Ralston on National
Bill Ralston has some advice for National:
For example, National has a somewhat doctrinaire policy of lifting the cap on GPs’ fees.
That’s hardly a vote winner, especially when former Health Minister Pete Hodgson was able to beat his chest that Labour had halved of the cost of a GP visit, which was boosting the health of New Zealanders who no longer delayed going to the doctor.
National needs to learn the basic rule that anything that puts money in people’s pockets is good, anything that takes money out is bad. It’s hardly rocket science but, apart from tax cuts, the Nats don’t always get it.
Incidentially there isn’t really a cap at the moment, but that’s a debate for another day. Ralston’s point is well made.
John Key did hit the right note on law and order this week, for once not bungling a policy release. National is promising Tasers for the police, another 1000 frontline cops, tougher bail laws, better protection orders, compulsory DNA tests for criminals and a hardline approach to gangs. That will impress an increasingly jittery middle New Zealand.
Yes it was a smooth release. Much relief I am sure 
But the big issue for Ralston is interest rates:
National’s finance spokesman Bill English is also right on target when he hits on high interest rates. Michael Cullen came out on Friday saying, somewhat disingenuously, that he wasn’t planning an “election-year lolly scramble”. English struck back correctly pointing out that the Government’s $4 billion over-spending in the Budget was keeping interest rates high.
He quoted an ANZ bank report that says, “the biggest losers in an inflationary environment are middle- to low-income households”. That’s the kind of message he needs to push, because high interest rates are crucifying voters in the mortgage belt of the major cities.
Interest rates have been a major factor in Australian elections. They haven’t been much of an issue in NZ for a while, as rates have been relatively low. But they could well be a big factor in 2008.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Yes it was a smooth release. Much relief I am sure
Except that it was based on the misperception that crime is out of control. It’s not. It’s declining under Labour, and at a faster rate than it ever did under National. Didn’t hear that one in Key’s speech.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Tane – if you want to argue that the current level of crime is acceptable, then go to a public meeting and advocate that. There is always further work to be done to make people safer.
And as you well know violent crime has been rising constantly since 1999. Other more minor crime has decreased but I think the average NZer is more worried about violent and sexual crimes – not how many people have been arrested for cannabis use.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:11 am
David,
You are right on the money. Whatever way Tane and others want to present it the crimes that really concern NZers are not abating. The incidence of violence is on the rise and more significantly the level of that violence becomes more extreme.
Friday and Saturday nights at casualty departments look more like MASH except that the casuaties are mostly incoherent from booze and drugs.
However, I am not sure that any of the parties have real answers as to how to make a difference. It is going to mean restraining some of the activities that are seen as rights. Neither will they advocate the assumption of any responsibility, particularly by those who are most vocal about rights.
It is a vote loser irrespective of political colour. Those who believe the only thing that matters is them the individual. Advocating and insisting on improveed levels of behaviour and responsibility is always someone elses problem.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:14 am
The good thing about Tane’s comment is that he continues to show just how completely out of touch he and his fellow travelers are.
Keep up the good work Tane.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:26 am
What you did hear in John Key’s speech was “Last year, on average, six Kiwi police officers were assaulted every day. That number is higher than at any time in New Zealand’s history. Weapons, such as firearms or guns, were used in 88 of those assaults. [...] Some 11,000 more violent offences occurred last year than in 1999.”
November 5th, 2007 at 10:27 am
It is good to see that at least one group of politicians is willing to tackle violent crime. It would be better if they could root it out entirely, but that will require a reversal of the lack of responsibility that the Labour government has tried to instill in everyone over the last 9 years. And frankly, making people less dependant on the government for their thinking and income will be a difficult trend to reverse and vastly unpopular.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Tane, qualify your statement with “reported” crime is decreasing and I will beleive you!
November 5th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Contrary to what Ralston claims Labour have well proved that we know how to look after the economy and that is why interest rates will not be an issue because once Goff gets in he will ensure that the steady hand that Cullen has held over the Treasury is continued with Mr…….(Chauvel?-just joking) and therefore interest rates will lower slightly as the economy improves further.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:39 am
National’s policy is that your DNA can be when you are arrested for any crime that is punishable by prison.
Hilariously every crime is punishable by prison.
