Wrong again

The headline says; Preventing crime begins at school

Preventing crime does NOT begin at school. It begins at the family planning clinic or failing that, at home. Many, perhaps most, potential criminals are born under easily identifiable circumstances. To a young, particularly very young mother or as a younger sibling of a mother who started having babies early; with an absent father, especially one absent due to being in prison; to a parent dependent on welfare supplemented by black market income; with a parent(s) who has drug/alcohol/gambling abuse/addiction problem; to a parent or wider family member who will abuse especially sexually.

All this is going on before the child even reaches school.

Sadly even those children removed and put into foster care of some sort are still at much higher risk of becoming criminals although the earlier the removal happens, the better.

Putting psychologists into schools is not the answer. We didn't used to have the crime rates we now almost take for granted and we didn't used to have psychologists in schools.

Look, no-one can actively stop the wrong people, or wrong in their current lifestyle, having children. But there is so much more that could be done to discourage them and /or find alternative homes for those children who do arrive. Young men in prison have already fathered more than children than those not in prison. I am willing to accept that the UK research stacks up here. Most of those children will be on welfare. We have to get in there and change the incentives and how we deal with unsupported pregnancies/births where the issue is clearly going to be going home (if you can call it that) to all of the conditions I have described.

Expecting to turn these kids around when they reach school (but still spend most of their time in their shitty homes with their shitty parents) is pie in the sky.

As Oswald said so eloquently yesterday, Are these people mad??

Govt decision to back down on DPB changes - stupid

Media Release

GOVT DECISION TO BACK DOWN ON DPB CHANGES - STUPID

Friday, March 27, 2009

Reacting to news the government has decided to put the re-introduction of DPB work-testing on hold, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell simply said, "Stupid."

"National campaigned on re-introducing DPB work-testing for parents whose youngest child has turned six . Although I criticised the policy as toothless because there is no cap on how many children a recipient can have while on welfare, it nevertheless sends a message that being on the DPB shouldn't be considered a permanent state of affairs. Now that message has gone on hold, apparently because of the recession."

"At a time when unemployment is rising sharply the government needs to be doing all it can to discourage dependence on other benefits. Right now the number of teenagers going on to the DPB is high and growing. That's because the DPB is viewed as a de facto job-for-life. It is imperative that the government reinforces , at all times, that the DPB is a safety net of last resort."

"This move also implies that any jobs available are for the unemployed, more often men. But in a house with growing children, having at least one working parent is enormously important. Having a working parent is probably the most effective way of teaching a work ethic to the next generation."

"And as employers adapt to the recession more part-time jobs, those frequently taken up by mothers with school-age children, are being created. In the last year the part-time workforce grew by nearly 4 percent whereas as the full-time workforce was static."

"National has made a big mistake here. What they should be doing is tightening the rules surrounding eligibility for the DPB - not loosening them."

Dear MSD ...

Dear Ministry of Social Development,

I am aware that you read my blog and you are most welcome.

So, where is the response to my most recent Official Information Request? You sent me a letter, on behalf of Peter Hughes, Chief Executive, on March 18 saying that an extension of time was required to "consult with other parties" and that, "My response will be with you no later than March 24."

I have just returned from a trip to my letterbox empty-handed, again. Are you sure you haven't sent it to someone else? This is not outside the realms of possibility as I have in the past received responses that were intended for another person. Still, your performance is better than the IRD's which, on one occasion, took months to furnish a reply after repeatedly losing my questions. And generally you perform better than the police who are unable to answer questions simply because they do not keep relevant statistics ( eg the number of false rape allegations made or the age and gender of homicide victims). You are certainly doing better than the Children's Commissioner who just makes things up.

Please. I do not want to resort to the Office of the Ombudsman yet again because they take even longer to react.

Sincerely

Lindsay Mitchell

Keeping perspective

From Parliament yesterday;

5. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen about job losses in the current economic climate?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : There has been a sharp increase in the rate of unemployment. There are 35,283 people currently on the unemployment benefit, and that number is up by 15,250 on last year’s number.

Here are the unemployment benefit figures at March 31 for the last 5 years;

(March 25 2009 35,283)

March 31 2008 19,034

March 31 2007 28,845

March 31 2006 38,796

March 31 2005 54,936

March 31 2004 75,164


Considering New Zealand has been in a recession since early last year, a 15,000 jump isn't too bad (apologies to anyone who has lost their job. I can't think of a more diplomatic way to put it). There are year-to-year drops of more than that during earlier periods (bearing in mind of course that they may have been more about WINZ management than the economy).

Bigger year-to-year increases were recorded between 1982 to 83, 86 to 87, 88 to 89 and 91 to 92 when the workforce was considerably smaller.

Name the problem

The front page of the DomPost features an article making the claim that new entrants are increasingly turning up to school lacking reading, writing and life skills.

Foxton's Coley St School principal Richard McMillan said about 80 per cent of this year's new entrants did not know how to hold a pencil, had no letter knowledge, poor book knowledge, and did not know how to look after themselves.

