Stupid police 'sending a message'

This is gob-smacking.

The Press and Canterbury Police conduct an experiment that shows you can drink heaps and not be over the limit . Then they tell the world about it. On the front page.

Ten people each had between six and nine drinks over the course of 90 minutes. None felt they could drive safely – but only two blew over the 400mcg breath-alcohol limit.

Jacob Atkins, a 42-year-old Christchurch builder, who drank seven vodkas, said he was surprised at how much he could drink and still be under the limit.

"I wasn't even over 300 and can drive and be tiddly," he said.

Carla Amos, 37, editor of The Mail community newspaper, who drank eight wines, said she thought she would have been over the limit early in the test, but was not.

"It's scary that it says you can still drive," she said.

One man found he "couldn't drink fast enough" to get over the limit.

The point of this experiment is to build the case for lowering the blood/breath alcohol level from 0.8mg/ml to 0.5mg/ml. Look, they say. People are already drunk and driving legally.

Now I don't know much about absorption and metabolism but I am certain tested later all of these people would have been over the limit. 8 glasses of wine?

So what have they proved? That people can guzzle a huge amount and as long as they drive within 90 minutes they'll get away with it? In which case they may as well have told people to do just that. Don't worry about the happy hour after work. Fill up and then get home as quick as you can.

Of course if we lower the level to 0.5mg then the same applies, but only drink 5 glasses of wine.

I am extremely sceptical about these results and astounded the Police would think that publishing them was a good idea.

Those inconsistent Greens

Sue Bradford must be seriously 'conflicted' over Jeanette Fitzsimons position regarding topping up low income people for extra power/petrol costs created by Labour's carbon trading scheme. Fitzsimons is opposed because the incentive to save power would then be removed.

Compare this to Sue Bradford's demands that the In Work payment also be paid to beneficiaries with children. Notice that then there would be no incentive for those beneficiaries to get a job.

[Fitzsimons] believes that subsidising low income earners to help them pay for higher power bills which will be a consequence of the scheme, destroys the whole purpose of placing a price on carbon.

Can you imagine Bradford saying, "I believe that subsidising beneficiaries to help them pay for child costs destroys the whole purpose of paying working parents more."

When hell freezes over......

Single Parenthood: Problem or Not?

Media Release
Single Parenthood: Problem or Not?

Friday, September 21, 2007

New research released from the long-term Christchurch Health and Development study has found, "significant associations" for 21-25 year-olds, "between exposure to single parenthood and anxiety disorder, achievement of educational qualifications, welfare dependence and personal income, arrest or conviction and self-reported violent and property offenses."

However the authors conclude that single parenthood itself is not the problem. The problems arise from "social and contextual factors" associated with exposure to single parenthood.

In response to the findings welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said, "These factors would include low parental education, low family income, and family violence. "

"Unfortunately you can only separate out factors on paper. In reality single parents, low income and various forms of dysfunctionality often go hand-in-hand. I agree with Dr Fergusson that exposure to single parenthood does not guarantee later problems for children. But there is increased likelihood of them, as this research has confirmed."

"In which case it is still a bad policy that encourages people to become single parents. The DPB has been instrumental in significantly increasing the number of single parent families and urgently requires an overhaul."

Another sick joke from nanny

This sort of nonsense has just gone too far. Gyms that have creches caring for children for an hour or an hour and a half tops need to have a trained early education teacher.

Under Government regulations, all creches that provide education or care to three or more children under six years of age require a licence. They are required to employ a registered early-childcare teacher, develop education plans and programmes and provide suitable sleeping quarters for babies.

This is exactly why we need a Regulatory Responsibility ACT.

More on 'charity'

I wonder how many calls at a dollar a pop are logged in to Dancing With The Stars? Probably more than a million? From the last series $275,000 went to charity. Doesn't seem enough to me.

And despite the contest appearing very tight throughout Suzanne Paul had it hands down. Of course if the public knew this they wouldn't keep voting. Her charity won more than half of the total raised.