You may all talk about living in a nanny state, I’d much ratehr than than living in a police state. Thanks.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:39 am
How can interest rates come down when the Government is doing everything it can to put cost pressures in the economy driving it up. Take the extra week’s leave, the very high wage settlements in the public sector and hence the private sector, the reregulation of the economy, the high marginal taxation for families drving wage settlements. It is all adding to cost pressures and hence inflation. With increased inflation come increases in interest rates.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
david c said
“National’s policy is that your DNA can be when you are arrested for any crime that is punishable by prison.”
Yes and right now you will have your photo and fingerprints taken. What’s the difference? Perhaps the fact that DNA is more accurate and a successful prosecution is more likely for the toerags who commit most of the crime. No doubt lawyers won’t be happy because their successful defence rates just might collapse.
The law abiding have nothing to fear. However the low life who think they can act with impunity may just have their wings clipped a bit.
I have a right to live in a peaceful law abiding society but I also have a responsibility to be a law abiding citizen. Let’s get the balance correct. I demand my rights and in return I will accept my responsibilities. Easy isn’t it. No one has a right to deny me my rights or prevent me from exervcising my responsibilities.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
“The law abiding have nothing to fear” well let’s put cameras on the corners of every street shall we? Or even better, we can bug every telephone call. I’m sure then it’s only the criminals who will be up in arms.
Why stop here at a DNA databank?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Actually ladies and gentlemen, every child in the country has a heel prick sample taken at birth! All we need is for these records to be opened to police!
We now have dna analysis as a standard procedure, and a there are many instances on record where DNA evidence has exonerated a person rather than convicted a person.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Right of Way etc,
Absolutely right.
I would prefer to have DNA exonerating the genuinely innocent person rather than denying us the opportunity of convicting 100′s of genuinely guilty toerags.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I’m not particularly in favour of DNA databanks. The problem is the percentages. Imagine we go the whole hog – everyone in NZ has a DNA sample (at least everyone who gives a sample). There are 4 million people in NZ.
So imagine there is a crime committed. We know that the likelihood of a match for any arbitrary person is 1 in 1 million or so. So we run the DNA from the crime scene, and we find that there is only one match in NZ. It is you. And you don’t have a good alibi. You also don’t have any motive, and you weren’t there at the time. What are your chances of escaping conviction? Even though the crime was actually committed by a tourist who wasn’t in the data bank.
The problem isn’t the concept itself, the problem is that people attribute worth to the evidence that isn’t there. In theory we just tell everyone that there is a one in a million chance they may have the wrong person, and therefore they need some other corroborating evidence. In reality, they get in the jury room and say “sure, he reckons he didn’t do it. But 1 in a million, lets convict.”
The way things are today, you start with a case against someone – there is some reason they were thought to have done it. Then you check the DNA as corroboration. Much more robust to my mind.
I am cautiously in favour – it is an extension of existing records (fingerprints etc), but it needs to be very carefully managed.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Yeah, that looks bad, not in favour at top, cautiously in favour at bottom. Re-read before posting…
I think there are risks. If managed, they are surmountable, and those risks can also exist with other technologies such as fingerprints. I’m not clear at present whether it will be well managed.
If someone close to me was seriously assaulted, I would like to know that we could at least check all existing violent offenders. Otherwise, a genuine stranger assault is very difficult to investigate. There is a lot of evidence that suggests a high percentage likelihood that an offender will already have a criminal record.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
So National are now busy banging the drum marked ‘law & order’. Nice to see that the ususal synchophantic mob here at kiwiblog give a hearty ‘cheer’ and not one of you bothers to ask simple questions like:
(i) How are National going to get 1000 more police when the police are struggling to recruit at there current levels?
or
(ii) Why is National promising Tasers when that decision is to be made by the police themselves in about 6 weeks time and seems most likely they will be adopted?
November 5th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
“So National are now busy banging the drum marked ‘law & order’”
Perhaps with better tools and less obstacles to the prosecution of offenders there may be a need for fewer police.
Do you have any idea how many police staff (sworn and unsworn) are involved simply investigating and answering frivolous and petty complaints and requests for information for political hacks and others to use in their little games?
On the subject of Tasers. What National is really doing is pledging support to the police for them to be able to use this effective non-lethal tool. Oh yes someone will give me the example of someone, somewhere who died from Taser strike. Chances are he/she would have died if the alternative to the taser had been used.
