Over at The Standard they are applauding the "It's Not OK" campaign because it has "been hugely successful. In a survey, 99% of Maori, 90% of Pacific people, and 90% of all those asked remembered the campaign."
Probably the same the same can be said of the "If you drink and drive you're a bloody idiot," or the "Every cigarette is doing you damage," campaigns.
Yet the drinking and driving stats are not looking very flash. The percentage of fatal crashes with alcohol/drugs as a factor has been fairly steady over the ten years to 2007;
1997 27%
1998 27
1999 23
2000 26
2001 26
2002 26
2003 31
2004 31
2005 30
2006 28
2007 31
Self-reported use of tobacco statistics are unreliable but consumption of tobacco is not;
New research suggests the government may have been over optimistic when it said that smoking is decreasing.
Last year's New Zealand Health Survey showed for the first time that just under 20% of adults smoked.
But a study published in the New Zealand medical journal disputes those figures, saying the number of cigarettes released to the market actually increased by 7%.
It says smokers tend to under report their smoking and future health surveys should include biochemical tests of a smoker's status.
Now I know that drinking and driving/smoking has reduced from the 1980s and early nineties. If that was an effect of advertising, today, at best, the advertising may be said to be having a containing effect. The Standard will argue that the "It's Not OK" campaign can have the same early effect because it is something new.
But it isn't. There have been a number of police and Women's Refuge anti-domestic violence campaigns. There was the high profile anti-family violence campaign "Breaking the cycle" in the second half of the nineties. Don't try and tell us that we have only just been given 'the message' that domestic violence is not OK.
I wonder if all these hugely expensive tax-payer funded media campaigns are just glorified make-work schemes. I also wonder if they don't sometimes provoke an emotional backlash.
One thing is clear - getting the message is not the same thing as acting it on. Apart from an increase in reporting I do not expect the "It's not OK" campaign to effect a decrease in domestic violence. Not while we keep on turning out ever more culprits with welfare-created families.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Stud farmers vs fertility specialists
Stud farms exist so mares can go to them, get served and produce a foal. A number are now offering a 75 percent money back guarantee if the mare fails to conceive. So the mare's owner pays let's say $10,000 but will have $7,500 refunded if the serving is unsuccessful.
Listening to Breakfast telly this morning I see that human fertility specialists have jumped on the bandwagon BUT their deal is a little more, what shall we say, self-interested. They offer 3 'treatments' with a 70 percent refund if no conception takes place. That is, the punter pays for 3 up front regardless of whether or not they are all needed. If the first treatment is successful the punter loses a substantial sum of money. And I call them punters because it really is gambling. And we are not talking small beer either. The cost is $24-30,000.
Why not one treatment with a 75 percent refund if unsuccessful?
I guess the fertility specialists costs are significantly higher than a stud farmers. But one wouldn't be surprised to see an improvement in the first-treatment success rate.
Listening to Breakfast telly this morning I see that human fertility specialists have jumped on the bandwagon BUT their deal is a little more, what shall we say, self-interested. They offer 3 'treatments' with a 70 percent refund if no conception takes place. That is, the punter pays for 3 up front regardless of whether or not they are all needed. If the first treatment is successful the punter loses a substantial sum of money. And I call them punters because it really is gambling. And we are not talking small beer either. The cost is $24-30,000.
Why not one treatment with a 75 percent refund if unsuccessful?
I guess the fertility specialists costs are significantly higher than a stud farmers. But one wouldn't be surprised to see an improvement in the first-treatment success rate.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
A Gender and Disaster Conference
“The purpose of this conference will be to address and review progress and existing challenges in mainstreaming gender issues in disaster risk reduction. At present there is an unequal balance in how disasters affect men and women” said Ms Chadwick.
Stevie don't-dock-dogs Chadwick has found an even more burning issue to occupy her.
It stretches the imagination how these hand-wringers propose tackling this anomaly. But hang on a minute. How did they work out that males and females are unequally affected by natural disasters?
In NZ I would expect that built-up city areas would fare the worst. If anything the population balance would be tilted towards men at any given time of the day.
As men predominate in rescue operations many will experience additional exposure to risk.
Surely gender makes little difference to children who are probably the most vulnerable given their lesser physical strength and (depending on age) reasoning abilities. Oh yes. One might make the same observation about females leaving out the age dependent qualification.
Is that it? Women are disproportionately affected by natural disaster because they are weak and stupid? Anyone that dreams up this kind of BS certainly is.
Perhaps while Ms Chadwick is over in the host country she can have a word about the the cruelty of docking dog tails. To the Chinese. Yes. It'll be about as useful as anything else she does while there.
Stevie don't-dock-dogs Chadwick has found an even more burning issue to occupy her.
It stretches the imagination how these hand-wringers propose tackling this anomaly. But hang on a minute. How did they work out that males and females are unequally affected by natural disasters?
In NZ I would expect that built-up city areas would fare the worst. If anything the population balance would be tilted towards men at any given time of the day.
As men predominate in rescue operations many will experience additional exposure to risk.
Surely gender makes little difference to children who are probably the most vulnerable given their lesser physical strength and (depending on age) reasoning abilities. Oh yes. One might make the same observation about females leaving out the age dependent qualification.
Is that it? Women are disproportionately affected by natural disaster because they are weak and stupid? Anyone that dreams up this kind of BS certainly is.
Perhaps while Ms Chadwick is over in the host country she can have a word about the the cruelty of docking dog tails. To the Chinese. Yes. It'll be about as useful as anything else she does while there.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
The Maori/Pakeha dilemma
I missed this yesterday. A wonderful piece of writing by Jim Hopkins throwing down the gauntlet to Pita Sharples.
