John Boscawen - a stalwart and genuine opponent

John Boscawen is the best person I can think of to go head to head with Sue Bradford over amendment of the anti-smacking law. I spent a few hours with John outside a Labour conference last year protesting against the EFA. The way he engaged with Labour MPs and the public, with unfailing politeness and sincerity and passion was impressive. Let's hope his bill is pulled out of the ballot at soonest opportunity.

Boot camp BS

Tumeke has blogged on Paula Bennett's response to ongoing criticism of boot camps;

The Principals Federation has called on the Government to reject boot camps. The call follows expert advice given at this week's two-day behaviour summit in Wellington.

Youth Affairs Minister Paula Bennett agreed "boot camps haven't worked in the past which is why we're not doing them".

Yet just 2 weeks ago Paula Bennett was saying something quite different;

The army will run boot camps to keep the worst teenage offenders on the straight and narrow under youth justice provisions to go before Parliament tomorrow.

Forty of the most serious repeat offenders each year will undergo three months' military training as part of 18 months' intensive supervision under the plans.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said the boot camps would follow six-month residential programmes and be followed by a further nine months' supervision.

National promised the boot camps before the election, but it was not revealed till yesterday that they would be run by the army.

The Defence Force is in discussions with the Social Development Ministry on how the camps will run.

Perhaps the Youth Affairs Minister has a different brief to the Social Development Minister. It will be interesting to see how 'they' reconcile the two.

What is going on with 3 strikes?

As I understand it the 'added crimes' to the three strikes law will only qualify as a strike if the perpetrator is sentenced to prison for 5 or more years for that particular offence.

However, looking at the bill, the crimes added that qualify as a 'serious violent offence' might not constitute violence. Let's take one; sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years. A consensual affair between a 17 year-old step daughter and mother's partner? Does anybody really believe that constitutes serious violence?

There are others like 'kidnapping'. With the prolificity of custody battles today, kidnapping is more common. Again it doesn't necessarily involve violence.

So why were they added?

Mr Power said the list was designed to fulfil National's own parole policy, which would deny parole to those convicted of a violent offence punishable by five years or more if they had committed a similar offence before.

That doesn't answer the question.

Of course a judge can take circumstances into account and sentence the offender to less than 5 years thereby nullifying their qualification as strikes. Perhaps that is why ACT accepted their inclusion. If indeed Simon Power is telling the truth about that.

In related news, I note that earlier this month Hungary voted against three strikes legislation.

Parliament on Monday refused to put on its agenda the Fidesz "three strikes and you're out" motion aimed at tightening the penal code. MPs voted with 199 dissensions, 166 affirmative votes and three abstentions.

The flaw in 'mutual obligation'

Professor David Fergusson, head of the Christchurch Health and Development study, is urging greater parenting education.

The Government is being urged to ... expand a scheme providing parenting courses for parents of bad kids.

This will dovetail nicely with Mr Key's comments yesterday about National's big idea for welfare reform, 'mutual obligation'. And it will mollify National voters quite nicely.

But there is a real danger with this philosophy. As government is constantly in the business of 'sending messages' the one this clearly sends is, 'it's OK to be on welfare so long as you do a, b and c.'

But it's not OK for parents to be on welfare. Not merely by virtue of being parents.

Left liberals don't like that statement. That's why they spent decades successfully attempting to de-stigmatise being on a benefit. Now the centrist conservatives want to jump on the same band wagon.

How many people are on the DPB? Answer - 100,000. Do you want to 'Lock it in', John?

PM believes a cap on the DPB would stop abuse

John Key, as did the PM before him, gives one hour of his time to engage directly with NewstalkZB Wellington listeners each month. Good on him for that.

In response to a question about the DPB, young mothers and child abuse, John Key replied that it is "factually correct" that some young girls, "who lack confidence in a lot of ways and see a pathway forward to have a baby to some random guy because the state will pay them to do that". His answer to that problem is 'mutual obligation'. That is, demanding that these mothers get better parenting skills and lift their capacity to raise their children better.

Which prompted me to call in and ask my own questions.

I said that clearly he understood the problem of young mothers and at-risk children but with respect I didn't think mutual obligation would work as some of these girls have had years of skipping school, being involved in petty crime, etc. In light of that I wanted to put two questions. A broad question for him and a more specific one for National. First, what was wrong with adoption, which would give many of today's at-risk children a better shot and second, why won't National cap the number of children a woman can have on the DPB?

