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.

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.

Sometimes self-respect is more important

So David Garrett refused to cheer for Helen Clark. I can understand how he felt. I recall staying seated when John Banks got a standing ovation at an ACT conference. And staying away from another ACT conference because Tariana Turia was attending and I couldn't face the prospect of applauding her when I abhor her ideas. She, like Clark, can be admired for her steadfastedness, conviction and tenacity but I personally cannot separate the person from their ideas. And it's not as if Clark is retiring to climb mountains and tramp the hills, where she can do no further harm. I hope I would have had the presence of mind to stay seated as well. Hypocrisy is just too hard for some people to stomach.

Causes of crime 1

As there is a conference investigating the drivers of crime taking place in Wellington tomorrow I will do a couple of posts that might assist;



Along the bottom axis are US states. Their respective violent teen crime rates (left axis) and single parent rates (right axis) are then plotted showing a correlation. The rapid growth of single parent families is the result of state subsidy. Driver of crime? Welfare.

(Source of chart - Heritage Foundation/ Travis Snyder:Welfare;History, Results and Reform)

What Labour said last year

Here's what Annette King said last year about the 2007 Crime Statistics;

Crime Statistics Provide Signs Of Encouragement

Police Minister Annette King says the lowest murder statistics for a decade show New Zealand has not become a more dangerous place in which to live.

Commenting on the crime statistics for the 2007 calendar year, Ms King said: “Time and time again, whenever there is a random cluster of murders, the doom merchants and people with political barrows to push claim our streets are no longer safe to walk in.

“The reality is that murder statistics don’t fluctuate much from year to year. Last year there were 45 murders, fewer than for a decade. That’s still too many, as far as I am concerned, but murders are not out of control, as some would suggest. In terms of violent crime, the real tragedy for our society continues to be domestic violence.”

Ms King said she is encouraged, however, that women are now reporting incidents of domestic violence in greater numbers. “It is becoming clearer that women now have sufficient confidence in the police to report incidents of domestic violence.

“I believe that what we are seeing is a truer reflection of the level of violence against women in our society. The increased number of violent offences in the statistics is almost entirely driven --- 5810 out of 6252 extra offences --- by recorded family violence. I also believe and hope that the current ‘it’s not OK’ and similar campaigns will encourage women to continue coming forward,” she said.

“We are now living in is a society in which women in particular feel police will take them seriously if they ask for help and protection. The fact that police laid 5151 more domestic violence prosecutions last year than in 2006 shows police are highly committed to addressing this blight on our society.”

Ms King said she was encouraged by a number of aspects of the annual statistics, including:

• The incidence of recorded crime has remained at roughly the same level as in 2006, and has actually reduced 0.5 percent on the basis of recorded offences per 10,000 population.

• While the actual number of offences increased by about 2000 during the year, police resolved nearly 10,000 more cases than they did in 2006.

• The 37 percent increase (2414 more offences) in recorded breaches of liquor bans. “As we should all know, crime, particularly violence, is often fuelled by alcohol. That’s why police are taking an increasingly tough stance on policing alcohol breaches.”

• A five per cent reduction in burglaries and an eight percent reduction in car conversions. “Overall, in fact, recorded dishonesty offences, which make up more than half of all offences, fell 5.1 percent in 2007, and police say this continues a long-term trend that has seen a decrease in dishonesty offences per head of population by almost a third over the past decade.”

• Ten percent fewer offences under the broad heading of homicide and seven percent fewer robbery offences. “In most headings under the violence category increases have been largely driven by recorded domestic violence incidents, and the recorded increase in an area such as intimidation and threats shows people are no longer as prepared to accept this sort of behaviour.”

Ms King said she particularly wanted to congratulate police generally for resolving 9539 more offences last year than they did in 2006.

“This success can presumably be attributed to a number of factors, but I have no doubt that two of the principal ones are intelligence-led policing, and the extra police resources that have been put in place by the Labour-led Government through its confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First.

“We are already more than halfway toward our target of 1000 extra frontline staff by the end of June next year. I know from comments received from staff around the country that the extra police are making a substantial difference in terms of fighting crime and making our communities safer.”

My point?

Well I just thought you could absorb that while we wait for Labour's release about the Crime Statistics released today. Somehow I don't think the response will be framed in such glowing terms. I will keep you posted.

Offence 2006 2007 2008 variance 07/08

Violence Grievous Assaults 4,116 4,831 5,125 6.1 %
Group Assemblies 457 576 592 2.8 %
Homicide 98 88 109 23.9 %
Intimidation And Threats 12,567 13,977 14,452 3.4 %
Kidnapping And Abduction 263 257 254 -1.2 %
Minor Assaults 12,700 14,021 15,420 10.0 %
Robbery 2,801 2,610 2,493 -4.5 %
Serious Assaults 17,729 20,623 21,490 4.2 %
Violence 50,731 56,983 59,935 5.2 %

Update. Laughable. Labour wants the credit for the increase in violent crime.

