Banks funnel $21 trillion into tax havens

24 July 2012

In what tests credulity, an HSBC subsidiary in the Cayman Islands does not know about 15,000 its account holders. A US Senate report published last week claims that the beneficiaries are Mexican drug barons, whose criminal proceeds are laundered in the tax haven.

This service is big business for British banks with HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds and RBS having 1,200 subsidiaries in tax havens. Which begs the question how HSBC has been rated as “second best” among the banks included in the latest Forbes survey of the world’s 105 largest multinational companies – for corporate reporting, anti-corruption programmes and organisational transparency. Nevertheless, indications are that HSBC may face penalties of atleast $1 billion imposed by US authorities.

HSBC’s problems are not unique.  ING Bank and Wachovia were recently fined by US authorities for HSBC-like activities. ING traded in Iran in breach of U.S. sanctions and Wachovia facilitated the laundering of hundreds of billions of Mexican drug dollars.

Tax Justice Network published research yesterday indicating that banks are major players in gathering $21 trillion from around the world and funneling it into tax havens. At least £16 billion a year is evasion of UK tax.

The US Senate report observes that these banking arrangements facilitate money laundering, and perpetuate related offending- including, piracy, terrorism, drug trafficking, human trafficking, counterfeiting, bribery and extortion. And at its simplest, “the rest of us are forced to pay more on our tax bills to make up for those who shirk their taxpaying responsibilities.”

Anti money laundering obligations should require any business providing financial services to record comprehensive information of clients using tax havens. Tax reformers want an offence of “wilful blindness” where this doesn’t occur.

The Tax Justice Network considers tax to be a foundation of good government, advocates transparency in international finance, and opposes tax loopholes and the opportunities they enable. Tax havens (the TJN calls them “secrecy jurisdictions”) not only facilitate crime and tax avoidance, but undermine good infrastructure and the rule of law. TJN promotes the inclusion of tax havens and tax dodging within the definition of corruption measured by Transparency International.

The estimates are that bribery and theft by government officials, at 3%, is the smallest part of global “dirty money”. Other crime constitutes up to 35%, while bank-facilitated tax evasion, is the largest, at about 65%. Although tax evasion has the same effects as more traditionally defined forms of corruption, the UN and OECD, like TI, have yet to redefine the meaning of corruption in their conventions.

Shaxson who wrote Treasure Islands and the Men who Stole the World has suggested that by 2013 New Zealand would be listed by TJN as a tax haven because of its poor controls on the movement of money from developing countries.

www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_content.php?idcat=100

www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/transparency_in_corporate_reporting_assessing_the_worlds_largest_companies

www.financialtaskforce.org/2012/07/19/the-next-chapter-of-the-hsbc-story-gfi-calls-for-regulators-to-change-the-incentives-for-the-financial-industry

www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7324020/South-Pacific-a-money-laundering-paradise

http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/nz-slated-tax-haven-stance-4109822

Political advisers should be “ruthlessly culled”.

23 July 2012

The Better Public Services proposals for improving New Zealand public administration include a number of issues that have been the subject of evidence given recently to the House of Lords Constitution Committee reviewing civil service accountability.

The role and responsibilities of special advisers have been considered at each of the evidence sessions over the last six weeks. The extraordinary role of special advisers is well recognised at Westminster, where appointees do not purport to be departmental officials as is the case with ministerial advisers in New Zealand. Special advisers have their own appointment process , lines of responsibility and special advisers’ code of conduct.

In Britain special advisers are temporary civil servants.  In New Zealand there is no alternative to them being a departmental employee like any other public servant, and therefore subject to the code of conduct common to all public servants. The effect of law is that they must conduct themselves in a politically neutral way, although this must be more honoured in the breach than the observance!

In this regard, Eichbaum and Shaw have commented about ‘the barbarians at the gate’. And New Zealand, seems to have gone overboard in the number of Ministerial advisers compared with the British practice.  The Better Public Services Cabinet Paper No 6 on Amendments to the State Sector Act discusses the position of ministerial advisers (para 48 – 53).  There are 151 of them.  This is many more than the number (85) supporting all British ministers. ( Canada and Australia have very many more.)

