as it has been transplanted to New Zealand.  Although few would regard politicians as corrupt because of the obligation they have to campaign for election, parliamentary and local government elections are explicitly party-political.  Public expectations are that elected candidates will deliver on campaign promises.

Most New Zealanders would think it improper that aspiring judges would pitch their suitability for office to the general public, although appreciating that the appointment process must involve would-be judges in varying degrees of self promotion to Ministers who are responsible for their selection.

Founding fathers in the United States championed appointed judges as the best way to provide a check on both the executive and the legislature, but 19th century populism swept away Federalist principles in many states. There was such faith in the democratic process that states saw explicit community support as an advantageous qualification for judicial office. Now, 39 states elect their judiciary. But all elections need funding, and fund raising is a problem for anyone seeking judicial office in those 39 states.

Last week the US Supreme Court appeared to be divided over whether elected judges should be allowed to directly solicit campaign contributions. The court is exploring whether it is lawful for Florida to ban judicial candidates from soliciting in person, or whether fundraising is an element of free speech rights. Florida law seeks to protect judges from “quid pro quo exchanges” where lawyers and litigants have donated to the campaign of a judge only to then appear in their court. The counter argument is that judges should be no different from candidates seeking election to positions in the legislature or the executive. It is about freedom of speech.

The case began with a mass mail out seeking funding assistance in a 2009 campaign for election to a county court bench. The Florida Bar argued that the candidate breached the prohibition on personal solicitation. She was reprimanded and fined by the Florida Supreme Court.

In the US Supreme Court only four justices appeared to accept Florida’s measures to distance the judiciary from corruption allegations often made about other elected office holders. The other Justices may well be attracted to First Amendment arguments by the time a decision is delivered mid year.

 

www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/argument-preview-judges-politics-and-money/

New Zealand remains an open data leader

26 January 2015

New Zealand remains in the top four countries that make national data available on line according to the Worldwide Web Foundation.   The second annual Open Data Barometer  published last week  ranks New Zealand unchanged  (4th) as were UK (1st), US (2nd) and Sweden (3rd).

The general commentary about the assessment of 86 countries is that “there is still a long way to go to put the power of data in the hands of citizens…all too often governments are still publishing only selected datasets with limited data published on important areas such as public sector performance and expenditure”.

There is a growing divide between countries with initiatives – whether or not committed to the the Open Government Partnership, and those with no formal programme.  Half of the G7 countries fall into the group that is not publishing data that was promised in 2013.

Only eight countries are publishing open data on government spending and even fewer on government contracting data. The report comments that “information critical to fight corruption, and promote fair competition  – such as company registers, public sector contracts and land titles is even harder to get.

The report recommends;

  • High level political commitment to disclosure of public sector data
  • Supporting civil society to understand and use data effectively
  • Making data visually accessible where there is low literacy levels
  • Supporting city level data initiatives
  • Legal reforms to guarantee rights to information – and to privacy

 

2014   Country Rank change
1 United Kingdom 0
2 United States 0
3 Sweden 0
4 New Zealand 0
4 France 6
6 Netherlands 4
7 Norway -2
7 Canada 1
9 Denmark -4
10 Germany 1
10 Australia -3

 

www.opendatabarometer.org

http://www.futuregov.asia/articles/6053-which-country-has-the-most-open-government-in-asia-pacific?utm_source=Open+Gov+Newsletter&utm_campaign=4bf688d4b3-Open_Gov_5_21_1_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_04849d362c-4bf688d4b3-323820125

http://opendatabarometer.org/report/summary

 

Is integrity in government a euphemism in NSW?

23 January 2015

When away from the South West Pacific, Australians and New Zealanders affect a camaraderie and familial connection.  At home we know we are different. That difference entrenches the Tasman divide.  The young men comprising the expeditionary forces at Gallipoli may have had similar life experiences, but the equivalent generation today probably has less in common than when the Australian colonies decided to federate in 1901 and agreed that New Zealand could choose to be part of the new commonwealth.

The composition of both societies has fractured far beyond the homogeneity of 19th century migration, although even then the substantially greater proportion of the Australian population with Irish roots gave a different shape to social foundations.  That may well be reflected in the way that larrikinism is inherent in the spirit of Australia.  New Zealanders like to think they are made of better stuff.  Many family trees have limbs on both sides of the Tasman Sea but those involved  seem largely uninterested in promoting the constitutional option of union.

