Purple Patch
HRC continues on a long tradition
The second half of 2011 has been an eventful time for the Public Service and New Zealand as a whole, and this was no less true for the Human Resources Capability (HRC) team. In the midst of the Rugby World Cup, the following heady period of celebration, and the lead up to the general election, the HRC team has been industriously beavering away as per usual for this time of year on answering the question:
"What exactly happened in the New Zealand Public Service workforce over the past year?"
The SSC has collected data to answer this seemingly simple question since 1913 in one form or another. This became the HRC survey with the introduction of unit record (employee level data) in 2000.
In fact information about the Public Service workforce in New Zealand has been collected in some form or other dating back to 1840. The blue books of the early colonial administration (1840-1855) were produced to provide Imperial officials with the necessary knowledge for good government. These insights about a formative period in New Zealand's history have been made accessible online by Archives NZ. They are in the form of digitised versions of many volumes of dusty tomes heavy enough to do substantial damage if dropped on one's foot. This represents a great wealth of historical trend information without which we couldn't tell you the following interesting little facts.
Above is a small section of a page from the Blue Book of 1840 showing appointments and the annual salary of imperial officers. The first entry shows a Parliamentary Clerk who received an annual salary of 109 Pounds, 40 Shillings. According to measuringworth.com by using an average earnings index (data available to 2009) this is equivalent to a 2009 purchasing power of £86,400 (NZD 200,448)
Looking at the Commission's own records, the number (headcount) of Public Servants in 1913 was 4,918 which relatively steadily climbed to a peak of 72,467 in 1987 notwithstanding a gap in the data coinciding with WWII. More recently the 2011 HRC survey shows the number of FTE public servants at June 30 2011 was 43,595.
A couple of other quick factoids about this year's HRC findings:
- The total amount spent by Public Service departments on base salaries in 2011 was $2.84 billion. This didn't change from 2010.
- The average base salary in the Public Service was $65,179 which increased by 2.4% from last year. Analysis using the quarterly Labour Cost Index (Salary and Wage Rates) shows that public sector wages and salary increases were lower than in the private sector.
These few factual titbits of information and more summarising the year's findings are published in a handy A3 sheet (pdf, 263.6Kb) that makes up the tip of the iceberg.
While not condoning the use of a term that is ironically dehumanising, examining and understanding the trends implicit in "human capital" data is incredibly important in managing the government's most important asset; it's people. We aren't the only ones that think so either.
Our equivalent mob over the ditch at the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) do their own annual public service "State of the Service" survey and report. It is a very thorough report and well worth checking out if only to be nosy at how they're going; all in the spirit of healthy competition of course.
In a recent staff talk at SSC, the Deputy Commissioner John Ombler very concisely described why we bother to do HRC every year to generate some of the above facts about the Public Service workforce,
"This data is the only way we really know this at a whole of government level. Without it we wouldn't be able to talk about these sorts of figures."
You can read the full 2011 HRC public report here (pdf, 490.4Kb). Also check out the 2011 Public Service Trend report (xls, 1.06Mb) which is a nifty report that gets updated every year and allows you to sniff out some trends for yourself.
Data Huggers Come In From The Cold
Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, says "don't be a data hugger" – he wants us to release our raw data now!. A couple of weeks ago we did just that, releasing the raw data from the Kiwis Count surveys in 2007 and 2009. That represents the experiences of over 7,000 New Zealanders – their satisfaction with services, their trust in the system and their preferences for dealing with us.
The Kiwis Count team are now reformed data huggers. What's a data hugger? Hans Rosling, who does some of the coolest presentations I've ever seen, talks about data huggers as people who want to keep their data, who don't want to let their data go. Being a data hugger is easy, you don't have to do anything. Releasing raw data is a little more work, but as we discovered not that much more. The New Zealand Government Open Access and Licensing framework (NZGOAL) actually makes it fairly straightforward. So when Kiwis Count 2.0 kicks off as a continuous survey in 2012 we will commit to releasing data on a quarterly basis.
The Kiwis Count team aren't the first ones at SSC to release data. That particular accolade belongs to our colleagues who run the Human Resource Capability Survey. They released some Historical Public Service staffing information, some of which dates back to 1913! But this is the first release of raw survey data.
We really hope the data is put to good use. The Mix and Mash NZ 2011 competition is on at the moment so here's hoping someone picks it up and does something really cool with it.
Welcome to Purple Patch
Now that the dust has settled and we have launched the first iteration of the website (with some more smaller, but perfectly formed enhancements in the pipeline), I thought it a good time to kick some life into the blog. Previously, this had been in pilot and was hosted on the old e.govt.nz website. As from today, it is part of the Commission's corporate site.
