Substance abuse - a growing reason for welfare dependence

Media Release

SUBSTANCE ABUSE - A GROWING REASON FOR WELFARE DEPENDENCE
Tuesday, April 7, 2009

The number of people on a sickness or invalid benefit, with a primary incapacity of substance abuse , has increased by 82 percent since 2002.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said that in June 2002 3,202 people relied on one of these benefits because of substance abuse. "Information just released to me from the Ministry of Social Development shows that number has risen to 5,838."

"During last year's election campaign people who work in this area told me that the problem was getting worse. These figures confirm that perception. Most of the increase has happened in the last two years."

"Sadly Maori are over-represented in the statistics once again. Of the 4,190 sickness beneficiaries with substance abuse as their primary incapacity, Maori account for 34 percent. "

"Geographically Canterbury has around ten percent of the country's total beneficiaries. But when it comes to reliance on an invalid's benefit for substance abuse it has 21 percent of the country's total."

The Ministry of Social Development says it works with these beneficiaries "...until all of the barriers to independence and employment are removed" but they cannot make clients undertake medical interventions.

Violence down?

According to Simon Collins at the New Zealand Herald;

New Zealand's murder rate appears to have almost halved in the past 20 years despite an overwhelming public belief that crime has got worse....The murder rate is regarded as one of the best measures of trends in actual violent crime, because it is least likely to be affected by changing police policies or public attitudes which are believed to have affected recent family violence statistics.

Collins is basing his observation on police statistics. He continues;

The rate leapt to an average of 21 murders per million people annually from 1985 to 1992, but has dropped steadily ever since.

However there are difficulties in using police stats as described in the article.

Based on conviction statistics using Statistics NZ table builder, from 1985 to 1992 the average annual number of convictions for murder was 27.9, with an average population of 3.375 million, provides a rate of 8.27 per 1 million.

Staying with convictions and the same source, the rate from 2000 - 2007 is 5.93.

Lower but hardly half.

As with car crashes, which I have argued more people are surviving, more people are probably surviving the trauma of assault. So rather than just murder, let's look at overall violence, which by the way, academics are convinced is an affect of unemployment.

Again, sticking with conviction statistics for violence, assuming the worst offending results in a custodial sentence, you can see that there are much lower numbers over the period of high unemployment with a steady rise from 2002.



And just for confirmation, let's look at Police statistics. Importantly these show the recorded rates of violent crime climbing from around 68 per 10,000 of population in 1988 to 140.4 in 2008.



So in summary, for whatever reason, the murder rate appears down. It isn't because there is less violence.

Three Strikes - the saga continues

The Three Strikes law leaves me feeling ambivalent. As mentioned before, my doubt hinges on the possibility it may do more harm than good.

However Kim Workman is trying very hard to run it out of town by any means. So what if the calculations ACT made differ from the one he is making? There is nothing hidden. ACT's calculations were based on different inputs.

Mr Workman said Act needed to put things right.

Just a minute...

Mr Hide said the different figures had come about because three strikes had been merged with National's sentencing measures in the Sentencing and Parole Bill.

There you go. As they say, it's the putting right that counts.

I suspect this is just another attempt to shut down the discussion before it can be had; to discredit opponents instead of the idea.

In any event, the implication of Workman's figures is, as the strike qualifications currently stand, they will not save as many lives as would be the case under ACT's original policy. That should be taken into account at the select committee deliberations.

Men are men aren't they?

In a mildly bizarre coincidence men in the West are enraged that women in Afghanistan should be obliged to fulfil their husband's sexual desire while women in the West are enraged by a writer suggesting that western women should fulfil their husband's sexual desire and 'just do it' regardless.

What I find funny is the implication Afghani men are insatiable, rapacious beasts, but Western men are misunderstood, disappointed objects of pity who just "want to connect" with their partners. When it comes to sex (outside of a small number of deviants) men are men aren't they?

(This isn't a prompt to discuss compulsion versus voluntarism or collectivist, moral relativism:-))

In the interests of fairness

In the interests of fairness I can now post the last speeches David Garrett made during the committee stages of debating the Gang Insignia Bill. Although he casts ACT's 5 votes in favour at the second reading, he casts doubt on whether ACT will support the third reading. I have posted them in full;

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I have been invited by Labour to stand and state our position on this bill. I have to say that it is not easy to do, because there has been considerable debate among our party, among our supporters, and among our caucus, on our position on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill—and for very good reason. I am afraid that as much as I like and respect my new colleague Mr Bridges, I cannot agree that it is a good bill. It is not a good bill for a number of reasons. It is not a good bill because it does not clearly define what gang insignia is. It is not a good bill because it does not spell out exactly which areas in the Wanganui District Council district can be designated as gang-free zones.

