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://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/11/09/michael-jensens-and-werner-erhards-talk-on-integrity/

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