A quote from today's DomPost;
"We would be most disappointed if politicians were to encroach upon private property rights."
Sounds exactly like the sort of thing an ACT member would say. Or an ACT MP.
It is in fact the Chairman of Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu responding to ACT Leader, Rodney Hide, who has described their plans to levy fishermen on Lake Ellesmere as "appalling" and setting a bad precedent.
This I just cannot get my head around. Ngai Tahu own the lakebed just as Tuwharetoa own the lakebed of Taupo and have long received recompense from permits to fish.
It's user-pays in operation. The proposed fee, 8 percent, will go towards protection and restoration of the lake which Ngai Tahu currently pays $170,000 towards.
I am not even going to link to the many instances of ACT MPs, past and present, staunchly defending private property rights. It appears that the way Ngai Tahu has gone about imposing the fee has left a lot to be desired and I can understand the anger of long-time commercial fishers. Also there seems to be an ethical problem in that Ngai Tahu apparently assured users at the time of settlement they would not be 'impacted'. If these are the aspects Rodney is objecting to he has a point.
But again we come back to the heart of the matter. The principle. Are property rights only for some? High country farmers for instance?
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Marae justice
The latest Ministry of Social Development magazine has a feature about marae justice. While I am all for trying new ways to get youth offenders back on track the process that goes on at a Gisborne marae, serving as a youth court, seems to employ an awful lot of resources.
....That coming together of many agencies and individuals is why with only two offenders before the court today, there is still a gathering of twenty or so people as the powhiri begins and the group makes their way on to the marae. Once inside, kaumatua and the Judge stand and korero, both in Maori and in English.
.... Everyone involved cares about the young people. Lay advocates take the time to get to know the young person and their whakapapa and relay that information back to the kaumatua. After the powhiri, korero and a waiata, the court breaks for a cup of tea and there is again opportunity for connection, for talking, for sharing.
20-odd people - whänau, lay advocates, youth advocates, service providers, kaumatua, social workers and members of the court - for 2 offenders. And the outcome? For the first it's not clear. The other...
... offender stands to leave. She’s been dismissed because since her family group conference she has reoffended, and that means she’s being sent back to the Youth Court held in Gisborne’s District Court.
The irony is the family group conference process was was also created in an attempt to embrace Maori Tikanga. Yet FGCs give youth the message there are few if any consequences of their offending. They have been used for nearly 20 years yet youth offending remains intractable.
In another 20 years I fear I will be writing the same about marae justice.
....That coming together of many agencies and individuals is why with only two offenders before the court today, there is still a gathering of twenty or so people as the powhiri begins and the group makes their way on to the marae. Once inside, kaumatua and the Judge stand and korero, both in Maori and in English.
.... Everyone involved cares about the young people. Lay advocates take the time to get to know the young person and their whakapapa and relay that information back to the kaumatua. After the powhiri, korero and a waiata, the court breaks for a cup of tea and there is again opportunity for connection, for talking, for sharing.
20-odd people - whänau, lay advocates, youth advocates, service providers, kaumatua, social workers and members of the court - for 2 offenders. And the outcome? For the first it's not clear. The other...
... offender stands to leave. She’s been dismissed because since her family group conference she has reoffended, and that means she’s being sent back to the Youth Court held in Gisborne’s District Court.
The irony is the family group conference process was was also created in an attempt to embrace Maori Tikanga. Yet FGCs give youth the message there are few if any consequences of their offending. They have been used for nearly 20 years yet youth offending remains intractable.
In another 20 years I fear I will be writing the same about marae justice.
Cover up those tats
This is an entry from Rodney Hide's blog;
Special laws for Wanganui
Posted on 20 Jul 2006
Ex-Nat, ex-NZ1ster, now Mayor of Wanganui Michael Laws' plan to ban gang patches has hit a hitch but new MP Chester Borrows and the National Party are supporting a Bill to make the wearing of gang patches illegal but only in Wanganui.
I am not making this up.
... National's Whanganui MP Chester Borrows, a former detective sergeant, says his party planned to table a bill in Parliament after police headquarters refused to endorse the bylaw [banning gang regalia in parts of the city]. "The police in Wanganui were happy with the bylaw but the office of the commissioner wanted to have parliamentary sanction. . . . Mr Borrows said the bill, supported by National, would apply only to Wanganui, but it was "a commonsense approach to a problem shared by provincial centres across the country"...
Commonsense is a wonderful guide to sound law making!
And Heather Roy on the same subject;
Real Solutions Needed To Address Gang Issue
Posted on 30 Sep 2008
The move to outlaw gangs, their patches and tattoos is nothing more than a ploy to give the appearance of action - a ploy that will yield no results or benefit to New Zealand society in the long-term struggle to deal with the country's gang problem, ACT Deputy Leader and National Security Spokesman Heather Roy said today.
"Such moves are wrongly-focussed, token-ist and entirely predictable - hard-line policies to deal with gangs are reeled out by different Parties in the run up to every election," Mrs Roy said.
"Clearly none of these 'flash in a pan' policies have worked - because they focus more on addressing the mayhem that individual gang members cause, rather than on initiatives that will hit gangs hardest and make it harder for them to operate.
"Legislation outlawing gangs and their insignia is just more law - we don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have and give police the power to tackle lawlessness where and when it happens.
"Gangs' impact on society is more about their actions than their visibility. Rather than worrying about what gangs wear, we should establish a special IRD unit to audit their incomes and hit them where it hurts the most - in their wallets, rather than their wardrobes.
And in October last year, during the campaign;
Forget about banning gang patches. We need to focus on the anti-social behaviour that they represent. We already have plenty of laws to deal with that but, as a society, we appear to lack the will to enforce them. That's why the criminals are getting bolder.