Purple patch is defined in the OED as:
1. An elaborate or excessively ornate passage in a literary composition;
2. A notable or colourful period of time, a person's life, etc.; (now) spec. a run of good luck or success.
I think it is safe to say, given the Commission's house style, that it will eschew the former in favour of the latter...
We do live in colourful times: and, as State servants we do face interesting challenges and opportunities. Purple Patch is a blog where Commission staff–and from time to time other State servants–can share their thoughts about these challenges and discuss them with their peers and other interested commenters.
If there are specific topics that you would like to see covered here, leave a note in the comments. Similarly, if you have any thoughts about the wider website, in particular suggestions about how we might improve it, I would welcome those as well.
Integrity Talking Points 8 - 12 November 2010
Yesterday the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill was one of the Private Member’s Bills balloted for Introduction. If enacted this will require that judges at all levels of the New Zealand courts hierarchy annually declare their interests. There is an existing obligation on MPs (and Ministers). Media reports suggest that both major parties are likely to support the Bill.
Although this development is related to the resignation last month of Justice Wilson, the requirement for judges to disclose interests is common to a substantial number of OECD member states. To promote an awareness of ways that conflicts of interest are managed, OECD is now collating information on the types of office holders who must disclose their interests and whether this is also publicly available. Data will be incorporated in the next edition of Government at a Glance to be published in mid 2011.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10687045
http://www.oecd.org/document/33/0,3343,en_2649_34139_43714657_1_1_1_1,00.html
11 November 2010
KPMG has published its 2010 Australia and New Zealand Fraud Survey. An alarming finding is that incidence of fraud is increasing in both private and public sectors in New Zealand. Almost half (49%) of the New Zealand respondents had experienced at least one fraud during the survey period. "It is significant for New Zealand business that the rate of fraud per respondent is higher than the survey average of 45% and that has been the case now for three consecutive surveys."
Unauthorised use of the internet was the most common form of unethical behaviour reported by survey respondents. By comparison, the 2010 State Services integrity survey found that bullying behaviour was observed more frequently in agencies than misuse of the internet. KPMG report that respondents identify three factors contributing most to unethical behaviour: Poor communication of organisational standards, a lack of commitment by senior managers to ethical conduct, and poor modelling by senior managers. That sounds very like the State Services “trust elements” – organisational trustworthiness is built on having standards, integrating them into the “way we do things around here”, and managers “walking the talk”.
http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/fraud-costing-new-zealand-firms-millions-2469080
10 November 2010
In today’s language, does integrity have real meaning or has it become a buzz word?
An article in the Harvard Business Review blog explores the claim to integrity made by American business leaders.
“You can't argue against integrity. Everyone ought to have it. But how did it become the pinnacle quality for leaders? After all, when people point to the great leaders of the past — Churchill, Kennedy, Alexander the Great — they usually point to other qualities. Courage. Vision. Steadfastness.” The contributor comes to the conclusion that “Our culture's lionization of this sort of integrity is a tacit recognition of just how far out of control American business is. This of course means the claim of integrity as the justification for a leadership position is self-delusional.”
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/10/the_american_leaders_love_affa.html
9 November 2010
Good government should be a matter of practice not theory. The Open Budget Survey, published last month, is an indicator of the extent of that practice. The Ask Your Government Initiative was developed this year in association with the survey. It involved information requests being made to the governments in 80 countries about six budget-related matters. The report notes that;
“Only one country, New Zealand, answered all six requests substantively, by providing budget information that clearly answers the questions posed. Requests to the New Zealand government needed to be submitted only once, and responses were provided quickly, in a succinct and easy to understand format.”
The Annual Report of the Ombudsmen indicates that although many Official Information Act requests are not responded to as effectively as this, there were fewer complaints of delay in the last financial year than since 2003-4.
http://www.internationalbudget.org/
http://www.ombudsmen.parliament.nz/
8 November 2010
The media has reported circumstances surrounding eight corruption charges brought against a Department of Corrections employee. These involve rewards for taking contraband into Rimutaka Prison.
Section 105 of the Crimes Act provides for up to 7 years imprisonment for anyone convicted of corruptly obtaining a bribe for something done in their official capacity. Although the definition of an official is very broad, there have been very few incidents in New Zealand which have led to corruption charges.
The emphasis in the corruption law seems strangely misplaced – the offence appears to be in accepting or obtaining a bribe, not the corrupt act itself. What most of us would see as unacceptable is the failure to carry out official duties lawfully and with a spirit of service, the resulting harm to the reputation of the State Services, and the effect the breach has on public trust in government. Interestingly, the law focuses on the corrupt benefit not the corrupt act.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/135121/prison-guard-corruption-charges
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328753.html
Integrity Talking Points 1 - 5 November 2010
5 November 2010
Another survey result! The Human Development Index has been published this week. The index is of the quality of life, reflecting measures regarded highly by the UN.
