“We have totally screwed up” – the people’s car is not all that it seems

22 September 2015

Michael Horn the chief executive of VW in the United States will not have enjoyed “eating crow” last night when admitting that “Our company was dishonest with… all of you… we have totally screwed up.”  The admission that VW engineered its diesel motors to deceive emission testing regimes is extraordinary in its enormity.

VW promotes itself as a leader in corporate responsibility. Deceiving a regulator in this way blatantly conflicts with three of VW’s ethics principles – although perhaps the admission conforms to the fourth:

  •   we act responsibly, for the benefit of our customers, shareholders, and employees;
  •   we consider compliance with international conventions, laws, and internal rules to be the basis for sustainable            and successful economic activities;
  •   we act in accordance with our declarations; and
  •   we accept responsibility for our actions.

VW specifies that its Code of Conduct provides “a guidepost that supports employees… in mastering the legal and ethical challenges… in their daily work. The Code of Conduct constitutes a Group-wide guideline that applies to all of our employees and members of executive bodies and for the compliance with which each individual is equally responsible.”

Manipulating US exhaust controls with technology that falsifies emissions data suggests the code is an enormous hypocrisy.  Thousands of VW employees must be familiar with the device, its design, purpose, manufacture, installation, and maintenance. If the code provided a guidepost for mastering ethical challenges, it cannot have shown the way for those employees. The company must have been selective in the ethical behaviour expected of them.

This disclosure doesn’t reflect the VW values of –

  • closeness to the customer
  • superior performance
  • value creation
  • renewability
  • respect
  • responsibility
  • sustainability

If VW operated in this way, there must be a possibility that other makers did likewise.  Competitors would have become aware of systems needed to replicate VW results and maintain market share. There will have been movement around the sector of those “in the know”.

VW produces about 13% of new cars.  It is Europe’s largest car manufacturer, making about 25% of the Continent’s cars. Its 2014 profits exceeded 10 billion euros. Those profits are likely to be dramatically reduced as the emissions scandal plays out.  A prosecution in the United States is reported to expose VW to a potential fine exceeding US$18 billion!

As so often happens when prominent personalities are caught cheating there is a public moment of apparent regret.  Then recognising that their trustworthiness is evaporating, the promise to change.  VW we were told is “… committed to do what must be done and to begin to restore your trust.”

Mr Horn must be wondering – as did the writer of the Gospel of Mark  “For what shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”

www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/22/volkswagen-scandal-us-chief-carmaker-totally-screwed-up-michael-horn

New Zealand tops the 2015 Open Budget Index

15 September 2015

The anniversary of the 1940 turning point in the Battle of Britain  is coincidentally in the week when a measure of good government, an ideal presumably underpinning the Allied endeavours on the Second World War, has been published.

Good government flows from good information being publicly available about the actions of government. An informed public is able to influence government for the public good. Self evident indicators of government transparency are the availability of information on national revenue and expenditure, and the quality and independence of the agency auditing that information.

That’s what the Open Budget Index provides. Collated every two or three years, the OBI is a comparative measure of central government budget transparency. There are 102 countries evaluated in the fifth OBI that was published this week. Countries are rated on a 100 point scale against a 140 questions focusing on the accessibility and timeliness of budgetary information.

New Zealand ranks first in the 2015 Open Budget Index, as it did in 2012. It was the “runner up” in 2010. This year the five countries rated highest for the openness and quality of budgetary information are;

New Zealand

Sweden

South Africa

Norway

United States

Interestingly, South Africa  consistently scores well on the OBI although is not well rated on the Corruption Perceptions Index (67th in 2014 with a rating of 44) compared with New Zealand ( 2nd  in 2014 with a rating of 91).

Australia is not included in the OBI.

http://internationalbudget.org/opening-budgets/open-budget-initiative/open-budget-survey/publications-2/rankings-key-findings/rankings/

https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results

It’s all Greek to me

2 July 2015

Resolving the economic crisis in Athens may well require the combined endeavours of the ancient heroes. Public comprehension seems to be based on views of the loudest commentator.  As Shakespeare had Casca comment in Julius Caesar.  “…for mine own part, it was Greek to me. …There was more foolery yet, if I could remember it.”

What is intriguing is how the situation in Greece precipitated a downward spin in international markets on Tuesday – although there has been a strong bounce back since (except in Chinese markets). The cause seemed to be $3 billion default in IMF repayments.

Yet more comprehensible foolery is being reported in the United States where more than $3 billion is being sought by the Department of Justice as damages and fines from Novartis, the Swiss drug manufacturer found to have manipulated the market for two of its products, causing federal health care programmes – amongst others – to “over pay” for medicines. Investigations have been assisted by several whistleblowers previously employed by Novartis who provided information on kickbacks and inducements to promote sales of Myfortic used for kidney transplants and Exjade used in problematic blood transfusions.