Here are his answers to the first caller and then myself (29:04 and 47:50)

1/ He was familiar with the adoption statistics, seemed regretful that there are so many couples who would love to have the opportunity to adopt and can't; understood the change in attitude to adoption driven by "academics and others" but didn't think that attitude was going to change any time soon (didn't give his own personal view).

2/ He voiced the usual concern about more children in poverty if a cap was applied but then said Bill Clinton had done exactly that in the US and by all accounts it was a successful policy. Then he asked himself a question. In terms of reducing the number of people abusing the system, would it stop it? Yes. It would play a part in that.

So, as people who abuse or misuse welfare are counting on, mouths to feed will continue to win the day. If I had a further opportunity to respond I would have pointed out that if the incentive to have a baby or additional babies was removed the objection he put up may very well cease to exist. You see the discussion about DPB reform always grinds to a halt when someone asks, but what will happen to the vulnerable children?

What vulnerable children? The few that are still produced, despite their mother knowing she couldn't get onto a lifetime of income support with a home of her own? Rather than thousands every year there would be a few hundred whose mothers, by virtue of opting to go ahead without the DPB, would make the most motivated and emotionally well-equipped parents.

Stating the obvious - John Key on ACT

Asked what he thinks about ACT's decision to allow split voting just moments ago, the Prime Minister said ( thereabouts - I will post a link when it becomes available)

It risks sending a very confused message. If three of them are voting one way and two the other, what does ACT actually think or stand for?

Update; Here is the link (22:54). His exact words were "...what is ACT's position actually on something."

Putting the horse before the cart

A number of US state governors are turning down federal money, the 'stimulus' package for enhanced unemployment benefits. They do not want to expand entitlements and risk pushing up local taxes when the federal money dries up. Sound thinking.

Texas is one. Their unemployment rate is only 6.4 percent, well below the US average.

"The governor's main message is Texans who hire Texans drive our state's economic engine, and the last thing we need to do is burden them with higher taxes."

They can see exactly how further government intervention will damage their economy. Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi have already rejected the bail out money.

One silver lining on this dark cloud of recession is that at some future point we will be able to see which states have taken the right road. I will put my money on those who refuse to expand welfare.

'Free' votes and changed minds

Here is a radio interview which features Rodney Hide explaining to Justin du Fresne why ACT MPs should be able to have a 'free' vote and the real reason he changed his mind about the Gang Insignia Bill. (Starts at around 33.40)

'Decriminalisation' of drugs in Portugal

Portugal is predominantly Roman Catholic, has a population of 10 million and ranks 39th in international GDP per capita stakes.

In 2001 Portugal changed the law to allow people to have in their possession up to ten days supply of any drug, including cocaine and heroin, and escape a prison sentence. Under the decriminalisation model employed, regional authorities, made up of health professionals and social workers, focus on 'dissuasion' of drug use. If police discover people in possession of the prescribed amount or less they are referred to one of these boards to appear within 72 hours. According to their individual circumstances a number of things can happen. They can still be fined, although people found to be dependent are not. Professional licences can be revoked. But the main aim is to refer problem users to services and dissuade new users.

Trafficking, supply and cultivation are still crimes and police/court resources are freed up to concentrate more heavily on these.

The results by 2007 were an increase in cannabis use but drop in use of other drugs. Deaths from drugs dropped dramatically.

The perceived increase in cannabis use might not be an effect of decriminalisation because it is in line with European trends. Italy and Spain, without decriminalisation have also experienced an increase. Or it might be an effect of decriminalisation simply because people are being more honest when self-reporting about their use - not because of increased use.

The drop in deaths has a lot to do with heroin use and people now being able to get on substitution programmes (which NZ already has but are over-subscribed). Portugal had a big problem with HIV infection from shared needles.

Apparently the law change is still controversial but in place at this time.

(Hat tip to Ruth who alerted me to a forthcoming report by Glenn Greenwald - in association with Cato - about the decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal. The above information is from an earlier report from 2007.)

The same-old, same-old futility

You may be aware an international UN conference on drug control has been taking place in Vienna. We sent Peter Dunne who has been talking about New Zealand's means and end approach, the end being 'ultimate abstinence' and 'the elimination of illegal drugs'.

Who is he kidding?

Consider efforts to date;

What has the Drug War done for you lately?