The Cabinet Paper outlines statutory changes giving effect , to a large degree, to the de facto position. Special provisions would be introduced for ministerial staff, and their selection would take into account the preferences of the Minister they would be supporting. The State Services Commissioner would be empowered to develop a code of conduct with variations to reflect the political responsibilities of ministerial advisers.

Ironically some evidence to the Constitution Committee is that changes should be made also to arrangements for special advisers at Westminster.  Suggestions were that there were too many special advisers, that “many were no more than glorified press officers, and political press officers at that”. 

Professor Lord Hennessy’s evidence was that there should be two categories of special adviser—“those who really know something, can help test out what the machine is producing and what the think tanks are producing and have a background and self confidence to do that”. He said that he didn’t “want to be unkind to the British political class, but it has often been a mystery to me why they want the other sort, in their early 20s, to be the bag-carriers and so on.  The one quality that the political class is not short of is political prejudice, and there is no need to bring in young men and women with political science degrees to reinforce your existing prejudices. I suggest you go for two categories of special adviser – those who know and those who believe.  If we have to cull the 85, which is far too many, those who believe should be ruthlessly culled.”

www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/bps-2306571.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_advisers_(UK_government)

www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/constitution/CivilServ/CNST270612ev4.pdf

Is the Open Government Partnership relevant to New Zealand?

20 July 2012

Today’s post on the Open and Shut blog implies that there is method in the lack of interest shown by Australia towards the Open Government Partnership. The assessment is that this reflects the unwillingness of China to become involved.  Open and Shut , which seems to advocate membership of the OGP,  suggests that Australia and New Zealand should be showing leadership in a region where government transparency is generally lacking.

New Zealand appears content in its own progress to open government.  There is little motivation to pose for the media as many of the 55 signatories to the Open Government Initiative are wont to do. Contributors to the GOVIS conference last month demonstrated real  initiatives taken by a cross section of New Zealand agencies rather than the national posturing of many of the very untransparent administrations that took part in the OGP conference in Brasilia earlier this year.

The reality probably is that Australia, like New Zealand, is indifferent.  New Zealand will do its own thing. It has an Open Government Declaration wholly unconnected with the international initiative. The suggestion (again on Open and Shut some months ago) that a lack of interest in the OGP was related to concern about the Transpacific Partnership is itself too conspiratorial. The likely explanation is that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade had more promising priorities than the April talk fest in Brazil.

The Brasilia meeting began energetically with a blog set up to stimulate discussion about the event and engender continuing awareness of open government issues. Despite thousands of alleged enthusiasts for open government, participation in OGP communications suggest that it is an uphill struggle to maintain interest.   A Washington conference last week stimulated another burst of interest, but that too will inevitably fade.

The action plans recently developed by OGP member states to give effect to give substantive change were reported to be uninspiring. This may confirm the suspicions of the Economist last year that the OGP is just another international talking shop. – despite the involvement of “civil society” as a stimulus for real action.

 

http://www.foi-privacy.blogspot.co.nz/

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/report-paints-encouraging-picture-of-govt-data-opening

http://govis.org.nz/GOVISConference/GOVISConference2012.aspx

http://ict.govt.nz/programme/opening-government-data-and-information/2012-report-adoption-declaration

http://blog.opengovpartnership.org/

www.facebook.com/OpenGovernmentPartnership?ref=stream

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2012/04/16/is-transparency-just-a-pervasive-cliche/

http://www.economist.com/node/21531430

Not so treasured activities disclosed by FOIA

19 July 2012

“Many organisations have people who do dumb things,” the Inspector General of the US Treasury Department is reported as saying following publication of investigations into a number of the agency’s 107,000  employees.  Each US department has an Inspector General with responsibility to investigate misconduct allegations.