Before continuing, I would like to take up Ms Turei’s point. I find it rather saddening to have to say, for about the fourth or fifth time I have spoken in this House after Ms Turei, that it would be very helpful if she actually read the bill that she was debating. She just stated that there is nothing in the bill that prevents the entire Wanganui District from being designated a specified place. I thought she had trained as a lawyer—I did so. If the member read clause 5(5), she would see that it specifically states: “A bylaw must not be made under subsection (1)(a) if the effect of the bylaw, either by itself or in conjunction with other bylaws made under subsection (1)(a), would be that all the public places in the district are specified places.” So there is one point that is completely incorrect, and it would be very, very helpful if those who were going to debate this would actually read the bill.

The second point that Ms Turei made that I am afraid I must take issue with, and quite strongly—and I will explain why in a moment—is this absolute nonsense that the bill is aimed at Māori gangs. The bill specifically refers to a number of gangs, including Hell’s Angels, the Mothers, and the Magogs. During the adjournment week I was contacted by text by one Shagger Gilmour—he was stupid enough to write it—of the Magog Motorcycle Club. He made some fairly carefully veiled threats to me over speeches I had made on this bill earlier. Shagger is a senior member of the Magog Motorcycle Club, which, despite his claims to the contrary, is either entirely, or at least mostly, a white gang. He claimed, although he would not name who the member was, that a Māori had been a founder member for 32 years, and he suggested that I in fact knew nothing about it and had never been there. I named a few of the members and he went a bit quiet. Hell’s Angels is also wholly, or almost wholly, a white gang. So the claim that this bill is aimed at Māori gangs is absolute and utter nonsense. Perhaps Ms Turei, during her next call, may wish to refer to Rooter Johnson, Smasher Harris, or whoever is a Māori and a member of those named gangs.

But I get on to the guts of the bill. As I said, I am afraid I cannot agree entirely with my colleague Mr Bridges, or, I am afraid, with my colleague Mr Borrows. There are a number of things wrong with the bill. It will not make a noticeable difference to the criminal activities of gangs. It will not, sadly, make much difference to their presence in Wanganui. I have to say, in all fairness, that I agree with the point made by Ms Mackey and others—and, again, I feel rather bad about having to say this—in relation to the killing of the young fellow with the wrongly coloured hoodie: the bill is likely to cause, and not to solve, that kind of confusion.

The bill is a measure of the desperation of the Wanganui community. They have had enough. As a society we have been frozen in the headlights, like a possum or a deer, for 30 years, over what to do. Norm Kirk—well before Mr Hughes was born, I suspect—said he was going to take the bikes off the bikies. It did not happen, so we have had the problem since at least 1972.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I came to Parliament believing in the parliamentary process, that the executive did not, in fact—as the cynics say—dictate everything, and that the debate in this Chamber was actually meaningful. Since I have been here people both inside the Chamber and outside have laughed at that naivety and told me not to be silly, that I was right in the first place and it was all irrelevant, and that what happened here was all hot air and did not much matter. Well, who would have thought it? I have discovered that the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill has proved that the parliamentary process—and by the parliamentary process I mean this House—is relevant. I have been listening not just to this debate but to the earlier debates, and I have spoken in all of them, and sensible things are coming from almost all sides of the Chamber.

There are lots of arguments both for and against this legislation that have merit. On one hand, the people of Wanganui have clearly indicated their desire for this bill—more than 65 percent of them—and that is worthy of respect. I believe that while I was absent from the Chamber someone told Mr Boscawen, my colleague, that we were the libertarian party. Well, we are not. We have a libertarian wing, but we are the party of choice, so we respect the choice of the people of Wanganui. We promote freedom of speech. Many in our party are almost obsessed, I will say, with freedom of speech, but freedom of speech has limits. People cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. People cannot walk down the street with certain things on their T-shirts or they will be arrested. It has nothing to do with gangs. These groups—gangs, or whatever—are criminal organisations whose purpose is intimidation. Much of the recent debate has completely neglected the part of the bill that requires gangs to be identified as being criminal.

