DomPost beat-up

My previous post discussed the DomPost coverage of a paper they appear to have acquired under the OIA. Yesterday the editor pushed on with the "lab rat" line, maintaining

This blur of bureaucratic words does not seem to include a denial that the officials proposed to watch the at-risk kids and not intervene even if they were abused. It is hard to believe that any official would ever contemplate such a thing.

Here is the excerpt the DomPost released.

There was nothing in statement 40 to indicate no intervention was proposed. So I requested the paper. I needn't have bothered. MSD has just released on their website.

Here is a prior paragraph.

The predictive modelling (PM) score (calculated using various factors like older siblings having had contact with CYF) would identify a small group whose outcomes and service contacts would be observed.  How far from "not intervene even if they were abused" is that?

Additionally

The vulnerable group would be experiencing far greater oversight than under the usual scheme of things.

And further

That is what the Minister is outraged by. A child could be officially 'flagged' as at high-risk of maltreatment but nothing proactive is done about it. At least not during the study period.

Isn't that pretty much what happens now? Children are unofficially identified or recognised by health  maternity nurses, Plunket, district nurses, family, GPs as high risk but there is no referral or report to CYF until something actually happens.

The DomPost take on this issue is a disgraceful beat-up. Reminder of what they wrote Thursday

documents show officials had sought ethical approval for one study which involved risk-rating a group of newborns and not intervening in high-risk cases, to check whether their predictions came true.

And reminder of what Tolley now plans

Tolley also appeared to signal a major backdown on a proposed population-wide application of the model, saying it was "unlikely" to be used on children that had not already been notified to Child Youth and Family (CYF).


There is no need for a population-wide application. But the plan was to identify only those who were at the greatest risk. Tolley won't agree to progressing this (despite agreement from other groups involved in the whole exercise for much longer).

"Children not lab rats"

The following report intrigues me.

 MSD Minister, Anne Tolley is outraged by a study proposal which she describes treating children as "lab rats".

A plan to treat vulnerable newborns as "lab rats" by sitting back for two years to see if they were abused has been blocked by the Government.
The Ministry of Social Development proposed to include 60,000 children born this year in an "observational study" to test the accuracy of its new predictive risk modelling tool.

It has been described as a study that does not intervene.

There isn't enough information provided from the official papers to confirm that.

Many 'vulnerable' children - if not a majority -  suffer adverse outcomes despite intervention. CYF can be going about its usual business alongside a study that seeks to discover whether a pre-identified group meet predictions.

But if it is correct, that MSD sought a period of no intervention for all children born in 2015... well that's ridiculous. So ridiculous I suspect it was put up to thwart the progress of the predictive modelling regime.

The reporting is rather sensational. "She has called a halt to the study."

But there was no study. It hadn't even been to the ethics committee for approval.

Tolley also appeared to signal a major backdown on a proposed population-wide application of the model, saying it was "unlikely" to be used on children that had not already been notified to Child Youth and Family (CYF).

That's in line with what MSD is saying,

Predictive Modelling will be carefully tested to assess whether it can enhance decision-making at intake for children who are reported to Child Youth and Family because of concerns about abuse or neglect.  The aim is to support, not replace, professional judgement

Ironically this involves waiting for something bad to happen. Or non-intervention despite predictive flags. Which isn't far removed from what has wound the Minister up in the first place.

This whole business is very curious. Very.

(On a third reading I am beginning to think the reporter is talking about two different studies.)

Maori - both on the move... and static

A friend sent through a newly released paper about Maori, mobility and economic liberalisation:

Between 1984 and 2003, New Zealand undertook comprehensive market-oriented economic reforms. In this paper, we use Census data to examine how the internal mobility of Māori compares to that of Europeans in New Zealand in the period after these reforms. It is often suggested that Māori are less mobile than other ethnic groups because of attachment to particular geographical locations. If this were the case, Māori may have been disadvantaged in the post-reform period because they were more likely to be living in adversely affected areas and less likely to move to pursue better employment opportunities. In contrast to the anecdotal evidence, we find that Māori are more mobile on average than similar Europeans. However, Māori who live in areas with strong networks of their iwi are slightly less mobile than Europeans. The difference between Māori who live locally to their iwi and those who do not is even more pronounced when we consider responsiveness to local labour market shocks. Non-local Māori are considerably more responsive to changes in economic opportunities than are Europeans, whereas local Māori are almost entirely unresponsive.