Have you thought of the trauma that police suffer if they do actually kill someone. Firearms generally cause that result. A non fatal result from the taser limits that risk as well. The police are not dealing with little angels in the circumstances that they need to use them.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
All three of John Key’s suggested reforms have merit and the DNA one is commonsense. Paul L sees shadows where there are none, the presence of DNA merely establishes presence at a crime scene and calls for an explanation in the absence of which guilt may or may not be inferred. All the other elements of the charge still have to be proved. Likewise most people other than perpetrators would feel more secure with the presence of street cameras and the perps less so….. All these measures will be of little effect unless many of the Police Powers diminished over the years are restored, the hopelessly in-efficient legal system fundamentally changed, and realistic punishment meted out to violent offenders.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
…”DNA is terrific to use in forensics because it is stable (for years if
kept dry), highly polymorphic, the same in all the cells of our body,
never changes, and can be obtained from the smallest amounts of material.
Defense attorneys like DNA because the results are conclusive in
elimination cases; a scientist can say with absolute certainty that a
stain did NOT come from someone. In fact, the very first use of DNA in a
criminal case in the world showed that the DNA could not have come from
the person who confessed to the crime. The police subsequently found out
who committed the crime.
A DNA match is a little more difficult to explain. At each genetic “site”
a person inherits a factor from the mother and one from the father. The
occurrence of this “type” may be 1 in 10. If the frequency of occurrence
is 1 in 10 at the next site, then the chance of having this profile at
both sites is 1 in 100, and so on. We look at 13 loci and in my simple
example, the frequency of occurence would be 1 in 10,000,000,000,000.
This number is larger than the population of the earth and so one would
think that this is identity.”
November 5th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Sam, not so. As a simple example, identical twins share identical DNA, so irrespective that the odds are low, in reality it occurs. Even at 1 in 10,000,000,000,000, there are a non-zero number of non-related people who would match. I also think that in many cases not all the loci get matched, so you get a lower probability. The problem is that the numbers look convincing to those without a statistical background, and therefore the rest of the police work gets ignored.
My statistical background is a bit rusty, but I recall going through the numbers at one point, and the laws of probability mean that something like 1% of the time there would be more than one potential match, even though on an individual sample there is a one in whatever chance. Something about a difference in the rates depending on whether you are attempting to prove or disprove a hypothesis. I recall a similar thing where you take a group of people (say, cancer sufferers) and look for correlations with particular factors. If you start with a factor you have a hypothesis on, and then check for correlation, the math is very different than if you shotgun one hundred different factors and then pick the ones that have correlation.
This is where I like the idea of a criminal database but not a database for everybody. Because there are a lot of people that aren’t in the database, the police and prosecution must assume that there might be someone else who matches, and still do some proper policework. Once the database (in theory at least) covers the whole population, the database becomes a substitute for police work.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Personally speaking, I am in favour of the wider use of DNA in garnering convictions, unless Right of way is way of right is involved, and he knows why!
November 5th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I do not care what your political leaning is Tasers are killers, and are the wrong step.
Just last week here in Vancouver, Robert Dziekanski an immigrant with limited english was tasered (twice) by the RCMP for being agitated and died. The RCMP (mounties) are known for their gun-ho approach to policing, and the witness to this event (who video taped the entire episode) has gone on national telly saying how they went in debating do they taser him or get him to calm down first and the response was taser him and get questions later.
The victims elderly mum was sitting outside the immigration office and was waiting to meet her son on his first day in his new country. By all accounts he has no history of violence etc etc, and the earlier witneses all said he was a nice guy. There was also no alcohol or drugs in the mans system.
However as he had limited/no english and immigration held the poor sod for nearly 10 hours (even though he had all the legit papers to enter the country – he’s Polish?). He eventually became annoyed and he’s a big boy.
One thing led to another, blah blah blah and a innocent poor bastard is dead because of some RCMP wanted to fire Taser first and ask questions later.
I don’t care much for the Insaninty Sentencing Trust, and have very very little time for Greg O’Connor, but I have admired the work of Rudi Giuliani (just to prove that I’m not some tree hugging loonie leftie as will be the cries I’m sure).
All I know is that just like guns, these things can kill people and innocent people at that.
Sad sad story and worth reading.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071103.BCTASER03/TPStory/?query=RCMP+Taser
No to tasers!!!
November 5th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Paul, the question is what the alternative is. In some cases in NZ the choices were between shooting or putting police lives at risk. They have chosen to shoot, and the perp has ended up dead.