Interestingly the last series did not raise as much as the two previous. And I think I know why. I wasn't voting.

No tax paid

Half a million customers and they don't pay tax.

Hands up. I know next to nothing about tax law but it seems to me that Ngai Tahu Tourism is a business or a conglomeration of businesses. The profits are returned no doubt to the tribe but how is that any different from a group of shareholders?

According to Te Puni Kokiri, Charitable trusts are normally formed to undertake charitable activities and are less suitable for commercial activities.

Ngai Tahu Tourism doesn't pay tax because it is a charitable trust. Please enlighten me if I am missing something significant here. Is this some sort of affirmative action programme?

Labour 's state-clad 'fabrications'

Not long ago the PM was out and about making good use of photo opportunities in the Hutt. Surprisingly I do not keep a scrapbook of the PMs press clippings. But the Mayor saw fit to mention her visit at his website;

Patrick Street

I recently joined the Prime Minister in Patrick Street, Petone, to commemorate the centenary of the first state houses built not just in New Zealand, but the world. Patrick Street and the houses on it are an important part of New Zealand’s social history.

Imagine my surprise when I saw Helen on telly last night again visiting the first state house in New Zealand. Twice in less than a year? Well, no. Not exactly. It's another 'first' state house. Just the same Prime Minister.



Today’s 70th anniversary of state housing in New Zealand highlights how an inspired policy from the First Labour Government in 1937 is still helping many New Zealand families, Prime Minster Helen Clark said today.

The Prime Minister, Housing Minister Chris Carter, and Cabinet Minister and MP for Rongotai Annette King today marked the milestone anniversary with a visit to New Zealand’s first state house at 12 Fife Lane, Miramar, Wellington. They were joined by relatives of the first tenants at the house, and the family currently living there.

Helen Clark said the anniversary marks an important turning point in New Zealand society when the First Labour Government, under Prime Minister Michael Savage, first began providing homes to New Zealanders.

Labour didn't build the first state houses. At least they didn't build the "very first state housing" which is how the PM described the Patrick Street houses in October. See the subtle difference?

"Don't mess with latecomers"

I have little of import to impart this morning. But if you feel like a good belly-laugh have a read of this from the merciless Cactus.

TheyWorkForYou.Co

For those who want to keep an eye on government is up to I recommend this site - it's more straightforward and better presented than the parliamentary website which is also a mine of information.

Some correspondence from the Dominion Post

Dear Editor

Jenny Chisholm, Letters September 17, questions the fact that 1 percent of children have a finding of abuse or neglect against them. She wonders how many more were not reported or investigated. Of all the cases reported last year just over half required further action. Of those investigated, only 37 percent resulted in an established finding of neglect or abuse. There is already a great deal of unnecessary reporting occurring.

Of course 1 percent is not good. Zero percent would be. But 1 percent does not justify mandatory screening of every New Zealand child as is the Children's Commissioner's wish.

Lindsay Mitchell

"Quitting" gives licence to criticise

Sunday media bombards us with opinion. Too much, which is an ironic thought from somebody who expends much time trying to get her opinion listened to.

I don't read much of what's on offer. But I always have a look at Deborah Coddington's because I think she is a fallible human being which, to me, makes her more interesting and unpredictable. This made me stop and consider;

I have seen enough of the usual suspects rounded up to comment every time some crisis hits the leafy suburbs, and I am sure viewers were tired of hearing my opinions. That's why I quit television and radio commentary.

There's rent-a-quote for every issue - Christine Rankin, Bob McCroskie, Garth McVicar, Mai Chen, Gary Gottlieb, David Farrar, Russell Brown, et cetera, ad nauseam. It's predictable, therefore unchallenging.

Is this a crisis of confidence? DC doesn't want to do TV and radio but still wants to write opinion. I am sympathetic. Any rational person is mindful of how holding a strong conviction can look like obsession. Actually to keep going requires a certain obsessiveness. You can be very bruised by the inference and therefore dismissal that you are a quack, a nutter, or extremist.