The commitment to good government may be an indicator of difference.  The Transparency International  CPI has always assessed the public sector in Australia as more corrupt than in New Zealand. And some states are seen as worse than others.  Parts of the New South Wales public sector have been badly corrupted from time to time.  The establishment of the Independent Commission Against Corruption – ICAC – set up 25 years ago is a direct consequence.  Four years ago the then Opposition in the NSW Parliament saw graft in many parts of State administration. It campaigned to reinforce controls and harden public sector defences.

This week the New South Wales Parliamentary Research Unit published a 50 page Briefing Paper on measures promised by the coalition government of Premier Barry O’Farrell, legislation that eventuated, and the effectiveness of those measures.  Integrity in government: issues and developments in New South Wales, 2011 -2015 is a useful read.

It explores stresses on democracy in NSW,  challenges to integrity, and each of the solutions promoted over the last four years – of controls on political lobbying,  establishing codes of conduct for Ministers and MPs, introducing more transparency in political donations, strengthening the ethical expectations of public servants, enacting protections for whistle-blowers, reinvigorating the anti corruption agency (ICAC), controlling government advertising and so on.

The paper is a non partisan account of what was proposed and the outcomes delivered. It is a resource for NSW parliamentarians; not government self-promotion.  As a snapshot of the last four years  it is a tale of how the good intentions of a party in opposition are blunted by the reality of politics when the party gets into government.  What can be inferred from the Briefing Paper is that in the NSW setting , a claim to “Integrity in Government” may be overstated.

New Zealanders may be different from their cousins in NSW. The report however plots developments which are pertinent here  – where similar concerns may have precipitated New Zealand’s loss in December of the long held recognition by Transparency International  as the country having the least corrupt public sector.

www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/5C7BBC0570C4E287CA257DD300028C91/$File/Integrity%20in%20government.pdf

www.lawyersweekly.com.au/blogs/16075-keeping-the-polis-honest

 

Can a corrupt cop be an effective cop?

21 January 2015

What are the chances of reducing corruption if the national Police chief lacks integrity?

Indonesia does not rate well in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index. It was ranked  107th last year, with an assessment of 34 – a score that is little changed year on year.  (New Zealand with a score of 91 consistent with previous years, slipped last year to second least corrupt country.)

Over the last decade a growing segment of Indonesian civil society has campaigned against what may seem to be entrenched malpractices in both commercial and government sectors.  There has been ambivalence among the political classes although successive governments have enabled the KPK – the corruption eradication commission – to become a trusted and effective agency.  It was established in 2002 after an inquiry concluded that no part of the Police would be capable of reforming. The KPK was elitist from its foundation, and rigorous in its practices. It has been very successful in prosecuting senior officials in all branches of government – made possible by an efficient anti-corruption court.  But the KPK gets questionable support from the Police – all parts of which contribute to a public perception that it is a very corrupt institution.

Indonesia’s Police have been exposed frequently by the extent of their corruption.  A Police General was convicted in 2013 of taking more than $13 million in bribes following a KPK prosecution – although the Police endeavoured to take control of the prosecution.  Many senior officers have substantial wealth although Police are not well paid.

The nominee to be the next Police chief fits that mould.  There has been public anger because of his reputation. He has assets which are irreconcilable with his income.  The KPK has made critical statements about his conduct although he is reported to have passed a fit and proper person test.  Parliament unanimously endorsed the President’s nomination – suspected because he was an aide to the previous President who still wields great political power.

An editorial in the Jakarta Globe has indicated that appointing a graft suspect as Police chief, will be a national humiliation. Only last week the KPK imposed a six month travel restriction on the nominee following investigation of his assets.  Anti-corruption interests are hoping that the President will withdraw the nomination.

www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/16/us-indonesia-police-corruption-idUSKBN0KP0GJ20150116

www.gallup.com/poll/157073/corruption-continues-plague-indonesia.aspx

www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30831697

China’s top spy catcher accused of corruption

20 January 2015

Anti-corruption policing in China is again in the news as more very senior officials fall foul of the leadership.  The Vice Minister at the Ministry of State Security – the head of “No  8 Bureau” –  and a number of other senior officers at the intelligence agency were detained in what may well be a pretext for moving out of favour Party leaders from positions of power.  This arrest is seen as the boldest step yet in President Xi’s  anti corruption programme.

