Press Freedom in New Zealand unchanged

6 May 2013

The Press Freedom Index published by Freedom House on 3 May marked World Press Freedom Day.  The index suggests a disappointing lack of improvement in the extent of media freedom.  Countries ranked at the top of the index are not substantially different from the 2012 list – the “Free” jurisdictions cover nearly 14% of the world’s population.  But though there have been marked improvements in a few countries, best illustrated by Burma, there has been a deterioration of press freedom in many other developing jurisdictions. Similar numbers  – 43% of the the world’s population – live in countries which are “Partly Free” and those that are “Not Free”.

There are 197 countries on 2013 index.  A total of 63 (32 percent) were rated Free, 70 (36 percent) were rated Partly Free, and 64 (32 percent) were rated Not Free.  There was no general improvement in press freedom on the previous index  ( the totals last year were 66 Free, 72 Partly Free, and 59 Not Free ).

New Zealand’s placing at 13th, was unchanged from last year.

2013 Press Freedom Index – “Top 20”

1st = Norway
Sweden
3rd = Belgium
Finland
Netherlands
6th = Denmark
Luxembourg
Switzerland
9th Andorra
10th Iceland
11th Lichtenstein
12th St Lucia
13th = Estonia
Ireland
Monaco
New Zealand
Palau
San Marino
19th Germany Marshall Islands Portugal          St Vincent and Grenadines

USA ranked 23rd =, Canada 29th= and the United Kingdom and Australia were 32nd =.

All the Pacific Forum countries are ranked as Free, except for Fiji.

The world’s eight worst-rated countries, where there is almost nothing indicative of press freedoms, are Belarus, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. 

www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTP%202013%20Booklet%20Final%20Complete%20-%20Web.pdf

http://batchgeo.com/map/8351f81ddc77f9f5db3c99b27f294c25

Uncategorized

,

May 6, 2013

Leave a comment

Monitoring employees on social media.

2 May 2013

Privacy Awareness week – a campaign largely championed by countries around the Pacific rim – runs throughout this week.   A related article in the Wall Street Journal  indicates how recent laws  introduced in a majority of US states that prohibit employers searching the social media accounts of their employees, are already being eroded.

Social-media privacy laws enacted last year in California, Illinois, Maryland and Michigan are now being complemented by similar statutes introduced in 35 other states since the beginning of the year.

Watering down of a prohibition on employer-searching has been led by the Federal Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Its concern is about the misuse of personal accounts. The fear is that protecting employees’ privacy puts investors at risk. If there is uncontrolled posting of financial advice on Facebook or through Twitter, then it will be harder to monitor what employees are pitching to investors, and new channels for Ponzi schemes will arise.

Securities regulators worry that the new laws will make fighting fraud harder if companies cannot follow how their employees may be marketing products.

Supporters of the laws say they are needed to protect employees, and should apply even if the employer is the subject of tweets or other messages made on an employee’s social-networking website.  But financial regulators suggest that the laws “puts customers at risk, as it will be much harder for firms to detect serious problems.”

Justifying the legislation California’s Governor has spoken of protecting “all Californians from unwarranted invasions of their personal social-media accounts”.

Courts haven’t ruled on whether state laws or the financial regulation rules should take precedence over employee privacy.  Inevitably that will be tested before long.

There is little evidence that New Zealanders see a problem of anything like the magnitude of the US.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323551004578436713224083592.html?mod=djem_jiewr_BE_domainid

Uncategorized

, ,

May 2, 2013

Leave a comment

Tax is a cat and mouse game in UK. Some cat, some mouse

29 April 2013

The Commons Public Accounts Committee chair, on releasing a report on the role of large accountancy firms in tax avoidance, has suggested that it is ridiculous for the Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs to accept seconded of staff from the Big Four accounting firms – which make about $8 bn annually from tax work in Britain.

An inability of the HMRC to get the better of tax planning arrangements may well reflect the use of such staff.

“The large accountancy firms are in a powerful position in the tax world and have an unhealthily cosy relationship with government. They second staff to the Treasury to advise on formulating tax legislation.”