Pharmaceutical companies are periodically being caught out acting quite differently from the ethics espoused by their industrial organisations – and this latest incident confirms a belief that in the United States compliance with the PHrMA  code seems to have limited penetration in the senior ranks of some large companies. In March, results of a survey of ethics and compliance specialists at the Pharmaceutical Compliance Conference in Washington indicated increasing recognition that values and ethics are crucial to compliance programmes. There appeared to be a growing acceptance that building a values and ethics-based culture rather than simply a ‘compliant’ organisation would inspire employees “…to work hard, think big, and do the right thing”; that ”…a profound and lasting outcome can be a work environment where compliance is just a natural outcome of living the company values.”

But drug companies are renown for spending big on influencing the medical profession. They have been found building bias into research they fund, tailoring research results they publish, and ghost writing papers for publication under the names of medical specialists. They have acquired pharmacy records to data mine the prescribing patterns of GPs, funded speaking tours for GPs to engage with colleagues, and deluged practitioners with gifts and free samples.

Many jurisdictions have regulated to minimise these practices. Whistle-blowers who will  give evidence in the Novartis prosecution later this year, will speak of the company paying for lavish trips and providing kickbacks to doctors to induce them to prescribe Novartis drugs. In the March 2015 ethics and compliance survey referred to above, when asked which processes have the least significant impact on creating ethical employees,

  • 34% said hospitality and entertainment rules are least impactful
  • 32% said adverse health effect reporting rules
  • 21% said improper inducement laws and
  • 13% said off-label use guidelines

These results confirm well known integrity principles that recognise that self interest is moderated best by energetic values-leadership underpinned by explicit disclosure and transparency processes.

http://blogs.wsj.com/pharmalot/2015/06/30/how-much-feds-wants-novartis-to-pay-3-35b-for-kickback-schemes/

“Great men are almost always bad men”

18 June 2015

It was two hundred years ago today that Napoleon met his Waterloo, ten kilometres south of Brussels. By the end of that Sunday, confronted by the Duke of Wellington’s army and with his right flank out-maneuvered by Field Marshall Blucher’s Prussian army, the Armee du Nord crumbled. Wellington had “the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life”. More than 100,000 of the combatants lost their lives.

Napoleon’s generalship was undone – and following that undoing the reality of his statesmanship became more apparent.  As Lord Acton subsequently observed,  “despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality” – “that popular power may be tainted with the same poison as personal power”.

And the coincidence of history is that earlier this week was the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta – that powerful symbol of justice triumphing over tyranny.  These events can conflate into the thesis in  Lord Acton’s famous letter to Bishop Creighton (inter alia sometime Cambridge History Professor and Bishop of London) disagreeing with the argument the end justifies the means – that Pope and King should be judged unlike other men.

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2015/jun/17/europe-has-much-to-learn-from-the-battle-of-waterloo

http://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/214

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mandell_Creighton

New Zealand holds 6th place on Rule of Law Index

2 June 2015

New Zealand ranks 6th of the 102 countries surveyed for the 2015 Rule of Law Index published today. This place is unchanged on the 2014 survey although there was minor deterioration in a number of the component elements. Australia slipped from 8th to 10th in the rankings.

The index is as part of the World Justice Project (WJP) (together with the Open Government Index). “It provides original, impartial data on how the rule of law is experienced by the general public in 102 countries around the globe.”

This year data from over 100,000 household and 2,400 expert surveys provides a measure how the rule of law is experienced in everyday situations around the world. Forty four indicators are grouped into eight categories:

  • Constraints on Government Powers
  • Absence of Corruption
  • Open Government
  • Fundamental Rights
  • Order and Security
  • Regulatory Enforcement
  • Civil Justice
  • Criminal Justice.

The WJP Rule of Law Index is described as the most comprehensive index of its kind  relying solely on primary data including a cross section of 1,000 respondents per country.

 2015                       Rule of Law Index                                   2014

1 Denmark   1
2 Norway 2
3 Sweden 3
4 Finland 4
5 Netherlands 5
6 New Zealand 6
7 Austria 7
8 Germany 9
9 Singapore 10
10 Australia 8
11 Korea 14
112 United Kingdom 13

The elements making up the New Zealand rank show a deterioration in four of the elements, an improvement in one and no change in the other three.