In theory Hopkins is right. In theory. I am not sure about practice because we have yet to see what NZ would look like if Maori and Pakeha shared equal opportunities.
Like Hopkins I want to see the back of separatism but at the same time, we cannot impose our own worldviews on other people. In the specific matter of prison units, if Maori believe they have different solutions to Maori problems should we prevent them from trying? The money will be spent anyway.
What really exercises me is my desire to see us all go ahead together - whatever race or culture - versus my desire to accord Maori the trust and freedom to try to sort their own problems. Because it isn't just about law and order. It'll come in welfare, increasingly in education, and health. And the old adage, united we stand, divided we fall, has just wormed its way into my consciousness....
In theory Hopkins is right. In theory. I am not sure about practice because we have yet to see what NZ would look like if Maori and Pakeha shared equal opportunities.
Like Hopkins I want to see the back of separatism but at the same time, we cannot impose our own worldviews on other people. In the specific matter of prison units, if Maori believe they have different solutions to Maori problems should we prevent them from trying? The money will be spent anyway.
What really exercises me is my desire to see us all go ahead together - whatever race or culture - versus my desire to accord Maori the trust and freedom to try to sort their own problems. Because it isn't just about law and order. It'll come in welfare, increasingly in education, and health. And the old adage, united we stand, divided we fall, has just wormed its way into my consciousness....
Friday, April 17, 2009
Veitch, violence and unwelcome memories
I suppose if you are not blogging about Tony Veitch, you are not blogging. I had a strong and unwelcome recollection on hearing something last night. Something to the effect that Veitch was on the ground in a foetal position with both hands over his ears. She wouldn't stop and she wouldn't leave. It took me back to a very bad relationship I was once in. He was utterly controlling, didn't want me to have any other people in my life, including my own family. He would nag and nag until I was exhausted. There was no reasoning with him. Then when I tried to sleep he would turn on the light and pace around saying, "If I can't sleep, neither will you." When I tried to leave he would physically prevent me. When I had cried myself into a pathetic and very unattractive state he would take photos to "show you how ugly you get." And much more, stopping short of physical violence. It was hellish.
I don't know what happened between Veitch and his ex but I know that people can be mentally tormented to breaking point. To the point where all their normal abilities to think straight, to protect themselves, to act rationally, to empathise, have been destroyed simply because they aren't producing the expected and 'normal' results. What then? These sort of situations are mercifully outside of most people's experience. Yet they all have an opinion. I may leave the radio off today.
I don't know what happened between Veitch and his ex but I know that people can be mentally tormented to breaking point. To the point where all their normal abilities to think straight, to protect themselves, to act rationally, to empathise, have been destroyed simply because they aren't producing the expected and 'normal' results. What then? These sort of situations are mercifully outside of most people's experience. Yet they all have an opinion. I may leave the radio off today.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Why I am racist
Based on my small sample of 'clients' worked with over the past few years I have become somewhat racist. I acknowledge this. In fact, as I am about to get a new one, I think I am just going to come out and say, give me a Maori person, please. Why?
Well. I have just come across the formalised answer. It comes from a paper commissioned by the Ministry of Social Development. The research was based on the Q methodology. The sample wasn't large (20) but it is larger than mine. It assesses people's attitudes towards being on welfare.
The hypothesis here is that there exists a significant difference in the responses of Māori and NZ Europeans to the benefit system. In general, Māori have a more accepting and positive response than NZ Europeans, the latter having a more strongly developed sense of being “owed” by society.
This is good and this is bad. While Maori have a better attitude towards being on a benefit it quite probably (partly) explains why there are too many of them there!
Back to my own experience, it is difficult to motivate people who think they are "owed" whereas people who have retained a sense of humour and optimism are far more receptive and will give and take of themselves.
Well. I have just come across the formalised answer. It comes from a paper commissioned by the Ministry of Social Development. The research was based on the Q methodology. The sample wasn't large (20) but it is larger than mine. It assesses people's attitudes towards being on welfare.
The hypothesis here is that there exists a significant difference in the responses of Māori and NZ Europeans to the benefit system. In general, Māori have a more accepting and positive response than NZ Europeans, the latter having a more strongly developed sense of being “owed” by society.
This is good and this is bad. While Maori have a better attitude towards being on a benefit it quite probably (partly) explains why there are too many of them there!
Back to my own experience, it is difficult to motivate people who think they are "owed" whereas people who have retained a sense of humour and optimism are far more receptive and will give and take of themselves.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
A cap on rates - the least we should do
Since last year's election Gordon Campbell has been writing a column in my local newspaper. You can imagine the tenor and content. Last week it was a scaremongering piece about capping rates. (I see the NZ Herald has a similar piece today which makes a strange observation that because rates are visible they don't need capping. The extension of which would be that taxes are not, so they do need capping. Why not cap both? If the visibility is good, what could be more visible than a cap? And why are there so many champions of the unrestrained spending of other people's money?)
Anyway here is my brief response to Gordon Campbell printed in yesterday's Hutt News;
Anyway here is my brief response to Gordon Campbell printed in yesterday's Hutt News;
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Drug addiction and alcoholism - US welfare provision
The following is a little dry but provides a recent history of how the US provides for people who are substance abusers. SSI means Social Security Insurance. It is a mile from New Zealand's approach;
c. Drug Addiction and Alcoholism (DA&A)
1972
Public Law 92-603, enacted October 30
Any disabled individual who has been medically determined to be an alcoholic or drug addict must accept appropriate treatment, if available, in an approved facility and demonstrate compliance with conditions and requirements for treatment.