But there are problems of interpretation. I am a lawyer. There are problems in defining “insignia” and problems in defining “display”. All of those things are there. We could spend all night on the pros and cons, and the yin and yang. Members opposite have—with fairness and justification—asked where we stand, because we have created a little confusion. In fact, I will take responsibility and say that I have created some. I said at the outset that we were going to listen to the debate. I am afraid I have to say that what Mr Borrows, whom I respect greatly, thought was the coup de grâce—the story of the young man killed because he wore a red hoodie—in fact deeply disturbs me, and I am afraid that in all conscience I have to say that what the Labour members have said about that issue rings true.

So where does the ACT Party stand on this bill? Well, we stand right here. We are listening. It has been a very vigorous debate—probably not quite as vigorous as here— in our caucus and in our party. I am going to be honest and perhaps again prove my naivety and my newness, and say that much of what I have heard tonight from members opposite makes sense. Much of what I have heard from the National side has always made sense. So I wish to keep listening. I think our caucus wishes to keep listening and to discuss and debate what is being said, because the parliamentary process has proved itself in this debate not to be irrelevant, not to be hot air, and not to be controlled by an executive or someone else. Mr Chair and fellow members, our position is this: we will vote in favour of the bill at this Committee stage, but that does not presuppose that we will support the bill at its third reading. The only way we can continue to listen to the contributions from all sides is to vote in favour at this stage, and that is what we will do.

John Tamihere - the new Apirana Ngata?

John Tamihere is getting closer to the source of the crime problem than others. I disagreed earlier with the assertion that preventing crime starts at school and said it starts earlier - in the family planning clinic or at home. Tamihere is saying, in the maternity ward.

JT seems to make some sense when he gets on his Maori solutions for Maori problems band-wagon, but I can't agree to separatism in the long run and just how long do these arrangements go for? I once rang his show and asked what happens to those Maori who don't want to come to his I'm-in-control-of-your-benefit-party? And he didn't have an answer. It relies on compulsion. The beneficiary agrees to the trust controlling their money or there is no money. Otherwise individuals will simply opt-out to avoid the paternalistic ministerings. It isn't unusual or difficult for Maori to up sticks and go elsewhere. Maori beneficiaries, in my experience, are a very mobile - or transient - group.

Ever since Maori have received welfare, from the early days of the Old Age Pension,and later the Family Benefit, there have been attempts to control how the money was spent. Agents were appointed and later tribal committees formed. I am personally dubious about their merits. Perhaps because the approach ignores the central question of why benefits are needed in the first place.

Sometimes self-respect is more important

So David Garrett refused to cheer for Helen Clark. I can understand how he felt. I recall staying seated when John Banks got a standing ovation at an ACT conference. And staying away from another ACT conference because Tariana Turia was attending and I couldn't face the prospect of applauding her when I abhor her ideas. She, like Clark, can be admired for her steadfastedness, conviction and tenacity but I personally cannot separate the person from their ideas. And it's not as if Clark is retiring to climb mountains and tramp the hills, where she can do no further harm. I hope I would have had the presence of mind to stay seated as well. Hypocrisy is just too hard for some people to stomach.

Causes of crime 1

As there is a conference investigating the drivers of crime taking place in Wellington tomorrow I will do a couple of posts that might assist;



Along the bottom axis are US states. Their respective violent teen crime rates (left axis) and single parent rates (right axis) are then plotted showing a correlation. The rapid growth of single parent families is the result of state subsidy. Driver of crime? Welfare.

(Source of chart - Heritage Foundation/ Travis Snyder:Welfare;History, Results and Reform)

What Labour said last year

Here's what Annette King said last year about the 2007 Crime Statistics;

Crime Statistics Provide Signs Of Encouragement

Police Minister Annette King says the lowest murder statistics for a decade show New Zealand has not become a more dangerous place in which to live.

Commenting on the crime statistics for the 2007 calendar year, Ms King said: “Time and time again, whenever there is a random cluster of murders, the doom merchants and people with political barrows to push claim our streets are no longer safe to walk in.

“The reality is that murder statistics don’t fluctuate much from year to year. Last year there were 45 murders, fewer than for a decade. That’s still too many, as far as I am concerned, but murders are not out of control, as some would suggest. In terms of violent crime, the real tragedy for our society continues to be domestic violence.”