New Zealand  ranking on Rule of Law Elements                                      2015                     2014

Constraints on Government Powers 8 4
Absence of Corruption 6 3
Open Government 2 2
Fundamental Rights 9 7
Order and Security 15 11
Regulatory Enforcement 5 5
Civil Justice 9 9
Criminal Justice 8 12

http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2012/12/03/new-zealand-standards-slipping-in-rule-of-law-survey/

Using information “…only for proper purposes”

30 May 2015

The dubious reporting practices of Rupert Murdoch’s British tabloids, exposed by the News of the World phone hacking, got a further airing last week when a Sun reporter was given an 18 month suspended sentence for buying information from a police officer.  Over a period of four years the reporter had cultivated a Heathrow counter-terrorism constable, paying him more than £22,000 for details about newsworthy incidents at the airport. The police officer who pleaded guilty in 2014 to “misconduct in public office” is serving a two year prison sentence. The reporter was convicted of aiding and abetting that misconduct in public office.

The Bribery and Corruption provisions in Part 6 of the New Zealand Crimes Act provide a seven year maximum sentence for corrupting officials and the same regarding an official wo acts corruptly (although corrupt acts by a judge or a Minister have greater maximum penalties).  By implication, paying an official to disregard their responsibilities and abuse the trust placed in them is as harmful as the actions of the suborned official.

The Standards of Integrity and Conduct for the State Services include as part of the obligation to be responsible, an explicit standard to “….treat information with care and use only for proper purposes”.  Understanding the code of conductGuidance for State Servants  comments that

“…the proper management of information is central to the integrity of the State Services. We have a duty to handle official information appropriately and ensure that personal privacy rights are preserved. We must all be familiar with legal obligations relating to the protection and release of official information. Statutory privacy principles must always govern the handling of personal information…”

Information that officials learn in the course of their employment may be released only where they have authorisation to do so. Often that authority is implied because of the role and responsibilities. Although most agencies have explicit delegations controlling contact with the media, there is seldom certainty about the extent to which agency information may be disclosed in activities beyond the confines of the agency.

This is recognised in Understanding the code  –

“It is a breach of trust for us to make use of information that we have learned through our work, or to disclose it in any way, unless we have permission to do so. We should always be very circumspect about discussing our organisation’s information when we are not directly engaged in organisation business, and be aware that, unless we have authorisation or it is a matter of public record, we do not disclose official information at external meetings (despite any claim to “Chatham House” rules) or in any academic activities we undertake…”

State servants always need to be conscious that information known to them may be of commercial interest to others.  Engaging with officials in settings where that information may be shared is part of the reason why sector groups invite participation in training and other activities.  Associated hospitality, like all gifts, can engender an obligation of reciprocity.  The Auditor-General expects the taking of great care in accepting any gift or hospitality as “… a sensitive issue …that entities need to manage carefully. It is especially important that receiving a gift does not alter an individual’s decision-making, as this could be perceived as acting without impartiality or integrity…”

Over the last few years nine British police officers and 18 other public officials have been convicted of selling  information they acquired through their work to journalists, receiving sentences of up to three years imprisonment (although recently a reporter, and a police officer and his wife, had convictions quashed).

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4471e1ebd26b4101a64fd82551553789/uk-reporter-handed-suspended-sentence-bribery-case

www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/05/met-police-officer-sun

www.ssc.govt.nz/code-guidance-stateservants

www.oag.govt.nz/2007/sensitive-expenditure/part8.htm

Inverse relationship between Press Freedom and public sector corruption

28 May 2015

Heading the UNDP obliges Helen Clark to engage in some official responsibilities which must seem of dubious merit. Last week she spoke in Kazakhstan to the Astana Economic Forum about meritocracy and ethics in government.  She would hope that her comments would not be falling on deaf ears. Both the UNDP and the OECD are encouraging the growth of civil society to promote integrity in government and compensate for ineffective official controls.

The Kazakhstan public sector ranked 126th on the Transparency International  Corruption Perceptions Index in 2014, equal with Honduras, Togo, Gambia, Pakistan and Azerbeijan.  Kazakhstan is nearing the end of a five year Anti Corruption Programme, but companies report corruption as the number one constraint on doing business.  The Customs service for example is notoriously corrupt with facilitation payments demanded by officials in about 30% of transactions.

Little has changed despite numerous initiatives to moderate corruption.  Lessons don’t seem to be learned.  The director of the 2011 Asian Winter Games – which was the country’s largest ever event – has been convicted and imprisoned for extensive spending of public money on property and cars for his personal use. The bid for the 2022 Winter Olympics – as the rival of Beijing – is predicted to give opportunities to many in the construction sector to extract vast personal benefit from the $3.5 bn to be spent on Games-related projects. The Olympics ambassador was Vinokourov who won the gold medal for cycling at the London Olympics on his return to competition after being banned for drug taking on the 2007 Tour de France.