New Zealand is shown in a substantially more favourable light in this year’s index, moving to 3rd (behind Norway and Australia) from 20th place in 2009. There has been an adjustment of the survey content which has contributed to this repositioning. An Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, a Gender Inequality Index, and a Multidimensional Poverty Index are now calculated into the result.
UNDP has used the release of the 2010 Index as an opportunity to enhance their website, providing 20 years-worth of data for users to generate graphs and images, extract tables of data, and retrieve country profiles with the most current internationally reviewed statistics on income, health and education.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/61184/nz-third-in-world-for-quality-of-life-un
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
4 November 2010
One of the Commissioners at the SEC has posted “An insider’s guide to reform” on a Harvard Law school blog site. The article explores the substantial new workload imposed by statute on the Commission, new processes which it must develop, and takes a swipe at the reluctance of officials in the past to exercise the mandate legislated for them, where as a regulator it “has chosen to sit on the sidelines”.
Many would say that the financial meltdown of the last two years results directly from this sitting on the sidelines.
He observes that the SEC will “address these past failings.... (and) ..return to the muscular approach of the SEC’s storied past.” Comments about the responsibilities of a regulator have universal application. “The SEC must enforce the rules.... rules alone, without proper implementation and enforcement, are meaningless. How many countries around the world have rules on the books that are directly contradicted by the corrupt practices that take place – and where the regulators are nowhere to be found?”
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2010/11/04/an-sec-insiders-guide-to-reform/#more-13679
3 November 2010
Regulation can sometimes produce perverse incentives. Recent changes to US securities legislation may have an unintended effect. The Securities and Exchange Commission is empowered to make substantial payments to encourage informed whistleblowers. Although the SEC has always received large numbers of tips, these are seldom from people with close knowledge of misconduct. The ability now to pay millions of dollars to informants is likely to change that. But the unintended effect may be that employees will not advise their employers when they see things going wrong at work but will wait, gathering information for which the SEC will provide a substantial reward.
The SEC is exploring a solution. It may be feasible for their incentive payments to be larger where an informant first reports misconduct to the business concerned – provided the matter is referred to the SEC within three months.
Because foreign officials, aware of issues which have not been addressed by their home government, may see opportunities to use the SEC payment structure for personal advantage – with repercussions for US interests - a decision has been made to exclude them from claiming under the programme.
2 November 2010
Experience in the corporate world is often seen as an advantage for senior officials, and people experienced in private sector management can make a valuable contribution to government. The challenge is to avoid conflicts which are inevitable with secondments. Most OECD member states are concerned about the implications of a revolving door where officials leave government and are employed in sectors they may previously have regulated. Concerns are heightened when moves between government and commerce ( and vice versa ) are temporary, “work experience", opportunities.
Canada has a high profile experience of this. An equity funds director, with extensive interests in defence and aerospace industries, is being seconded to the Prime Minister’s office as the Chief of Staff. Careful management of interests is necessary because the appointee will be returning to the private sector, armed with an intimate familiarity of material provided to Ministers.
The Prime Minister has said that an "ethical wall" will be established to ensure that the chief of staff won't be involved in certain issues -- including discussion of the Canadian aerospace manufacturing industry -- to avoid a conflict of interest.
http://www.canada.com/business/Harper+chief+staff+promises+ethical+wall/3759826/story.html
1 November 2010
We are into the survey season. The New Zealand commitment to good government, validated last week by a top rating in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, has been endorsed now by the 2010 Open Budget Survey. New Zealand has moved to second place (from 3rd place in 2008).
Some criticism of the CPI is that it is perceptions based. That however is not the case with the Open Budget Survey. It assesses each country’s budget transparency and accountability from independently compiled data - data that is essential to hold governments accountable or to have meaningful input into decisions about how to use public resources. The survey indicates that just seven of 94 countries assessed release extensive budget information. Forty countries release no meaningful budget information.
Perhaps surprisingly, South Africa tops the survey, followed by New Zealand, United Kingdom, France, Norway, Sweden, and the United States.
This practice by the South African administration to promote good government is undermined by comments in that country’s Public Service Commission Annual Report that there has been no response to more than 90% of corruption cases reported to agencies during the last year.