US Treasury officials seem to have fewer vices that their New Zealand counterparts if the Pricewaterhouse Coopers report from this time last year is any indicator. Many incidents in both jurisdictions have golf and dinners in common, suggesting a lax concern for rules on accepting hospitality from corporate executives and disregard for conflicts policies. The NZ Treasury proposes updating the staff gifts and hospitality register posted first on 22 July 2011. No other agency seems to have “gone public” with its register in this way. 

But a US Treasury banker seems to have been too keen to make the money go round.  Information released under the Freedom of Information Act disclosed his enthusiasm using public funds, for accessing “… websites offering erotic services on a weekly basis as well as communicating with and arranging meetings with women offering erotic services.” He retired when charged with “disgraceful conduct”.  This seems little worse than the dubious behaviour reported recently by Secret Service officers when overseas protecting the President.

Other incidents included multiple sport outings and related hospitality received by staff who believed playing golf with industry officials during the working week was “a condoned activity.”

US Treasury officials explained that these were isolated incidents. “Treasury has a strong ethics policy that we expect all of our employees to follow, and the overwhelming majority of them do… Treasury has a clear track record of not tolerating misconduct.” The claim was that their systems were working because these ethics issues were uncovered and resolved.

A former company secretary of Securrency, a subsidiary of the Australian Reserve Bank, which prints and markets banknotes is to plead guilty to charges relating to bribes paid to bankers in Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/237985-treasury-probe-officials-solicited-prostitutes-accepted-industry-gifts/

www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/5323407/Treasury-staff-freebies-provoke-review

www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/giftregister

http://traceblog.org/2012/06/09/former-securency-executive-set-to-plead-guilty-in-foreign-bribery-case/

Is New Zealand “square root of bugger all”?

 18 July 2012

One of the witnesses appearing before the Lords Constitution Committee on civil service accountability is Lord Hennessy.  A history professor at Queen Mary, University College London, he was appointed as a cross bench member of the Lords in 2010.  He is an authority on contemporary governance, and has written about Cabinet, Westminster, the Constitution and British governments in the 1950s.

When asked whether there were lessons that could be learned from other countries when considering how accountability measures should evolve, Lord Hennessy didn’t mince his words.

 “Professor Lord Hennessy: I have to confess to being terribly narrowly nationalistic about this, partly because we did it first with Northcote–Trevelyan. The Commonwealth countries—the old dominions, you might call them—are very much modelled on us. However, we have re-imported certain very valuable things from them over the years.

 The Indian civil service gave us Northcote–Trevelyan, so it was pioneered first in the ICS.

 Freedom of information was pioneered across New Zealand, Canada and Australia in a way that helped. I am not sure about human rights or able to talk about that, because my mentor on that is a member of this Committee.

 I do not want to be unkind about New Zealand, but it is the size of a local authority. It is the square root of bugger all, really, compared to what Ministers in this country have to deal with, so I do not think it is much of a model.

I have always thought—this is me in my psycho-dramatic mode, perhaps too much—that it is a sign of a loss of self-confidence if you have to keep looking abroad. Why can we not concentrate on our entrails? We have the resources to do so within this very room, and within this Parliament, in buckets. So,… I am not keen on overseas examples. Let us just stick to what we know and who we know. It is hard enough.”

Not surprisingly, Lord Hennessy is opposed to reform of the House of Lords.  He advocates that its membership should remain appointed, hereditary and spiritual.

 

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/constitution-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/accountability-of-civil-servants-/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hennessy

TI annual report – Corruption doesn’t stand a chance

17 July 2012

Informed  Engaged  Empowered – Corruption doesn’t stand a chance  that is the banner of the Transparency International annual report published last week.   TI notes that corruption was the common denominator in demonstrations across the world over the last year.  This only increases the resolve of TI to free people from the devastating effects of corruption.

The report is drafted around a series of aphorisms:

Corruption- inevitable, unstoppable?  We don’t think so.