Ms King said she is encouraged, however, that women are now reporting incidents of domestic violence in greater numbers. “It is becoming clearer that women now have sufficient confidence in the police to report incidents of domestic violence.

“I believe that what we are seeing is a truer reflection of the level of violence against women in our society. The increased number of violent offences in the statistics is almost entirely driven --- 5810 out of 6252 extra offences --- by recorded family violence. I also believe and hope that the current ‘it’s not OK’ and similar campaigns will encourage women to continue coming forward,” she said.

“We are now living in is a society in which women in particular feel police will take them seriously if they ask for help and protection. The fact that police laid 5151 more domestic violence prosecutions last year than in 2006 shows police are highly committed to addressing this blight on our society.”

Ms King said she was encouraged by a number of aspects of the annual statistics, including:

• The incidence of recorded crime has remained at roughly the same level as in 2006, and has actually reduced 0.5 percent on the basis of recorded offences per 10,000 population.

• While the actual number of offences increased by about 2000 during the year, police resolved nearly 10,000 more cases than they did in 2006.

• The 37 percent increase (2414 more offences) in recorded breaches of liquor bans. “As we should all know, crime, particularly violence, is often fuelled by alcohol. That’s why police are taking an increasingly tough stance on policing alcohol breaches.”

• A five per cent reduction in burglaries and an eight percent reduction in car conversions. “Overall, in fact, recorded dishonesty offences, which make up more than half of all offences, fell 5.1 percent in 2007, and police say this continues a long-term trend that has seen a decrease in dishonesty offences per head of population by almost a third over the past decade.”

• Ten percent fewer offences under the broad heading of homicide and seven percent fewer robbery offences. “In most headings under the violence category increases have been largely driven by recorded domestic violence incidents, and the recorded increase in an area such as intimidation and threats shows people are no longer as prepared to accept this sort of behaviour.”

Ms King said she particularly wanted to congratulate police generally for resolving 9539 more offences last year than they did in 2006.

“This success can presumably be attributed to a number of factors, but I have no doubt that two of the principal ones are intelligence-led policing, and the extra police resources that have been put in place by the Labour-led Government through its confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First.

“We are already more than halfway toward our target of 1000 extra frontline staff by the end of June next year. I know from comments received from staff around the country that the extra police are making a substantial difference in terms of fighting crime and making our communities safer.”

My point?

Well I just thought you could absorb that while we wait for Labour's release about the Crime Statistics released today. Somehow I don't think the response will be framed in such glowing terms. I will keep you posted.

Offence 2006 2007 2008 variance 07/08

Violence Grievous Assaults 4,116 4,831 5,125 6.1 %
Group Assemblies 457 576 592 2.8 %
Homicide 98 88 109 23.9 %
Intimidation And Threats 12,567 13,977 14,452 3.4 %
Kidnapping And Abduction 263 257 254 -1.2 %
Minor Assaults 12,700 14,021 15,420 10.0 %
Robbery 2,801 2,610 2,493 -4.5 %
Serious Assaults 17,729 20,623 21,490 4.2 %
Violence 50,731 56,983 59,935 5.2 %

Update. Laughable. Labour wants the credit for the increase in violent crime.

“In the last crime statistics family violence accounted for the entire increase in violent crime, and it was quite frankly sickening to hear National leader John Key trivialising the issue for purely political motives. John Key tried to relate the increase in violent crime to street crime and gangs and robberies and youth violence, instead of recognising the value of campaigns launched by Labour to encourage the reporting of family violence,” Clayton Cosgrove said.

Good job, bro

No, you have not come to the wrong blog. I was very proud of my youngest brother yesterday when he won the top award for low-cost housing design (featured left top). He came down from Auckland for the announcement, not yet knowing whether his entry was the winner from 148. In a happy coincidence it was Mum and Dad's 53rd wedding anniversary and we all got together for lunch in Oriental Bay. Stephen came to architecture relatively late. Messed about for a few years (lived) before finding his real interest, became a mature student and hasn't looked back. The Campbell Show featured a virtual model of his design last night. I was forewarned. At lunch he said to me, oh by the way, I used some of your art on the walls. "I didn't want to get sued."

I was impressed. Good job, bro.

nb. I should add that quite obviously we do not share the same politics:-) If I had time I might be able to convince him that the govt that is his friend today is turning on the same philosophy as the one that is the bane of his life every other day in the guise of thick building officers, exorbitant permit fees, delays, and general gross local government incompetency - all of which he could write a book about.