None of this surprised me.

Maori up sticks with more frequency and ease than Pakeha. While this paper covers "internal mobility" the large Maori population in Australia is tangible evidence of this willingness to follow the jobs (and other desired lifestyle factors).

But other Maori, connected to tribal homelands, or, let's be less romantic about it, who live in long-standing  uneconomic bases, but among whanau and iwi, are quite likely to increasingly rely on each other and the state - and to pool those resources - rather than endeavour to be part of the work force.

No disrespect to Urban Maori Authorities (whose intentions are worthy), but their development may have extended or exacerbated the combination of whanau/ iwi/state dependence into the city.

NZ on a similar trajectory to Greece

A post at Kiwiblog about pensions crippling the Greek economy prompted me to look at the path NZ is on.

The following figures are all from a Treasury Report, Affording Our Future 2013:

Of course, most of the people reading this blog won't be around in 2060. But our children will be.

Treasury suggests as responses:

• Government taxes more as a percentage of GDP than it does currently.
• Government restricts spending growth in some areas, relative to historical growth rates. Spending in a particular area may still grow as a percentage of GDP, but not as much as it could grow.
• Government reacts to demographic change. Because one of the major drivers behind future financial pressures is population ageing, services are redefined to compensate for the fact that people are living longer, healthier lives.

How come they didn't suggest growing GDP at a faster rate?

Anyway, the message is,

"No matter what policy changes we decide on, it is important that we decide on them early. Fiscal pressures are already starting to build, and the sooner we can address them the easier it will be. The next step in managing fiscal pressures is deciding what choices we will make to achieve a prudent level of government debt by the end of this decade and maintaining it beyond that date."

Just what Greece failed to do.

And my impression is NZ isn't making any hard decisions either.

The "wrong people"

You hear it all the time. He fell in with the wrong people. She started hanging out with the wrong crowd. My kid started mixing with the wrong people.

Mostly it's a piss poor excuse. Only occasionally does it pertain to people who are easily led and impressionable.

"...he had joined with "a couple of the wrong people and got into drugs", meaning cannabis..."

He WAS the wrong people.

Jail sentences for discriminating against the poor?

Among the bits and piece I've read this morning, from France, Bill aims to lock up offenders who pick on the poor

I wonder what provision will be made for offenders who 'pick on' the rich? Then I wondered if the Greens might like this piece of legislative insanity.

On a more cheerful note, there should be fewer poor to discriminate against according to research from the US;

51 percent of individuals said they are better off than their parents at the same age and only 24 percent said they are worse off.
The frequency that individuals felt better off was constant across socioeconomic starting points, except for individuals whose parents both had a bachelor's degree. 
Only 40 percent of individuals whose parents both hold a bachelor's degree said they are better off.

Worthwhile Sunday morning read

DONALD TRUMP VISITS MY HOMETOWN!

by Jacob G. HornbergerJuly 24, 2015

Leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump just visited my hometown of Laredo, Texas!

Not surprisingly, Trump entered Laredo filled with fear. I say “not surprisingly” because Republicans live their lives filled with fear. Communists! Terrorists! Muslims! Illegal aliens! Drug dealers! Bin Laden! Saddam! Ho Chi Minh! Republicans are convinced that they’re all coming to get us. Knees are always a’knockin’ among Republicans.

More

Again, Left criticise govt but Labour was worse

Again, the Left is carping but the data under Labour was worse (from their viewpoint - not mine).

The NZ  Council of Christian Social Services collects a large amount of data and uses it to criticize the government.