This is a report from NewstalkZB today;
Anti-gang patch law moving through Parliament
05/03/2009 5:16:01
The proposal to have gang patches banned in Wanganui now looks certain to pass into law.
MPs have voted 64 to 58 in favour of the Gang Insignia Bill. Labour, which originally supported the idea, backed down and opposed it, however National received the support of ACT to allow the Gang Insignia Bill to pass through. The law would prohibit gang members wearing any patches on the streets of Wanganui.
The bill has two final readings before it comes into effect.
Green MP Metiria Turei is among those to oppose the plan, saying it will not stop gang violence. She says not only will it be ineffective, but it will also be a significant breach of citizens' rights. Ms Turei says ordinary citizens will suffer if the ban goes ahead.
But ACT MP David Garrett says the law will make sure intimidating tattoos are covered up.
I understand that being in government comes at a price. But it's just getting too expensive for this supporter.
Special laws for Wanganui
Posted on 20 Jul 2006
Ex-Nat, ex-NZ1ster, now Mayor of Wanganui Michael Laws' plan to ban gang patches has hit a hitch but new MP Chester Borrows and the National Party are supporting a Bill to make the wearing of gang patches illegal but only in Wanganui.
I am not making this up.
... National's Whanganui MP Chester Borrows, a former detective sergeant, says his party planned to table a bill in Parliament after police headquarters refused to endorse the bylaw [banning gang regalia in parts of the city]. "The police in Wanganui were happy with the bylaw but the office of the commissioner wanted to have parliamentary sanction. . . . Mr Borrows said the bill, supported by National, would apply only to Wanganui, but it was "a commonsense approach to a problem shared by provincial centres across the country"...
Commonsense is a wonderful guide to sound law making!
And Heather Roy on the same subject;
Real Solutions Needed To Address Gang Issue
Posted on 30 Sep 2008
The move to outlaw gangs, their patches and tattoos is nothing more than a ploy to give the appearance of action - a ploy that will yield no results or benefit to New Zealand society in the long-term struggle to deal with the country's gang problem, ACT Deputy Leader and National Security Spokesman Heather Roy said today.
"Such moves are wrongly-focussed, token-ist and entirely predictable - hard-line policies to deal with gangs are reeled out by different Parties in the run up to every election," Mrs Roy said.
"Clearly none of these 'flash in a pan' policies have worked - because they focus more on addressing the mayhem that individual gang members cause, rather than on initiatives that will hit gangs hardest and make it harder for them to operate.
"Legislation outlawing gangs and their insignia is just more law - we don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have and give police the power to tackle lawlessness where and when it happens.
"Gangs' impact on society is more about their actions than their visibility. Rather than worrying about what gangs wear, we should establish a special IRD unit to audit their incomes and hit them where it hurts the most - in their wallets, rather than their wardrobes.
And in October last year, during the campaign;
Forget about banning gang patches. We need to focus on the anti-social behaviour that they represent. We already have plenty of laws to deal with that but, as a society, we appear to lack the will to enforce them. That's why the criminals are getting bolder.
This is a report from NewstalkZB today;
Anti-gang patch law moving through Parliament
05/03/2009 5:16:01
The proposal to have gang patches banned in Wanganui now looks certain to pass into law.
MPs have voted 64 to 58 in favour of the Gang Insignia Bill. Labour, which originally supported the idea, backed down and opposed it, however National received the support of ACT to allow the Gang Insignia Bill to pass through. The law would prohibit gang members wearing any patches on the streets of Wanganui.
The bill has two final readings before it comes into effect.
Green MP Metiria Turei is among those to oppose the plan, saying it will not stop gang violence. She says not only will it be ineffective, but it will also be a significant breach of citizens' rights. Ms Turei says ordinary citizens will suffer if the ban goes ahead.
But ACT MP David Garrett says the law will make sure intimidating tattoos are covered up.
I understand that being in government comes at a price. But it's just getting too expensive for this supporter.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Does Three Strikes deter crime?
This post is for my peace of mind. I have previously expressed reservations about the Three Strikes Policy shortly going before select committee. The law of unintended consequences is perhaps the one we ignore, at our peril, the most. So I decided, while I have some free time, I would take a closer look.
Now I know that if I go looking for studies that discredit the US welfare reforms I can find them. I can also find the converse.
So, I expect to find knockers of three strikes and I expect to find fans.
Here is a site dedicated to opposing. Below, a couple of the many reasons it cites;
# Kovandzic, Tomislav V; John J Sloan III, Lynne M Vieraitis. ""STRIKING OUT" AS CRIME REDUCTION POLICY: THE IMPACT OF "THREE STRIKES" LAWS ON CRIME RATES IN U.S. CITIES. " Justice Quarterly : JQ 21.2 (2004): 207-239.
Summarizes several studies showing that homicide rates have declined at a 10-12% slower rate in jurisdictions with 3-Strikes laws.
# Marvell, T., Moody, C. (2001). The lethal effects of three strikes law. Journal of Legal Studies, 30 (1): 89-106.
Finds that Three Strikes laws have had a minimal impact on reducing the levels of crime and through deterrence or incapacitation but that they are associated with 10%-12% more homicides in the short run and 23%-29% more in the long run in almost all 24 states examined with Three Strikes laws.
It was harder to find proponents but here is one from Washington;
Our state's three-strikes law, the nation's first, was designed to nail two kinds of criminals: first, the violent predators and, second, those who commit lesser but far more numerous crimes over and over again. But the law's chief benefit is the amount of crime it deters from felons with one or two strikes already on their record. When a third conviction means life behind bars, many legally-challenged citizens resist the temptation to commit that third offense. Of those who don't shape up, many simply move away. This helps explain that while violent crime rates have plummeted nearly 30 percent since "three strikes" became law in 1993, only about 26 felons "strike out" each year.