"Some do not even have basic life skills like eating properly and washing hands."

The school provided special remedial support programmes, while other schools used teacher aides.

"There are too many young parents lacking basic parenting skills not reading to their children, not talking to them, teaching them basic hygiene."

He believed the problem was more prevalent in lower socio-economic rural areas.

New Zealand Educational Institute president Frances Nelson said new entrants' readiness varied across the country. Children who had not had early childhood education tended to be less prepared.

"Unfortunately, it's increasingly in [poorer] low-decile areas where access to preschool education is not so easy to come by.

"Hawera Primary School head Neryda Sullivan said new entrants were increasingly not meeting basic benchmarks described in the Education Ministry's Literacy Learning Progressions. Many were missing early indicators, "like reading from the front to the back of a book and realising illustrations relate to text".

Deputy principal Shevaun O'Brien said 19 of 36 of the school's new entrants rated below average last year. "People are under a lot of time pressure everyone is so busy."

Principals Federation president Ernie Buutveld also said access to early childhood education was likely to be a factor. "It may also suggest families need two incomes, and probably there is less time being spent doing some of those things being done in the old times."

But he added that families in which both parents were working were more likely to send their children to pre-school.

So there is a contradiction there. Pre-school helps prepare for school. That is indisputable. The both-parents-work excuse doesn't wash with me. Busy people tend to apply their effort across all endeavours.

Nobody is saying it so I will. Much of the problem - not all of it - stems from welfarism. A laziness and apathy pervades many beneficiary homes. It may be that there are mental problems that need resolving. Then again I think much of the diagnosis of stress and depression is driven by the don't-blame-the-victim mentality.

There are 177 on the DPB in Foxton. That'll represent about 300 children. Not all of them at school of course. Coley St School has a roll of around 270. Another 250 children go to other Foxton Schools. I think it would be safe to estimate one in three Foxton children is from a home where nobody goes out to work. Homes where there should be ample time to spend interacting with the children. Yet studies show that welfare recipients talk less to their children.

But getting back to the comments from those interviewed. If nobody names the problem, how are we ever going to fix it?

Blaming the messenger

Isn't it great. The decision to reduce the subsidy on Losec, a treatment for heartburn and stomach ulcers, was made when Labour was in government. The generic, Dr Reddy's, is fully funded and patients who don't want to pay for Losec are being switched over.

But here is Labour MP, Ross Robertson, doing the only thing he can by way of a response to his constituents. Blaming the pharmacist.

“My point is choice. My constituents tell me pharmacists are switching them to the new variety of Losec without telling them they can still get the old one, albeit at a cost.

“The simple courtesy of telling folk that a choice exists is surely not too hard for pharmacists."

If pharmacists don't tell them it is because they are sick of getting flak over decisions that are beyond their control.

“I am taking this issue to the Minister as I believe that choice is a huge issue for older folk, and that the Government is obliged to ensure that vulnerable people know they do have a choice,” he concluded.

And... choice? CHOICE? Don't make me choke. It is the Labour model, the socialist publicly-funded health system that results in one-size-fits-all rationing. Most of the time the introduction of the 'free' generic kills off other alternatives. Choice. Save me.

Criminal inconsistency

A bill currently before select committee reads;

Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill

The purpose of the bill is to allow Police wide powers to collect DNA from persons before being charged or convicted, such as matching DNA profiles against samples from unsolved scenes of crime.

As it stands the law allows forced sampling from people who are judged 'guilty on accusation' (charged) and politicians, under pressure from the police and tough-on-law-and-order advocates, want to extend that to 'guilty on suspicion'.

The government and its support party, however, are able to discern the wrongness of the 'guilty on accusation' presumption in respect of copyright law and have scrapped the proposed changes.

If they were consistent they would also drop this bill. I am very uncomfortable when I read 'wide powers' and 'police' in the same sentence.

Hide - Don't come to me

Good to see Rodney Hide taking an economical approach with his language as well as ratepayer's money. An excerpt from an interview with Hawke's Bay bloggers, BayBuzz;

Your supporters in Hawke’s Bay are pretty conservative with regard to what should be within the circle of core services. But we also have some local elected officials here who are busily promoting so-called infrastructure spending.

(Hide) I understand that. If there’s pork being thrown around, people will want it coming their way.

How are you fending that off?

(Hide) Look, people know that I’m the last person to come to. Very early on in the piece, I was at a meeting of the Auckland area mayors. John Key explained they were going to be spending up on infrastructure. The question was asked: “Who they should approach in Government if they had some good infrastructure projects?” John Key suggested myself. I said “No way, because the answer from me will always be no.” I’m the last person to be approaching about spending more taxpayers’ or ratepayers’ money.

(Hat tip DPF)

Mandatory child abuse reporting

Did I miss something?

In respect of the commerce select committee holding an inquiry into finance company collapse and what might be achieved with law change ...

... Dalziel said the country had made it mandatory to report child abuse. There was an argument for thinking along similar lines in finance.

