Maxim Institute - real issues - No 253 17 May 2007

www.maxim.org.nz

Imbalance and incentives Amnesty International adopts controversial abortion policy A search for identity IN THE NEWS Bill criminalising physical correction passes Focusing on reintegration

Imbalance And Incentives

Attempts to bolster sagging national savings and relief for businesses are features of today's Budget. Key elements are compulsory employer contributions to KiwiSaver, along with incentives for employee contributions and a cut in the corporate tax rate from 33 percent to 30 percent. The KiwiSaver changes do not encourage taxpayers to make responsible choices, instead making the choices for them, while failure to cut other tax rates unbalances the system.

Lowering the corporate tax rate is a positive step that offers welcome relief for businesses, but the failure to move personal tax rates at the same time creates problems of its own. The widening gap between corporate and personal tax rates will encourage people to take advantage by diverting their income through the corporate sector. This may sound benign—a mere re-routing of cash—but diversionary techniques are not costless. They require money to set up and they increase complexity and, therefore, administration costs, siphoning money away from more productive uses. The Government's own McLeod Review of the taxation system warned of the dangers of 'abuse, complexity and distortion' caused by the gap between rates in 2001.

The new KiwiSaver measures obviously attempt to lift our low level of saving. While many will welcome them, there are questions over whether reliance on compulsion and incentives undermines our tendency to make responsible choices. Another way to enable taxpayers to save is by empowering them to choose responsibly, by cutting taxes to leave them more money in the hand that can be saved, or used to pay off debt, as they see fit. However, this requires the Government to trust that people will use tax cuts responsibly, rather than spend them and add to inflationary pressures. As an 'opt-out' scheme with tax breaks for employer contributions, KiwiSaver already encouraged saving. Reliance on compulsion and further tax incentives, rather than tax cuts, places the balance of power in the hands of Government rather than the people, treating taxpayers with an air of suspicion.

Until personal tax rates are lowered, flattened and aligned with corporate tax rates, our taxation system is destined to remain unbalanced. And as for the compulsion and incentives, it is often said that voters get the Government they deserve. If the Government persists in treating us as irresponsible, it is likely to get the populace it deserves.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL ADOPTS CONTROVERSIAL ABORTION POLICY

The adoption by global lobby group, Amnesty International, of a new pro-abortion policy has caused uproar amongst some of its traditional supporters. The organisation has drafted a new policy after deciding that they needed to speak out on certain aspects of abortion. The new policy moves Amnesty International from their previously 'neutral' stance on abortion, allowing them scope to lobby for the decriminalisation of abortion in all countries.

The new policy, as developed by the International Executive Committee of Amnesty International, supports access to abortion where women have become pregnant through incest or rape, or where the woman's life or her health may be in danger. It also positions Amnesty International to advocate for the abolition of any criminal sanctions for those who provide information about abortion or carry out a procedure or undergo one.

Amnesty International maintains that they have retained a neutral stance on whether abortion is right or wrong. They claim that they are only seeking the decriminalisation of abortion, not its legalisation. The new policy, however, suggests something different. By calling for no criminal sanctions to be placed on people involved in having or performing an abortion, or those providing information about it, Amnesty International are in effect calling for its legalisation. Arguing that there is a distinction between decriminalising and legalising is cavilling about words; the difference is semantic only. This is clear from an application of Amnesty International's new policy to the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court. The decision upheld the law allowing the imposition of fines or imprisonment as penalties for doctors who perform a partial birth abortion, sanctions which are now opposed by Amnesty International.

Regardless of what Amnesty International claims, their new policy concerning abortion recognises only the 'rights' of a woman, and fails to acknowledge the terminal price the child pays for her to exercise those 'rights.' They have traditionally been an organisation dedicated to the protection and recognition of true human value and dignity, by weighing in on the abortion issue; they have compromised this long standing foundation.

A SEARCH FOR IDENTITY

The recent spate of debate on gangs and violence has revealed considerable points of convergence: no-one likes gang violence, the hurt of the innocent is particularly brutal, and the links of many gang members to crime are plain. Many have been quick to point out another obvious fact, that members of gangs join them to find, in a patch and a place, the belonging, connection, security and family which they lack.

But as our politicians vie with each other to see who can talk toughest, it appears that the logical conclusion is getting lost. Crime ought of course to be punished, and the existing laws give Police adequate powers to do just that. But banning gang patches, for instance, is likely only to reinforce the sense of separateness and alienation which is already a problem.

Banning patches feels like action, and politicians are known for their need to feel like they are doing something. But rather than dismantle the new-found sense of identity which these people have found in each other, we need a changing expectation of what that identity represents.

Directing the norms of gangs away from criminal activity and towards a healthy respect for the wider community is a change that will be in everyone's interests. 'Gang' is not a useful word; it is too closely associated with a dreadful violence, but it may be that if gangs can harness the strength of their belonging and turn it into something useful, the next generation will grow up able to be a part of the wider community and less in need of a community apart from it.

The community ought to be protected and the law enforced. But in the end, we should remember, that gang members are gang members not only because of their own choices (for which they are of course responsible) but because of the weakness of family and community bonds which mean that security, belonging and purpose cannot be found anywhere else. If we are serious about change, we should start there.

IN THE NEWS

BILL CRIMINALISING PHYSICAL CORRECTION PASSES

After much debate and furore the 'anti-smacking' Bill has finally been passed by Parliament. With the deal brokered by Helen Clark and John Key, and the amendment introduced by Peter Dunne, the Bill enjoyed near universal support, with Labour, National, the Progressives and the Greens all voting for it en bloc, a total of 113 votes in favour and 8 against. The Bill criminalises parents for using mild physical correction while also attempting to specify that they should not face sanction for their illegal behaviour. It can, however, provide no guarantees. Time will tell what the full effect of this law will be, but doubtless it will have little impact on the real problems of child abuse that its backers were supposedly targeting by its introduction.

Read the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill

Read the voting record for the third reading of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill

FOCUSING ON REINTEGRATION

Public attention and conversation has once again been turned to the topic of criminal justice and to the problem of reintegrating prisoners into society, with a conference held last weekend. The conference, When the Prisoner Comes Home - A Community Response to Prisoner Reintegration, took a hard look at the problems that communities, prisoners and their families face when people return from serving prison sentences. It progressed the debate, suggesting that both communities and government needed to take this issue more seriously, especially in providing more 'support and accountability mechanisms.'

Read the Minister of Corrections' speech to the conference

TALKING POINT

'...when you spend other people's money to buy something for someone else, the connection between the earner, the spender and the recipient is the most remote - and the potential for mischief and waste is the greatest. Think about it - somebody spending somebody else's money on yet somebody else. That's what government does all the time.'

Lawrence Reed

A registered charitable trust, funded by donations, Maxim Institute values your interest and support.

ENDS

© Scoop Media