SSI payments are required to be made through a representative payee—another person or public or private agency designated by SSA to manage the recipient's benefit on his/her behalf.
1994
Public Law 103-296, enacted August 15
Any individual who is receiving SSI based on a disability where drug addiction or alcoholism is a contributing factor material to the finding of disability must comply with the DA&A treatment requirements. The individual must accept appropriate treatment when it is available and comply with the conditions and terms of treatment. Instances of noncompliance with the requirements result in progressively longer payment suspensions. Before payments can resume, the individual must demonstrate compliance for specific periods; 2 months, 3 months, and 6 months, respectively, for the first, second, third and subsequent instances of noncompliance. An individual who is not in compliance with the DA&A treatment requirements for 12 consecutive months shall not be eligible for payments; however, this does not prevent such individuals from reapplying and again becoming eligible for payments.
SSI disability payments based on DA&A are also limited to a total of 36 benefit months (beginning March 1995) regardless of whether appropriate treatment is available. Months for which benefits are not due and received do not count towards the 36-month limit.
Payments based on DA&A must be made to a representative payee. Preference is required to be given to community based nonprofit social service agencies and Federal, State, or local government agencies in representative payee selection. These agencies when serving as payees for individuals receiving payments based on DA&A may retain the lesser of 10 percent of the monthly benefit or $50 (adjusted annually after 1995 by the Consumer Price Index (CPI)) as compensation for their services.
Establishment of one or more referral and monitoring agencies for each State is required.
1996
Public Law 104-121, enacted March 29
An individual is not considered disabled if DA&A is a contributing factor material to a finding of disability.
Applies DA&A representative payee requirements enacted under Public Law 103-296 to disabled SSI recipients who have a DA&A condition and are incapable of managing their benefits. In addition, these recipients shall be referred to the appropriate State agency administering the State plan for substance abuse treatment.
After the last law change the claimant numbers were cut by half - from around 200,000 to 100,000. Obviously there will be people who have a DA&A condition who will still receive assistance because it isn't the prime contributing factor. For example, I imagine a war veteran amputee with a drug habit would still qualify as disabled.
The US approach is basic. The philosophy is very simple. If you want help from your fellow citizens, you have to be prepared to help yourself.
c. Drug Addiction and Alcoholism (DA&A)
1972
Public Law 92-603, enacted October 30
Any disabled individual who has been medically determined to be an alcoholic or drug addict must accept appropriate treatment, if available, in an approved facility and demonstrate compliance with conditions and requirements for treatment.
SSI payments are required to be made through a representative payee—another person or public or private agency designated by SSA to manage the recipient's benefit on his/her behalf.
1994
Public Law 103-296, enacted August 15
Any individual who is receiving SSI based on a disability where drug addiction or alcoholism is a contributing factor material to the finding of disability must comply with the DA&A treatment requirements. The individual must accept appropriate treatment when it is available and comply with the conditions and terms of treatment. Instances of noncompliance with the requirements result in progressively longer payment suspensions. Before payments can resume, the individual must demonstrate compliance for specific periods; 2 months, 3 months, and 6 months, respectively, for the first, second, third and subsequent instances of noncompliance. An individual who is not in compliance with the DA&A treatment requirements for 12 consecutive months shall not be eligible for payments; however, this does not prevent such individuals from reapplying and again becoming eligible for payments.
SSI disability payments based on DA&A are also limited to a total of 36 benefit months (beginning March 1995) regardless of whether appropriate treatment is available. Months for which benefits are not due and received do not count towards the 36-month limit.
Payments based on DA&A must be made to a representative payee. Preference is required to be given to community based nonprofit social service agencies and Federal, State, or local government agencies in representative payee selection. These agencies when serving as payees for individuals receiving payments based on DA&A may retain the lesser of 10 percent of the monthly benefit or $50 (adjusted annually after 1995 by the Consumer Price Index (CPI)) as compensation for their services.
Establishment of one or more referral and monitoring agencies for each State is required.
1996
Public Law 104-121, enacted March 29
An individual is not considered disabled if DA&A is a contributing factor material to a finding of disability.
Applies DA&A representative payee requirements enacted under Public Law 103-296 to disabled SSI recipients who have a DA&A condition and are incapable of managing their benefits. In addition, these recipients shall be referred to the appropriate State agency administering the State plan for substance abuse treatment.
After the last law change the claimant numbers were cut by half - from around 200,000 to 100,000. Obviously there will be people who have a DA&A condition who will still receive assistance because it isn't the prime contributing factor. For example, I imagine a war veteran amputee with a drug habit would still qualify as disabled.
The US approach is basic. The philosophy is very simple. If you want help from your fellow citizens, you have to be prepared to help yourself.
Turia recommends a return to past failure
Associate Minister for Social Development, Tariana Turia, is calling for a return to make-work schemes.
But Mrs Turia acknowledged the difficulty of re-introducing such programmes, saying colleagues were more interested in schemes promoting "sustainable employment".
"While I believe in that, I think that in times of really high unemployment, if we were to have make-work schemes then it's highly likely we will see what happened in the 80s where the crime rate will be lowered.
Crime will be lowered? When did that happen?
Make-work schemes divert money from the people who would create real jobs. Turia's 'colleagues' understand this.
Make-work schemes don't lower crime. The creation of more weavers and bone carvers is not a vital public service. So why advocate them?