Take Garth McVicar and the hatchet job Steve Braunias did on him a couple of weeks back. What Grath did was decide to take his message to the public - not enough heed is paid to victims of crime. What could be wrong with that? Yet he is more often derided than supported.

Bob McCoskrie, who I certainly don't always agree with, has nevertheless been doing a great job turning his convictions into action.

Does DC really think people were bored with her views or has she just lost the zeal to put them in person? People deserve a break and she is entitled to 'retire' from public view but in the process it is somewhat churlish to criticise those who have not - or at least the process that airs their opinions.

A good advocate should experience a tension between self-consciousness and courage of conviction. That keeps them grounded and human. It also made DC a good listen and a good listener. Personally, as mercurial as I sometimes think she can be, I think her radio and TV withdrawal is a loss.

Australia - Adopt out children of drug addicts

An Australian parliamentary report has recommended adopting out children of drug addicts. The chair of the committee said, the children would benefit from being given "a real chance at life", instead of living with parents who only wanted them to claim welfare payments.

The report has created quite a stir. It also says that drug treatment programmes should be aiming to cure addictions and not funded if they aren't. Here and in Australia it would seem programmes tend to simply maintain people and reduce crime. Can a case be made for them even if they only do the second? I would have thought so but it doesn't follow the same people should be supported/encouraged to have families.

ACT polls 6% in Wellington

A new poll commissioned by the DomPost has regional breakdown of polling. While ACT's overall poll was still 1 percent the regional breakdown showed most of it was concentrated in Wellington with 1 percent in Auckland and 0 in Christchurch.

I find this result incredibly encouraging. This is the thinking vote. And if it is at the expense of any other party it is Labour. Those who understand politics understand where ACT fits into the spectrum as a liberal party. Well done to Heather and Rodney who are keeping it alive where they spend most of their time. If we can poll 6 percent in Wellington we can poll 6 percent in the other areas. No other minor party had a similar result (except perhaps the Greens getting 12 percent in Christchurch.)

Regulation of risk

Yesterday I delivered my submission on the Regulatory Responsibility Bill. I focussed on the regulation of risk. The written submission is a little lengthy but the notes I used for the oral submission (I only had ten minutes) are below.

But first, funnily enough this morning I spotted this little piece in the DomPost which confirms something I mentioned in my written submission; the endless tinkering with the DPB legislation (part of the Social Security Act) because it wasn't properly scrutinised at the outset. The original Social Security Act (1938) gave certain groups a statutory entitlement to other people's money and the ensuing wrangling over it has been interminable.



Oral Submission notes for select committee - the regulation of risk

Accidents happen. The expression seems to have dropped out of common usage.But it’s time we started using it again and MPs and Ministers could take the lead.

When it comes to regulation of risk there should be a ‘do nothing’ option.

I don’t believe there can be any doubt that we are now over-regulated but it isn’t just this country.

I have taken the liberty of getting copies for each of you of a report written by members of the British Better Regulation Commission – Risk, Responsibility and Regulation. This book is full of examples of over-reactions to risk. For example dangerous dog legislation and mandatory school lunch box inspections. Some, as you would expect, mirror this country. I understand how stretched your time is but if you can read just one page have a look at page 34 entitled “Naked streets – handing back responsibility.”

In a nutshell the naked streets policy, originated in the Netherlands but adopted in some parts of Britain, involves removing road-markings, street signs, traffic signals etc. Counter-intuitively this has reduced speeds and accidents. Why? Simply because people become more careful and cautious when they aren’t being told what to do.

The ‘naked streets’ policy is a great analogy for remedying over –regulation in all sorts of areas.

But as MPs and Ministers, you may find resisting calls for government – spurred on by the media - to ‘do something’, near impossible. As the BRC points out, you are criticised for both intervening and for failing to act. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

What you need are mechanisms to demonstrate that more regulation might not be the answer. Britain has established the BRC to act as a watchdog and advisor to the public and government. We could do even better than that by adopting the Regulatory Responsibility Bill.