Opponents had predicted nearly four times that number would do so. They assumed that changing the law would not change criminal behavior. They were mistaken. Ask any street cop. Their street-level insights are far more valuable and relevant than those of academics and politicians.
So what about some statistics from Washington (State). I looked at murder and rape because these are two of the crimes the introduction of three strikes is targeted at in this country;
Murder
1998 234
1999 171
2000 196
2001 179
2002 184
2003 182
2004 190
2005 205
2006 190
2007 173
Rape
1998 2740
1999 2711
2000 2737
2001 2600
2002 2734
2003 2863
2004 2857
2005 2811
2006 2746
2007 2629
So, taking into account population growth, there has been a slight improvement. Slight.
Let's look next at violent crime in California, which has the toughest three strikes regime;
Murder
1998 2171
1999 2005
2000 2079
2001 2206
2002 2395
2003 2407
2004 2392
2005 2503
2006 2485
2007 2260
Rape
1998 9782
1999 9363
2000 9785
2001 9960
2002 10198
2003 9994
2004 9615
2005 9392
2006 9212
2007 9013
Again the rates have dropped slightly but I am not overwhelmed.
Illinois has no three strikes policy. Their statistics:
Murder
1998 1008
1999 939
2000 891
2001 982
2002 961
2003 895
2004 780
2005 770
2006 780
2007 752
Rape
1998 4095
1999 4297
2000 4090
2001 4010
2002 4370
2003 4189
2004 4220
2005 4313
2006 4078
2007 4103
Same sort of picture. Another three-strike free state, New York, shows a similar pattern.
As fas as I can ascertain just over half have a three strikes policy yet the violent crime rate has declined across the United States (but has stuck over the last couple of years.)
I can't convince myself that the Three Strikes policy will do what I most want it to - deter serious crime. Additionally there appears to be a very real danger that it makes criminals more violent.
Now I know that if I go looking for studies that discredit the US welfare reforms I can find them. I can also find the converse.
So, I expect to find knockers of three strikes and I expect to find fans.
Here is a site dedicated to opposing. Below, a couple of the many reasons it cites;
# Kovandzic, Tomislav V; John J Sloan III, Lynne M Vieraitis. ""STRIKING OUT" AS CRIME REDUCTION POLICY: THE IMPACT OF "THREE STRIKES" LAWS ON CRIME RATES IN U.S. CITIES. " Justice Quarterly : JQ 21.2 (2004): 207-239.
Summarizes several studies showing that homicide rates have declined at a 10-12% slower rate in jurisdictions with 3-Strikes laws.
# Marvell, T., Moody, C. (2001). The lethal effects of three strikes law. Journal of Legal Studies, 30 (1): 89-106.
Finds that Three Strikes laws have had a minimal impact on reducing the levels of crime and through deterrence or incapacitation but that they are associated with 10%-12% more homicides in the short run and 23%-29% more in the long run in almost all 24 states examined with Three Strikes laws.
It was harder to find proponents but here is one from Washington;
Our state's three-strikes law, the nation's first, was designed to nail two kinds of criminals: first, the violent predators and, second, those who commit lesser but far more numerous crimes over and over again. But the law's chief benefit is the amount of crime it deters from felons with one or two strikes already on their record. When a third conviction means life behind bars, many legally-challenged citizens resist the temptation to commit that third offense. Of those who don't shape up, many simply move away. This helps explain that while violent crime rates have plummeted nearly 30 percent since "three strikes" became law in 1993, only about 26 felons "strike out" each year.
Opponents had predicted nearly four times that number would do so. They assumed that changing the law would not change criminal behavior. They were mistaken. Ask any street cop. Their street-level insights are far more valuable and relevant than those of academics and politicians.
So what about some statistics from Washington (State). I looked at murder and rape because these are two of the crimes the introduction of three strikes is targeted at in this country;
Murder
1998 234
1999 171
2000 196
2001 179
2002 184
2003 182
2004 190
2005 205
2006 190
2007 173
Rape
1998 2740
1999 2711
2000 2737
2001 2600
2002 2734
2003 2863
2004 2857
2005 2811
2006 2746
2007 2629
So, taking into account population growth, there has been a slight improvement. Slight.
Let's look next at violent crime in California, which has the toughest three strikes regime;
Murder
1998 2171
1999 2005
2000 2079
2001 2206
2002 2395
2003 2407
2004 2392
2005 2503
2006 2485
2007 2260
Rape
1998 9782
1999 9363
2000 9785
2001 9960
2002 10198
2003 9994
2004 9615
2005 9392
2006 9212
2007 9013
Again the rates have dropped slightly but I am not overwhelmed.
Illinois has no three strikes policy. Their statistics:
Murder
1998 1008
1999 939
2000 891
2001 982
2002 961
2003 895
2004 780
2005 770
2006 780
2007 752
Rape
1998 4095
1999 4297
2000 4090
2001 4010
2002 4370
2003 4189
2004 4220
2005 4313
2006 4078
2007 4103
Same sort of picture. Another three-strike free state, New York, shows a similar pattern.
As fas as I can ascertain just over half have a three strikes policy yet the violent crime rate has declined across the United States (but has stuck over the last couple of years.)
I can't convince myself that the Three Strikes policy will do what I most want it to - deter serious crime. Additionally there appears to be a very real danger that it makes criminals more violent.
The de facto dole
This morning I came across this graph which clearly shows numbers unemployed dropping from around 135,000 in 1999 to around 80,000 by 2008.