Kazakhstan as with the other states formerly part of the Soviet Union has had only 25 years during which democracy  – and the constitutional principles that grow with democratic elections -have struggled to take root.  In a survey published in late April, Freedom House  press freedom around the world was found to be at the lowest point in more than ten years with press freedom  in a majority of countries, including most former Soviet states, going backwards. In Kazakhstan there was a continuing crackdown on the media with journalists and news outlets subjected to legal restrictions, censorship, and intimidation. Constitutional guarantees are of little effect in moderating actions by the Kazakh government that limit freedoms of speech and of the press. Government control over 70% of web access has limited the effectiveness of social media.

However, even Israel which prides itself on being the only developed state in the region with nearly 70 years of western values is again in the news for unwelcome reasons.  Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert , currently serving six years for receiving corrupt payments  when he was a Minister, has this week been convicted on more charges for accepting unlawful payments when he was the mayor of Jerusalem. He was acquitted previously of corrupt activities during the three years when he was the Prime Minister.

Olmert is the only one who ultimately has been convicted and imprisoned of four Israeli Prime Ministers investigated for corruption. Over the last 20 years three former Ministers and more than ten other MPs have been imprisoned for corrupt practices. That suggests cracks in the institutionalised  respect for the rule of law in which  opportunism can flourish. What marks Israel out is that it also has real press freedom – ranked 30th this year and unchanged from 2014.

Press Freedom in New Zealand continues to decline with a year on year slide from a high point of 2nd place in 1998 to 15th place this year.  It is interesting to compare the Freedom House rankings with the Reporters without Borders rankings which, this year, placed New Zealand in 6th place for press freedom.

Freedom House Press Freedom 2015 

1st= Norway
Sweden
3rd= Finland
Belgium
Netherlands
6th= Luxembourg
Denmark
8th Switzerland
9th= Iceland
Estonia
Ireland
12th= Portugal
Germany
Canada
15th= New Zealand

Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom 2015

1 Finland
2 Norway
3 Denmark
4 Netherlands
5 Sweden
6 New Zealand
7 Austria
8 Canada
9 Jamaica
10 Estonia
11 Ireland
12 Germany

 

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/presscenter/speeches/2015/05/21/helen-clark-speech-at-the-astana-economic-forum-on-kazakhstan-s-official-development-assistance-system-needs-and-challenges-of-the-oda-today-and-tomorrow-.html

https://news.vice.com/article/corruption-is-institutionalized-say-activists-as-israeli-ex-prime-minister-is-jailed

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/freedom-press-2015#.VWWzJs-qqko

www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results

First meeting of the NZ General Assembly 161 years ago

24 May 1854

Today is the anniversary of the meeting of New Zealand’s first Parliament on 24 May 1854. The date was the 35th birthday of Queen Victoria (and coincidentally has been a public holiday in much of Canada since that date).

Colonel Wynyard, the Superintendent of Auckland Province (the Senior Military Officer in the colony – and former Deputy Governor of New Ulster under the earlier constitutional arrangements) had been the Administrator since George Grey left for Africa on appointment as  Governor of the Cape Colony in late 1853. There were 37 Members (both nominees to the Legislative Council and elected to the House of Representatives) summoned to the General Assembly following New Zealand’s first election in 1853. Twenty of those Members were elected without opposition in a franchise restricted to property owning male British subjects aged over 21.

Travel to Auckland took almost 2 months for some Members who sailed into Onehunga and about two weeks for others who were taken by steamer to Auckland.  The Legislative Council had already met earlier in May and had elected William Swainson as its Speaker. He was the Attorney General who together with the Chief Justice, had arrived in New Zealand to take up their appointments in August 1841.

Following a 21 gun salute from Fort Britomart, the Members were sworn in.  The Parliament was then adjourned until 27 May allowing the Members to take part in a dinner and ball to celebrate the occasion. Interestingly the media report of the 27th refers to the session having being postponed on the 24th.

The date obviously has national significance but that first Parliament was not yet empowered to establish a responsible government.

www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/history-of-parliament/first-sitting-1854

British Government commits to restoring trust and faith in politics

13 May 2015

The British Prime Minister has pledged to restore trust and faith in politics.

When the new Cabinet met yesterday for the first time, David Cameron used the presence of the media to confirm assurances given during the election campaign.  He was emphatic that the Government had a mandate to deliver on the Conservative manifesto – “all of it”.   Having surprised all the pundits – and exceeded his own expectations – the election of a House of Commons with a Conservative party majority should enable the Government to operate without the compromises of a coalition.