But Mrs Turia acknowledged the difficulty of re-introducing such programmes, saying colleagues were more interested in schemes promoting "sustainable employment".
"While I believe in that, I think that in times of really high unemployment, if we were to have make-work schemes then it's highly likely we will see what happened in the 80s where the crime rate will be lowered.
Crime will be lowered? When did that happen?
Make-work schemes divert money from the people who would create real jobs. Turia's 'colleagues' understand this.
Make-work schemes don't lower crime. The creation of more weavers and bone carvers is not a vital public service. So why advocate them?
Sunday, April 12, 2009
"Maori women should be triply protected..."
New Zealand is about to be shamed by a high-profile international human rights group that says we are not doing enough to turn around our horrific record on domestic violence.
Contesse says Maori women should be triply protected by the Treaty of Waitangi, international codes for indigenous peoples' rights, and more generic international human rights conventions.
However: "Maori women are much more at risk of being assaulted or threatened by a partner... meaning, the NZ government is particularly failing Maori women in respect to domestic violence."
These overseas commentators frame matters in such a way that an uninformed reader would believe women are never more than victims of domestic violence. Yet our own eyes and ears would tell us that Maori women, in particular, can give as good as they get. They also indirectly contribute to the next generation's risk by abusing their own children. Let's be honest. I'm not going to trot out all the stats. Maori are disproportionately involved in family violence and changing that is as much about changing female attitudes as male.
Notwithstanding many, most I hope, Maori men and women are peaceable, patient, providers.
Contesse says Maori women should be triply protected by the Treaty of Waitangi, international codes for indigenous peoples' rights, and more generic international human rights conventions.
However: "Maori women are much more at risk of being assaulted or threatened by a partner... meaning, the NZ government is particularly failing Maori women in respect to domestic violence."
These overseas commentators frame matters in such a way that an uninformed reader would believe women are never more than victims of domestic violence. Yet our own eyes and ears would tell us that Maori women, in particular, can give as good as they get. They also indirectly contribute to the next generation's risk by abusing their own children. Let's be honest. I'm not going to trot out all the stats. Maori are disproportionately involved in family violence and changing that is as much about changing female attitudes as male.
Notwithstanding many, most I hope, Maori men and women are peaceable, patient, providers.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Guilty until proven innocent, again
Since the election of the National government I increasingly find myself lining up with the Greens. Only they and the Maori Party opposed the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. This is another 'guilty until proven innocent' adoption. Until now assets could only be confiscated on conviction of a crime. Now it will be possible to confiscate on suspicion.
From the Bill;
"Civil action will be able to target property that has been acquired as a result of unlawful activity even though it may not be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the owner has committed a specific criminal offence."
Now law.
The powers of the state are quietly expanding under our noses. And I am devastated (not too strong a word) yet again, that the very party I thought would oppose this business strongly, voted yes. And it didn't even have to.
From the Bill;
"Civil action will be able to target property that has been acquired as a result of unlawful activity even though it may not be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the owner has committed a specific criminal offence."
Now law.
The powers of the state are quietly expanding under our noses. And I am devastated (not too strong a word) yet again, that the very party I thought would oppose this business strongly, voted yes. And it didn't even have to.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Appreciating Helen
I have been reflecting on Helen Clark's incumbency and how we should remember her. In a nutshell Helen Clark re-grew the size and scope of government.
That's the same government that does a top job of running health, schools, the police, our defence force and ACC. The same government that unfailingly strengthens families with wonderful institutions like Working For Families, Paid Parental Leave, a non-work-tested DPB and laws that protect children. The same government that helped many more people onto sickness and invalid benefits. The same government that took a lot of our money, sometimes more than it needed, to make this the crime-free and prosperous country nobody wants to leave.
Some people just aren't trying hard enough to appreciate what Helen did.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Am I on another planet?
Yesterday I looked at conviction statistics and showed that violence has increased. Today I have sourced apprehension statistics to show the same. (Unfortunately these only go back to 1999.)
I then converted the apprehension numbers into rates per 1,000 of population and charted them against the unemployment rate.
One has been going up and one has been going down (until recently).
Revisiting what was posited yesterday in the New Zealand Herald about murder and violent crime;
Victoria University Institute of Criminology director Michael Rowe said the decline coincided with similar falls in violent crime in Australia, the United States and Britain since the early 1990s.
Unemployment has dropped since then in all three countries, until recently, as have the numbers in the most violence-prone group - males aged 15 to 29, who declined from 12.3 per cent of New Zealand's population in 1991 to 10 per cent in 2006.
Now there's a thing. We have more violent apprehensions per 1,000 while the most violence-prone age group is shrinking - relatively. Thank God we have an ageing population or that pink line would be even steeper.
I then converted the apprehension numbers into rates per 1,000 of population and charted them against the unemployment rate.
One has been going up and one has been going down (until recently).
Revisiting what was posited yesterday in the New Zealand Herald about murder and violent crime;
Victoria University Institute of Criminology director Michael Rowe said the decline coincided with similar falls in violent crime in Australia, the United States and Britain since the early 1990s.
Unemployment has dropped since then in all three countries, until recently, as have the numbers in the most violence-prone group - males aged 15 to 29, who declined from 12.3 per cent of New Zealand's population in 1991 to 10 per cent in 2006.
Now there's a thing. We have more violent apprehensions per 1,000 while the most violence-prone age group is shrinking - relatively. Thank God we have an ageing population or that pink line would be even steeper.
No mystery
This is apparently "baffling";
Police figures recording domestic violence incidents over the past 10 years show a large dip every April.