Yet the following tables show that in 1999 148,755 people were receiving the unemployment benefit and the number dropped to 23,273 by 2008.
So how are sixty-odd thousand unemployed getting by?
Maybe
1/ Unemployed people in 2008 are largely short-term unemployed and have no need of or do not qualify for the dole.
2/ Unemployed people in 2008 are relying on other forms of income, perhaps an employed partner.
3/ Unemployed people in 2008 are relying on benefits other than the dole i.e. sickness and invalid benefits
I doubt that 1/ is the sole answer because then you would expect those left on the dole to be long-term employed only and that just isn't the case.
2/ may be right but that would require a cultural change.
So let's consider 3/
In September 1999 there were 83,635 people on either a sickness or invalid benefit. By September 2008 the number had climbed to 131,826. 48,000 more. Not far off the number we are looking for.
The Labour government constantly denied that unemployed people were moved onto other benefits. Strictly speaking that may be true. But the beneficiary pool is ever-changing; people come and go and have repeated spells on welfare. When coming onto or back onto a benefit, I would suggest fewer and fewer were put onto the dole.
MSD data shows that 72 percent of the working aged clients granted a sickness benefit in 2006/2007 had received some sort of benefit in the previous four years. And 69% of people granted an invalid benefit had transferred from another benefit or district.
I will repeat how the OECD describes incapacity benefits. They represent the medicalisation of labour market problems.
Yet the following tables show that in 1999 148,755 people were receiving the unemployment benefit and the number dropped to 23,273 by 2008.
So how are sixty-odd thousand unemployed getting by?
Maybe
1/ Unemployed people in 2008 are largely short-term unemployed and have no need of or do not qualify for the dole.
2/ Unemployed people in 2008 are relying on other forms of income, perhaps an employed partner.
3/ Unemployed people in 2008 are relying on benefits other than the dole i.e. sickness and invalid benefits
I doubt that 1/ is the sole answer because then you would expect those left on the dole to be long-term employed only and that just isn't the case.
2/ may be right but that would require a cultural change.
So let's consider 3/
In September 1999 there were 83,635 people on either a sickness or invalid benefit. By September 2008 the number had climbed to 131,826. 48,000 more. Not far off the number we are looking for.
The Labour government constantly denied that unemployed people were moved onto other benefits. Strictly speaking that may be true. But the beneficiary pool is ever-changing; people come and go and have repeated spells on welfare. When coming onto or back onto a benefit, I would suggest fewer and fewer were put onto the dole.
MSD data shows that 72 percent of the working aged clients granted a sickness benefit in 2006/2007 had received some sort of benefit in the previous four years. And 69% of people granted an invalid benefit had transferred from another benefit or district.
I will repeat how the OECD describes incapacity benefits. They represent the medicalisation of labour market problems.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Thanks, National
Change the Bill of Rights ?
Stuck for words myself this morning I will pass on a reaction from my husband. Reading this over my shoulder he said, resign me. Any ACT MP that says change the Bill of Rights shouldn't be an ACT MP. Continuing,
"First they came for the criminals, then they came for the Communists, then they came for the trade unionists and then they came for me and there was no-one left to speak ... it's very dangerous to go changing the Bill of Rights for political popularity. "
He's quite angry.
OK. Now I have some thoughts. There is no way the Bill of Rights should be changed despite the fact that it is quite frequently contravened. How the hell will ACT ever again argue for its observance in any given circumstance. Here is a case in point. And remember too that another new ACT MP repeatedly and rightly invoked the NZ Bill of Rights to fight the Electoral Finance Bill.
In future opponents can simply reply, "We'll change it."
"First they came for the criminals, then they came for the Communists, then they came for the trade unionists and then they came for me and there was no-one left to speak ... it's very dangerous to go changing the Bill of Rights for political popularity. "
He's quite angry.
OK. Now I have some thoughts. There is no way the Bill of Rights should be changed despite the fact that it is quite frequently contravened. How the hell will ACT ever again argue for its observance in any given circumstance. Here is a case in point. And remember too that another new ACT MP repeatedly and rightly invoked the NZ Bill of Rights to fight the Electoral Finance Bill.
In future opponents can simply reply, "We'll change it."
Monday, March 02, 2009
The invisible men
The topic of Tapu Misa's column interests me.
My comment however isn't about the topic but her approach. Read through the first four paragraphs and tell me, do fathers have any relevance as parents in her worldview? You can begin to understand the alienation some are feeling.
Women today demand men be all things to everybody, but um... some subjects still shut them out?
And she won't even be aware of what she has done.
My comment however isn't about the topic but her approach. Read through the first four paragraphs and tell me, do fathers have any relevance as parents in her worldview? You can begin to understand the alienation some are feeling.
Women today demand men be all things to everybody, but um... some subjects still shut them out?
And she won't even be aware of what she has done.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Why the PPTA is loathsome
I hate lies and advocates of state control are full of them. Here's a typical lie ;
Kate Gainsford, head of secondary teachers' union the PPTA, is furious that private schools are turning to the government for help. She says any private schools allowed to integrate will effectively be taking cash from students at state schools. She recently said that schools making such applications are effectively looking for a "bailout for private businesses" and a subsidy for wealthy parents.
In fact these 'wealthy' parents are currently subsidising state pupils through the tax they pay that is not used to educate their own. In effect, they are asking to subsidise state school pupils to a lesser degree than they have been.
I oppose subsidies for private business when an industry is completely privatised. The NZ education industry is, however, almost monopolised by the state.
But this whiner can't get her head around simple economics. If the state refuses to lower the subsidy private school parents pay to the state school system there may be no subsidy at all.
