A sterile debate?

I have to admit I'm a little surprised by ACT MP David Garrett's call for abusive parents to be offered $5000 to undergo a sterilisation.

I'd have thought he'd have been demanding it should be compulsory.

ACT's leadership is running a mile from this story. Leader Rodney Hide's strangely unavailable for comment, and his office is impressing that Garrett was speaking as a - um - person - rather than an ACT MP.

To quote Garrett, "This post contains my PERSONAL views, which are not necessarily shared by my colleagues.''

Bollocks. Everything that comes out of Garrett's mouth is him speaking as an MP. He IS an MP. You can't have personal views expressed publicly as an MP and it not be your view as an MP.

As for it not being ACT Party policy, well I'm sure it isn't, but then the party selected Garrett for being hard-line on law and order, so they can hardly be surprised that he would come up with the odd thing out of left (or should that be Right) field.  

"If _ say _ $5000 was paid to the likes of both parents of the Kahui twins if they chose to be sterilized, this would address many ... concerns,'' Mr Garrett commented on the Kiwiblog debate about sterilisation.

"Nothing compulsory, just an option. To take Kahui-King as examples, how much is it costing the state now to care for the children Maxyna (Macsyna) King has had removed from her?''

It's Macsyna King, not Maxyna.

"How much will it cost to care for the 6 or 8 more she may have before menopause? How much is it costing for CYF (Child Youth and Family) to monitor the well being of Chris Kahui's latest offspring?
 "$5,000 to each of them is ludicrously cheap by comparison.''

Hmmmm. Unless King wasn't planning on having any more kids, in which case it would actually cost the taxpayer money. Why should the state pay out thousands of dollars to people for a sterilisation procedure that only costs around $500? I'd resent any more money going to the Kahui family, personally.

Also, who decides who's eligible? What's to stop middle-class capture here? Claim you've beaten your children and line up to collect. If anyone out there's contemplating a vascectomy, get in quick.

There's also the distinct possibility that some low-lifes might actually decide to commit assault on a child to collect the five grand.

There is also something vaguely chilling about incentivised sterilisation, even if it isn't strictly compulsory. I mean, isn't it just a bit - well - Fascist? Hitler was pretty supportive of the whole sterilisation thing, as I recall.

We've all seen examples of bad parenting and wondered why on earth a person was allowed to have children...or why you need a licence to drive a car but not to operate a far more complex piece of machinery such as a young child.

Everyone's probably got their own wish-list of people whose parents should have been sterilised. Some, for example, might opt for Garrett himself.

But I'd sort of thought that having children was one of those inalienable rights of being in a free country, as opposed to somewhere like, I don't know, China.

Perhaps the most compelling reason why it's stupid, though, is that it generally doesn't work. As Garrett himself admitted, some might think his suggestion was silly:

"...the Indians did it 30 years ago (the reward was a transistor radio for every man who had a vasectomy) for population control reasons. I don't recall why the programme was eventually abandoned.''

Um. Probably about the time the Indian population passed a billion, perhaps authorities figured it wasn't working.

I wonder if I'm in the minority here, though, sitting in my office in the Wellington press gallery, which I admit is hardly the mean streets of South Auckland. If telly does this story tonight and goes out and vox-pops the general public, I bet they get a majority who think Garrett's right on the money.

Which is no doubt why Garrett said it in the first place. As there's no danger of National being silly enough to pick up the idea, it isn't going to happen, and therefore it's hardly worth getting upset about. But it earns him a headline.

It also reinforces the perception around this place of Garrett as Parliament's nut-bar, now that Gordon Copeland's not here anymore.

If you need any further convincing, I'd just add that Michael Laws thinks it's a great idea.

PS This blog contains my PERSONAL views, and they are not necessarily those of either Fairfax or other press gallery journalists.