And you are going to need it. Leaving aside business regulation there will continue to be calls to regulate all social aspects of our lives – what we eat and drink, how we raise our children, and what we do with our money. You are going to face calls to ban;

Pokie machines, access to birth and death certificates, cigarette smoking, gang patches, direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising, pies and sausage rolls in schools, the docking of dog’s tails, food advertising during children’s programmes, dangerous dogs, fireworks, artificial sweeteners etc, etc. A number of vocal lobbyists have an overwhelming faith that government should be involved in all of these areas.

But I don’t believe most MPs agree. You need some form of protection from those who want to misuse state power. For your own sake and that of future MPs I urge you to recommend this bill be passed.

Red/Green socialists stand in the Hutt

Out and about yesterday I noticed some new election signs with VAN on them. The only other things I took in were the featured candidate was quite young and he was promising free and frequent public transport and lower rates. That's right.

Of course my interest was slightly, just slightly tweaked.

Here is the rest of what VAN, Valley Action Network want;

"A Human City where people come before big business interests;

Action on climate change and zero tolerance for polluters;

Free Council services; Community Boards for all, with extra powers;

Free and frequent public transport;

Rates reductions for residents before greedy corporations."

This is mixed news. These people could be very handy. They will split the left vote. But they could also increase it.

It's a shame their obvious enthusiasm and energy - great name and website - are wasted on defunct ideas. People need business and business needs people. Period.

(I can agree with their policy of stopping rates remission to attract economic development which I have always opposed.)

There is still a glimmer of light

Thanks to Mike E for posting this. I have pinched it and savoured it. This is exactly what needs to be said in Parliament. Nothing could highlight better for me why I support ACT and why National does not get within a cat's whisker. Fantastic speech with an ironic interjection from Hone 'let's ban tobacco' Harawira and downright foolish interjections from Clayton Cosgrove.