Say what?

According to the Ministry of Health;

Is it mandatory to report abuse?
In New Zealand, it is not mandatory to report partner and child abuse.

It is surprising that Dalziel could make such a considerable error (if she has been correctly reported.) I hope it is hers and not mine. Mandatory child abuse reporting is a bad idea. More law, more criminalisation, fewer people using their brains.

Welfare Reform in a Recession

A High Priority Promise
23 March 2009
Muriel Newman

In the seventies, the famous writer and philosopher Ayn Rand described the pervasive danger of the welfare state. She could have been writing about New Zealand today. Driven by power-seeking politicians, the welfare safety net has been manipulated over the years to the point where instead of alleviating hardship, it is creating unimaginable harm to some recipients, and widespread damage to society and the economy as a whole.... More >>>

Welfare Reform in a Recession
22 March 2009
Lindsay Mitchell

During a recent radio interview I was asked, is this a bad time to be talking about reforming welfare? No, I replied with little hesitation. There is no bad time to be trying to reform welfare. The period under the last Labour government would have been an ideal time to radically reform welfare because jobs were plentiful (thanks to the 1980s economic reforms, globalisation and a strong world economy). Now, with recessionary unemployment rising, job opportunities are becoming more scarce seeming to thwart the chances of moving people off welfare..... More

Sunday sermon from Sir Johnathan Sacks

I have an argument with a left-leaning friend. She thinks libertarianism is good in theory but doesn't believe people can be trusted to do the right thing voluntarily. So governments have to take charge of wealth redistribution rather than leaving it to a freely functioning labour market. That sort of thing. She has a rather poor opinion of her fellow beings. Increasingly though her estimation is fleshed out. While I hold to the vision (the Thomas Sowell sort of 'vision') that without more individual freedom we will never know what many people are constructively capable of.

The following excerpt pretty much says it all for me. Our current predicament isn't a failure of the market (which was never free anyway). It is a failure of values. And it vindicates for me why honesty and moral principles are the bedrock of any organisation - be it a family or a multi-national conglomerate or a political party.

The market economy has generated more real wealth, eliminated more poverty and liberated more human creativity than any other economic system. The fault is not with the market but with the idea that the market alone is all we need.

Markets don't guarantee equity, responsibility or integrity. They can maximise short-term gain at the cost of long-term sustainability. They don't distribute rewards fairly. They don't guarantee honesty. When it comes to flagrant self-interest, they combine the maximum temptation with the maximum opportunity. Markets need morals, and morals are not made by markets.

They are made by schools, the media, custom, tradition, religious leaders, moral role models and the influence of people. But when religion loses its voice and the media worship success, when right and wrong become relativised and morality is condemned as “judgmental”, when people lose all sense of honour and shame and there is nothing they won't do if they can get away with it, no regulation will save us. People will outwit the regulators, as they did by the securitisation of risk so no one knew who owed what to whom.

The big question is: how do we learn to be moral again? Markets were made to serve us; we were not made to serve markets. Economics needs ethics. Markets do not survive by market forces alone. They depend on respect for the people affected by our decisions. Lose that and we lose not just money and jobs but something more significant still: freedom, trust and decency, the things that have a value, not a price.

NZ "liberal and progressive" says Garrett

ACT MP, David Garrett is again reacting to criticism of his three strikes bill (when it might be a better course of action to just ignore detractors).

This morning we learned that Foreign Affairs has advised that the three strikes law could breach UN mandated obligations regarding civil rights. Leave it for the select committee. That's what Simon Power said. I didn't think the issue was worth blogging about. However.....

Garrett has now issued a release saying the claims are 'completely laughable'.

"This is especially so when you consider that a leading member of the UN Human Rights Council is Saudi Arabia - a country notorious for severe oppression of political and religious minorities, homosexuals, and women," Mr Garrett said.

"In Saudi Arabia court-sanctioned amputations and brutal lashings are a common form of punishment for petty crimes; public execution by beheading can be expected for those convicted of armed robbery or homosexuality.

"Meanwhile, homosexuals in nearby Qatar - another Council member - get off quite lightly by receiving only a five-year prison sentence for homosexual sex between consenting adults. Not surprisingly, capital punishment is still common - with the death penalty being handed down to those convicted of abandoning and renouncing Islam.

"On the flipside, New Zealand is a liberal and progressive nation by any measure. Why then, should we be expected to pay any attention whatsoever to covenants set down by barbaric regimes like those of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Council members?" Mr Garrett said.

He would know about where the death penalty is still common having researched and written an entire book arguing that New Zealand should re-instate the death penalty.

New Zealand, of course, wouldn't be a 'barbaric regime' for imposing the death penalty because it would only apply to murderers, by Mr Garrett's prescription. We would still be a liberal and progressive nation.

Come to think of it, Mr Garrett is normally heard denigrating 'liberal' and 'progressive' thinking. Perhaps he has had some sort of conversion. I hope so.

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)