The Prime Minister said  “..This will be a different government. It is not a coalition government, so we have proper accountability. There’s no trading away of things that are in here. The ability to deliver this, that is one of the most important things we can do to restore trust and faith in politics, when you vote for something you get it and that is what we are going to do.”

“Before we start I want everyone around this table to be absolutely clear what we are here to do and who we are here to do it for. I think it is absolutely vital that in every decision that we take, in every policy we pursue, every programme we start, it is about giving everyone in our country the best chance of living a fulfilling and good life and making the most of their talents. That is what this government is going to be about”

What the Prime Minister believes to be necessary may not match the expectations of the public.  One of the last pieces of legislation to come into force before the election created the Register of Consultant Lobbyists, the need for which became clear in the lobbying taking place during the election campaign – and earlier in the year with the latest media exposure of senior politicians seeking to sell their influence– this time involving  Rifkind and Straw – both Right Honourable Members.

Before the previous election David Cameron’s promise had been to remedy the “…far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money…”. Few consider that his solution – the Transparency of Lobbying, Non Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act – will ensure trustworthiness in politics. During its parliamentary passage,  the Bill gave rise to extensive lobbying to protect interests!  The resulting register does not impose effective controls on the activities of lobbyists and may give rise to a false sense of transparency. The public will be no wiser about who is lobbying who, what the lobbying is about or how much is being spent to engage political support.

Perhaps the inadequacies in the legislation reflected the need to maintain a coalition.

The Prime Minister seems confident that he will be able to deliver on promises this time around.  This includes extending the right to buy Housing Trust properties – despite them not being government owned, cutting inheritance tax, raising the personal income threshold so no-one on the minimum wage pays tax, increasing the higher tax  threshold, doubling  free childcare for 3 and 4 year olds, increasing health spending by £8 billion a year, giving civil servants and local government officers 3 days paid leave each year for volunteering and so on.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32700111

 

A fish rots from its head – rorts by Victoria’s Education Department bosses

11 May 2015

In Victoria, the Independent Body Against Corruption has a substantial issue to prove its worth. The State was reluctant to adopt the ICAC model with a broad jurisdiction, and proposals for an anti corruption commission were slow in coming to fruition.  But the appalling lack of integrity shown at the top of the Victorian Education Department over a number of years has given IBAC a platform of considerable public interest.

The manipulation of education funding for the personal advantage of some senior executives, their friends and relations, has been whispered about for some time, but only with the IBAC hearings which began two weeks ago, has there been public awareness of the extent of the fraud and of the principals who took no action despite corruption payments being channelled through their schools.

A former Secretary of the Department, a chief finance officer  and a regional director of Education appear to have hidden payments in the accounts of “banker schools”, not for use by the school, but to be redirected for their personal advantage.

There was a hint of the seriousness of corruption when following last year’s election Victoria’s new Administration introduced machinery of government changes – although the amalgamation of Education with the portfolios of Training and Young Children  did not stand out among the other moves to reduce the number of departments.  The appointment to the Secretary position earlier this year of Gill Callister, moving from the role of Secretary of the Victorian Department of Human Resources perhaps foreshadowed the major staffing problems anticipated being exposed by the IBAC inquiry. Ms Callister is the current Victorian Branch President of the Institute of Public Administration Australia – the equivalent of IPANZ

Last week she told departmental staff that in addition to evidence of previous senior management running a culture of largess with impunity, there would be further shocking revelations over the next few weeks.  She spoke of deplorable misuse of departmental funding deserving public outrage.

It is probable that the influence of those senior managers (who not surprisingly no longer work for the Victorian public service) will have created a tail of corruption in schools and the education administration. This illustrates the importance of senior managers walking the talk. The Education Department had integrity standards. Information and training was given to staff. Integrity seems to have been something that senior managers talked about. That was not their reality. Among other advantages, they and spouses had personal travel to Europe, furniture, and cellars of wine, funded by the department.

“…If it wasn’t being slowly exposed in a corruption inquiry… many Victorian parents would struggle to believe the evidence about how large sums of money meant for the state’s school system have been systemically rorted by two allegedly corrupt officials…”

www.pressreader.com/australia/the-sunday-age/20150503/283115657511611/TextView

www.theage.com.au/victoria/victorias-education-chief-says-public-deserve-to-be-outraged-by-corruption-20150508-ggx6n3.html

www.theage.com.au/victoria/ibac-inquiry-business-trip-latest-sordid-tale-in-state-school-system-scandal-20150428-1mv1wd.html

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2012/07/03/victoria-gets-its-anti-corruption-commission