The Mail and Guardian observes that the “African National Congress is more than just mismanaging our economy and running a corrupt political party, but akin to gangsters running an organised crime syndicate. Expecting this mafia organisation to investigate itself is rather like asking criminals to be their own judge and jury in a trial.”
http://www.internationalbudget.org/what-we-do/open-budget-survey/?fa=Rankings
http://www.internationalbudget.org/what-we-do/open-budget-survey/?fa=full-report
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-10-29-damning-corruption-report
Integrity Talking Points 25 - 29 October 2010
29 October 2010
Today, the State Services Commissioner has published a refreshed version of Understanding the code of conduct – Guidance for State servants. This document was first published in June 2007. The new version is a “plain English” rewrite which endeavours to simplify and shorten the explanations of behaviour required by the code. A change in content but not in effect, is a substitution of the previous explanation of impartiality with Political Neutrality Guidance published by the State Services Commission earlier this year. Incorporating that guidance into Understanding the code should minimise any uncertainty. The guidance does not require any changes in behaviour. There is no change in the code of conduct or in the standard of integrity expected of State servants. The requirement for all of us to demonstrate a spirit of service to New Zealand and its people is unchanged.
www.ssc.govt.nz/code-guidance-stateservants
28 October 2010
The Australian Public Service Commission is reviewing the values of the Australian Public Service. It invited public comment earlier this year and has a proposal based on that feedback. Its five draft values are about commitments to service, ethics, respect, accountability and being apolitical. Further public response is invited.
In 2006 the New Zealand State Services Commission explored a framework for a revised code of conduct. It decided that there was no need to specify a set of values to underpin that code. Agencies could identify and promote values which best suited their business. The code itself specified the unifying behaviour of all State servants. The law providing for the code uses the term “standards of integrity”. Integrity, by statute, is therefore an all-embracing expression of the ideals of public service in the New Zealand setting. Integrity has a meaning of wholeness. This coincidentally has an academic dimension in work by Prof Michael Jensen and Werner Erhard at Harvard. They distinguish the phenomena of integrity, morality, ethics, and legality. “Integrity exists in a positive realm devoid of normative content. Morality, ethics and legality exist in a normative realm of virtues, but in separate and distinct domains.” Interestingly in the Australian proposal, integrity is an example of ethics.
http://www.apsc.gov.au/ourvalues/discussionpaperround2.html
27 October 2010
Mai Chen a public law specialist, gave a speech to a joint meeting of the New Zealand chapter of Transparency International and the Institute of Policy Studies in Wellington yesterday. The speech followed the structure of a book which she will publish next year. She provided some fascinating insights into the importance of transparency in the operations of the State . She spoke of six characteristics that provide strength to the New Zealand process of government. The interaction of some these characteristics is unique to New Zealand.
- The Office of the Auditor General rates very highly in her evaluation of national integrity systems. It is not just the Office but the professional courage of the Auditor General which has ensured the status and effectiveness of that Office.
- The history and community values of New Zealand are also very influential. The population expects accountability from its officials.
- Demographic changes to date have not undermined traditional expectations. The system is sensitive to complaints, and there is less tolerance of preference. What may have been seen as acceptable practice in the past, is now seen as unacceptable.
- The smallness of New Zealand can be advantageous. Constitutional agencies - the Ombudsman, the Auditor General and various enforcement agencies can informally resolve how best to apply resources, how to minimise overlapping jurisdictions and how to pragmatically ensure State agencies work to the best advantage of its citizens.
- There is still an awareness that perception is reality. If officials have to go to lengths to explain their position, there will be a confidence issue. Those in high public office can expect to be measured against high standards. Media reporting of Justice Wilson’s situation is an illustration. If there is a need to justify a position, then the case is unlikely to be publicly acceptable. People have an innate sense of what is appropriate for office holders.
- Globalisation will emphasise expectations. There will be better measurement of corruption. New Zealanders expect that our structures will be assessed by tools used elsewhere.
The audience may have been predisposed to Mai Chen’s thesis. Nevertheless, her presentation was very convincing and though encouraging animated discussion, did not provoke any public disagreement.
26 October 2010
Transparency International published its 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index today. Within the New Zealand State sector there was some nervousness. New Zealand was rated last year as being seen to have the least corrupt public sector. The only direction from that position is down!
The CPI is a measure of the levels of corruption within public entities in each of the surveyed jurisdictions. In 2010 there are 178 countries where a sufficient number of independent survey mechanisms were available to evaluate corruption levels. In some states, and Fiji appears to have become an example, there is no ability to evaluate corruption because of the political climate. Neighbours like Samoa, Vanuatu and Tonga were evaluated.
New Zealand’s rating in 2010 has softened slightly. A decline of .01 in the evaluation score means that New Zealand is now rated on a par with both Denmark and Singapore. Good companions, but the result confirms that there is no certainty about a state’s place on the “pecking order". Iceland, rated several years ago as the least corrupt state, has slipped substantially and the USA, for the first time, has slipped out of the “top 20” least corrupt states.
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results
25 October 2010
Canadians, on paper, seem to have a highly refined process for promoting integrity and ensuring their State functions in a way which minimises the detrimental influence of conflicting interests. From a New Zealand perspective Canada's balanced and targeted regime should ensure integrity and good government. But having structures is clearly not sufficient.