What happens to people declined support? A total of 35,128 applications for ‘working age benefits’ were declined for the period July 2013 to September 2014. Collectively, this represents a comparatively large number of people who walked away from a Work and Income Office without the support they requested. 

This data isn't routinely published but I have some comparative figures from my own OIA requests. Note the NZCCS data is for 14.5 months - mine is for 12 months.

 Under a Labour government the number of sole parents declined a benefit was higher.

Labour creates a policy and then complains when it's implemented

From a CPAG paper about benefit sanctions:

Sanctions are not a new addition to the welfare legislation. They were part of Labour’s reforms to the Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB) in 2002, although at a time when the economy was adding jobs they attracted little attention. 

Yesterday Carmel Sepuloni issued a press release:

“Figures, obtained through Parliamentary questions show 3000 more sanctions, affecting parents of children, were issued in 2014/15 than in the previous year. Sole parents fared the worst
“Being sanctioned is another way of saying ‘financially penalised’.
“Some of these families have sick or disabled children, some have just come out of abusive relationships and some have been left high and dry to look after children on their own.
“All of these parents have limited resources and are just trying to do the best that they can with very little constructive support from this government. Reducing their incomes even further can make it impossible.

In Labour's last year in government 23,000 sanctions were applied to work-tested benefits, including those with dependent children. Sanctions on the DPB were lower only because Labour didn't work-test that benefit. Sanctions could still be applied to the few thousand who had a Personal Development Employment Plan (PDEP).

In anticipation of requiring sole parents to be available for work,  National's Future Focus reforms 2010 limited the sanction for anyone with dependent children to only 50% of their benefit.

Back to Carmel Sepuloni:

“The truth is this government’s punitive approach is leading to entrenched poverty, not more jobs, and is hurting our children.”

The employment of sole parents is gradually improving,

As is child poverty,



But if facts were allowed to get in the way, Labour would have little to moan about (I think there's an unintended pun in there somewhere.)

Greens demand all rights and no responsibility

Yesterday the legislation necessary to extend youth service provision and attendant obligations was passed. The Greens put up the only opposition. From the NZ Herald

"Green Party MP Eugenie Sage said the party opposed the bill because of the paternalistic approach it took.
"We also have quite serious concerns about forcing single young people up to the age of 20 into a model with quite onerous accountability, based on the state's identification of them as at-risk young people."
There was a risk of arbitrary and unfair decision-making, Ms Sage said, and could lead to young people feeling stigmatised and resentful.
"This is a huge infringement on human rights by having the state determine which category you fall into, and therefore which services you should have access to."

The whole welfare state concept is paternalism writ large.

Attempts to reduce reliance on welfare - the youth service is achieving this - reduce paternalism.

Parents are paternalistic. They exercise authority over the individual. Over time they reduce their paternalism and the child assumes increasing amounts of self-responsibility. (Though I do note that if there is a parent letting their child run riot it's most likely to be a Green type preaching freedom of expression, so perhaps the demand that teenagers should get taxpayer money without obligations is at least consistent.)

As for feeling 'stigmatised and resentful', that's just the disincentive some people need.

And the last objection is utter BS.  How does WINZ decide which beneficiary requires employment help and which needs drug rehab without "infringing on human rights"? How does the public health system  diagnose and allocate treatment without "infringing on human rights"?

The Greens need to grow up.

Anyway, thumbs up to the other opposition parties that could see the sense in passing this legislation.

Auckland Asian population

For no other reason than it is topical and it interests me, here is a breakdown of the Asian Auckland population at last census.

And this link takes you to a graphic that automatically refreshes by each census to show the Asian population density growth across Auckland. Watch it for a few seconds to get the feel of it. Unfortunately it only traverses 1996 to 2006. The screen probably couldn't have accommodated the next change.

MSD CE travel expenses

Latest MSD Chief Executive travel expenses have just been released.

I've charted them.

The year 2011-12 is missing because Peter Hughes finished and Brendan Boyle took over.