“When those staff return to their firms, they have the very inside knowledge and insight to be able to identify loopholes in the new legislation and advise their clients on how to take advantage of them. The poacher, turned gamekeeper for a time, returns to poaching.”  As an example, she spoke off how these firms have about 250 experts in transfer pricing who out manoeuvre the 65 HMRC staff working in that area, with a result that about half of the complex tax avoidance schemes they develop are unable to be undone through litigation.

The Public Accounts Committee, which has nine coalition members and only four opposition members, seems to support the powerfully independent stance taken by its chair.  In this tax report, the PAC’s 44th Report of this Session, principal concerns are with way substantial companies can utilise international tax arrangements so that they make a minimal contribution in Britain, and “with a never-ending game of cat and mouse” with the Big Four.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/tax-avoidance-the-role-of-large-accountancy-firms/

Uncategorized

, ,

April 29, 2013

Leave a comment

Growing mistrust of the EU

26 April 2013

Europeans are losing their enthusiasm for the European Union according to the findings of the lastest Eurobarometer. This indicates a substantial loss of public trust in countries like Spain, Germany and Italy where large parts of the population have always been strongly pro European.

The survey responses from the six biggest EU members – comprising nearly 70% of the EU population – is reported to “represent a nightmare” for European leaders.. The results suggest that there is a crisis of political and democratic legitimacy in both the wealthy north and the financially troubled south.

The European Commission president commented that the European dream may well be threatened by a resurgence of populism – which of course created the repeated conflicts of the 20th century.  It is not surprising that of the surveyed countries,- Germany, Poland, France, Britain, Italy and Spain -the greatest loss of public trust is in Spain. The collapse there of banks, the housing market and of employment opportunities is reflected in only 20% indicating that they tend to trust the European Union. The figure was 65% five years ago

The Eurosceptics in Britain have been reinforced.  Mistrust throughout the United Kingdom grew from 49% to 69%. Usually showing the least confidence in the EU,  the British have been overtaken by the Spanish with their dramatic new levels of mistrust.

The Guardian has reported that a more detailed study published this week on the impact of the global financial crisis found equally steep falls in faith in democracy and political elites across the EU.

“Overall levels of political trust and satisfaction with democracy [declined] across much of Europe, but this varied markedly between countries.”

It was “significant” in Britain, Belgium, Denmark and Finland;

“particularly notable” in France, Ireland, Slovenia and Spain;

and reached “truly alarming proportions” in the case of Greece.”

Some see federalism as the only answer. Others warn that surrendering national powers to Brussels would backfire. “Public support for the EU has been falling since 2007. So it is risky to go for federalism as it can cause a backlash and unleash greater populism.”

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/24/trust-eu-falls-record-low

www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/world/europe/13iht-letter13.html?ref=francoishollande&_r=0

Uncategorized

, ,

April 26, 2013

Leave a comment

Building a Better Government – “GOD” talk

24 April 2013

Lord O’Donnell, the former Secretary of the UK Cabinet Office and Head of the Civil Service, is apparently contemplating the role of Governor of the Bank of England.  Baron Gus O’Donnell (“GOD”) had training as an economist. Appointments during his career with both the IMF and the World Bank perhaps indicate appropriate experience.  The current Deputy Governor, the heir apparent, may have a lesser view of Lord O’Donnell’s suitability.  An inference may be that challenges as a cross bench member of the House of Lords have little continuing attraction.

Today, he will deliver an Inaugural Speech as a Visiting Professor at University College.

The speech is titled Building a Better Government: the Political and Constitutional Reforms necessary to build Better Governments. A trailer for the speech suggests that he considers political change to be as important as any contribution of the bureaucracy to better government.