Commentators anticipate a substantial “shake-up” of the State security agency responsible for counter espionage and subversion. Described as a KGB-like organisation with international reach, there is seldom media coverage given to it.  It keeps surveillance on diplomats and foreign business people.  As the agency spends more than the official budget for the military, the likelihood is that President Xi is restructuring China’s expansive security apparatus.

The chief of a domestic security agency was caught out in a graft scandal in mid 2014.

The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection said Vice Minister Jiang Ma was under investigation on “suspicion of serious violations of discipline and the law”, commonly used to mean misappropriation and personal use of agency assets. He would appear to be another of the high-ranking “tigers” as well as lowly “flies” publicly targetted by Xi Jiang as one of his first commitments on becoming President.

The South China Morning Post reported that Ma, the Security Service Vice Minister since 2006, is linked to Ling Jihua, a senior aide to former President Hu Jintao, and to the chief executive of Founder Group, a technology firm owned by Peking University. Both are being investigated for corruption.

The tiger hunt this month has also bagged the highest ranking of four Assistant Foreign Ministers and the Vice Secretary of the north-eastern province of Liaoning, with the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection announcing that they also were also under investigation for “seriously violating the law”.

www.ibtimes.com/chinas-top-spy-official-ma-jian-under-investigation-over-corruption-1785628

www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-30654253

http://multimedia.scmp.com/china-corruption/

Tallyho – a call for bounty hunters

9 December 2014

The Chinese apparently don’t appreciate that there are no foxes in New Zealand.

Canada has red foxes and arctic foxes.  The United States has red and grey foxes. Japan has red foxes. In Western Europe red foxes have been urbanised. And in Australia the prolific red fox population poses serious environmental and ecological problems.  However there are no foxes in New Zealand. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act classes them as a “prohibited new organism”.

But the Chinese Government is keen that New Zealand joins the hue and cry as part of “Fox Hunt 2014”. The offer is of an extradition treaty but New Zealand seems less certain than other countries approached to locate and repatriate former Chinese officials who have emigrated with ill gotten gains. A share of those ill gotten gains may make us more amendable.

This year China surprised the international community with the way it embraced obligations of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. UNCAC has explicit provisions about the hunting of fugitive corrupt officials and the recovery of money. China concluded an extradition treaty with Australia and a number of other countries, and finalised cooperation agreements with the United States and Canada. The United States has for years campaigned for States Parties to step up their anticorruption endeavours – and then in November on the margins of the APEC Summit, China led the way with the Anti Corruption Network – the Beijing Declaration on Fighting Corruption.

The immediate call by China was for international cooperation to locate and return corrupt officials. Many are known to have gone with their assets to developed countries. The ultimatum to former officials hiding abroad with corruptly acquired property is to give up by the year’s end if they wish lenient sentences..

“Fox Hunt 2014” gathered momentum. First the United States and Canada were given details and asked to detain and return fugitives and their assets. Then a direct approach was made to Australia. The New Zealand Prime Minister has now disclosed that in November the Chinese President sought similar cooperation here. Sensitivity about capital punishment may impact the likelihood of widespread extradition, but some very rich migrants to New Zealand were previously senior officials in China. Apparently the Government is being offered a share of any repatriated assets. .

www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/09/us-china-power-corruption-idUSBREA480AJ20140509

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2014/11/08/will-act-net-be-anything-more-than-a-clever-acronym/

www.3news.co.nz/nznews/death-penalty-hampers-china-extradition-treaty-2014120818

New Zealand in the digital vanguard

8 December 2014

The United Kingdom is hosting the inaugural D5 summit in London this week. The British Government has invited South Korea, Estonia, Israel and New Zealand as world leaders in providing digital public services – the newly coined D5. This may involve a degree of self-aggrandisement.  Of the D5, only South Korea, United Kingdom and New Zealand feature in the leading ten countries in the 2014 United Nations e-Government Report. Neither Australia (2nd) nor Singapore (3rd) seem to be taking part.

