Better ways to maintain public safety

The proposal to introduce a "three strikes" policy in New Zealand has been dubbed as "cruel, degrading or 'disproportionately severe' punishment" by some and a way to restore confidence in the criminal justice system by others. The proposal sits alongside the introduction of a no-parole sentence in the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. These policy proposals intend to make New Zealand safer—to curtail crime and its consequences. Yet international research and experience shows that "three strikes" policies are far from being the silver bullet that some are touting it to be.

The proposal has high stakes, with those on one side alleging it will save people's lives by preventing crime, and those on the other arguing that it will further entrench a hopeless system that gives up on the lives of offenders far too quickly. What is clear is that research surrounding "three strikes" policies is ambiguous in its conclusions. Overseas research is difficult to compare as the offences covered often differ. Measuring whether or not the policy successfully deters crime is also not easy as it involves asking "what if" questions. The argument for deterrence assumes that people are rational and forward-thinking when committing crimes and therefore able to be affected by the knowledge of future consequences. This seems unlikely, with crime being an essentially irrational act. In some cases "three strikes" policies actually seem to incentivise people who are on their final strike, to commit further and more serious crimes to cover up their third transgression and therefore avoid being caught. The Bill raises other questions. By imprisoning some people for longer, costs are heightened using resources that could otherwise be put towards reducing re-offending through rehabilitation.

Trying to keep dangerous criminals off the streets of our communities is necessary. It is a fundamental duty of our government to protect its people. But yet again we are left with the question, what best protects? The "three strikes" proposal offers the impression that it is tough and serious. Yet the evidence surrounding its success is ambiguous at best. In this case we need to trust our judges to exercise their discretion, rather than introduce an arbitrary standard. Keeping an 80-year-old in prison, who has already served a long sentence and who poses no physical harm to the community, is hard to justify when that money could be spent elsewhere in the system to help ensure a 25-year-old serving their first sentence does not return to their old ways once they are released. Any concerns about public safety raised by proponents of the Bill can be more effectively addressed by the use of preventative detention to ensure dangerous people are kept out of public circulation. If we really want to make our streets safer we should be trying harder to mend people, instead of just locking them away.

The Bill is currently before the Law and Order Committee and public submissions on the Bill will be accepted until Friday, 24 April 2009.

• Find out more details about making a submission on the Bill
• Read the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill

"Private Schools and the Law"

Private (independent) schools are a crucial feature of education in New Zealand, providing variety and diversity in schooling, giving families the freedom to choose an education where the curriculum, ethos or character are suitable for them. The law that regulates the way private schools function in New Zealand has been brought to attention by the Law Commission's issues paper, "Private Schools and the Law." Maxim Institute made a submission on this paper. Our submission agreed with the Commission that there are no serious problems with the way independent schools are run and agreed with some of the proposals which would improve the law. However, we opposed some proposals which might put at risk the freedom of independent schools to offer an education different to that which is offered at state schools. This freedom is vital if our education system is to be genuinely diverse in the possibilities on offer to New Zealand children.

We agreed with the Commission that a register of independent schools should be established containing information about the registration status of schools. However, we recommended the information contained in this register could be expanded to include more information that would help parents evaluate schools—information ranging from what school programmes are on offer, to an indicator of the value which a school adds to pupils' achievement. Creating such a register, with wide-ranging information would enhance parental choice making them better equipped to decide which school is most suitable for their child. We also agreed with the Commission that the registration criteria for independent schools could be made clearer, since the guidance offered by the current law only indicates that instruction should be as "efficient" as at a state school and that the curriculum and facilities should be "suitable."

However, we opposed two specific proposals. Firstly, we opposed a recommendation that would require schools to teach aspects of the national curriculum, and secondly, we opposed the Commission's recommendations which would regulate the operations of independent schools more, by doing such things as setting a minimum size rule for school rolls. Freedom regarding curriculum and operations is important to protect because it allows independent schools to run differently from state schools and it provides the flexibility for a school to respond, not simply to government mandates but to the needs and wishes parents identify. It is crucial that the Commission upholds an education system which values private schools and their rich contribution to the diversity of schooling options available for New Zealanders.