“In the last crime statistics family violence accounted for the entire increase in violent crime, and it was quite frankly sickening to hear National leader John Key trivialising the issue for purely political motives. John Key tried to relate the increase in violent crime to street crime and gangs and robberies and youth violence, instead of recognising the value of campaigns launched by Labour to encourage the reporting of family violence,” Clayton Cosgrove said.

Good job, bro

No, you have not come to the wrong blog. I was very proud of my youngest brother yesterday when he won the top award for low-cost housing design (featured left top). He came down from Auckland for the announcement, not yet knowing whether his entry was the winner from 148. In a happy coincidence it was Mum and Dad's 53rd wedding anniversary and we all got together for lunch in Oriental Bay. Stephen came to architecture relatively late. Messed about for a few years (lived) before finding his real interest, became a mature student and hasn't looked back. The Campbell Show featured a virtual model of his design last night. I was forewarned. At lunch he said to me, oh by the way, I used some of your art on the walls. "I didn't want to get sued."

I was impressed. Good job, bro.

nb. I should add that quite obviously we do not share the same politics:-) If I had time I might be able to convince him that the govt that is his friend today is turning on the same philosophy as the one that is the bane of his life every other day in the guise of thick building officers, exorbitant permit fees, delays, and general gross local government incompetency - all of which he could write a book about.

Who's a wally?

The following are excerpts from last week's debate on the Gang Insignia Bill. I have been completely subjective and posted only the bits that made sense to me.

Michael Cullen;

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) : I strongly support the underlying intention of this bill—what it is trying to do—but I strongly oppose it because it simply will not achieve its basic purposes and cannot achieve those basic purposes with the mechanisms that are suggested. I think it was Rodney Hide who said in the first reading on this bill that he was opposed to the legislation because what was objectionable about gangs was what they did, not what they wore. Now for some strange reason the ACT Party, which more and more is simply the political arm of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, has decided to do a complete U-turn and support the legislation for reasons that are beyond me given the coherence of the arguments put up by Mr Hide on the first reading of the bill...

...Are we really passing legislation of this sort—and why? This is a classic example of the need to be seen to do something, as opposed to actually doing something that will actually address the issue. This measure is purely cosmetic. This is bravely running up to gang members, putting some lipstick on them, and saying they will look a lot nicer from now on and that because they look a lot nicer they will now behave a lot more nicely.

Shane Jones;

This bill, I genuinely believe, will worsen the gang situation in Wanganui. This bill will provide a platform for a greater level of notoriety amongst a predominantly younger group of members who are attracted to the wilder side of life. They will now know, as a consequence of this bill, that it is cool, a rite of passage, and actually a measure of distinction, not just to the gangs but to the wider community, to poke one’s fingers at a stupid bill that will never be fully implemented. It will enrich legions of lawyers as they move away from the Treaty trough into the gang insignia trough.




Unfortunately, it is not David Garrett who is the wally. Arguably I am a bigger wally because I helped get him voted into parliament.

Update; There is apparently a later speech by David Garrett which is not at the Parliamentary website.

This is the last speech available, and, given ACT voted 5 ayes last week, I assumed it was the speech that preceded the vote. I stand corrected in making a wrong assumption. If Mr Garrett (and other ACT MPs) change their minds about voting 'yes' at the final reading I will be delighted;

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : Before getting into the speech I have prepared on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill, I will address some comments made by the previous speaker that were, frankly, just plain incorrect. I do not know what her knowledge of gang culture is—and I use that word “culture” in quotes—but I have visited a few headquarters in my time. When I was at the Magog Motorcycle Club clubhouse in New Plymouth some years ago, it was an all-white gang. The Mothers Motor-cycle Club of Palmerston North, I believe, does not permit Māori members. I do not think we would find a Māori member of the Hell’s Angels, either. They are all white gangs, and they are all targeted by this bill. There is not a focus on Māori gangs, and I dispute the member’s claim that in the public mind the word “gang” is synonymous with Māori gang. That may be some people’s view, but anyone who knows a bit about them knows that claim is simply incorrect.

I will ask for indulgence at the start if my pronunciation is not perfect, but tā moko, as I understand it, has absolutely nothing to do with a clenched fist tattooed on the side of someone’s face, or with a barking dog with a spiked collar and a German helmet. These are the sorts of tattoos we are talking about. They are not the koru on the planes of Air New Zealand, but deliberately intimidating tattoos that are designed to put people off and to frighten them.