In good economic times her gamble may have paid off. Right now, it may not. Private schools are already closing.
The more private schools close, the more students will flock to state schools. As long as the education budget remains unchanged there will be less cash for each state student. Exactly what this silly cow is railing against.
Kate Gainsford, head of secondary teachers' union the PPTA, is furious that private schools are turning to the government for help. She says any private schools allowed to integrate will effectively be taking cash from students at state schools. She recently said that schools making such applications are effectively looking for a "bailout for private businesses" and a subsidy for wealthy parents.
In fact these 'wealthy' parents are currently subsidising state pupils through the tax they pay that is not used to educate their own. In effect, they are asking to subsidise state school pupils to a lesser degree than they have been.
I oppose subsidies for private business when an industry is completely privatised. The NZ education industry is, however, almost monopolised by the state.
But this whiner can't get her head around simple economics. If the state refuses to lower the subsidy private school parents pay to the state school system there may be no subsidy at all.
In good economic times her gamble may have paid off. Right now, it may not. Private schools are already closing.
The more private schools close, the more students will flock to state schools. As long as the education budget remains unchanged there will be less cash for each state student. Exactly what this silly cow is railing against.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Straight answers (with wiggle room)
Some straight answers from the Minister for Social Development. For that, at least, she gets a tick.
260 (2009). Sue Bradford to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (10 Feb 2009): Does the Minister intend to abandon the previous Government's proposal to move towards a single core benefit, given the statement in the National Party policy "Reject Labour's planned new benefit terminology which will make the government workers use the term "income support" rather than talk about benefit types."?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: Yes
259 (2009). Sue Bradford to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (10 Feb 2009): Does the Minister have any plans to replace the Social Security Act 1964 with redrafted legislation to govern the administration of the social security benefit system; if so what is the proposed timeframe for having any such legislation replacing the Social Security Act replaced?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: No.
There will however be amendment bills. One is needed, for instance, to introduce the DPB work testing National promised. In fact, the DPB itself was introduced under an amendment bill. That was a change of enormous significance. So promising not to replace an Act needn't be the disappointment it initially looks like. Especially to those of us who want real reform. Ultimately it will be unavoidable.
260 (2009). Sue Bradford to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (10 Feb 2009): Does the Minister intend to abandon the previous Government's proposal to move towards a single core benefit, given the statement in the National Party policy "Reject Labour's planned new benefit terminology which will make the government workers use the term "income support" rather than talk about benefit types."?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: Yes
259 (2009). Sue Bradford to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (10 Feb 2009): Does the Minister have any plans to replace the Social Security Act 1964 with redrafted legislation to govern the administration of the social security benefit system; if so what is the proposed timeframe for having any such legislation replacing the Social Security Act replaced?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: No.
There will however be amendment bills. One is needed, for instance, to introduce the DPB work testing National promised. In fact, the DPB itself was introduced under an amendment bill. That was a change of enormous significance. So promising not to replace an Act needn't be the disappointment it initially looks like. Especially to those of us who want real reform. Ultimately it will be unavoidable.
Religion - good for something after all
A friend e-mailed me these. I was giving them a cursory look over when I found myself laughing outright.
Church Bulletins
These sentences (with all the BLOOPERS) actually appeared in church bulletins or were announced in church services:
--------------------------
The sermon this morning: 'Jesus Walks on the Water.' The sermon
tonight: 'Searching for Jesus.'
--------------------------
The Associate Minister unveiled the church's new campaign slogan
last Sunday: 'I Upped My Pledge - Up Yours.'
----------------------------
Remember in prayer the many who are sick of our community. Smile at
someone who is hard to love. Say 'Hell' to someone who doesn't care much
about you.
--------------------------
Don't let worry kill you off - let the Church help.
----------------------- ---
Miss Charlene Mason sang 'I will not pass this way again,' giving
obvious pleasure to the congregation.
--------------------------
For those of you who have children and don't know it, we have a
nursery downstairs.
--------------------------
Irving Benson and Jessie Carter were married on October 24 in the
church. So ends a friendship that began in their school days.
--------------------------
A bean supper will be held on Tuesday evening in the church hall.
Music will follow.
--------------------------
At the evening service tonight, the sermon topic will be 'What Is
Hell?' Come early and listen to our choir practice.
------------------------
Please place your donation in the envelope along with the deceased
person you want remembered.
--------------------------
The church will host an evening of fine dining, super entertainment
and gracious hostility.
--------------------------
Potluck supper Sunday at 5:00 PM - prayer and medication to follow.
--------------------------
The ladies of the Church have cast off clothing of every kind. They
may be seen in the basement on Friday afternoon.
--------------------------
This evening at 7 PM there will be a hymn singing in the park across
from the Church. Bring a blanket and come prepared to sin.
--------------------------
Ladies Bible Study will be held Thursday morning at 10 AM. All
ladies are invited to lunch in the Fellowship Hall after the B.S. is done.
--------------------------
Low Self Esteem Support Group will meet Thursday at 7 PM. Please use
the back door.
--------------------------
The eighth-graders will be presenting Shakespeare's Hamlet in the
Church basement Friday at 7 PM. The congregation is invited to attend this
tragedy.
Church Bulletins
These sentences (with all the BLOOPERS) actually appeared in church bulletins or were announced in church services:
--------------------------
The sermon this morning: 'Jesus Walks on the Water.' The sermon
tonight: 'Searching for Jesus.'
--------------------------
The Associate Minister unveiled the church's new campaign slogan
last Sunday: 'I Upped My Pledge - Up Yours.'
----------------------------
Remember in prayer the many who are sick of our community. Smile at
someone who is hard to love. Say 'Hell' to someone who doesn't care much
about you.