WASHINGTON--A decade ago, the U.N. General Assembly set an objective of "eliminating or significantly reducing" narcotics cultivation and trafficking "by the year 2008." According to the data of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, the effort has been an unmitigated disaster. Opium and cannabis production has doubled, while cocaine has slightly increased. The same proportion of adults--5 percent--consumes drugs today, mostly marijuana, as in 1998.

As officials from around the world gather in Vienna this week to chart the next decade of the anti-drug effort, it may be time to rethink the entire approach.

Echoing the Prohibition era in the United States, illegality has engendered organized crime empires that, in order to supply narcotics, undermine the peace and institutions of many countries. The latest example is Mexico, where President Felipe Calderon has unleashed the wrath of the state against the drug lords. The war between the state and the cartels, and among the mafias themselves, has mostly taken place in northern cities such as Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana and Culiacan. Ten thousand people have been killed and drug-related corruption has been exposed at the highest levels, including the attorney general's office.

The anti-drug budget worldwide is staggering: The United States alone devotes more than $40 billion yearly to the effort. Yet whenever attempts to limit supply manage to raise street prices in one country, prices go down in other countries: In Europe, the price of cocaine has dropped by half since 1990. But the crackdown has reduced the purity of the drug, increasing the harm to people's health. According to the police, in Britain the purity has decreased from 60 percent to 30 percent in a decade.

Not to mention the consequences to individual liberty. Those who banned alcohol in 1920 felt compelled to amend the Constitution before they could pass Prohibition. No such amendment was ever presented to legitimize what Richard Nixon first called the "war on drugs" in 1971. The excesses committed in its name have created all sorts of social stigmas--including the fact that about 30 percent of black males in America spend some time in jail in large part due to drug-related offenses.

Three Latin American former presidents--Brazil's Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Mexico's Ernesto Zedillo and Colombia's Cesar Gaviria--recently put out a report condemning the war on drugs as a counterproductive failure, advocating a public health-based approach instead of repression. In anticipation of the meeting in Vienna, the latest issue of The Economist magazine, the bible of many current and aspiring enforcers of the law, devoted its cover, a survey and an editorial to making the case for legalization. For years, conservative publications such as The Wall Street Journal have run articles expressing the same view, including those by its expert on Latin America, Mary O'Grady. Leaders on the right (Henry Kissinger) and organizations of the center-left (George Soros' Open Society Institute) have also spoken out on the issue.

No one knows exactly how drug use would be impacted by its legalization or its decriminalization. In countries where it is severely punished, consumption is high, which might mean that it would stabilize or even drop. Many European countries--Spain, Portugal, Italy, several Swiss cantons--have extremely lenient drug policies; consumption in those countries (except for Spain) is not very high. But even assuming a moderate increase in consumption, decriminalization or legalization would eliminate or substantially diminish the horrific side effects of the current war.

A movement in favor of legalization has existed in the United States for years. Because it is associated with the cultural war that has raged since the 1960s, its impact has been small. But the debate goes on. In many states the police do not go after personal possession of marijuana, and California is considering a bill that would make it legal. The vestiges of Puritan dogmatism--which H.L. Mencken memorably called the "inferior man's hatred of the man who is having a better time"--have made it difficult to open a serious debate nationwide.

Today we regard the Opium Wars of the 19th century--by which the British retaliated against China for clamping down on opium imports--as crazy. One and a half centuries from now, people will read in total amazement that so much blood and treasure was wasted in the failed pursuit of a private vice that a relatively small percentage of the world population was not ready to give up.

Alvaro Vargas Llosa is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and the editor of Lessons from the Poor.

Victimless crimes and imprisonment

First I reiterate a part of a post from earlier in the week;

"The fact is: if you don't want to be assaulted - or worse - by a cellmate, avoid prison by not committing a crime," Mr Garrett said.

My response;

I wonder if Mr Garrett has forgotten that there are people in our prisons who are not violent; people who are guilty only of victimless crimes; people who should properly be in the care of psychiatrists and nursing staff; people who are on remand awaiting trial who may not even be convicted.

Mike E then referred to people imprisoned for "smoking pot" and was challenged by Mr Garrett to produce an example.

They may be unusual but certainly not unheard of.

This is from the 2002 Health Select Committee cannabis inquiry report:

p32: "Of the 9,399 prosecutions for the use of cannabis, 6,761 resulted in convictions, and 52 custodial sentences were imposed."

And from parliamentary questions;

Question 8479 (2004)

Question by Hon Tony Ryall to the Minister of Corrections:
June 14th 2004

How many inmates were imprisoned for possession of drugs but not manufacture or supply of drugs in each of the past five years, detailing how many had previous drug convictions and previous custodial sentences?