There is a clear trend though

.

I don't have time now to compare this to other CEs of government departments. But there is someone who can.

Are they connected?

Things I've read this morning that made me think.

Colin James writes about the mood at the forthcoming National Conference. Excerpt:

Throw in Bill English’s diversification of how the state does its business, which gives National more of a look than Labour as the party generating modern policy in a changing world. Delegates can celebrate the smaller state they yearn for and moralise about and also feel the cabinet has innovative energy.

More

Here's a picture of that "small state" by the way. You can probably chuck on another 4% of GDP for local government spending.

Brookings lists ten economic facts about Cuba such as

7. The average age of the Cuban population will increase from 54.7 today to 67.7 in 2025.

 Gulp. For context, NZ's median age is around 37.

More

I wonder if the two things are connected?

Perhaps the percentage of GDP a govt commands predicts the average age of the population!

Sepuloni's spurious claim

This month the New Zealand Christian Council of Social Services (NZCCSS) Vulnerability Report featured the following table:

These benefit cancellations relate only to people with dependent children.

There were 59,960 benefit cancellations as per dates.

We should remove those who "transferred to another benefit" as they are still on welfare.

That leaves 47,485 cancellations.

26,217 obtained work.

That's 55% - fairly close to the CTU figure of 46% (which related to all beneficiaries - not just parents).

And it's much higher than Sepuloni's figure of 20%.

Just 8,682 - 18% -  left for 'other' or unexplained reasons (which could include exit to study which the CTU put at 11% for the whole beneficiary population).

OK, the data isn't brand spanking new. But it's fairly recent. And at the rate MSD releases data these days, this table is relatively up-to-date.

There is no hidden conspiracy of people being thrown off benefits to struggle on the streets.

Union says "half": Labour says "one in five" - who's fibbing?

Last week I blogged about this CTU research from Bill Rosenberg

Only half of people get jobs when leaving a benefit

“New data obtained by the CTU shows that less than half of people who come off a benefit are known to have obtained work,” says CTU economist Bill Rosenberg. “In 2014, MSD records show only 46% obtained work. We therefore cannot assume that falling benefit numbers means people coming off benefits found work.” The data was released to the CTU last month by the Ministry of Social Development under an Official Information request.

“Even adding on the 11% going into full time study means that as many as two out of five people leaving benefits aren’t going into work or study,” says Rosenberg.



The percentages in the past are comparable.





If we ignore transfers to other benefits or Super (I included them in earlier calculations) the percentages of working age people who left a benefit for work were

2006/07 48%
2005/06 48%
2004/05 50%
2003/04 48%
2002/03 48%

On Friday, after June benefit numbers were released, both Labour and the Greens joined the clamour. Labour says it has no data of its own. Carmel Sepuloni says the government is holding it back.

Come on Tolley, show us the jobs
The Social Development Minister has once again failed to provide evidence supporting the Government’s claims a fall in benefit numbers is due to beneficiaries finding work, Labour’s Social Development spokesperson Carmel Sepuloni says. “Anne Tolley’s today touting the fact there’s been a 2.8 per cent drop in the number of people on benefits in the past year. “What she conveniently fails to mention is the reasons for why these people have come off the benefit. “Recent data showed only about 20 per cent of those who are no longer on their benefit went into work. On top of this, the Government considers just a few hours employment as moving into work.

And the Greens are claiming 

Benefit numbers no reason to celebrate
The latest figures from the Government about getting people off benefits don’t translate into more jobs for New Zealanders, the Green Party says.
Benefit numbers from the Government show that although fewer people are receiving welfare, the number of cancelled benefits as a result of “Obtained Work” has also dropped.
“National needs to show their heavy-handed sanction-based approach to welfare is actually getting more people off benefits and into work. The numbers suggest it is not.” Green Party Social Development spokesperson Jan Logie said today.
“These figures show that two out of five people who are coming off benefits are going into work or study. The Government has no idea what is happening to three out of five people who are coming off benefits.