--------------------------
Don't let worry kill you off - let the Church help.
----------------------- ---
Miss Charlene Mason sang 'I will not pass this way again,' giving
obvious pleasure to the congregation.
--------------------------
For those of you who have children and don't know it, we have a
nursery downstairs.
--------------------------
Irving Benson and Jessie Carter were married on October 24 in the
church. So ends a friendship that began in their school days.
--------------------------
A bean supper will be held on Tuesday evening in the church hall.
Music will follow.
--------------------------
At the evening service tonight, the sermon topic will be 'What Is
Hell?' Come early and listen to our choir practice.
------------------------
Please place your donation in the envelope along with the deceased
person you want remembered.
--------------------------
The church will host an evening of fine dining, super entertainment
and gracious hostility.
--------------------------
Potluck supper Sunday at 5:00 PM - prayer and medication to follow.
--------------------------
The ladies of the Church have cast off clothing of every kind. They
may be seen in the basement on Friday afternoon.
--------------------------
This evening at 7 PM there will be a hymn singing in the park across
from the Church. Bring a blanket and come prepared to sin.
--------------------------
Ladies Bible Study will be held Thursday morning at 10 AM. All
ladies are invited to lunch in the Fellowship Hall after the B.S. is done.
--------------------------
Low Self Esteem Support Group will meet Thursday at 7 PM. Please use
the back door.
--------------------------
The eighth-graders will be presenting Shakespeare's Hamlet in the
Church basement Friday at 7 PM. The congregation is invited to attend this
tragedy.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Summit 'n' nothing
RNZ report;
Radio New Zealand's political editor who is at the conference says some business delegates wanted to discuss changes that could be made to free up the Employment Relations Act.
They were told bluntly at a closed session that this was not the place to talk about legislation and that Prime Minister John Key was not prepared to have that sort of debate.
Radio New Zealand's political editor who is at the conference says some business delegates wanted to discuss changes that could be made to free up the Employment Relations Act.
They were told bluntly at a closed session that this was not the place to talk about legislation and that Prime Minister John Key was not prepared to have that sort of debate.
Un-bloody-believable
If I wore false teeth, this morning I would have swallowed them.
This individual,
...convicted of 31 sex attacks, abduction and burglary charges, involving four female complainants aged between 11 and 69 and sentenced to preventive detention with a minimum non-parole term of 25 years later cut to 20 years...
...is appealing the legality of his DNA sample because of the way it was taken.
He says...
...he was not treated with humanity and with respect for his dignity.
This individual,
...convicted of 31 sex attacks, abduction and burglary charges, involving four female complainants aged between 11 and 69 and sentenced to preventive detention with a minimum non-parole term of 25 years later cut to 20 years...
...is appealing the legality of his DNA sample because of the way it was taken.
He says...
...he was not treated with humanity and with respect for his dignity.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
America remembers its raison d'être
Hallelujah. Perhaps I had missed this earlier but it is news to me. Great news.
ELEVEN STATES DECLARE SOVEREIGNTY OVER OBAMA'S ACTION
State governors -- looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the economic "stimulus" plan -- are saying they will refuse to take the money. This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and the states unlike any in our time, says Human Events.
At least 11 states have decided against an intolerable expansion of the federal government's authority over the states, says Human Events:
• Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas -- have all introduced bills and resolutions reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limiting the power of the federal government.
• These resolutions call on Obama to "cease and desist" from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.
When the Constitution was being ratified during the 1780s, the 10th Amendment was understood to be the linchpin that held the entire Bill of Rights together. The amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In 2009, appeals to the 10th Amendment are not based on tariffs but on unfettered government expansion in Obama's "stimulus" bill, federal mandates on abortion that violate state laws, and infringements on the 1st and 2nd Amendments, among other things, says Human Events.
These eleven states have the right to reject the stimulus plan. And they must, says Human Events.
Source: A.W.R. Hawkins, "Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama's Action," Human Events, February 23, 2009.
For text:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30807
ELEVEN STATES DECLARE SOVEREIGNTY OVER OBAMA'S ACTION
State governors -- looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the economic "stimulus" plan -- are saying they will refuse to take the money. This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and the states unlike any in our time, says Human Events.
At least 11 states have decided against an intolerable expansion of the federal government's authority over the states, says Human Events:
• Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas -- have all introduced bills and resolutions reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limiting the power of the federal government.
• These resolutions call on Obama to "cease and desist" from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.
When the Constitution was being ratified during the 1780s, the 10th Amendment was understood to be the linchpin that held the entire Bill of Rights together. The amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In 2009, appeals to the 10th Amendment are not based on tariffs but on unfettered government expansion in Obama's "stimulus" bill, federal mandates on abortion that violate state laws, and infringements on the 1st and 2nd Amendments, among other things, says Human Events.
These eleven states have the right to reject the stimulus plan. And they must, says Human Events.
Source: A.W.R. Hawkins, "Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama's Action," Human Events, February 23, 2009.
For text:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30807
The sky is falling....not
Finding a balance between a realistic attitude to the recession, and running around screaming the sky is falling, is not an easy thing to do. However leaning towards the latter approach runs the very real risk of making matters worse. So when I read the following,Jobs in construction, retail, hospitality, agriculture, finance and manufacturing have been declining - manufacturing and retail sectors have suffered falls in the number of jobs of more than 20 per cent in the last year....
... I get a little brassed off.
Let's contrast that statement with the latest Household Labour Force Survey - the official source of employment and unemployment data - information.
People employed by industry
Manufacturing December 2007 275,400
December 2008 269,100
Wholesale and retail December 2007 502,000
December 2008 502,000
Did he mean falls in the number of jobs advertised? If so, say so.