I am rising to speak on this bill and to support it. I would like first, if I may, to pay tribute to the sponsor of this bill, Chester Borrows. As more senior members of this House will be aware, ACT voted against this bill at its first reading last year. We did so not because we supported gangs but because of a concern that innocent New Zealanders could be caught up in its provisions. I must say that I think Ms Turei makes a very valid point, unfortunately. I do not mean that sarcastically against her, but the removal of patches per se may well cause confusion, and difficulties with scarves wrapped around hands and with the other kinds of tags that are used by these clowns. If only they were clowns. ACT was originally concerned that legitimate motorcycle enthusiasts, youth groups, and even church members could fall foul of this law, and so voted against it. Following the passage of the bill through the select committee process, Mr Borrows has sought our support for this bill, and has addressed many of our concerns.

One point needs to be made again very clearly, and on this I think I may differ from my colleague sitting in front of me, the Hon Tariana Turia. I guess by definition I am now referring to ethnic gangs. Gangs are not whānau. They are not clubs. They are not family substitutes. They are criminal organisations. They are methamphetamine-dealing, thieving, car-breaking, intimidating groups of people. That is what they are. They are criminals. They should, in fact, be illegal, but it seems to be too difficult for us to make them illegal. This is a good second step. It will target those who wear gang insignia, offensive gang patches, and other things, so I am happy to stand here today and to support the bill on behalf of my colleagues.

At the first reading the Hon Rodney Hide, who is now the Minister of Local Government, said correctly that this bill will not solve the problem of gangs. I think that anyone who thinks it could solve that problem would be incredibly naive. Indeed, the bill acknowledges in its explanatory note that it will not even solve the gang problem in Wanganui. But it will give, as Chester Borrows said, the police and local authorities more power to deal with this problem. It is another tool.

It is pleasing to see that the Law and Order Committee resisted the advice it received and opted to retain a schedule of gangs that will be targeted by the bill. Those are mainly the Mongrel Mob, Black Power, Hell’s Angels, Nomads, Tribesmen, Magogs, and the Mothers Motor-cycle Club. As I noted at the beginning of my speech, at least three of those gangs are, or at least were, exclusively white gangs.

The lowering of the maximum fine is also important. Since this Parliament began last December we have heard time and time again the figure of $700 million - odd in unpaid fines. Lowering the fine may make collection more manageable. Personally I would like to see a return to the days of a fine or, in default, 28 days in jail, but those are very unfashionable provisions these days.

The next amendment recommended by the Law and Order Committee, which I am sure will please the Minister of Local Government, is the inclusion of a new clause 9, which makes the police the sole enforcement agency under this legislation. That is very important. Gang members by their nature are more likely than the average New Zealander to be carrying a weapon and to engage in criminal activity. Council staff are simply not trained to deal in such a way with gang members, who often congregate in large groups. In my view council staff are in the same situation as our country’s fisheries officers—putting their lives on the line to keep the rule of law with little or no training or means to protect themselves. Increasingly, we see fisheries officers targeted and exposed to violence in their job.

Again, I thank Chester Borrows for his willingness to engage with ACT members, to respond to our concerns, and to talk to us about why he thinks this bill is a good idea. It will not solve all the problems. Other measures are required, including the “three strikes and you’re out” bill, which is at present before the Law and Order Committee.

I welcome Chester Borrows’ commitment to me to listen with an open mind to the reasons behind the “three strikes” legislation, and to give it his support along with the support of his fellow members if he can be convinced that it is, in fact, a good idea, and that many of the alarmist claims about that bill are simply without foundation. That legislation, if passed, will ensure that gang members, who are often among the worst recidivist and violent offenders, will be locked up for longer. It will ensure that criminals like Antonie Ronnie Dixon and William Bell will not walk our streets to kill again. We will not have any more William Bells. No one will get the chance to get 102 convictions before graduating to killer status. That bill will ensure that decent New Zealand families are spared the anguish of losing a loved one to a paroled killer.

Legislation passed by this Government on the “three strikes” policy—hopefully—on DNA sampling, and on this ban of gang patches, at least at this local level, will go some way toward keeping New Zealanders safe, which everyone in this House claims to be very keen on, and one would hope that they were. I commend this bill to the House, and I will support it on behalf of the ACT Party.

Exactly what 'isn't working'?

A surge in child abuse cases has been recorded at Starship Children's Hospital.

Ministry of Health child and youth health chief adviser Pat Tuohy said the high numbers of recent child abuse cases were very concerning.

"It's hard to know if it's a statistical blip but certainly if it continues it means what we're doing isn't working."

Which raises the question, WHAT isn't working?

Perhaps he is referring to the endless anti-violence TV advertisements that deeply upset many but go over the head of the ones it is aimed at?

The legislative changes that were intended to send a message that hitting (and smacking for that matter) are not OK?

The collaborative inter-agency systems for reporting and addressing abuse?

The war on drugs and under-age alcohol consumption?

The hiring of 8 teenage parent supervisors for the entire country?

The political disassembling of two parent families?

The active all-but abolition of adoption?


One thing I am sure he isn't talking about is the continuing practice of encouraging unwanted births with relatively generous welfare payments.

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.