If the nature of the situation is that they are questioning whether to taser or talk to the guy, then there is a problem. If they are choosing between a gun or a taser, then I’d like the taser available as an option.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
“They have chosen to shoot, and the perp has ended up dead.”
Most of those perps, and the % is high were medicated patients let loose on the streets because they were refused the care they needed when major institutions were closed. when they have no supervision they lapse in their meds and cause problems. this of course was well known by the policy makers and at the end of the day we saw the legalised justification for human culling of the mentally sick.
Govt knows how to get around paying the bills.
Oh yeah,, we all know that don’t we.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Mental health problems have been growing in society for years. They were growing under National (and a major election issue), and no real action has been taken under Labour.
There is a high correlation between substance abuse, mental illness and crime. Which are causes and which symptoms is difficult to determine. What is clear is that if the mental health issues were dealt with it would have a substantial impact on the crime rate.
Unfortunately no govt to date has had a robust policy on this, nor the guts to act. Our surplus would be more than sufficient to deal with this properly (and have tax cuts), and long-term it would probably pay for itself in savings of crime, policing, imprisonment, welfare etc.
I’m not sure myself what the right policy would look like, I’m pretty sure that what we have isn’t it.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
“Mental health problems have been growing in society for years.”
what is the reason for that??
If we knew that we would be winners.
Maori of course would blame the helplessness to deal with colonialism.
I suspect the real reason is drug abuse. Utter cop out of course.
In fact legalising marijuana would make it less appealing. it all has to do with rebellion. You can’t be rebellious if something is legal.
Of course the PC brigade has stuffed that up making smoking un PC.
The govts not happy either, they would love to tax drugs. Prostitution is the proof of that.
Simply put though, when there was no marijuana, mental health problems were minimal. we want to feel good the easy way instead of working for our goals.
Short cuts are always the path to desruction.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Not sure that is all of it. Society has become more disconnected over the years – there was a time people knew and cared about their neighbours. In smaller towns you knew everybody. People with mental health issues had support before they became major issues. Conversely, mental health issues weren’t always recognised, so if you got up to too much no good, then into jail with you. Not particularly enlightened, but did keep a lid on crime.
I am sure drug use contributes, but I’m not convinced that it is all the problem. I see a vicious cycle – mental health issues, so marginalised in society. Drugs available, so take some. Poor interaction with mental health issues, so things get worse. Need money for more drugs – commit crime. It helps that drugs are illegal, so in procuring drugs you also become acquainted with just the right sort of people to help you into crime. More drugs, more mental health issues, more crime, more marginalised in society, more drugs.
I’d decriminalise most drugs, and make them a health issue. If you didn’t have to visit gangs to get your drugs you’d:
a) have less opportunity to graduate to harder drugs
b) have less opportunity to enter a life of crime
c) drugs would cost less, so supporting a drug habit wouldn’t require crime
d) it would be visible and taxable, we could intervene with programmes to help
Not perfect, but what we are doing today sure as hell isn’t working. And hasn’t worked anywhere.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Sounds like a goood recipe of new solutions to old problems to me PaulL.
Govts been beating the air for too long when common sense answers are avoided like the plague. Too much dealing in extremes from the iron fist to the velvet glove approach.
I agree with someone who said we need more sport venues for youth instead of tinny houses populating neighbourhoods. sports need to be seen as aproachable alternatives for youth instead of the impossible professional heights unobtainable for so many. We idolise hard men who were children once themselves. There has to be a message in there somewhere.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:39 am
True. Good friend of mine has twin daughters. One of them was getting into trouble a bit. She was also a very good soccer player, and in the Australian development team. She got arrested for shoplifting, the police rang her mother who told them to put her in the cells till she got around to getting there. They then had a discussion about how her contract with the development side meant that if she got prosecuted for anything, her career was over. Any criminal record means no elite sports. She got her act together real quickly.
Kids get into trouble when they don’t have or respect other options. Hard but true. Part of the problem today is that kids spend more time with their peers than they ever did in the past. There are studies suggesting they role model their peers more than the adults they know. The peers they model off are the cool ones. I’m sure this always happened, but the suggestion is that it happens more – they’re learning from each other, but they don’t have anything to teach each other.
Sometimes it is just about someone taking an interest. Too many kids without someone taking an interest.