Corruption never won a fair election  – Politicians and officials need to know that we will hold them accountable for their actions. We need regulations in place to make sure they act openly

Corruption loves to hear excuses  We need to make sure governments live up to their promises

Corruption is afraid of the truth  Governments must be open about what they do and we need to make sure we can access information

Corruption doesn’t like to compete fairly  Governments are responsible for providing good quality services bought at a fair price

Corruption has only one business plan   Companies need to demonstrate that corruption isn’t part of their business plans

Corruption only protects itself  Defence and security activities warrant secrecy in certain areas. But more openness in defence policy, budget and procurement is needed

Corruption thinks justice can be bought  Everyone has a right to a fair and impartial trial

Corruption picks on the weakest   The voices of the world’s poorest people must be heard when development agendas are set and decisions taken that affect their lives

Corruption only serves itself   Budgets for public services  and institutions including schools, hospitals and infrastructure need to be published

Corruption doesn’t think about tomorrow   We all need to monitor developments and learn fast

Corruption has no future –It was the world’s most talked about issue in 2010-2011 according to the BBC

Corruption believes in privileges not rights

Corruption never learns

Corruption never has respect

Corruption is on no one’s side

www.transparency.org/annualreport/2011

Are departmental chief executives a constitutional check on Government?

16 July 2012

The House of Lords Constitution Committee inquiry on the Accountability of Civil Servants has heard some memorable contributions from informed commentators, ranging from former Ministers to academics. Four former Cabinet Secretaries were the witnesses last week.  Ths week, witnesses include the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the incumbents in the offices of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service.

The transcripts of evidence published so far are a great read (about four hours of it!).

Issues addressed extend beyond accountability to encompass appointments of permanent secretaries and the role of political advisers. One interesting aspect is whether the civil service has a constitutional role as a check on the Government. There is a suggestion in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 which gave statutory form to the civil service, that there is a responsibility although as yet undefined.

Section 3 (6) “In exercising his power to manage the civil service, the Minister for the Civil Service shall have regard to the need to ensure that civil servants who advise Ministers are aware of the constitutional significance of Parliament and of the conventions governing the relationship between Parliament and Her Majesty’s Government.”

The evidence given by Charles Clarke, a former Home Secretary – (and incidentally son of the originator of the FT share index and later a civil service permanent secretary) –is a perspective probably regarded in New Zealand more as an obligation on chief executives to ensure Ministers act lawfully than a constitutional check.  We have a weaker line of authority, derived possibly from the obligation in the State Sector Act to maintain standards of integrity and conduct.

Charles Clarke:  … In answer to your question, the home civil service absolutely does and should act as a constitutional check on the actions of Ministers. That is precisely what they ought to do.

However, everything depends on the relationship between  the permanent secretary and the Secretary of State, as I said at the outset. The permanent secretary has to be strong enough to say to a possibly very strong Minister, “You cannot do this, Secretary of State”. To be honest, I do not think that all permanent secretaries are strong enough to do that. There are occasions when Ministers will try to override their permanent secretaries, and that is a serious criticism of a permanent secretary.

Secondly, I used to encourage…all civil servants, even as many as would be round a table of this size, to give me their opinion about what I was proposing. I would say that the sanctionable offence would be not to tell me that I was about to do something mad before I found out by another route. It was then my job to take the decisions. If somebody said, “You are mad to do this for the following reasons”, I might say, “Well actually I am still going to go ahead and be mad”, and that was a matter for me. It was my decision.

It was the duty—I emphasise the duty—of officials to say to me, “You have to operate in this way and understand these circumstances.” I understand that there are other Ministers who do not operate in that way. They essentially do not want their civil servants to give their views and do not want to be contradicted.

I am sure that Michael, (another witness,  Lord Howard, also a Home Secretary ) having his personality, would have been similar in his approach in wanting people to be quite candid. I did not mind if officials said that I was doing completely the wrong thing, because I was confident enough to deal with the arguments that they put forward and come to a view about how to proceed.  Having said that, you have a series of difficult issues if the civil servants are not strong, and if in particular the permanent secretary is not, in relation to the Secretary of State.

That leads to a very difficult set of issues. You used in your question the phrase “constitutional check”. That becomes a very critical question when you talk about quasi-judicial roles played by Ministers, or proprieties, for example in relation to allocation of moneys including to your own constituencies and issues of that kind, where the civil service has to be absolutely a stickler for the position—and should be.