Hon Paul Swain (Minister of Corrections) replied:

The total number of inmates imprisoned for possession of drugs but not manufacture or supply of drugs in each of the last five years is as follow:

1999 431 inmates
2000 430 inmates
2001 443 inmates
2002 386 inmates
2003 411 inmates
2004 157 inmates (up to 31 May 2004)

While most sentences would have been for drugs other than cannabis, these substantial numbers represent the victimless crimes alluded to.

(Many thanks to Chris Fowlie of NORML for the speedy provision of information)

Absenteeism

Absenteeism. It's long been the bane of employers.

Lost productivity. The direct and indirect impact on profit.

Paying people to do nothing.

The impaired mental health and motivation of absentees.



Now suddenly it is the saviour. Now it is to be encouraged.

And on the tenth day God ... sorry, government, created a hand-out.

Behind the double-bunking debate

The debate about double-bunking and Greg Newbold's opinion that rapes would increase, being discussed at a number of sites, is certainly revealing some deeply ingrained attitudes. I have just commented on the feminist site, Hand Mirror. Cactus is over there asking this question;

Maia

So would you shed a tear if a man who has violently raped an innocent woman, is then raped in prison?

Honest answer please.

I'll answer it for you Cactus. I wouldn't shed a tear but I wouldn't be cheering either.

I have always accepted the idea of safe and secure preventive detention for the most dangerous criminals. But the tough on law and order brigade are starting to show their true colours. They are retributionists.

Think about where the strong culture of retribution has gotten many a Maori.

Retribution sits at the start of the problem - not the end. As Lucy says, this is eye-for-an-eye stuff. Where is the logical conclusion?

Antagonism for the sake of it

I have a bit of time for criminologist, Greg Newbold. When he shares an opinion I listen. But his latest comments, that double-bunking in prisons will lead to more violence and more rape, have wound up ACT's David Garrett.

Mr Garrett obviously believes that the state has no responsibility to keep people who are sent to prison safe. His latest statement, by way of response to Greg Newbold, is quite bloody-minded.

"I am further interested to note Dr Greg Newbold's remarks about homosexual rape – an issue he is on record as saying has never been a major problem in New Zealand prisons. Rape is a crime wherever it occurs, and can be dealt with in the same way as any other offence committed in prison.

"The fact is: if you don't want to be assaulted - or worse - by a cellmate, avoid prison by not committing a crime," Mr Garrett said.

I wonder if Mr Garrett has forgotten that there are people in our prisons who are not violent; people who are guilty only of victimless crimes; people who should properly be in the care of psychiatrists and nursing staff; people who are on remand awaiting trial who may not even be convicted.

Note too that he has now gone beyond the idea of prison as a means to keeping the public safe, his overriding rationale for the three strikes policy. It is now a place where you can get a taste of your own medicine, perhaps? Where you get what is coming to you.

Double-bunking may be a necessary and/or temporary last resort but it is a far cry from grudging or regretful acceptance to positively relishing the prospect.

Long-term ACC claimants

Prompted by Monkeys With Typewriters I had a look at the ACC 2008 Annual Report to ascertain how many long-term claimants there are. Here is what I found (and duly related at MWT's blogsite.)

Number of long-term claims

The number of long-term weekly compensation claims (i.e. claims in receipt of weekly compensation for more than 12 months) increased by 827 during the year to 30 June 2008 (compared with 580 during 2006-2007).



The figure of 14,755 has been sort of niggling at me. I had a vague idea that it was more than this from some earlier research. Sure enough in 2007 I found quite a different figure and cited ACC Injury Statistics 2006 (First Edition). So I went to the ACC site only to find the page is no longer available. Fortunately I had filed a hard copy for my records. Here it is;




That shows a total of 47,584 claims have been paying out for a year or more.

That's a big discrepancy. I cannot reconcile the 2 figures and believe the 2008 Annual Report is very misleading.

Very young mothers - a risk factor for criminality

VERY YOUNG MOTHERS - A RISK FACTOR FOR CRIMINALITY
Monday, March 9, 2009

A report recently released by Corrections New Zealand, which explores the "alarming" over-representation of Maori in the criminal justice system, has identified very young parents as a risk factor for potential criminality. Welfare commentator , Lindsay Mitchell, has welcomed the recognition of this fact but asks what government is going to do about the policy that encourages early parenthood.