"It's a significant drop, but it's still a high figure. From March it really takes a dive. Then it starts going rapidly up again in May and, by October, it's all on again."
Daylight saving.
District family violence co-ordinator Senior Sergeant Chris Bunyan said the April dip would be a great research subject. "If there was research that found what environmental factors caused it, maybe we could replicate this across other parts of the year.
Daylight saving. Just get rid of it.
Police figures recording domestic violence incidents over the past 10 years show a large dip every April.
"It's a significant drop, but it's still a high figure. From March it really takes a dive. Then it starts going rapidly up again in May and, by October, it's all on again."
Daylight saving.
District family violence co-ordinator Senior Sergeant Chris Bunyan said the April dip would be a great research subject. "If there was research that found what environmental factors caused it, maybe we could replicate this across other parts of the year.
Daylight saving. Just get rid of it.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Substance abuse - a growing reason for welfare dependence
Media Release
SUBSTANCE ABUSE - A GROWING REASON FOR WELFARE DEPENDENCE
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The number of people on a sickness or invalid benefit, with a primary incapacity of substance abuse , has increased by 82 percent since 2002.
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said that in June 2002 3,202 people relied on one of these benefits because of substance abuse. "Information just released to me from the Ministry of Social Development shows that number has risen to 5,838."
"During last year's election campaign people who work in this area told me that the problem was getting worse. These figures confirm that perception. Most of the increase has happened in the last two years."
"Sadly Maori are over-represented in the statistics once again. Of the 4,190 sickness beneficiaries with substance abuse as their primary incapacity, Maori account for 34 percent. "
"Geographically Canterbury has around ten percent of the country's total beneficiaries. But when it comes to reliance on an invalid's benefit for substance abuse it has 21 percent of the country's total."
The Ministry of Social Development says it works with these beneficiaries "...until all of the barriers to independence and employment are removed" but they cannot make clients undertake medical interventions.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE - A GROWING REASON FOR WELFARE DEPENDENCE
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The number of people on a sickness or invalid benefit, with a primary incapacity of substance abuse , has increased by 82 percent since 2002.
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said that in June 2002 3,202 people relied on one of these benefits because of substance abuse. "Information just released to me from the Ministry of Social Development shows that number has risen to 5,838."
"During last year's election campaign people who work in this area told me that the problem was getting worse. These figures confirm that perception. Most of the increase has happened in the last two years."
"Sadly Maori are over-represented in the statistics once again. Of the 4,190 sickness beneficiaries with substance abuse as their primary incapacity, Maori account for 34 percent. "
"Geographically Canterbury has around ten percent of the country's total beneficiaries. But when it comes to reliance on an invalid's benefit for substance abuse it has 21 percent of the country's total."
The Ministry of Social Development says it works with these beneficiaries "...until all of the barriers to independence and employment are removed" but they cannot make clients undertake medical interventions.
Violence down?
According to Simon Collins at the New Zealand Herald;
New Zealand's murder rate appears to have almost halved in the past 20 years despite an overwhelming public belief that crime has got worse....The murder rate is regarded as one of the best measures of trends in actual violent crime, because it is least likely to be affected by changing police policies or public attitudes which are believed to have affected recent family violence statistics.
Collins is basing his observation on police statistics. He continues;
The rate leapt to an average of 21 murders per million people annually from 1985 to 1992, but has dropped steadily ever since.
However there are difficulties in using police stats as described in the article.
Based on conviction statistics using Statistics NZ table builder, from 1985 to 1992 the average annual number of convictions for murder was 27.9, with an average population of 3.375 million, provides a rate of 8.27 per 1 million.
Staying with convictions and the same source, the rate from 2000 - 2007 is 5.93.
Lower but hardly half.
As with car crashes, which I have argued more people are surviving, more people are probably surviving the trauma of assault. So rather than just murder, let's look at overall violence, which by the way, academics are convinced is an affect of unemployment.
Again, sticking with conviction statistics for violence, assuming the worst offending results in a custodial sentence, you can see that there are much lower numbers over the period of high unemployment with a steady rise from 2002.
And just for confirmation, let's look at Police statistics. Importantly these show the recorded rates of violent crime climbing from around 68 per 10,000 of population in 1988 to 140.4 in 2008.
So in summary, for whatever reason, the murder rate appears down. It isn't because there is less violence.
New Zealand's murder rate appears to have almost halved in the past 20 years despite an overwhelming public belief that crime has got worse....The murder rate is regarded as one of the best measures of trends in actual violent crime, because it is least likely to be affected by changing police policies or public attitudes which are believed to have affected recent family violence statistics.
Collins is basing his observation on police statistics. He continues;
The rate leapt to an average of 21 murders per million people annually from 1985 to 1992, but has dropped steadily ever since.
However there are difficulties in using police stats as described in the article.
Based on conviction statistics using Statistics NZ table builder, from 1985 to 1992 the average annual number of convictions for murder was 27.9, with an average population of 3.375 million, provides a rate of 8.27 per 1 million.
Staying with convictions and the same source, the rate from 2000 - 2007 is 5.93.
Lower but hardly half.
As with car crashes, which I have argued more people are surviving, more people are probably surviving the trauma of assault. So rather than just murder, let's look at overall violence, which by the way, academics are convinced is an affect of unemployment.
Again, sticking with conviction statistics for violence, assuming the worst offending results in a custodial sentence, you can see that there are much lower numbers over the period of high unemployment with a steady rise from 2002.
And just for confirmation, let's look at Police statistics. Importantly these show the recorded rates of violent crime climbing from around 68 per 10,000 of population in 1988 to 140.4 in 2008.