That is one of the reasons why I find the current position in relation to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport completely inexplicable. In the current circumstances, it does not appear that the permanent secretary acted as he should have done. It is a constitutional check. It should be a key culture of the civil service to be that constitutional check.

Now, some politicians do not like that. We see it in the papers all the time at the moment that certain politicians argue that you do not want civil servants who are a constitutional check. I take exactly the opposite view: it is critical that they are a constitutional check as long as, at the end of the day, the right of the Minister to take the decision is acknowledged and recognised.

I think that in practice that is the case. All civil servants I know accept that if the Secretary of State wants to take a decision, then that is what they should do.”

The Constitution Committee has been teasing out views on what should subsequently happen regarding responsibility and accountability, when several years later, a policy fails and both Minister and the departmental head have moved elsewhere. What is the difference between being accountable and being responsible?

www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2012/jul/12/odonnell-select-committees-accountability?newsfeed=true

www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/constitution/CivilServ/cCNST130612ev2.pdf

Tuvalu plays with fire yet again

13 July 2012

Tuvalu is getting a strong message from the United States House Foreign Affairs committee that the recent addition of 22 Iranian ships to its shipping register is “profoundly disappointing”, that  “given the close and cooperative relationship that our two governments now enjoy, it would be unfortunate if this action were permitted to stand”.

That should be a persuasive message to a county that is dependent on foreign aid, where the land area doubles at low tide, and the security of whose extensive economic zone from whence its revenue from fishing licensing is derived, relies on the good will of countries like Australia, New Zealand and the United States.

One of the ironies of South Pacific governments is that the pronounced Christian perspectives of their leaders are as subordinated to realpolitik as any of their 19th century European counterparts. The third and fourth clauses in the Preamble of the Tuvalu’s Constitution acknowledges …. “God as the Almighty and Everlasting Lord and giver of all good things”, under whose good providence and blessing its people place themselves, and constitute their State… “based on Christian principles, the Rule of Law, and Tuvaluan custom and tradition”.

The commitment to the Constitution may be queried when Tuvalu will reflag Iranian tankers so the vessels can acquire insurance and continue trading.  Concerted action by much of the international community to enforce Iran to respect the rule of law is being undermined by Tuvalu’s opportunism.

Although legislation for a shipping register was enacted in 1987, only with Iran’s need to evade sanctions, have ships of any consequence been registered.  Flags of convenience, and equally dubious banking regimes are seldom resources of integrity rich administrations.

Tuvalu’s fiscal precariousness has led it down a similar path on numerous occasions.  Independent since 1978, it immediately invested in the Nevada desert in the belief that it was getting onto the bottom rung of a housing boom; it then expanded its philatelic agency to meet the aspirations of a US marketer and in the process destroyed its long established reputation (for Ellice Islands stamps); it sold off its telephone area code for international pornography calls in the 1980s, then its internet url  “.TV”, and now, ship registration.

Its disregard for United States concerns is ironical. A current revenue scheme is selling silver dollars. The top selling coin features the USS Constitution, launched by President George Washington in 1797, and still “in service” as the oldest vessel in the US Navy.

Constitution had the role of protecting American ships from Barbary pirates.  Iran could be regarded as the equivalent pirate state today.

http://democrats.foreignaffairs.house.gov/press_display.asp?id=978

www.tuvaluislands.com/const_tuvalu.htm

www.ebay.com/itm/USS-CONSTITUTION-Ships-Changed-World-Silver-Coin-1-Tuvalu-2012-/350563622707?_trksid=p4340.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222002%26algo%3DSIC.FIT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D11%26meid%3D552483172082944037%26pid%3D100011%26prg%3D1005%26rk%3D1%26

Nothing about transparency for government to learn from top companies

12 July 2012

Public administrations everywhere are being reshaped to match their fiscally stressed economies. And reflecting traditional commercial logic, everywhere the numbers working for government are reducing. The mindset of many political leaders again seems to be that emulating the private sector is necessary. Structures must have a commercial edge, and governance arrangements are to be shaped in the belief that the wisdom of the market place will give a better return to the taxpayer.