A combined loss of 20 percent over the past year would equate to 155,480 jobs. Assuming no re-absorption of workers elsewhere, that's enough to push the unemployment rate higher than it has been since the depression.
Still, if you read it in the newspaper....
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
National - Still buying into collectivist claptrap
National should have ignored the bollocks about women being particularly vulnerable in a recession; the braying from the Greens, the foremost stalwarts of slavish genderism.
Everybody is vulnerable.
But Pansy Wong, Minister of Women's Affairs, a department any government serious about cutting costs would have obliterated, had to put out a soppy statement reassuring women that their voices would be heard at the job summit. Still buying into all that collectivist claptrap from the left. While you are at it, are there going to be enough Asians in attendance, Pansy?
Everybody is vulnerable.
But Pansy Wong, Minister of Women's Affairs, a department any government serious about cutting costs would have obliterated, had to put out a soppy statement reassuring women that their voices would be heard at the job summit. Still buying into all that collectivist claptrap from the left. While you are at it, are there going to be enough Asians in attendance, Pansy?
Round-up from the drug policy conference
Last week a conference about drug policy was held in Wellington. The only MSM news I am aware it generated was sensationalism about a sponsor who backs cannabis decriminalisation. When that was reported the NZ Drug Foundation said this:
Mr Bell said the foundation was "neutral" on the legal status of cannabis. It did not have a secret agenda, nor was it a liberal or pro-drug organisation as its opponents claimed.
But on Thursday the foundation issued this press statement,
Harsh cannabis laws defy good sense.
Drug legislation and policy tend to focus too much on enforcement and tough-talk and too little on evidence about what really works, a visiting expert told the Healthy Drug Law Symposium in Wellington today. The result is often irrational laws that cause considerable harm, he said.
Jeremy Sare is former Head of Drug Classification at the Home Office in Westminster. He has worked as Secretary to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and is currently a policy consultant for the Beckley Foundation’s Cannabis Commission.
Mr Sare said the UK Government’s claim that strong cannabis laws send a strong signal to young people about drug use was ‘nonsense on stilts’.
“Overstating the dangers of cannabis actually undermines the credibility of drug messages. Focus groups show that many young people who smoke cannabis occasionally or even regularly would not consider taking harder drugs. They obviously know there’s a difference.”
Then I checked out their website to see what else they had reported on. This is from a UN official who attended;
“There has been considerable reduction over recent decades in the consumption of opiates, the most problematic of drugs, and opium cultivation and production has been limited to just one or two countries in the main.”
However he said containment does not mean the problem has been solved and that the way the drug control system has been applied has led to other problems.
“An unintended consequence has been the huge criminal black market that now thrives in order to get prohibited substances from producers to consumers. This has led to a second problem – the displacement of resources away from public health and into law enforcement.
“It also appears we have created a system where those who fall into the web of addiction find themselves excluded and marginalised, tainted with a moral stigma, and often unable to find treatment even when they want it.”
And from another British expert;
“There is a growing consensus worldwide that health and law enforcement officials should work in partnership in order to meet drug policy objectives, which are essentially the same for both agencies – to reduce drug use and availability, and protect society from the most harmful elements of the street drug market,” he said.
“In the UK, for example, the police have specialist advisers who identify people needing treatment for drug or alcohol dependence, and refer them to health and social services. The result is that health and social services can reach marginalised groups, and police are happy with the reduction in crime that comes from successful treatment.
An American expert;
Drug control in the form of prohibition or a ‘War on Drugs’ has been a spectacular failure, a visiting American expert told a symposium in Wellington today.
An Australian;
Mr Trimingham, founder and Director of Family Drug Support in Sydney, Australia, is attending the Healthy Drug Law Symposium in Wellington. He told delegates today that communities need to wake up to drug issues and stop seeing them as purely a criminal matter.
And finally from another Australian expert;
Mr Vumbaca says in Australia it is now costs up to $73,000 a year for a prisoner to be in jail, while it only costs around $30,000 a year for treatment in a residential rehabilitation centre.
Prompting Mr Bell to conclude;
“The Misuse of Drugs Act was drafted in 1975 when the prevailing view was that we could punish drugs out of existence. We've been jailing the same drug users over and over again the last 30 years and it hasn't made a scrap of difference."
It seems to me that the Drug Foundation cannot be "neutral" about decriminalisation of cannabis (at least) and challenging the status quo simultaneously. Every report they made from the conference featured 'experts' advocating increasing a health approach to the drug problem. Good on them.
Mr Bell said the foundation was "neutral" on the legal status of cannabis. It did not have a secret agenda, nor was it a liberal or pro-drug organisation as its opponents claimed.
But on Thursday the foundation issued this press statement,
Harsh cannabis laws defy good sense.
Drug legislation and policy tend to focus too much on enforcement and tough-talk and too little on evidence about what really works, a visiting expert told the Healthy Drug Law Symposium in Wellington today. The result is often irrational laws that cause considerable harm, he said.
Jeremy Sare is former Head of Drug Classification at the Home Office in Westminster. He has worked as Secretary to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and is currently a policy consultant for the Beckley Foundation’s Cannabis Commission.
Mr Sare said the UK Government’s claim that strong cannabis laws send a strong signal to young people about drug use was ‘nonsense on stilts’.
“Overstating the dangers of cannabis actually undermines the credibility of drug messages. Focus groups show that many young people who smoke cannabis occasionally or even regularly would not consider taking harder drugs. They obviously know there’s a difference.”
Then I checked out their website to see what else they had reported on. This is from a UN official who attended;
“There has been considerable reduction over recent decades in the consumption of opiates, the most problematic of drugs, and opium cultivation and production has been limited to just one or two countries in the main.”