The New Zealand drive for Better Public Services has kept clear of expecting changes by politicians but other aspects have identifiable equivalents to Lord O’Donnell’s proposals. According to the Constitution Unit blog he will make a forthright and political declaration about needing “… to build a consensus for change that will be embraced across the political spectrum. The goal is a noble one: to increase wellbeing sustainably and reduce inequality. Better politics for a better Britain.”  He recommends:

  • A joint Office of Taxpayer Responsibility (OTR) and Office for Budgetary Responsibility (OBR) to cost and evaluate new policies and each major party’s election manifesto.
  • A smarter bureaucracy to make greater use of behavioural sciences to assess the needs and responses of the public for better services.
  • A new agency, along the lines of the Canadian Public Tenders, to ensure the taxpayer doesn’t miss out commercially in negotiations with the private sector.
  • An emphasis on improving wellbeing, rather than just meeting targets, leading to better policies in areas like health and welfare, while living within budget constraints.
  • Reform of the political decision making process, including
    •  training and development opportunities for backbenchers to prepare them for ministerial office, and
    • a way for the centre of government to assess the performance of departments at the political as well as the policy level.
  • A greater diversity among politicians to better represent communities, leading to policies more suited to social diversity.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9221995/Former-Cabinet-Secretary-Lord-ODonnell-hints-he-could-enter-race-to-replace-Bank-of-England-Governor-Sir-Mervyn-King.html

http://constitution-unit.com/2013/04/23/press-release-inaugural-lecture-by-the-former-cabinet-secretary-lord-gus-odonnell-building-a-better-government-the-political-and-constitutional-reforms-necessary-to-build-better-governme/

Uncategorized

, , ,

April 25, 2013

Leave a comment

It’s not OK.

23 April 2013

Britain seems to have many unhappy workplaces.  Although apparently half the working population feels threatened by their boss, the worst levels of bullying are found in the public sector. A Guardian article yesterday reported that three quarters of public sector workers felt threatened at work.

It may well be that these figures are not only an understatement, but are likely to get worse; and according to the researcher, likely to lead to lower productivity, absenteeism, and disengagement.

The assessment is that leaders must change the way they operate. They need to put a greater emphasis on reducing the threat felt by their staff.  Leadership needs to meet human urges for reward.

Last year the Australian Federal Public Service campaigned against bullying. Its assessment was that psychological damage potentially inflicted on individual employees (as well as the economic) was estimated to cost between $6 billion to $36 billion each year.

Little is reported these days of the incidence of bullying in the New Zealand State Services. The State Services Commission had a focus on related issues in 2004 and in 2007 specifically proscribed bullying in explanatory material about the code of conduct.  In the SSC integrity and conduct surveys in 2007 and again in 2010, bullying and harassment were the most frequently observed misconduct (seen by 38% of State servants in 2010).  But it seems unlikely that it will have deteriorated to the 75% reported by the Guardian as feeling threatened at work.

www.together.org.nz/helpfulresources/bullyingsexualharassmentanddiscrimination

www.psa.org.nz/Libraries/Work_Issues/workplace_bullying_journal_december_2007.sflb.ashx

www.governmentnews.com.au/2013/02/15/article/Workplace-bullying-scourge-under-Fair-Work-Act-spotlight/XUYKDADKFQ

www.ssc.govt.nz/node/2287

www.ssc.govt.nz/comment-2010-integrityandconduct-survey

Uncategorized

, ,

April 23, 2013

Leave a comment

Integrity principles apply equally to public and private sectors

22 April 2013

Last Friday the New Zealand chapter of Transparency International presented a progress report on Integrity Plus, a supercharged version of the National Integrity Survey conducted by TI in almost every jurisdiction. TINZ has been conducting this update to its initial 2003 NIS over the last six months.  Integrity Plus will be published in early May.

In her summary the Executive Chair commented that the willingness of government agencies to support work to upgrade the NIS has not been replicated by the commercial sector.  Top rating for having the least corrupt public sector has been acknowledged as “…New Zealand’s most important advantage in the international marketplace…” But that has not generated buy-in from those who derive direct benefit when trading offshore because New Zealand has infrastructure that operates in a prompt, efficient, effective and transparent way.

Yet issues facing the private sector are not substantially different from the integrity challenges of government.  This is borne out in the Chartered Financial Analysts Survey of Market Sentiment.  The survey which assesses perspectives on the state of economies in various economic regions and whether there is likely to be an expansion in the global economy this year, also looks at market integrity issues.  As part of the CFA mission of promoting ethical and trustworthy investment markets, the concerns identified and remedial behaviour advocated are those that are well known to the public sector.