"According to the report, traditional models of Maori family may well have been better able to support young mothers. This is , in part, a reference to whanau structure before it was undermined by welfare, in particular, the domestic purposes benefit. Along with welfare reliance comes poor educational attainment, exclusion from paid employment and disrupted home environments."

"Also explored are the compounding factors of impaired foetal neurological development which are associated with maternal smoking, alcohol and/or substance abuse, and low birth weight. It points out that Maori experience a higher rate of low-weight births than non-Maori."

"The report goes on to show that the rate of birth to Maori mothers under the age of 18 is five times that of non-Maori. "

"There is no doubt in my mind that the combination of the rising teenage birthrate and subsequent welfare dependence is contributing to the over -representation of Maori in prison or serving community sentences. We can continue to ignore this pattern and forget about reducing crime and the prison population, or, we can look seriously at reforming welfare. The matter becomes more urgent with each passing day."

Property rights abandoned for populism?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks, National

What is worse than one Families Commissioner?

Two

(Transcript here of Judith Collins mercilessly attacking the waste of taxpayers money on and by the Families Commission here.)

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Molly"

Updating artist blog. Morning's work. Molly.

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

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....

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?

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.

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.

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?

The awful welfare bind NZ is in

The DomPost reports that nearly 800 families are claiming the Restart benefit. Given entitlement was backdated to November 8, I believe this is quite a low number. Especially over a period where unemployment traditionally rises anyway. Of course, for context, what we need to know is how many applications have been denied.

I suspect that many of those claiming will be people returning to the DPB from working 20 or more hours per week and qualifying for the In Work payment. (It's a surprise that the Child Poverty Action Group haven't been carping about the inequity of this situation as they go on endlessly about the unfairness of the In Work payment and how it discriminates against children of beneficiaries. Now children of beneficiaries whose parent has been in work are getting more than those whose parents haven't.)

The article goes on to mention the Jobs Summit. My input/suggestion would be a radical overhaul of social security. As they say, ad nauseam, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. It should have been done when the economy was strong. But now the matter is even more urgent.

Here's the awful reality. We can't treat individual benefits in isolation. Some say, get rid of the DPB! But because, unlike other countries, NZ pays unemployment benefits as of universal right, from general taxation, denied the DPB, most of these individuals will gravitate to the dole. The US was able to reform their DPB equivalent because unemployment insurance wasn't automatically available to all. It is impossible to extract a positive effect from abolishing the DPB without reforming the unemployment benefit (and sickness and invalid benefits for that matter).

When social security came into being it was funded primarily through a special and additional tax. Only contributors reaped the benefits. That changed in the 1960s when it was decided that social security would be paid wholly from the consolidated account. What a mistake. How we are going to pay, are already paying, for the utopian ideal of a fair income for every citizen regardless of their input.

S92A PROTEST

Following the advice of Kiwiblog (who seemed to have trouble following it himself),

Don’t worry too much if parts of your site are still accessible. The main thing is not to put any fresh content up (except S92A material) on Monday morning, so that anyone checking the blogs out on Monday morning will find nothing but black banners protesting S92A.


Comments disabled

Update; Normal service resumed

Basis for unemployment prediction of 11.2 percent

According to a NewstalkZB report the NZ Institute has "dropped a bombshell" warning unemployment may reach 11.2 percent. I always wonder how they make these predictions. Here's the answer;

The eminent American economist Kenneth Rogoff and co-author Carmen Reinhart released research showing that recessions originating in financial crises such as the current global recession are
generally protracted affairs associated with profound declines in output and employment. On average, real house prices decline 35 percent stretched out over six years, while the downturn in equity markets lasts for at least three and a half years. Unemployment rises, on average, by seven percentage points. The decline in economic activity is steep – an average decline of over nine percent –although output recovers more quickly than employment with recovery starting after two years.

Applied to the New Zealand context, for example, this points to a worrying possibility that unemployment could rise from a historical low of 4.2% to a rate of 11.2% over the next two years – a rate exceeding the most pessimistic forecasts at the present time. This simple extrapolation may be misleading, however. The Rogoff/Reinhart study included all major postwar banking crises, and two major pre-war crises. Labour markets in advanced economies such as New Zealand have become more flexible over time, meaning that the unemployment impact may be less extreme today than predicted on the basis of historical averages. On the other hand, the present crisis is arguably more severe than any earlier banking crisis given its global scope, whereas earlier crises were more confined to one or more countries.