So in summary, for whatever reason, the murder rate appears down. It isn't because there is less violence.
Three Strikes - the saga continues
The Three Strikes law leaves me feeling ambivalent. As mentioned before, my doubt hinges on the possibility it may do more harm than good.
However Kim Workman is trying very hard to run it out of town by any means. So what if the calculations ACT made differ from the one he is making? There is nothing hidden. ACT's calculations were based on different inputs.
Mr Workman said Act needed to put things right.
Just a minute...
Mr Hide said the different figures had come about because three strikes had been merged with National's sentencing measures in the Sentencing and Parole Bill.
There you go. As they say, it's the putting right that counts.
I suspect this is just another attempt to shut down the discussion before it can be had; to discredit opponents instead of the idea.
In any event, the implication of Workman's figures is, as the strike qualifications currently stand, they will not save as many lives as would be the case under ACT's original policy. That should be taken into account at the select committee deliberations.
However Kim Workman is trying very hard to run it out of town by any means. So what if the calculations ACT made differ from the one he is making? There is nothing hidden. ACT's calculations were based on different inputs.
Mr Workman said Act needed to put things right.
Just a minute...
Mr Hide said the different figures had come about because three strikes had been merged with National's sentencing measures in the Sentencing and Parole Bill.
There you go. As they say, it's the putting right that counts.
I suspect this is just another attempt to shut down the discussion before it can be had; to discredit opponents instead of the idea.
In any event, the implication of Workman's figures is, as the strike qualifications currently stand, they will not save as many lives as would be the case under ACT's original policy. That should be taken into account at the select committee deliberations.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Men are men aren't they?
In a mildly bizarre coincidence men in the West are enraged that women in Afghanistan should be obliged to fulfil their husband's sexual desire while women in the West are enraged by a writer suggesting that western women should fulfil their husband's sexual desire and 'just do it' regardless.
What I find funny is the implication Afghani men are insatiable, rapacious beasts, but Western men are misunderstood, disappointed objects of pity who just "want to connect" with their partners. When it comes to sex (outside of a small number of deviants) men are men aren't they?
(This isn't a prompt to discuss compulsion versus voluntarism or collectivist, moral relativism:-))
What I find funny is the implication Afghani men are insatiable, rapacious beasts, but Western men are misunderstood, disappointed objects of pity who just "want to connect" with their partners. When it comes to sex (outside of a small number of deviants) men are men aren't they?
(This isn't a prompt to discuss compulsion versus voluntarism or collectivist, moral relativism:-))
Friday, April 03, 2009
In the interests of fairness
In the interests of fairness I can now post the last speeches David Garrett made during the committee stages of debating the Gang Insignia Bill. Although he casts ACT's 5 votes in favour at the second reading, he casts doubt on whether ACT will support the third reading. I have posted them in full;
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I have been invited by Labour to stand and state our position on this bill. I have to say that it is not easy to do, because there has been considerable debate among our party, among our supporters, and among our caucus, on our position on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill—and for very good reason. I am afraid that as much as I like and respect my new colleague Mr Bridges, I cannot agree that it is a good bill. It is not a good bill for a number of reasons. It is not a good bill because it does not clearly define what gang insignia is. It is not a good bill because it does not spell out exactly which areas in the Wanganui District Council district can be designated as gang-free zones.
Before continuing, I would like to take up Ms Turei’s point. I find it rather saddening to have to say, for about the fourth or fifth time I have spoken in this House after Ms Turei, that it would be very helpful if she actually read the bill that she was debating. She just stated that there is nothing in the bill that prevents the entire Wanganui District from being designated a specified place. I thought she had trained as a lawyer—I did so. If the member read clause 5(5), she would see that it specifically states: “A bylaw must not be made under subsection (1)(a) if the effect of the bylaw, either by itself or in conjunction with other bylaws made under subsection (1)(a), would be that all the public places in the district are specified places.” So there is one point that is completely incorrect, and it would be very, very helpful if those who were going to debate this would actually read the bill.
The second point that Ms Turei made that I am afraid I must take issue with, and quite strongly—and I will explain why in a moment—is this absolute nonsense that the bill is aimed at Māori gangs. The bill specifically refers to a number of gangs, including Hell’s Angels, the Mothers, and the Magogs. During the adjournment week I was contacted by text by one Shagger Gilmour—he was stupid enough to write it—of the Magog Motorcycle Club. He made some fairly carefully veiled threats to me over speeches I had made on this bill earlier. Shagger is a senior member of the Magog Motorcycle Club, which, despite his claims to the contrary, is either entirely, or at least mostly, a white gang. He claimed, although he would not name who the member was, that a Māori had been a founder member for 32 years, and he suggested that I in fact knew nothing about it and had never been there. I named a few of the members and he went a bit quiet. Hell’s Angels is also wholly, or almost wholly, a white gang. So the claim that this bill is aimed at Māori gangs is absolute and utter nonsense. Perhaps Ms Turei, during her next call, may wish to refer to Rooter Johnson, Smasher Harris, or whoever is a Māori and a member of those named gangs.
But I get on to the guts of the bill. As I said, I am afraid I cannot agree entirely with my colleague Mr Bridges, or, I am afraid, with my colleague Mr Borrows. There are a number of things wrong with the bill. It will not make a noticeable difference to the criminal activities of gangs. It will not, sadly, make much difference to their presence in Wanganui. I have to say, in all fairness, that I agree with the point made by Ms Mackey and others—and, again, I feel rather bad about having to say this—in relation to the killing of the young fellow with the wrongly coloured hoodie: the bill is likely to cause, and not to solve, that kind of confusion.