The survey shows that 98% of respondents acknowledge that there isa lack of trust in the financial industry, with 56% indicating that this reflects the lack of ethical culture within financial firms. The change in culture needed to improve investor trust requires the encouragement and example of top management according to 40%, and 26% see the necessity for increased adherence to ethical codes and standards.

In what is a reflection of public sector surveys the CPA found that leading financial institutions all have codes of conduct to foster ethical conduct, but it takes active leadership to make this promise a reality .

The following programme for improvement seems to incorporate many aspects of the “6 trust elements” promoted by the State Services Commission as the pathway to strengthening trust in government.

  1. Commit to a gold standard code of ethics and professional conduct.
  2. Require training on ethical decision-making for yourself and your firm.
  3. Place the client’s interests before your own.
  4. Name and shame unethical behaviour.
  5. Recommend products with transparent payoffs, costs, and risks.
  6. Help clients focus on risk as much as they do on performance.
  7. Disclose your educational achievements and how you improve professional competence.
  8. Strive for a conflict-free business model.
  9. Advocate for stronger regulations that protect investors.
  10. Act with integrity 24/7 – not just at the office.

 

The 6 trust elements

1. Agencies have standards of integrity and conduct.

2. Agencies promote the standards of integrity and conduct.

3. The standards of integrity and conduct are integrated into the behaviour of State servants.

4. Managers model the standards of integrity and conduct in their behaviour.

5. Consequences for behaviour that breaches the standards of integrity and conduct are known by State servants.

6. Agencies act decisively when breaches occur.

http://transparencynz.org.nz/index.php/home/102-2013-transparency-times/150-april-2013-transparency-times

www.cfainstitute.org/about/research/surveys/Pages/global_market_sentiment_survey_2013.aspx

www.cfainstitute.org/Survey/global_market_sentiment_survey_2013_full.pdf

Uncategorized

, , ,

April 22, 2013

Leave a comment

The shepherd’s pie question. Does who you are affect what you can do?

19 April 2013

Is it “…a crass attempt at sucking up to MPs…”  if public servants write for the media about their experiences working with a particular Minister?  Does the subject matter make such articles inherently political and therefore beyond the scope of anyone who is subject to political neutrality obligations?  Does it depend on the extent to which the writer seems disinterested?  Is it an appropriate practice for the most senior officials?

In Britain this week both the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary have been in hot water for their parts in writing and endorsing a media article highlighting the good working relationships which Margaret Thatcher had with civil servants supporting her  – and by implication better relationships than other Prime Ministers have had with staff.  The article referred to her as “…the best kind of boss…” and with infuriating specificity, that she served home-made shepherd’s pie when they worked late.

Not only was the Prime Minister’s Office irritated by the comments.  At a meeting of the Public Administration Select Committee an Opposition MP demanded an apology from Sir Bob Kerslake and Sir Jeremy Heywood for being despicably sycophantic, “prostituting their high office” and  breaching their neutrality obligation.

So is it behaving disgracefully, as the MP alleged, if senior public servants write articles of this type  for the media? The two most senior civil servants don’t think so.  They deny the content is any more than a reflection of the views held by officials working with Baroness Thatcher.  The MP sees it as hagiography.

Would it be acceptable for a senior official to publish a deprecating article describing a Minister as inconsiderate and self centred?

Is either a matter of political expression or association?  That is what principles of political neutrality are about.

Or is it rather a case of behaviour with potential to harm the reputation of the civil service. But speaking appreciatively of the kindness of person with whom an official has worked cannot create a perception of harm.  And even conversely, a without malice comment about less desirable characteristics of such a person is unlikely to be any more harmful to an agency’s reputation. Officials are required to be truthful.

Perhaps the offending nature of the comment lies in disclosing information gained directly from government employment and known only because of that employment, ie  it is official information that a public servant would need authorisation from their chief executive to disclose?

In a Public Service department information held by the department can be considered to be the chief executive’s information, so no authorisation issue would have arisen regarding the Thatcher article.

May be it is a matter of modeling.  If it is acceptable for senior public servants to comment in the media about the characteristics of Ministers, others may infer that they may do likewise?  And that has potential to make it difficult for a department to work with current Ministers or with a future government of a different composition.