Canadian media seem to be supporting advocates of additional and more structured processes. This week an alliance of more than 30 accountability organisations called for the appointment of a new Public Sector Integrity Commissioner with a strong mandate, and for key reforms of the federal whistleblower protection law. In New Zealand where there is no equivalent mandate, we wonder why it would be necessary?
The answer, perhaps, is cultural. In New Zealand, the culture is to recognise the authority and inherent value of our various constitutional checks and balances and to operate within them. Canada may be afflicted with the characteristics of its southern neighbour where statutory controls appear, in the eyes of a foreign observer, to be regarded as a constraint on freedom of action and speech, and to invite challenge.
Our standards of integrity and conduct champion the rule of law, the democratic process, and the spirit of service. The code of conduct obliges everyone working for State Services organisations to “strive to make a difference to the well being of New Zealand and its people”, not to split hairs over what is the duty of an employee.
http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsOct2710.html
Integrity Talking Points 18 - 22 October 2010
22 October 2010
Transparency International will publish the 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index next week. It will be interesting to see whether perceptions of the New Zealand public sector have been influenced by media coverage of events during the year.
The result may be influenced by two notable “firsts”; the conviction of an MP and former Minister on corruption charges and the resignation of a Supreme Court judge following an allegation of a conflict of interest. During the year, the public was reminded of the largest ever fraud by an official when he appeared in court on a related matter. Media profile was also given to seven immigration officers dismissed for misconduct, to incidents from time to time involving prison officers, and to an attempt in one area to manipulate local government elections.
Comments by the Police Association that there is a complex organised crime network in New Zealand – with implications of inevitable links to government, and the poor commitment of business to anti corruption practices in international markets, identified by the New Zealand chapter of Transparency International, may have particular influence.
On Wednesday morning we will know how effective the State Services Commission commitment has been in maintaining New Zealand’s place at the top of the CPI.
http://www.transparency.org/news_room/latest_news/press_releases/2010/2010_10_20_cpi_launch_time
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/no-further-action-against-supreme-court-judge-3847977
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/11434/dhb-fraud-accused-'intimidated'-by-sfo
21 October 2010
Tonight I took part, by video link, in a session of the OECD Public Governance Committee. Issues being considered included the data gathered from Member states in response to questionnaires about Ministerial Advisers and procurement.
What is late at night in Wellington, is of course mid morning in Paris. My mind wondered as I listened to some of the Member state contributions. Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 – and the death of Lord Nelson. Watching the representatives of European states working in harmony, united not only in the fight against corruption (and perhaps to a lesser extent , politicians) but in the commitment to the principles of good government – rule of law, democratic process and public service – I juggled with the perceptions our forbears would have had of this setting. If principles are important to the people of a country, is there a duty to propagate those principles. Was nationalism, and the strife that followed, an acceptable tool to pursue those ends?
20 October 2010
Public confidence in institutions is influenced by perceptions. Perception and reality may be quite disconnected despite the aphorism that “there is no smoke without fire”. The State Services code of conduct has a standard requiring agency staff to “avoid activities, work or non work, that may harm the reputation of our agency or of the State Services”. Public confidence in the institutions of government is important. As all agencies must be committed to strengthening public trust in government, this means eliminating anything which may be seen as untrustworthy. The resignation of Justice Wilson reinforces the New Zealand commitment at the highest levels, to integrity. Some saw a conflict. Resigning from the Bench addresses that perception.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1009/S00887/judge-wilson-conflict-case-quashed.htm
19 October 2010
The OECD has published the 2009 Report on the Convention Against the Bribery of Officials. Some countries are reported to be fulfilling the expectations of the convention. The report on others is they “could do better “.
An interesting article published this week on the Trust Law blog, identifies how good national systems of integrity do not necessarily flow into fulfilment of the Anti Bribery Convention obligations. Finland is scapegoated as an integrity-rich administration which is not meeting expectations under the convention. The entry discusses how a high Corruption Perceptions Index rating – and Finland was rated as the least corrupt public administration a few years ago – does not translate into an absence of graft on the international stage.
The article quotes from the Transparency International website: "New Zealand - whose perceived public sector corruption is the lowest of the 180 countries surveyed - is not necessarily the 'world's least corrupt country' – and New Zealanders are not in turn immune to corruption. Though its institutional and governance framework have translated into what is perceived to be a success, with limited corruption, New Zealand - like any other state - remains susceptible to corruption."
