Te Kawa Mataaho, The Public Service Commission (PSC) is currently consulting on subject matter topics for its long-term insights briefing.
Transparency International New Zealand has made the following points under two topics in the consultation document:
Culture of Integrity
What does a public service culture of integrity look like and how can New Zealand proactively address integrity risks in the future?
Consultation Document
The consultation document notes that traditionally New Zealand has operated on a high trust model, and asks whether the approach of high trust is sufficient to address corruption risks from foreign interference and artificial intelligence.
Strengthening institutional integrity has been a response by many government agencies, and the PSC asks whether there is a mismatch between integrity on paper and integrity in action.
It also notes the likely increasing tensions between resources available and models of public service delivery such as increased use of IT or third party delivery of social services. And it asks what measures should be used?
TINZ Response
This is good initial policy thinking by the PSC. As a general statement integrity must sit at both the institutional level, as part of public service DNA, and also be accountable, through transparency, measurable accountability, and compliance.
Our recently published report An assessment of the effectiveness of anti-corruption institutions in New Zealand in deterring, detecting and exposing corruption speaks to the heart of this question. The primary recommendation is for “a zeitgeist shift from the current default and complacent reactive model for thinking about anti-corruption in New Zealand to a positive, proactive preventive mode.”
The recommendation also says that this shift can only take place with a stronger tone from the top. Stronger and more visible leadership by the PSC in the new unified public service on public sector integrity matters is recommended.
Actions might include: an update and reboot of the code of conduct by PSC, unified cross-public sector training courses on integrity codes for both staff (induction) and managers, centralised collection and reporting of information by PSC on all employment-related integrity breaches by type, a performance focus in the public sector on improving public accountability and public responsiveness; a broader approach on diversity to embrace a wider range of differences,, and strong independent monitoring of adherence to public service principles and values across agencies and through time.
Proactively Addressing Integrity Risks
The second major recommendation in our report speaks to the second half of the question ‘how can New Zealand proactively address integrity risks in the future?’
Our research recommends the appointment and appropriate funding of an agency that has the primary and high-profile responsibility for anti-corruption monitoring, coordination, research and strategic operations. Rather than a new agency, this agency might be the SFO, the MoJ or the PSC.
The functions of that agency should include the development of an early warning system regarding corruption changes to avoid the ‘slow boiling frog’ danger, where we slip without realising into a more corrupt country. Indicators of corruption could be developed, along with greater competency and capacity to analyse and remedy strategic and operational weaknesses in the cross agency anti-corruption network and to provide better public reporting.
Our report also calls for a strategic policy focus on identifying areas where competition is lacking, and where there is extensive discretion and limited transparency.
It makes sense therefore to reduce the likelihood of these corruption-conducting elements by increasing information about responsibilities and increasing transparency, as well as increasing the probability of being caught and the severity of consequences.
In summary – stronger leadership, a more strategic approach to corruption, early warning systems in place, more transparency and bigger sticks.
More comment on public service culture of integrity
The PSC discussion document focuses on the increasing external influence of corruption, but political polarisation and corruption are also homegrown as well as influenced by social media and global trends. This can impact on public service integrity and needs of the workforce:
- Where public discourse and engagement becomes disproportionately disrupted by those who have strongly held beliefs (not always evidence-based). Managing public consultation and engagement, including innovative and new thinking without getting waylaid by public attack is an increasingly needed skill.
- It would be realistic to expect that some level of polarisation is occurring within the public service, and it would be useful to understand from public servants the tensions they feel in relation to their beliefs and values and their public service role.
- Taking a strategic approach on corruption as outlined in our earlier points would require structural analysis of areas of greater risk, where financial and power influence rewards appear greater. These areas might include procurement, borders (customs and immigration), data management, financial infrastructure, investigation and prosecution, social cohesion, defence and security, local government and environmental protection.
- Ultimately greater transparency is more likely to support integrity especially within the context of constrained resources. We already know how effective the media and researchers can be at shining a light on non-transparent financial transactions, political decisions and funding and on compliance with rules and misuse of resources or entrusted power. Transparency enables accountability and so should be further enhanced. Three areas where greater transparency is achievable are more transparent public procurement, improvements to the Official Information Act, and a public register of beneficial ownership that includes trusts.
Future of public service organisations
Te Kawa Mataaho are thinking about alternatives that operate in the middle ground between centralisation and devolution, e.g. aligning common functions (e.g. information security, government procurement, and health and safety).
They also ask about what governance, accountability, and coordination arrangements are needed in the future? The challenge is for any services that are publicly funded or have a regulatory requirement to also meet standards of public transparency, integrity and accountability. This should apply whether the organisation is private, NGO, local or central government.
Open Government Partnership
Though not a topic in the consultation document, the Open Government Partnership (OGP)is an important tool of engagement between government and civil society on issues specifically focussing around transparency and openness.
The model of design of OGP National Action Plans has not been entirely successful, and the recent report from PSC on progress against National Action Plan 4 is extremely disappointing with almost all commitments on hold or uncertain, and unlikely to meet the plan date.
We know that across New Zealand government agencies are working closely with communities on nuggety problems. The question is, how can this success be modelled in work with civil society on transparency and accountability measures. It is that discussion which the Public Service Commission needs to lead, while also engaging with the Minister for Public Services.
Submissions on the Public Service Commission Long Term Insights Briefing close on 13 October 2024.
https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/publications/our-second-long-term-insights-briefing