New Zealand has fallen behind the bleeding edge over the last 20 years, leaving to others the boots and all changes in aspects like health service organisation and the creation of public private partnerships.  As we change to be catch up, others move on seeking a communitisation of functions, “a revitalized civil society”.

Ironically, there was a reference to the New Zealand Public Service during the House of Lords Constitution select committee review of Civil Service accountability two weeks ago. Evidence given on behalf of the Institute of Government included a comment that “The New Zealand model is one of those wonderful things that one talks about, but New Zealand is an awfully long way away…”   An added ambiguity was that a friend who made a visit reported that “it is not quite so simple”.

The open society message was championed in the final of the 2012 Reith Lectures given this week by Prof Niall Ferguson. There has been very little intellectual endorsement. The denigration heaped by contributors to a BBC Radio 4 blog paints his views as “condescending”, “narcissistic”, “Conservative Party orthodoxy”.

But there can be little comfort in looking at big business as a model for public administration.  Good government is directly related to trustworthiness. The more open an organisation is, the greater the trustworthiness.  Transparency International has found little to admire in the commitment to transparency of most the world’s “top” public companies.  The conclusion in a survey report published this week was that “multinational companies remain an important part of corruption around the world”.  Not a model to follow.

Best rated was Norway’s Statoil for openness in disclosing its anti-corruption programme and the revenue, taxes paid and community contributions in all countries where it operates. Next after “a steep drop” were Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton (both partly Australian owned).  HSBC was the highest scoring bank, a little ahead of ANZ Bank.  Generally banks and insurance companies rated poorly. The Bank of China rated 1.1 out of 10.  Barclays didn’t score!

www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/transparency_in_corporate_reporting_assessing_the_worlds_largest_companies

http://whitehallwatch.org/2012/07/12/private-good-public-bad-eh-g4s-london2012-and-the-army/

 

New Zealand women feel less safe than others

11 July 2012

Sometimes we only see what we want to. The underpinning thesis of this blog is that people working in the New Zealand public sector have a strong spirit of service, a commitment to the public interest. That spirit of service builds a sense of trustworthiness, which is reflected in public trust and confidence in government agencies and those who work for them.

The international experience seems to be that countries with a trustworthy state sector, rated highly by Transparency International because of the openness of their administration and their low levels of corruption, stimulate the growth of strong communities. They score highly on measures ranging from good and sustainable governance to peace and happiness. They promote equality and fairness. The Scandinavians ( and New Zealand ) are often among the best.

A peaceful, well governed country with high living standards should engender a sense of confidence among its citizens that public places are safe.  We haven’t descended to the public execution of women for adultery, as occurred this week in Afghanistan, but  New Zealand’s corruption-lite society does not provide a sense of security to its women.

 A Gallup survey published on Friday shows that New Zealand is seen by its women as a much less safe place than as seen by its men. The streets at night are seen by many women as unsafe. New Zealand has the highest disparity between the genders of their expectations of physical security. New Zealand women feel 35% less safe walking alone at night than New Zealand males (50% cf 85%).

This 35% disparity in New Zealand is worse than any other of the 143 countries surveyed. The disparity in both Australian and United States is 27%. It is 20% in the United Kingdom and 17% in Canada.  

Women in Georgia are most likely to say they feel safe walking alone at night. While 93% of Georgian males feel safe, the figure is only 3% lower among women.

Gallup refers to the high rates of violence against women in some developed societies – and specifically the 2011 UN report that domestic violence in New Zealand is among the worst of 22 developed countries.  US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke recently about “…studies suggesting that women’s physical security and higher levels  of gender equality correlate with security and peacefulness of entire countries.”  So why is New Zealand an exception?

And why does the Gallup survey appear not to have been reported in any New Zealand media?

www.gallup.com/poll/155402/Women-Feel-Less-Safe-Men-Developed-Countries.aspx