• Read Maxim Institute's submission on "Private Schools and the Law"
• Read the Law Commission's, "Private Schools and the Law"

Giving, charity and a culture of generosity

Prime Minister John Key told Philanthropy New Zealand recently that those who can afford it should donate this week's tax cuts to charity. Lauding "generous" New Zealanders, the Prime Minister pointed out, "philanthropy is, by its nature, a non-government activity. Its very strength is that it depends on individual people and individual businesses making choices, prioritising, and deciding where to put their own money." He called for New Zealanders to "foster" a "culture of giving." His comments led to an ideological debate in the media, with others, such as Labour leader Phil Goff, attacking Key's emphasis on charity saying, "It smacks of the old aristocracy to say 'we will make things worse for the low-income people and then, out of the generosity of my heart, I will call on other well-heeled people to donate ... to charity'." Other commentators have labelled "the charitable model" "Dickensian" and "paternalistic" or expressed concern that building an "American-style" philanthropic culture will mean that the government neglects needed services and social support, while people give money to other, less deserving causes.

At the heart of this debate are two duelling views of human society. One values human autonomy, assisted, perhaps even guaranteed, by the state. The other views human beings as part of an interconnected whole, a fabric of identity, allegiance, local loyalty and charity. Charity is thought, in that first view, to be a Victorian relic. We like to think that we are past needing visits by the rich to the hard-working poor, past the culture where the "haves" dole out money to the "have-nots" on the promise of virtuous behaviour. We are not characters in a Dickens novel. But we still need and always will need, other people.

An omnipresent state cannot lean over the back fence, babysit the kids, or leave some food on the back doorstep. A government cannot listen or give in the same way a person can, however crucial it is in other respects. It might be offensive to our sense of modern individualism to say we need other people to give us a hand, but it is also vital. Far from being degrading or patronising, charity is an expression of human caritas—the root word for charity, meaning common humanity, interdependence, solidarity and love. We give to our neighbours and our neighbours give to us. Tax incentives can be abused, but so can any system. Encouraging people to give is not a degrading return to the aristocracy. Neither is it a slash-and-burn of the social safety net. It is an investment in something more basic still—our social fabric, the fabric which holds us together through time and governmental systems and the mechanics of policy. In that sense, charity is part of what it means not to be rich, but to be human. Getting people to give more does mean the government has to do less. But getting the state out of the way and allowing community to flourish might be the most humane act of all.

• Read Mr Key's speech on philanthropy

Recent events at Maxim Institute

In the last two weeks, the Maxim Institute hosted two speakers from very different backgrounds, both calling for civil society to take a greater role in supporting those in need around the world.

Baroness Cox, a life peer in the British House of Lords, spoke from her personal experience working in situations of desperate poverty, oppression and slavery across the globe. Using a backdrop of personal stories gathered from her many trips into war-torn and closed totalitarian states, she talked about the philosophical underpinnings of Western society, with a focus on freedom. Her message was, "We who have freedom surely have an obligation to use our freedom on behalf of those who are denied it."

On 31 March, former Young Australian of the Year, Hugh Evans, came to Maxim Institute to deliver a lecture co-hosted by Bethlehem Tertiary Institute. Forever shaken by his experience visiting the slums of Manila with World Vision at the age of 14, Evans, now aged 26, has dedicated himself to motivating a generation of people to achieve the goal of eradicating extreme poverty within our lifetime. He is now directing an effort called the Global Poverty Project which aims to use the power of media and grassroots movements to push governments to adhere to their commitment of giving 0.7% of their GDP in foreign aid. Hugh Evans focuses on influencing small groups of people, particularly young people, and motivating them to act for positive change in the world. He says, "I think our challenge is that in everything we say and do we make it our priority not simply to be happy with the current state of our world ... but to be young people of great integrity, compassion and vision."

It is clear that human suffering of all varieties takes places daily throughout the world. The awareness of the magnitude of this suffering can unfortunately leave us numb, overwhelmed by the scale of need that exists. Over the past two weeks, Baroness Cox and Hugh Evans have reminded us that as people living with freedom and prosperity, we must find ways to support the development and sustainability of communities struggling without these things.

• See Baroness Cox on TVONE Breakfast programme
• See Hugh Evans on TVONE Breakfast programme