MISUSE OF DRUGS (CLASSIFICATION OF BZP) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): It is very interesting to follow first of all Nandor Tanczos from the Green Party and then Judy Turner from the United Future party. It is interesting to compare the approaches, because within the two approaches I think we see the two extremes on this bill. I have to say that the *ACT party stands firmly beside the Green Party’s position. Let me just explain what Judy Turner’s position is. She and her party declared themselves here today to be prohibitionists, because she said that if we knew then what we know now, we would have banned alcohol and tobacco. What I like about Judy Turner and United Future’s position is that they are at least consistent. She says we should do is ban all new things that could hurt us, and once it is assumed by the *State that they are OK and Judy Turner says that they are OK, then people would be allowed to use them. So in Judy Turner’s conception, there would be no alcohol, there would be no tobacco, there would probably be no sugar, there would probably be no ice cream—
Hone Harawira: No rugby.
RODNEY HIDE: —certainly no rugby, and probably not a lot of fun, because we would have the “fun police” banning anything that might have some element of risk.
R Doug Woolerton: What a load of rubbish this is!
RODNEY HIDE: I could not agree with Doug Woolerton more that this bill is a load of rubbish.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Tell that to the mums and dads.
RODNEY HIDE: Well, Mr Clayton Cosgrove says I should tell that to the mums and dads. It is a very instructive thing that Mr Cosgrove came down to this House, as he was going to solve the problem of boy racers with legislation. So we got ourselves all into a fury, and I think it was the ACT party and the Green Party that voted against that, too.
We warned the Minister then that passing…
We warned the Minister then that passing legislation would not deal with the problem. Let me tell Mr Cosgrove, Mr Woolerton, and the mums and dads who are listening that we will not solve the drug problem in this Parliament. We will not solve the problem through prohibition. We will not solve the problem by passing laws. Mr Woolerton well knows, I think, that more harm is done by alcohol and tobacco than by party pills. More harm is done, and they are sitting there, banning something because of a perceived problem and because Judy Turner says that the horse has already bolted on alcohol and tobacco. But here is the real problem. Judy Turner went on to say that the Green Party goes on about people getting arrested and she asked whether that was the reason we should not have laws against violence. Actually, we have laws against violence because that is an infringement of other people’s rights. But for people who are taking benzylpiperazine or who are having a cigarette or drinking some alcohol, the damage they are doing is, in the main, to themselves and not to another human being, and there is a fundamental difference between the two.
Hon Member: Have a look at road deaths.
RODNEY HIDE: Well, road deaths are the same. That is why we have road rules, and that is why the ACT party supports road rules. Here is the next point. This Government—and, indeed, the previous National Government was worse—could not keep drugs out of our jails. We have people locked up, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, under heavy surveillance, and we cannot keep the drugs out. Yet we are sitting here in Parliament passing a law as though we can somehow keep drugs out of our streets, out of our pubs, and out of our communal places.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Live and let live.
RODNEY HIDE: I think that to live and let live is not a bad place to start, I say to Mr Cosgrove. It is better than having a policy of saying that we do not like it, so let us ban it and lock up anyone who disagrees with us. In fact, let us go further, I say to Mr Cosgrove, and say that if anyone even has a political disagreement with us, we should ban that person as well. We could say we will ban the party pills and we will ban political debate because they do not suit us. We could say that any people who disagree, who say that people might have some rights and responsibilities, and who say that they would rather live in a society where people had some choices apart from what the Government chooses, including the choice to make mistakes, should be banned. I am looking at Mr Woolerton. He has made a few.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why have laws, then—why have any laws?
RODNEY HIDE: Is it not a surprising thing that I hear a Minister of the Crown calling across the House: “Why have rules?”.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Because many rules don’t stop people doing wrong, do they?
RODNEY HIDE: Let me explain to Mr Cosgrove why we have rules and why we do not legislate for everything. We have rules in order to protect people’s rights and to uphold the rights of citizens in a free State. That is why we have rules, that is why we have a State, that is why we have a court system, and that is why we have police. We do not have rules to stop people in expressing their political views, to stop people taking risks, or to stop people making terribly stupid mistakes, because that is part of being an adult and a responsible human being. We cannot sit here in this House and legislate away all harm, as this Government thinks it can. We cannot actually legislate for good behaviour, but we can legislate in a way that protects people’s basic rights. I have to say that when we go beyond that, then I think that this Parliament overreaches itself. It suggests, somehow, that the Government and this Parliament are the solution to problems that we cannot solve.
Are we to live in a society that says that this Parliament will decide all the risk
Are we going to live in a society that says that this Parliament will decide all risk, that this Parliament will decide what is right and wrong, and that if Parliament has not banned it, it is OK to use—which is exactly what Judy Turner’s position was. I abhor drugs, actually. I do not understand why anyone would want to take any, as I think that the most wonderful thing in the universe is the human mind because of what it can grasp, comprehend, and conceive. I do not know why anyone would want to be taking drugs and playing with it. But my mind also says to me that we are barking up the wrong tree in thinking somehow that we can pass a law and ban party pills, and that prohibition will somehow work. I find it astonishing that in the year 2007 we have, with Judy Turner, a serious political party that is saying: “Oh well, you know, if we had our time again we would ban alcohol and cigarettes, and we would ban a whole number of things; it is just that at the time we didn’t think of it.” I have to say that that is not the sort of society I think that New Zealanders want to live in. I think that New Zealanders want to live in a society where they do have some freedom, that coming along with that freedom is some responsibility, and that it is not Parliament or Government that decides how they should live, what they should take, and what risks are acceptable to them. I look around this House and, from what I know of members, I know that we all went through a stage of being young once, of experimenting with things, and of taking risks. It is actually called growing up. But do we in this House somehow think that we can pass a law that will stop young people from experimenting and trying different things? What I truly despise about this law is that it wraps up all drugs as being the same, and I think that that is the terrible message this law is sending our young people. But the message I have for the mums and dads of New Zealand, I tell Mr Cosgrove, is that all drugs are not the same, and I fear for young people. I am afraid that I know people who have had the experience where they have tried drugs this Parliament has banned, and have said: “Well, that wasn’t so bad. That didn’t kill me. What Parliament and the Government said about that drug isn’t true.”, and they have gone on to try other drugs. So I believe that we are doing a harm with this legislation—we are not doing good.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Doctors disagree with you.
RODNEY HIDE: Well, it is all right, I tell Mr Cosgrove. This is Parliament and he is allowed to disagree. It is also the case that we are also allowed to explain our view—to explain why the ACT party is opposing this bill and voting against it. Thank you.