The bill is a measure of the desperation of the Wanganui community. They have had enough. As a society we have been frozen in the headlights, like a possum or a deer, for 30 years, over what to do. Norm Kirk—well before Mr Hughes was born, I suspect—said he was going to take the bikes off the bikies. It did not happen, so we have had the problem since at least 1972.
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I came to Parliament believing in the parliamentary process, that the executive did not, in fact—as the cynics say—dictate everything, and that the debate in this Chamber was actually meaningful. Since I have been here people both inside the Chamber and outside have laughed at that naivety and told me not to be silly, that I was right in the first place and it was all irrelevant, and that what happened here was all hot air and did not much matter. Well, who would have thought it? I have discovered that the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill has proved that the parliamentary process—and by the parliamentary process I mean this House—is relevant. I have been listening not just to this debate but to the earlier debates, and I have spoken in all of them, and sensible things are coming from almost all sides of the Chamber.
There are lots of arguments both for and against this legislation that have merit. On one hand, the people of Wanganui have clearly indicated their desire for this bill—more than 65 percent of them—and that is worthy of respect. I believe that while I was absent from the Chamber someone told Mr Boscawen, my colleague, that we were the libertarian party. Well, we are not. We have a libertarian wing, but we are the party of choice, so we respect the choice of the people of Wanganui. We promote freedom of speech. Many in our party are almost obsessed, I will say, with freedom of speech, but freedom of speech has limits. People cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. People cannot walk down the street with certain things on their T-shirts or they will be arrested. It has nothing to do with gangs. These groups—gangs, or whatever—are criminal organisations whose purpose is intimidation. Much of the recent debate has completely neglected the part of the bill that requires gangs to be identified as being criminal.
But there are problems of interpretation. I am a lawyer. There are problems in defining “insignia” and problems in defining “display”. All of those things are there. We could spend all night on the pros and cons, and the yin and yang. Members opposite have—with fairness and justification—asked where we stand, because we have created a little confusion. In fact, I will take responsibility and say that I have created some. I said at the outset that we were going to listen to the debate. I am afraid I have to say that what Mr Borrows, whom I respect greatly, thought was the coup de grâce—the story of the young man killed because he wore a red hoodie—in fact deeply disturbs me, and I am afraid that in all conscience I have to say that what the Labour members have said about that issue rings true.
So where does the ACT Party stand on this bill? Well, we stand right here. We are listening. It has been a very vigorous debate—probably not quite as vigorous as here— in our caucus and in our party. I am going to be honest and perhaps again prove my naivety and my newness, and say that much of what I have heard tonight from members opposite makes sense. Much of what I have heard from the National side has always made sense. So I wish to keep listening. I think our caucus wishes to keep listening and to discuss and debate what is being said, because the parliamentary process has proved itself in this debate not to be irrelevant, not to be hot air, and not to be controlled by an executive or someone else. Mr Chair and fellow members, our position is this: we will vote in favour of the bill at this Committee stage, but that does not presuppose that we will support the bill at its third reading. The only way we can continue to listen to the contributions from all sides is to vote in favour at this stage, and that is what we will do.
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I have been invited by Labour to stand and state our position on this bill. I have to say that it is not easy to do, because there has been considerable debate among our party, among our supporters, and among our caucus, on our position on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill—and for very good reason. I am afraid that as much as I like and respect my new colleague Mr Bridges, I cannot agree that it is a good bill. It is not a good bill for a number of reasons. It is not a good bill because it does not clearly define what gang insignia is. It is not a good bill because it does not spell out exactly which areas in the Wanganui District Council district can be designated as gang-free zones.
Before continuing, I would like to take up Ms Turei’s point. I find it rather saddening to have to say, for about the fourth or fifth time I have spoken in this House after Ms Turei, that it would be very helpful if she actually read the bill that she was debating. She just stated that there is nothing in the bill that prevents the entire Wanganui District from being designated a specified place. I thought she had trained as a lawyer—I did so. If the member read clause 5(5), she would see that it specifically states: “A bylaw must not be made under subsection (1)(a) if the effect of the bylaw, either by itself or in conjunction with other bylaws made under subsection (1)(a), would be that all the public places in the district are specified places.” So there is one point that is completely incorrect, and it would be very, very helpful if those who were going to debate this would actually read the bill.
The second point that Ms Turei made that I am afraid I must take issue with, and quite strongly—and I will explain why in a moment—is this absolute nonsense that the bill is aimed at Māori gangs. The bill specifically refers to a number of gangs, including Hell’s Angels, the Mothers, and the Magogs. During the adjournment week I was contacted by text by one Shagger Gilmour—he was stupid enough to write it—of the Magog Motorcycle Club. He made some fairly carefully veiled threats to me over speeches I had made on this bill earlier. Shagger is a senior member of the Magog Motorcycle Club, which, despite his claims to the contrary, is either entirely, or at least mostly, a white gang. He claimed, although he would not name who the member was, that a Māori had been a founder member for 32 years, and he suggested that I in fact knew nothing about it and had never been there. I named a few of the members and he went a bit quiet. Hell’s Angels is also wholly, or almost wholly, a white gang. So the claim that this bill is aimed at Māori gangs is absolute and utter nonsense. Perhaps Ms Turei, during her next call, may wish to refer to Rooter Johnson, Smasher Harris, or whoever is a Māori and a member of those named gangs.