That statement sets out the challenge to New Zealand State Services. Next week , Transparency International will release its 2010 CPI. We will see how New Zealand agencies have faced that challenge.
http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/news/blog-is-finland-ignoring-graft-outside-its-own-backyard/
18 October 2010
Public service integrity always revolves around managing conflicts of interest. It entails balancing personal interest and obligations of service to the community. Often it is complex. Where you stand directly influences what you see. We see things involving others with a clarity which escapes us when we have a personal involvement. Not infrequently, we do not see impropriety in our own actions, and cannot understand why others see personal interest. Perception is important. It can be unfair, but that unfairness may be the price of trustworthiness. Trustworthiness is essential to support our agencies’ commitment to strengthening public trust in the State Services.
In several cases recently there has been a focus on public sector leaders and the perception that conflicting interests impact on the way they carry out functions.
The Chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission attracted attention because of substantial family interests in a major corporation involved in banking sector takeovers. A Supreme Court judge in New Zealand has attracted similar media comment because of relationships with matters where he has a professional interest. A very readable report in the Irish Times refers to similar situations, including comment by a former Irish Prime Minister, who, countering suggestions of corruption, described how State board directors were appointed: 'I might have appointed somebody, but I appointed them because they were friends, not because of anything they had given me.'
The State Services code of conduct requires that we “ensure our actions are not affected by our personal interests or relationships”.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/whistleblowing-policies-failed-says-brennan-2382108.html
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/the-interview-niamh-brennan-chair-of-the-ddda-2388816.html
http://www.news.com.au/business/dfo-hangs-on-as-samuel-avoids-conflict/story-e6frfm1i-1225907123379
Integrity Talking Points 11 - 15 October 2010
15 October 2010
An article in the National Business Review highlights how New Zealand companies are “shocked” by the implications of UK anti bribery legislation. An extra-territorial clause means a New Zealand company with a British connection could be prosecuted in the UK if it fails to prevent bribery in a third jurisdiction. These provisions reflect a UK commitment to implementing the UN Convention Against Corruption. New Zealand, Japan and Germany are three of the small number of countries still developing procedures to give effect to the convention. New Zealand businesses are encouraged to adopt the APEC code of ethics, developed in 2007 specifically to target bribery.
An Australian case in the news shows how blatant bribery can be. A NGO employee, caught in a “sting”, has been charged with seeking more than $NZ220,000 in exchange for granting construction contracts in Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_Act_2010
14 October 2010
The quango hunt conducted in New Zealand in the 1980s is small bikkies compared to the exercise being undertaken in Britain, where reform of 481 bodies is proposed. Of these 192 will cease to be public bodies and their functions will either be brought back into Government, devolved to local government, moved out of Government or abolished altogether.
The need for the Committee for Standards in Public Life – which developed the Seven Standards which apply across the UK sector, was reviewed. The Committee will be retained because of the need for its impartial functions. The Committee published a report recommending changes in the way MPs allowances are determined and managed following the scandal last year, and currently is exploring better ways of funding Britain’s political parties.
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2010/101014-quangos.aspx
http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/index.html
13 October 2010
Last December, the Institute of Policy Studies at Victoria University of Wellington conducted a conference on Ethical Foundations of Public Policy. The objective was to explore answers to the following questions. First, what is ethics? Second, what is public policy? And third, how, and in what ways, are ethics and public policy connected?
Two books are being produced from some of the papers presented at this conference. The first of these -- Public Policy: Why Ethics Matters -- has now been published. The contents are online also.
12 October 2010
The State Sector Act seeks “to ensure all employees in the State services are imbued with the spirit of service to the community”. This objective is set out in the long title. That spirit of service is incorporated in what the Cabinet Manual describes as the “principles of public service” – being fair, impartial, responsible and trustworthy.
Last week SSC published two reports on inquiries into apparent “leaking” of information ahead of decisions by Ministers. The inquiry head has spoken of the consistent sense of disappointment shown by the large number of officials interviewed during the investigation, that misconduct was being ascribed to a public servant. He sensed a deep awareness of what “being responsible” entails and has commented on the humbling effect on him of the comprehensive sense of ethics he encountered.
New Zealand traditions of public service come from Britain. There, the Guardian now publishes a weekly “Diary of a Civil Servant” purporting to be the observations of a senior official and usually critical of the activities of the government. Although very readable, and apparently well informed, if genuine, this is unlikely to be an acceptable form of social media participation!
http://www.cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/3.50
www.ssc.govt.nz/statement-investigations-information-disclosures
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/series/diary-of-a-civil-servant
11 October 2010
Agencies seem to have difficulty effectively managing policies on the acceptability of gifts and hospitality. Human nature seems to mean that beneficiaries deny that they are in anyway influenced and that no real advantage flows to them. Few people seem willing to accept that gifts, even if given of free will, are not without their strings and expectations that they will be reciprocated. Most jurisdictions have a policy which allows the acceptance of gifts of “nominal” value, although usually suggesting a money level well above what anyone would walk by if it were left in the street, despite the “token” meaning of nominal. Agencies like the US Office of Government Ethics have published numerous opinions endeavouring to interpret what is an acceptable gift.