The point about the flexibility of labour markets is important and confirms that government moves to increase flexibility even further are well-advised.

Good economic news - I kid you not

As our biggest trading partner, Australia's economic news is very relevant. So it was heartening to read this headline today,

RBA chief upbeat on economy

RESERVE Bank governor Glenn Stevens has defied the doomsayers and predicted that Australia's struggling economy will begin to recover in the second half of this year.

Although next month's national accounts are expected to show negative growth, Mr Stevens believes it will begin to rebound within months and says Australia's key customer, China, may already be emerging from its slump.

The surprisingly upbeat remarks, delivered to the parliament's economics committee, saw financial markets back away from predictions of further interest rate cuts and pushed up the dollar.

"There aren't indications of recovery yet. That would be a bit soon," Mr Stevens said. "But I would expect that after just a little while that households who are in a reasonable financial situation will want to borrow more, and we will see that flow through into the housing sector.

"Loan approvals are already climbing. I think they will continue climbing and that will have an impact later in the year — not yet — on demand for construction of new dwellings.

Personally I am sick of the recessionary gloom but even worse, I am sick of the asinine idea that government spending can fix it. Ideas like the taxpayer funding four day working-weeks that return the same income; that in an emergency somehow central planning and greater forced wealth redistribution will produce economic growth when it has the opposite effect the rest of the time.

Unemployment is still at only 4.6 percent. In the early nineties it peaked at almost 11 percent. The UK, and Australian rates went even higher. I returned to NZ at this time and it was tough. Unemployed for the longest period of my working life, even had to go on the dole for a short period. But life went on and things improved.

The government is only going to make matters worse if it fails to heed basic advice. Get government spending down, substantially. Get tax down and compliance costs down. Make it possible for the private sector to ride it out.

Dementia and the right to avoid it

An opinion piece from The Times about dementia and the urgent need to look at voluntary euthanasia as an option for early-stage sufferers raises an interesting point.

More than a million of us will have dementia by 2025, two thirds of us women. The proportion of people affected doubles for every five years longer that you live, and we are now increasingly likely to lose our marbles before something else kills us.

As the medical community becomes better at preventing and curing cancers, as they did earlier with preventing and curing infections, life expectancy pushes out and dementia becomes more widespread. Personally I would rather go from a physical incurable condition than lose my mind. For all concerned.

The comments are worth a read as well. I haven't done a count but most appear supportive of the right to die, and many, of the right to be assisted to.

"A hot day on Taupo"

Just taking this off to the framer to enter into an exhibition called "Bringing the outside in". It's a pastel sketch from some photos I took on a recent Taupo trip.

Growing teenage birth rate - rebellion in action?

So the teenage birth rate continues to climb (as does the share of DPB recipients that are aged 18-19.) Here's why according to Statistics NZ top demographer;

The proportion of girls aged 15 to 19 having babies rose for the sixth year in a row, from a low of 2.6 per cent in 2002 to 3.1 per cent in 2007 and 3.3 per cent last year, Statistics NZ said yesterday.

The agency's principal demographer, Mansoor Khawaja, said young women appeared to be refusing to follow their mothers' decisions to have few children later in life.

"I reckon they just didn't agree with their mothers, which is not uncommon," he said.

"If you look at the previous generations, the mothers of the baby-boomers had roughly four children on average. The baby-boomers [born between 1945 and 1965] have ended up with less than two children each.

"There might have been a generation gap between the mother and the daughter. It's very interesting that every generation reverses the pattern of their mothers. They go back to their grandmothers."

I think this is completely wrong.

Most of the 15-19 year-olds having babies live in the poorest areas. The teenage birthrate in the poorest decile is around ten times higher than in the richest. These girls very often follow in their mother's footsteps. It is part and parcel of the environment of disadvantage and disregard for education. The above comments take no account of socio-economic differences and attitudes. It assumes uniformity amongst fertile females.

Also the Maori teenage birth rate is much higher and accounts for nearly half of all these births. Yet the comments virtually ignore this aspect of teenage birth. Many of today's 15 to 19 year-old Maori females were born when Maori unemployment was very high and they consequently grew up on welfare. I would be very surprised if they were the first-borns of 'older' mothers who then counselled their daughters to similarly delay childbirth. Very.

Bluff and bluster from CE

It certainly isn't an unusual occurrence to learn that someone who committed a crime requiring physical strength and dexterity, was on a sickness or invalid benefit. This prison census shows that 386 sentenced inmates had been on one of these benefits before incarceration.