BZP - banning more dangerous than using

National MP Jacqui Dean really does take the biscuit. She is fully aware of what banning BZP will do.

"We don't want to see this industry going underground, where backyard manufacturers operate without restrictions, and where the ingredients in pills are totally unregulated. New, untested, alternatives are reportedly already on the horizon. Potentially, that puts the public at even greater risk."

The existing and ongoing failure of drug law enforcement guarantees that the above is a sure fire development.

Thanks National.

The causes of "poverty" in the developed world

The following is an interview about "poverty" in the US. The same questions and answers would broadly apply to New Zealand or any other welfare state.

Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation is a national authority on poverty and the U.S. welfare system. Specializing in welfare reform and family breakdown, Rector has done extensive research on the economic and social costs of welfare.

With presidential candidates of a certain hue decrying the suffering of the 37 million Americans who have been officially classified as poor by the U.S. Census Bureau, we thought we'd ask Rector if these poor people are really as poverty-stricken as we have been led to believe. I talked to the author of “America's Failed $5.4 Trillion War on Poverty” Thursday, Sept. 6, by telephone from his office in Washington:

Q: John Edwards and others lament that 37 million Americans struggle with incredible poverty every day. You say it is not so simple or accurate to think of them as truly poor. What do you mean?

A: Well, when John Edwards says that one in eight Americans do not have enough money for food, shelter or clothing, that’s generally what the average citizen is thinking about when they hear the word “poverty.” But if that’s what we mean by poverty, then virtually none of these 37 million people that are ostensibly poor are actually poor. In reality, the government runs multiple surveys that allow us to examine the physical living conditions of these individuals in great detail.

When you look at the people who John Edwards insists are poor, what you find is that the overwhelming majority of them have cable television, have air conditioning, have microwaves, have two color TVs; 45 percent of them own their own homes, which are typically three-bedroom homes with 1{1/2} baths in very good recondition. On average, poor people who live in either apartments or in houses are not crowded and actually have more living space than the average person living in European countries, such as France, Italy or England.

Also, a lot of people believe that poor people are malnourished. But in fact when you look at the average nutriment intake of poor children, it is virtually indistinguishable from upper-middle-class children. In fact, poor kids by the time they reach age 18 or 19 are taller and heavier than the average middle-class teenagers in the 1950s at the time of Elvis. And the boys, when they reach 18, are a full one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs storming the beaches of Normandy. It’s pretty hard to accomplish that if you are facing chronic food shortages throughout your life.

More

Getting tougher?

In 1972 there were 15,500 on sickness and invalid benefits (pop 2.9 million). Today there are around 125,000. If there is one thing that is needed to curtail the constant growth in sickness and invalid benefits it is tightening eligibility.

Just announced, as of September 24th people will be able to qualify for either of these benefits with a certificate from their GP. Go figure.

More perspective needed

I am just listening to a discussion on talkback about young drivers and lifting the legal age for driving. Here again there is a lot of hysteria about young drivers and fatalities but the statistics are getting better. The performance of 15-19 year-old drivers has improved significantly. Twenty years ago they accounted for 16.9 percent of accidents involving fatalities. Last year they made up 11.7 percent. An even bigger drop applies to 20-24 year-olds from 22.2 to 11.9% percent. Perhaps some attention should be paid to older age groups.

Here's the overall road crash picture;