However he said containment does not mean the problem has been solved and that the way the drug control system has been applied has led to other problems.
“An unintended consequence has been the huge criminal black market that now thrives in order to get prohibited substances from producers to consumers. This has led to a second problem – the displacement of resources away from public health and into law enforcement.
“It also appears we have created a system where those who fall into the web of addiction find themselves excluded and marginalised, tainted with a moral stigma, and often unable to find treatment even when they want it.”
And from another British expert;
“There is a growing consensus worldwide that health and law enforcement officials should work in partnership in order to meet drug policy objectives, which are essentially the same for both agencies – to reduce drug use and availability, and protect society from the most harmful elements of the street drug market,” he said.
“In the UK, for example, the police have specialist advisers who identify people needing treatment for drug or alcohol dependence, and refer them to health and social services. The result is that health and social services can reach marginalised groups, and police are happy with the reduction in crime that comes from successful treatment.
An American expert;
Drug control in the form of prohibition or a ‘War on Drugs’ has been a spectacular failure, a visiting American expert told a symposium in Wellington today.
An Australian;
Mr Trimingham, founder and Director of Family Drug Support in Sydney, Australia, is attending the Healthy Drug Law Symposium in Wellington. He told delegates today that communities need to wake up to drug issues and stop seeing them as purely a criminal matter.
And finally from another Australian expert;
Mr Vumbaca says in Australia it is now costs up to $73,000 a year for a prisoner to be in jail, while it only costs around $30,000 a year for treatment in a residential rehabilitation centre.
Prompting Mr Bell to conclude;
“The Misuse of Drugs Act was drafted in 1975 when the prevailing view was that we could punish drugs out of existence. We've been jailing the same drug users over and over again the last 30 years and it hasn't made a scrap of difference."
It seems to me that the Drug Foundation cannot be "neutral" about decriminalisation of cannabis (at least) and challenging the status quo simultaneously. Every report they made from the conference featured 'experts' advocating increasing a health approach to the drug problem. Good on them.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
What's the answer?
Numerical reasoning
Question;
5/3 is to 1/5 as 5 is to ?
Leave a reply even if it matches someone else.
Question;
5/3 is to 1/5 as 5 is to ?
Leave a reply even if it matches someone else.
What Kim Workman has overlooked
Yesterday Kim Workman made some estimates regarding the cost of the 'three strikes' policy. He claims that if it had been implemented in 1980 14,000 more people would now be in prison and that would have cost the taxpayer an extra $7.5 billion.
Completely overlooked is that when many prisoners are out in the community they are still costing the taxpayer through the following;
Social security benefits - using Mr Workman's 25 year time frame at today's money, around 3,000 realeased prisoners each year go on a benefit. At a cost of around $20,000 each that produces $1.5 billion.
Fathering more welfare dependents (and potential criminals) - let's assume each of the 14,000 produces just one child who is dependent on the taxpayer for 18 years. I will use $150 per week to cover their upkeep, health and education. That produces almost $2 billion.
Methadone programmes - one of the main aims of the methadone programme is to keep people out of prison. It costs around $30 million or $750 million over 25 years.
Then other things I am not equipped to put an estimate on;
Creating more insurance claims and hence, increased premiums.
The victims of their crime's loss of productivity and in many case loss of life costs taxpayers through the welfare and health systems.
I stress my counter-costings are not scientific or conclusive but they do put Mr Workman's estimate into some sort of perspective.
He also says;
If this legislation was introduced 25 years ago, we would now be faced with an influx of ex-prisoners being released into law abiding communities, each of whom will have served around 25 years in prison, and hopelessly institutionalised. They will emerge, scared, violent, without any ability to cope with an ever-changing world, and most likely without friends or adequate support. That would in turn have a significant impact on public safety and the crime rate.
By the time anyome is released from a three strike progression they are likely to be middle-aged to old. This is the group from which the least violent crime hails.
I guess the bottom line for me is protecting innocent people. My main reservation now is will the three strikes policy actually make criminals more dangerous when they are free but approaching their final strike?
Completely overlooked is that when many prisoners are out in the community they are still costing the taxpayer through the following;
Social security benefits - using Mr Workman's 25 year time frame at today's money, around 3,000 realeased prisoners each year go on a benefit. At a cost of around $20,000 each that produces $1.5 billion.
Fathering more welfare dependents (and potential criminals) - let's assume each of the 14,000 produces just one child who is dependent on the taxpayer for 18 years. I will use $150 per week to cover their upkeep, health and education. That produces almost $2 billion.
Methadone programmes - one of the main aims of the methadone programme is to keep people out of prison. It costs around $30 million or $750 million over 25 years.
Then other things I am not equipped to put an estimate on;
Creating more insurance claims and hence, increased premiums.
The victims of their crime's loss of productivity and in many case loss of life costs taxpayers through the welfare and health systems.
I stress my counter-costings are not scientific or conclusive but they do put Mr Workman's estimate into some sort of perspective.
He also says;
If this legislation was introduced 25 years ago, we would now be faced with an influx of ex-prisoners being released into law abiding communities, each of whom will have served around 25 years in prison, and hopelessly institutionalised. They will emerge, scared, violent, without any ability to cope with an ever-changing world, and most likely without friends or adequate support. That would in turn have a significant impact on public safety and the crime rate.
By the time anyome is released from a three strike progression they are likely to be middle-aged to old. This is the group from which the least violent crime hails.
I guess the bottom line for me is protecting innocent people. My main reservation now is will the three strikes policy actually make criminals more dangerous when they are free but approaching their final strike?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