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/18/pro-thatcher-artcile-civil-servants-row

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10004198/Sketch-Baroness-Thatcher-kind-How-dare-they.html

Uncategorized

, , ,

April 20, 2013

Leave a comment

Will policy stewardship deliver better public services?

18 April 2013

In an interesting coincidence the Treasury Secretary in New Zealand and the Programme Director of the UK Institute of Government have drawn attention this week to the need for a better approach to policy development.

The inference is that officials are not providing their governments with the quality of policy development that they deserve – that in terms of the Standards of Integrity and Conduct for the State Services appropriate attention is not being given to considering how to carry out agency functions in better and more successful ways.

A proposal in the UK civil service reform plan is that openness in policy development should be the default position.  Ideas for achieving this include crowdsourcing, policy labs, and arrangements  “to make more data freely available so experts can test and challenge our approaches…”  The plan also expects Departmental heads to be accountable for the quality of their agencies advice and to challenge policies which are not based in evidence and practice.

The New Zealand Government has raised an expectation of “policy stewardship”. State sector agencies are to “…articulate what their regimes are trying to achieve, what costs they may impose and what the risks are…” The Treasury Secretary has suggested that our policy evaluations are not as good as they could be or that we’re not sharing our analysis with as broad a constituency as we might…” This sounds rather like the new UK focus on policy openness.  It is the contemporary path to meeting the requirements of agencies to perform efficiently, effectively, economically and with a spirit of service to the public.

www.ssc.govt.nz/node/1913

www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2013/apr/10/civil-service-reform-whitehall-expert-advice

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/public-service-falling-short-evaluating-policy-treasurys-makhlouf-says-bd-138685

Uncategorized

, , ,

April 18, 2013

Leave a comment

Banking on trustworthiness

15 April 2013

Integrity is expected of bankers.  The experience of the financial crisis is that many have not met expectations.  Britain’s banking regulator has imposed a fit and proper person requirement for some banking functions. There is a suggestion that the regulator may not be modeling the standards it sets for the sector.

It appears that most who sit the test, can meet the standard – they have the competence, financial soundness and integrity required.  Last year 24,319 candidates qualified – four failed.  Which suggests it may not be too much of a challenge.  The regulator will not specify what the standards are but indicated that candidates thought unlikely to pass are encouraged to withdraw.

Critics are not impressed.  An Opposition MP on the Treasury Select Committee is concerned about the United Kingdom’s “…cultural problem that has brought banking to its knees and cost the taxpayers a fortune and these people continue as if it’s business as usual. It’s about time that regulators got real about the problems in banking and I see no signs of that happening…”

The Edelman international survey this year placed bankers near the bottom of its trust barometer of occupations at 49%, only financial services scored less.  The picture is worse in Britain where the Which survey finding is that 71% of respondents believe that there has been no improvement in the general banking culture.  New Zealanders however appear to have substantially more confidence in bankers.  The UMR Mood of the Nation ranking of occupations indicates that 51% have a great deal of trust in Banks, more than the Courts at 47%, and Public Service at 38%.  New Zealanders have the least trust in the Church and Organised religion and by a substantial margin, the highest numbers saying they have only ‘some or very little confidence’ in the Church.

Confidence levels presumably are much worse among Cypriots where despite the Eurozone Deposit Guarantee Scheme protecting deposits up to €100,000, banks in Cyprus will deduct a levy from all deposits. And sums over that may face deductions of up to 40%.

Integrity involves doing what you say you will do, and telling those who depend on your word, when you are not able to do what you say.  That’s why people with integrity can be trusted. The problem with banks was that they said they were competent, reliable, honest  and ethical. But they didn’t tell their customers when they acted differently.

http://umr.co.nz/sites/umr/files/umr_mood_of_the_nation_2013_online_0.pdf  page 28

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185713/Public-trust-bankers-falls-time-low-70-think-greed-culture-improved.html

http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/trust-2013/trust-across-sectors/trust-in-financial-services/

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2012/08/20/what-can-the-public-sector-learn-from-bankers/

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

Uncategorized

, , ,

April 16, 2013

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «