Hard News: Someone has to be accountable for this
234 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
I see (via Slashdot) there have be arrests in the New York CityTime system. Projected cost $68 million, final cost $740 million. The project manager has been charged with taking $5 million in kickbacks and giving $450 million in 'work' to the company that provided the kickbacks. Back in December consultants were charge with stealing $80 million.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
If that's anything to go by, then the Super Auckland IT issue deserves the attention of the Auditor-General.
-
3410,
RB,
care to expand on this? -
Relax! There's no corruption in New Zealand!---remember year after year, regularly as clockwork, all those reports saying this?
Or is it just that we don't (or won't, or can't) look as deeply as other countries?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Or is it just that we don't (or won't, or can't) look as deeply as other countries?
I think it's because our kind of corruption is different. There's no need for overt crookedness when the game has a stacked deck built in. In NZ, it's considered outrageous if you put a bottle of wine on your government credit card, but it's par for the course to just hand ownership of whole industries to powerful interests with bugger all public consultation. To fuck up how much something is going to cost, when that cost is in the hundreds of millions, just doesn't exercise people here. We don't call it corruption because we find simple incompetence so much easier to believe and, for some reason, to accept.
-
Corruption in New Zealand is about connections and influence and mutual doing of favours in apparently licit ways. Those reports accurately note that we don't go in for bribes or kickbacks. But there are other means.
-
Roger Lacey, in reply to
It's human nature to understand things that we can relate to such as a bottle of wine or a set of golf clubs but when a millions of dollars are talked about we glaze over with incomprehension.
If you explain to someone that if they sat down and wrote out a cheque for a thousand dollars every minute non-stop for 17 hours, that would add up to around a million dollars then the enormity of the sum starts to sink in.
But of course we're not talking of just one million dollars here, -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
If you explain to someone that if they sat down and wrote out a cheque for a thousand dollars every minute non-stop for 17 hours, that would add up to around a million dollars then the enormity of the sum starts to sink in.
Or. If they raise the minimum wage to $15 then it would only take you 35 years to earn 1 million bucks and that is before tax.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
RB,
care to expand on this?To do with the comments I removed on Saturday. They were getting someone into serious trouble.
-
3410,
I guessed that. Does that mean you can say any more?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I guessed that. Does that mean you can say any more?
It seems prudent to be discreet about it for now.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
There’s no corruption in New Zealand!
No no, it's depression that there's none of in New Zealand.
-
Sacha, in reply to
we can all stay perfectly calm, in either case
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
dead calm?
-
you think these suit-wearing theives will let some upstart bloggers threaten their $300 million fleecing operation? who needs corporate auditors when you've got these fine, upstanding mega-scammers?
all completely in order, nothing to see here.
move along, no (De)loit(t)ering, please. -
Cassandra, in reply to
Precisely. Seemed an apt username.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
See, now you're just troying with us.
-
John Holley, in reply to
I personally saw no evidence of any corruption – and I would have jumped up and down if I did. Self-interest is not corruption.
Commercial organisations will normally try to “up-sell” their products/services etc. That is why it is important, with RFPs in local/central govt, that you have clear and transparent governance. (Jump in here Mark Harris!) The ATA was able to drive decisions through under a cloud of secrecy with no one, apart from the ratepayers of Auckland financially, being accountable for those decisions.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Perhaps not personal corruption, John, but it seems to me there is a distinct corruption of process.
Also, if any contractor on the ATA side was operating with self-interest, that is^H^H would be corruption of their duty to act as agents of the Crown while in the employ of the Crown. (And local government is part of the Crown, in case anybody wants to go down that “no exit” road)
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
The ATA was able to drive decisions through under a cloud of secrecy with no one, apart from the ratepayers of Auckland financially, being accountable for those decisions.
And this is firmer ground. It's an awful failure for which, as I suggested in the headline, someone must be held accountable.
-
John Holley, in reply to
I didn't see those working for the ARA operating with self-interest.
I did see consultants engaged by the ATA checking on the work of other consultants engaged by the ATA. I could only shake my head when I attended meetings with two sets of consultants. I would shake my head more when I realised how little most of them knew about local government.
Prompted me to buy from Amazon The Management Myth: Why the Experts Keep Getting it Wrong by Matthew Stewart. Read it an you will understand!
-
Sacha, in reply to
how little most of them knew about local government
matching the Minister perfectly..
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Jump in here Mark Harris!
You know me too well, sir! :-)
There are many levels of corruption, especially in the procurement process. When Transparency International say NZ has one of the least corrupt governments in the world, they're mostly talking about personal corruption e.g taking bribes, nepotism in employment, special favours for the "in group" etc.
We may still suffer from the corruption of rust, where people do nothing rather than do something wrong, and there's a fair amount of allowance given to certain public figures (mainly sports persons and celebrities) when petty acts of a semi-criminal or actual criminal nature is involved (e.g. speeding, fighting in public).
Imagine a police constable in a small rural town where a former All Black gets pissed one Friday night and trashes part of the pub. Technically, it's a breach of the peace but unless the publican decides to make a fuss, the copper is likely to bundle the AB into the panda and take him home. Said AB will be shamefaced the next day, when he goes to collect his car and he and the publican will come to an arrangement for compensation. Is the police officer corrupt for not enforcing the law? Most of us would say no, he's using his discretion but the problem with discretion is there's a big grey area where people assume they're allowed to make decisions about things that they're not.
Procurement is one of those areas. There's a big difference between what is acceptable in the private sector - flying prospective clients around the world to view 'reference sites', for example, or seats to the RWC in a corporate box - and in the public sector, where any 'gifts' over a particular amount have to be declared and might have to be refused depending on circumstances. I recall one RFP where a telco bidding for the contract sent Xmas boxes including salmon, champagne and other edibles to several of the members of the judging panel, who were most put out when I went around collecting the boxes to send straight back.
MED have guidelines for central government agencies and the Auditor General has Good Practice Guidelines for both central and local agencies, mainly around procurement and managing conflicts of interest. The problem, since 1987 and the State Sector restructures, is the outsourcing of services and the revolving door for consultants brought in to fill knowledge/skill gaps. The outsourcers and the consultants don't read the guidelines, don't have the culture and are given far too much management control of many of the processes. To be fair, most individual contractors I worked with were honest and keen to do the right thing, but every so often you hit one that makes you go "wha?". In my opinion, most IT procurement projects suffer from precisely this problem - too much leeway given to the contractors plus a lack of "public sector culture" in the decision making. (I could, like others, name some names, but I like my house even if Steven Joyce wants to build a fucking expressway over the back fence).
As John notes, clear and transparent governance is vital for fair and effective procurement, and government in general. As others have noted, "clear" and "transparent" don't appear to be words in current usage at the ATA (or NZTA for that matter...sassinfrassinrassun...)
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Prompted me to buy from Amazon The Management Myth: Why the Experts Keep Getting it Wrong by Matthew Stewart. Read it an you will understand
Yup, I've read a couple of the chapters he published. So much bullshit in the name of "science"!!
-
Jeepers, I just caught up with Cassandra's first post. Word! That is all.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.