Guidance published by the Office of the Auditor General is very strict. That is, entities are expected to;
- require receipt of gifts, except for inexpensive gifts that are openly distributed by suppliers and clients, to be disclosed, to be recorded in a gifts register, and to remain the property of the entity;
- allow staff to personally acquire only infrequent and inexpensive gifts that are openly distributed by suppliers and clients (for example, pens, badges, and calendars); and
- have policies defining “infrequent” and “inexpensive” in relation to receiving gifts.
A recent article in Public Integrity on “Ethics regulation across professions - the problem of gifting” concludes that organisations should realise that even small gratuities can raise ethical problems and that efforts to create exceptions to policies may make them unworkable.
http://www.usoge.gov/ethics_guidance/opinons/10_opinions.aspx
http://www.oag.govt.nz/2007/sensitive-expenditure/part8.htm
Integrity Talking Points 4 - 8 October 2010
8 October 2010
It seems that the media doesn’t like good news. It is two weeks since the Worldwide Governance Indicators were released by the World Bank, and in the pattern of the last few years, no New Zealand media have reported the very favourable light in which we are placed. The researchers comment that New Zealand and the Nordic countries show that very high standards of governance are attainable and consistently so, across all dimensions of governance. It is not countries that are seen as the economic leaders that exhibit good quality governance. The indicators, based on 35 survey sources, measure;
Voice and Accountability
Political Stability
Government Effectiveness
Regulatory Quality
Rule of Law
Control of Corruption
The New Zealand score is largely unchanged since the 2009 results except for a measurable deterioration in the Political Stability indicator about the likelihood that the government will be destabilized by unconstitutional or violent means, including terrorism. New Zealand remains among the top ten countries on all six indicators.
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0924_wgi_kaufmann.aspx
7 October 2010
The Revenue Watch Index 2010 was published this week in conjunction with Transparency International. The Index assesses resource-rich countries that contain almost half of world’s population and are among the top producers of oil, gold, copper and diamonds. The purpose is to disclose the extent to which information about revenues is available.
In most countries surveyed, natural resources are public assets, and the revenues should be openly managed by the government. But the majority have little information available publicly about the money they receive. Brazil and Norway head the list as the most transparent (and well ahead of US ). Equatorial Guinea and Turkmenistan are the least open. Australia, UK and New Zealand are not included among the 41 countries on the index.
http://www.revenuewatch.org/rwindex2010/rwindex.html
6 October 2010
The media focus on allegations of corruption at Securency – a banknote printer, owned equally by the Australian Government and a British paper manufacturer – highlights the challenges of trading in many parts of the world. The OECD Convention Against the Bribery of Foreign Officials and UN Convention Against Corruption aim to eliminate unlawful conduct that underpins contracting in many markets. Australia and the UK are parties to both conventions. Securency employees are reported to have bribed central bank officials in numerous countries in pursuit of contracts. Earlier this year media stories about the company were spiced with allegations about prostitutes and high living at taxpayer expense.
Of particular concern is an allegation that the agency did not act on complaints made by staff. In New Zealand the Protected Disclosures Act provides processes for referring complaints outside an agency – to an appropriate authority – if within 20 days there is no recommended action on a disclosure. The State Services Commissioner is one of the 10 appropriate authorities listed in the Act.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/07/3032315.htm?section=business10
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0007/latest/DLM53906.html
5 October 2010
An article in the Spring edition of Public Integrity traces the development of Canada’s whistle blower legislation – the Road to Disclosure Legislation in Canada. This explores the complexities of disclosure protection with references to provisions in UK, Australia and New Zealand. Whistle blowing seems to contradict many of the values and characteristics of public service. Complaining about colleagues can be seen as morally ambiguous and not the heroic act portrayed in the popular media. Unlike the New Zealand procedure where protection flows from making an internal complaint, the Canadian process involves disclosure to an independent body. Both systems have their disadvantages. The suggestion is that agencies should prevent wrongful acts from occurring in the first place, as “lingering perceptions of whistle blowing boil down to shooting the messenger rather than heeding the content of the message.”
Shooting the messenger may be almost literally true in the case of a Swiss bank employee who provided details to German tax authorities of 2000 of account holders who evaded tax on large sums hidden behind Swiss bank secrecy. A single but widely reported source claims the whistle blower – paid for the data - has been found dead in a cell after a secretive arrest by Swiss police. Ironically, a number of wealthy Germans have confessed to tax evasion, only to learn they were not on the whistleblower’s list!
4 October 2010
A concern in many jurisdictions is the impropriety that can arise when agency employees resign to work for organisations they previously regulated, funded or had procurement arrangements with. The OECD has identified this situation as a source of conflicts that are inadequately managed in too many cases. It recently published Post-Public Employment Good Practices for Preventing Conflict of Interest exploring concerns and examples disclosed in a survey of member states.