What is unusual is the following letter published in this morning's DomPost;



Mr Hughes knows that he cannot legally deny an individual a benefit. ( Would that he could). But she could be reclassified as 'unemployed'. That would reduce her weekly 'pay' however, to which her response may very well be to go for a better paying 'job'. A domestic purposes beneficiary perhaps. She's only 43 after all. Having a baby now would just about see her through to Super. And that's assuming she doesn't already have other dependent children.

All bluff and bluster I'm afraid. The application of emphasis removes any misapprehension on the part of the reader.

"I can assure you that if Ms Stevens is not meeting the criteria for THIS benefit, it will be stopped."

Beat-ups and over-reactions

Firstly, Labour and the Greens are bleating about public service staff cuts under National but the biggest cut was under way under the last administration. A five percent reduction from the Ministry of Social Development was detailed in the Briefing to the Incoming Minister

Implementing the Value for Money initiatives
Implementing the savings initiatives will be challenging, and it will involve, among other things, reducing the number of staff we employ by upwards of 5 per cent over the next four years. We will need to dedicate significant resources, leadership and capability to ensure projects are successfully completed and the gains are fully realised

Secondly the letter from WINZ (under Labour the use of the term 'WINZ' was banished but Annette King seems happy to use it) does not instruct a beneficiary to go to a loan shark. It is a reiteration of what a client told their case manager they could do to improve their situation.

Paula Bennett's reaction to this letter in parliament yesterday was ... interesting. She visibly winced, acquiesced and then told the opposition that she did not expect to be agreeing with them so soon into her term as Minister. She should simply have said she would look into the matter.

Poor old MSD. What they have to put up with. And if all the political posturing isn't enough have a look here. This guy has really got it in for them. Really.

On the baby-faced father ... et al

I haven't felt inclined to comment about the now-famous adolescent couple from that English town my home is named after. But this is very good and says all that I have thought and much more;

... The local priest chimed in with additional stupid comments. “Whatever their ages, I say well done for bringing the child into the world,” said Father Seamus. No worries says the good reverend: “I expect social services will help and I would hope that they have got family and friends to help both of them.” No contraception, no abortion, no wonder the Catholic priest is thrilled. After all social services, i.e., the taxpayer, is there to support the child.

Children's Commissioner covering up

The Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro is reacting to National's proposed amendment of the Child, Youth and Family legislation;

“The hype around escalating serious youth offending and alleged public concerns about unsafe communities is not supported by data. The figures have stayed quite steady for the past 10 years."

Well, let's contrast that to what others have to say;

Last year, from the Principal Youth Court Judge;

"Violent offending is increasing. There has always been severe violence, but it is hard to get an accurate picture. We need to have much better statistics from the Ministry of Justice. We need to know [what is happening] early and the extent it's happening."

Judge Becroft said one thing that was known was that violence, especially severe violence, was escalating.

And from a 2007 MSD report;

While there was growth in the young person population, overall offending rates remained static over the same period. In fact, when considered on a per 10,000 of population basis, the ratio of apprehensions to population decreased by over 11%.

However, there were significant increases in violent offending. Apprehensions for violent offending rose by 36.4% over the previous 8 years and charges for violent offending increased by 57.6% between 2000 and 2005. This suggests it is the ferocity, not the frequency of offending which is changing.

And again from 2008, Kim Workman, National Director of Prison Fellowship and new appointment to the Families Commission said;

Yes, there has been a recent rise in the rate of apprehensions for violent offending, particularly serious violent offending. But that increase applies to every age cohort of the population – apart from 10 – 13 year olds.

And finally Family Court Judge Peter Boshier;

Judge Peter Boshier, who has been a judge since 1988, made the politically charged statement at a foster care conference in Hamilton yesterday, where he said he was shocked at what he saw happening in families now compared with what he saw 19 years ago.

"Twelve-year-olds, many of whom are committing quite heavy crimes, need to be more accountable than the present system is able to make them," he said.

Cindy Kiro has diminished the integrity of the role of Children's Commissioner. Yes, she is charged with speaking for children and youth and protecting their rights. But not at the cost of the truth.

Not a pretty picture

While searching for how many individuals go through the Youth Court (to put the 'worst 1,000 offenders' into context there are roughly 7,000) I came across this;



And in case you are wondering, between 2002 and 2007, the number of convictions for violent offences rose by 29% and the number of convictions for traffic offences rose by 28%.