Encouraged by the Summit, the D5 countries have indicated an intention of working together to explore and share new and more citizen-centric ways of providing transformational public services.

The United Kingdom Government promotion of its digital public services claims a high take up of its “simpler, clearer and faster online services” – yet the UK has slipped from 3rd to 8th place on the e-government leader board in the last two years. It is proud of the gov.uk website as the access point to services, which received the Design Museum’s Design of the Year Award in 2013, a first for a government website.

2014 United Nations World e-Government Leaders

2014 Rank 2012 Rank
South Korea  1  1
Australia  2 12
Singapore  3 10
France  4  6
Netherlands  5  2
Japan  2 18
United States  7  5
United Kingdom  8  3
New Zealand  9 13
Finland 10  9

New Zealand was ranked among the 25 countries rated very high on the e-Government Development Index but was not among the eight countries that scored more that 66.6% for the four stages of e-Government participation assessed for the UN Report. It is among the 46 scoring more than 66.6% for whole of government participation. New Zealand has been recognised for an “all of government” approach that includes cloud  computing – the g-cloud – the latest trend for building upon whole of government initiatives (evident also in Singapore) according to the UN Expert Group Meeting Report 2013 on Collaborative Governance.

Among the many measures in the UN Report is an assessment of online services.  A number of countries, well rated for online services, are slower in developing the transactional services seen as essential for transformational e-government.

2014 UN World Online Service Delivery 

France  1
Singapore  2
South Korea  3
Japan  4
Spain  5
United States  6
Bahrain  7
Australia  8
Netherlands  9
Canada 10
United Kingdom 11
United Arab Emirates 12
Israel 13
Uruguay 14
New Zealand 15
Chile 16
Colombia 17
Estonia 18
Finland 19
Saudi Arabia 20

What is novel in the e-government pecking order is how Scandinavian countries which rate highly in almost every measure relating to good government are not prominent in the provision of on-line services. This is despite the populations of Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland being identified in 2012 as the most likely in the OECD to interact with public authorities, through the internet.  New Zealanders were 12th.

http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2014-Survey/E-Gov_Complete_Survey-2014.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/

https://ict.govt.nz/

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1412/S00088/first-it-was-the-g20-now-its-the-d5-dunne-speaks.htm

New focus on the purple zone, while CPI result brings on the blues

4 December 2014

Prof Jean Hartley (Open University Professor of Public Leadership)  presented her recent ANZSOG research on “Public managers and political astuteness: lessons for the New Zealand State sector “ to a Wellington gathering yesterday about the time when the Chairman of Transparency International in Berlin was releasing the 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index.

Prof Hartley heralded an aspect of New Zealand public management-speak emerging from a lengthy eclipse just as the New Zealand public sector’s reputation was losing the glow which for eight years has accompanied its place as the least corrupt on the CPI.

Prof Hartley reported on responses from over 1,000 public sector managers in New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom to five questions;

  • What is the nature of political astuteness in public management? How important is it to public managers’ work?
  • How politically astute are public managers?
  • Does political astuteness vary by context, type of organisation and managerial level?
  • In what contexts do public managers use political astuteness?
  • How do public managers develop political skills?

She commented on how only when underway with the research did the notion of the “purple zone” evolve, of viewing the interface between politicians and senior officials in colour terms. It appeared that few in the large audience were familiar with the reference.  Yet it was part of public management-speak in New Zealand for ten years from the mid 1990s. The purple zone was adapted by Alex Matheson, Gerald Scanlan and Ross Tanner when at the State Services Commission, to describe part of their reformed public management model where the blue of politics blended with the red of the administration – “the purple zone is …an amalgam of separation and integration…” Similarly, Peter Shergold was writing about accountability in the Australian government under the title “The Colour Purple…” Chris Eichbaum and Richard Shaw have written about ministerial advisers as boundary riders in the purple zone.  The SSC corporate colour flags the notion that the State Services Commissioner’s role is to police that purple zone, and for a period in 2011 the colour characterised a SSC blog, the Purple Pages.

www.oecd.org/newzealand/1902913.pdf

www.anzsog.edu.au/media/upload/publication/124_124_LWPA-report-Hartley-Alford-Hughes-Yates.pdf

www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/corruption_perceptions_index_2014_clean_growth_at_risk