The New Zealand contribution was minimal as few conflicts situations seem to arise. Our concern is of officials resigning and being contracted back to agencies. A similar situation is happening on a large scale in the United States where dozens of senior executives and hundreds of other former employees are reportedly contracted back into the US Postal Service. An audit remark is that "It appears unethical to hire back former executives at nearly twice their former pay to advise new executives who were placed in their position based on their expertise ...and experience".
In the private sector the issue of post employment conflicts is playing out in the case of the former HP chief executive. He resigned (with a $34 million package) following improper arrangements made to remunerate a colleague, and shortly after was engaged by Oracle – now a competitor of HP. Some commentators are surprised.
PC World; This sends the wrong message: “No one who works at a less exalted level would get away with that behavior”…” Hurd exemplifies a culture that glorifies the richest and most powerful, and places them in a rarefied zone light-years removed from the rest of us.”
Atlantic; “Perhaps the lesson here is that business ethics only matter when they jeopardize business. Of course, sometimes these go hand-in-hand. A perfect example is Arthur Andersen. With an auditing firm, integrity is everything. If you lose that, you have no business, as the firm quickly found out. But in other businesses, where the profit motive is less connected to good ethics, that’s not the case. Then, so long as poor decisions don’t compromise profit, they will eventually be forgotten.”
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/b120ce/postpublic_employ
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6860RW20100909
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/26/AR2010092603359.html?wpisrc=nl_fed
How to get your content creators to care about web analytics
The Government Web Analytics Group is a cross-government group focused on getting the most out of website and online service statistics and analysis. This post by Clarion Wells, webmaster of the New Zealand Law Society, is the second in a series of monthly In Development blog posts from the group.
In the first web analytics blog post, Alex Herdman told you why you should care about web analytics. In this post, I am going to suggest how you can get your content creators (and managers) to care about (and use) web analytics.
Report to content creators
We often report to managers but overlook reporting to content creators. This is a huge oversight. Content creators are often specialists in their own fields who control the information on their websites. They need to know what is and what isn’t working because they are the folks who, more often than not, can immediately fix it.
The first step is to get your content creators in one room and start asking them about their users and their website objectives. Web analytics for the New Zealand government has a wonderful section on Evaluation and reporting which will help.
This does not have to be a painful task. A simple document outlining the audience and the goal should do the trick. Don’t file the document away and forget about it. Print it out, pin it up and refer to it often.
Regularly meet and talk about web analytics with content creators. Give them access to web analytics tools so they can see what’s going on between meetings.
Translate metrics into plain English
You may have read Avinash Kashik’s books from cover-to-cover twice, but don’t be surprised if no-one else in the room has. You will need to translate web metrics into plain English for your content creators.
Define what metrics are, how they work and what they tell us about a website. I append a list of definitions to all reports, but nothing beats talking about metrics in reference to a live website.
In my experience, this is where the excitement lies. Content creators start seeing in concrete terms how users interact with their websites.
Ask your content creators questions. Among my favourites - “Any surprises?”; “Is this what you thought would happen?” Define expectations. This helps people focus on measurement that matters and avoids them getting hung up on visitor numbers without context. With only 11,000 lawyers in New Zealand, we (at the New Zealand Law Society) have to keep in mind what proportion of these potential visitors we should expect, and to look beyond just visitor numbers when measuring success.
Translate metrics into to-dos
Because Government websites aren’t commercial in nature, we often lack that commercial urgency to get them right. Don’t forget, Government websites are tax-payer funded!
It’s pointless reporting on web analytics without acting on them. Agree with content creators on how to improve your website from meeting to meeting. Add small, actionable goals to your to-do list. Small improvements stack up.
For example, measure the bounce rate of your most visited pages. Take a hard look at them to see why users are leaving. Are you delivering the content your users expect to see? Find the problem and fix it.
Report bad news
Sometimes, a lot of money has been sunk into a website but you are not getting the users you want. How do you tell your content creators that their websites might, well ... just suck?
It’s important to report good news as well as bad news. Even having proof that your website sucks is good - you have a starting point and an opportunity to make it great. Keep your eye on the data. Listen to your users. Keep reporting to your content creators even if it causes disappointment.
Look beyond web analytics
Content creators often have access to useful data beyond web analytics. Survey results, user feedback, anecdotal evidence can all add to better management of websites. Bring them to the table and share them alongside web analytics.
Getting content creators to care about web analytics is not difficult. In my experience, content creators care about users. They’re excited when they see how users are interacting with their content. They’re bummed when users don’t. They’re motivated to improve.
Browse Through Blog Posts
- Viewing page 1 of 15
- view next ››