I'd trust Bill Rosenberg over Carmel Sepuloni but even he hasn't released the full information. For instance how many people left the benefit because they found a partner, or left the country, went to prison  or even passed away?

What I want to know is why doesn't the government just release the data?

It was regularly released in the past in the annual statistical analysis which seems to have fallen by the wayside. On the face of it, if the CTU data is correct, this government's performance is possibly better than Labour's; probably on par.

Over the years it has become apparent that many statistics  describing behaviour in and around benefits are quite static.

Using 'rape' to attack reform

A prime example of desperate opposition politics.

The British government plans to limit tax credits to two children. But the opposition is crying foul on behalf of mothers of two who  become pregnant as the result of rape or other 'exceptional circumstances'.

Typical left-wing strategy. Try and kill the broad application of a policy at the margins.

Nobody is forced to proceed with a pregnancy.

An SNP MP says,

“We think the policy on limiting tax credits is appalling anyway, and tantamount to social engineering, but putting a woman who has been raped – and her child – in that position is shocking,”

Paying people to have children is social engineering. Not paying them is undoing social engineering.

She's not old enough to appreciate context.

Sole parents on welfare - decline continues

 

 There are a few provisos to the chart above.

 1/ This is only a count of sole parents with children aged 13 and under. Those whose youngest child is 14 or older are now in the Jobseeker statistics but unidentifiable.

2/ There will also be single parents among all the other benefits, especially Supported Living Payment.

3/ The count does not include sole parents under 18.

6 hours of work to get your kids out of poverty?

I pinched this from Utopia:You Are Standing In It, aptly named considering the table below:



It shows that a sole parent with two children receiving a benefit would only need to work 6 hours to get over the 50% of the median household income threshold. Is that right?

The median household income in NZ was $1,358 in June 2013. So the 50% threshold is $679.



The average Sole Parent Support payment is just over $600. 6 hours at minimum wage is $71 net.

The calculation looks robust to me.

6 hours of work does not affect the benefit:

You can get up to $5,200 a year (before tax) in additional money (for example from working) before your benefit payment is affected, and $20 more a week if you have childcare costs.

In New Zealand the higher threshold of 60 percent is used to define 'poverty'. That's $814.

According to Paula Bennett  if the parent worked 15 hours that would result in $750. At 20 hours they leap to $814 - bang on 60 percent of the median household income

So internationally New Zealand stacks up very well in its assistance level for sole parents - without the impending benefit increase.

Questions

On my mind.

Yesterday, on NewstalkZB talking to Larry Williams. Phil Twyford insisted that Labour had taken legal advice over the leaked Barfoot and Thompson data and were assured it was non-problematic because there was nothing in the data that wasn't publicly available.

Why, then, didn't they access it through publicly available channels?

Do you know anyone who wants to change the flag? Paul Henry obviously doesn't. I don't want to but that's apparently because I "don't like change". It is lucky for the person who said so, that I don't like change and thus have not changed him. If the status quo remains, will the only lasting legacy of the  flag debate be familial disharmony?

Speaking of which, where is John Key? He seems to have gone into hibernation.Or am I just looking in the wrong places?



Why have baby murders been relegated to small photo-less snippets while front pages are given over to poor pensioners not being allowed (or being allowed depending on which day you look) to put up curtains in council properties?

When are ratepayers going to revolt?

In my research, I have worried about having to assume that Maori caregivers have Maori children, but it is unavoidable, as MSD records only the ethnicity of the primary beneficiary. How worried would I be if I had to assume that anyone (or proportion thereof) with an Asian sounding name was indeed a non-resident, Chinese home owner?

And has Labour done any modelling on what percentage their policy will wipe off property values?

Because that's the aim. Let's be honest about that at least.

NZ First bags a performance better than its own

Reported by Three News and featured on page two of this morning's DomPost:

In 2005/06 the equivalent percentage was 35%; in 2006/07 it remained the same.

Remind me when NZ First was last part of the government?