"The annual suicide rate in New Zealand is nearly 50 per cent higher than that of the road toll, figures show. The media is prohibited from reporting the circumstances of suicide unless the coroner allows it."Strict secrecy has not resulted in fewer suicides. In world terms, New Zealand is among the top ten highest suicide rates for youth. Also stopped by secrecy laws is more public debate over why New Zealand is one of the world's few societies to suffer proportionally more youth suicide than adult. For the last 25 years in New Zealand, that society has been dominated by a hard right-wing economic ideology.
Friday, 29 October 2010
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
"The danger for Ms Collins – and for the integrity of justice system – is that the lesson the public will take from the Wilson episode is that, when there is a problem involving the judiciary, shortcuts are taken, it is tidied away, and judges whose behaviour is questioned walk off with what Auckland University law expert Bill Hodge has described as "a very sweet package".
. . .
Monday, 25 October 2010
"Not only are the individual country scores provided by some of these systems less accurate than many users seem to assume, they reflect biases of which users are often unaware," reads the release.
In a press releasetitled the "transparency paradox", the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development highlights a "policy brief" released ahead of tomorrow's CPI figures. The OECD policy brief is by far the most heavyweight critique of the CPI in its 15 year history. Some suggest the survey reflects well known but relatively minor third world corruption at the expense of ignoring massive first world scandal.
Full release follows.
THE TRANSPARENCY PARADOX: GOVERNANCE RATINGS
25 October 2010, Paris – Tomorrow, Transparency International will release its 15th annual Corruption Perceptions Index. While not disputing the importance of these and other such international governance indicators, the authors of the OECD Development Centre's new Policy Brief "Measuring Governance" warn of a transparency paradox. They urge potential users to be more inquisitive about the real contents and precision of all international governance rating systems, and more careful how they use them.
Not only are the individual country scores provided by some of these systems less accurate than many users seem to assume, they reflect biases of which users are often unaware. The result can be misguided discrimination against developing and emerging economies not only by the many private international investors who use them, but by official aid donors as well.
'All international governance ratings systems are normative and imply a judgment. They are often not determined by an objective theory of what constitutes good governance, or of how to distinguish good from bad governance,' said Charles Oman, Head of Strategy at the OECD Development Centre. 'Governance indicators need to be transparent as official aid agencies often use them as a basis for their aid-allocation decisions.'
To access the new policy brief on "Measuring Governance" by The OECD Development Centre, please click here.
To speak to Charles Oman, please call: +33 (0)1 45 24 82 96.
. . .