But I get on to the guts of the bill. As I said, I am afraid I cannot agree entirely with my colleague Mr Bridges, or, I am afraid, with my colleague Mr Borrows. There are a number of things wrong with the bill. It will not make a noticeable difference to the criminal activities of gangs. It will not, sadly, make much difference to their presence in Wanganui. I have to say, in all fairness, that I agree with the point made by Ms Mackey and others—and, again, I feel rather bad about having to say this—in relation to the killing of the young fellow with the wrongly coloured hoodie: the bill is likely to cause, and not to solve, that kind of confusion.
The bill is a measure of the desperation of the Wanganui community. They have had enough. As a society we have been frozen in the headlights, like a possum or a deer, for 30 years, over what to do. Norm Kirk—well before Mr Hughes was born, I suspect—said he was going to take the bikes off the bikies. It did not happen, so we have had the problem since at least 1972.
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I came to Parliament believing in the parliamentary process, that the executive did not, in fact—as the cynics say—dictate everything, and that the debate in this Chamber was actually meaningful. Since I have been here people both inside the Chamber and outside have laughed at that naivety and told me not to be silly, that I was right in the first place and it was all irrelevant, and that what happened here was all hot air and did not much matter. Well, who would have thought it? I have discovered that the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill has proved that the parliamentary process—and by the parliamentary process I mean this House—is relevant. I have been listening not just to this debate but to the earlier debates, and I have spoken in all of them, and sensible things are coming from almost all sides of the Chamber.
There are lots of arguments both for and against this legislation that have merit. On one hand, the people of Wanganui have clearly indicated their desire for this bill—more than 65 percent of them—and that is worthy of respect. I believe that while I was absent from the Chamber someone told Mr Boscawen, my colleague, that we were the libertarian party. Well, we are not. We have a libertarian wing, but we are the party of choice, so we respect the choice of the people of Wanganui. We promote freedom of speech. Many in our party are almost obsessed, I will say, with freedom of speech, but freedom of speech has limits. People cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. People cannot walk down the street with certain things on their T-shirts or they will be arrested. It has nothing to do with gangs. These groups—gangs, or whatever—are criminal organisations whose purpose is intimidation. Much of the recent debate has completely neglected the part of the bill that requires gangs to be identified as being criminal.
But there are problems of interpretation. I am a lawyer. There are problems in defining “insignia” and problems in defining “display”. All of those things are there. We could spend all night on the pros and cons, and the yin and yang. Members opposite have—with fairness and justification—asked where we stand, because we have created a little confusion. In fact, I will take responsibility and say that I have created some. I said at the outset that we were going to listen to the debate. I am afraid I have to say that what Mr Borrows, whom I respect greatly, thought was the coup de grâce—the story of the young man killed because he wore a red hoodie—in fact deeply disturbs me, and I am afraid that in all conscience I have to say that what the Labour members have said about that issue rings true.
So where does the ACT Party stand on this bill? Well, we stand right here. We are listening. It has been a very vigorous debate—probably not quite as vigorous as here— in our caucus and in our party. I am going to be honest and perhaps again prove my naivety and my newness, and say that much of what I have heard tonight from members opposite makes sense. Much of what I have heard from the National side has always made sense. So I wish to keep listening. I think our caucus wishes to keep listening and to discuss and debate what is being said, because the parliamentary process has proved itself in this debate not to be irrelevant, not to be hot air, and not to be controlled by an executive or someone else. Mr Chair and fellow members, our position is this: we will vote in favour of the bill at this Committee stage, but that does not presuppose that we will support the bill at its third reading. The only way we can continue to listen to the contributions from all sides is to vote in favour at this stage, and that is what we will do.
John Tamihere - the new Apirana Ngata?
John Tamihere is getting closer to the source of the crime problem than others. I disagreed earlier with the assertion that preventing crime starts at school and said it starts earlier - in the family planning clinic or at home. Tamihere is saying, in the maternity ward.
JT seems to make some sense when he gets on his Maori solutions for Maori problems band-wagon, but I can't agree to separatism in the long run and just how long do these arrangements go for? I once rang his show and asked what happens to those Maori who don't want to come to his I'm-in-control-of-your-benefit-party? And he didn't have an answer. It relies on compulsion. The beneficiary agrees to the trust controlling their money or there is no money. Otherwise individuals will simply opt-out to avoid the paternalistic ministerings. It isn't unusual or difficult for Maori to up sticks and go elsewhere. Maori beneficiaries, in my experience, are a very mobile - or transient - group.
Ever since Maori have received welfare, from the early days of the Old Age Pension,and later the Family Benefit, there have been attempts to control how the money was spent. Agents were appointed and later tribal committees formed. I am personally dubious about their merits. Perhaps because the approach ignores the central question of why benefits are needed in the first place.
JT seems to make some sense when he gets on his Maori solutions for Maori problems band-wagon, but I can't agree to separatism in the long run and just how long do these arrangements go for? I once rang his show and asked what happens to those Maori who don't want to come to his I'm-in-control-of-your-benefit-party? And he didn't have an answer. It relies on compulsion. The beneficiary agrees to the trust controlling their money or there is no money. Otherwise individuals will simply opt-out to avoid the paternalistic ministerings. It isn't unusual or difficult for Maori to up sticks and go elsewhere. Maori beneficiaries, in my experience, are a very mobile - or transient - group.
Ever since Maori have received welfare, from the early days of the Old Age Pension,and later the Family Benefit, there have been attempts to control how the money was spent. Agents were appointed and later tribal committees formed. I am personally dubious about their merits. Perhaps because the approach ignores the central question of why benefits are needed in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