I can't be bothered analysing it but I do like visual representations. Pictures are much easier to carry around in one's head.

Questions about farcical re-trials

What is it with the ever growing tendency towards appealing court decisions? They didn't used to be so commonplace. What changed? Is it legal aid? Lazy lawyers? Criminals addicted to seeing their name in print?

Do you want to pay for this guy to be re-tried? I sure as hell don't. Surely too, appeals use up resources contributing to unacceptable waiting times for initial trials. Appealing seems to be par for the course these days and is fast turning into a farce.

US welfare reforms under threat

There are fears that Obama will undo the welfare reform achievements of Reagan and Clinton;

[Obama's] success in piloting a $785 billion (£546 billion) stimulus package through Congress was being overshadowed by warnings that an unprecedented increase in welfare spending would undermine two decades of bipartisan attempts to reduce dependency on government handouts.

Robert Rector, a prominent welfare researcher who was one of the architects of Clinton's 1996 reform bill, warned last week that Obama’s stimulus plan was a “welfare spendathon” that would amount to the largest one-year increase in government handouts in American history.

But how can extra spending alone undo the reforms? My interest sparked I went and had a look at exactly what Robert Rector is saying;

The welfare reform of 1996 replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a new program named Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The key to welfare reform's reduction in dependency was the change in the funding structure of AFDC.[1]

Under the old AFDC program, states were given more federal funds if their welfare caseloads were increased, and funds were cut whenever the state caseload fell. This structure created a strong incentive for states to swell the welfare rolls. Prior to reform, one child in seven was receiving AFDC benefits.

When welfare reform replaced the old AFDC system with TANF, this perverse financial incentive to increase dependence was eliminated. Each state was given a flat funding level that did not vary whether the state increased or decreased its caseload. In addition, states were given the goal of reducing welfare dependence (or at least of requiring welfare recipients to prepare for employment).

The House and Senate stimulus bills will overturn the fiscal foundation of welfare reform and restore an AFDC-style funding system. For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.

It is clear that--in both the House and Senate stimulus bills--the original goal of helping families move to employment and self-sufficiency and off long-term dependence on government assistance has instead been replaced with the perverse incentive of adding more families to the welfare rolls. The House bill provides $4 billion per year to reward states to increase their TANF caseloads; the Senate bill follows the same policy but allocates less money.

In effect the gatekeepers have been given permission to ease up.

Rector goes on to say that yes, extra money may be needed for those unemployed but that contingent already existed. This is like making more money readily available to anyone who wants to go on the DPB, which as we know, is often resorted to for reasons other than unemployment.

Is there another sponsor for Peter Brown's bill?

In between mowing two lawns I must break to comment on NZ First Deputy Leader Peter Brown's resignation. Why? Because he was the sponsor of the Death With Dignity Bill. It was still in the ballot. The only live challenge to the status quo in respect of voluntary euthanasia. Will another party pick it up or draft similar? I very much hope so. It would be a good opportunity for ACT to reassert its traditional liberal credentials. The individual is the rightful owner of his life. Not society or God.

Putting the record straight

Earlier in the week Deborah Coddington asked me for information about the invalid and sickness benefit, statistics or direction on where to get them. I sent the following;

For current numbers go to;

http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/benefit/2008-national-benefit-factsheets.html

Note those are 18-64 year-olds and there are people aged 16 and 17 also receiving sickness and invalid benefits. Last stats I had were 1,250 (combined total) at Oct 2007. They are not routinely published.

That has become the following in her weekly Herald column;

Longtime benefit reform campaigner and one-time Act candidate Lindsay Mitchell said the number of 18- to 64-year-olds on invalid benefits rose at a rate of about 6 per cent a year under the Labour Government, and that doesn't include the 16- and 17-year-olds, about 2000, also drawing this benefit.

I don't know where the first part of the quote comes from. It's not far off the mark though. Having just worked it out, the average yearly increase between 1999 and 2008 is 5.4 percent. But the second part is incorrect.

In 2007 there were 1,113 16-17 year-olds on a invalid's benefit and 137 on a sickness benefit. In a column about the invalidity of the invalid's benefit I wouldn't have mentioned the 1,113 16-17 year-olds simply because they are quite likely to be young people with intellectual disabilities and severe lifetime physical disabilities.

I am happy to help journalists. I don't care if I don't get credit as long as the correct information gets out there.