Inflated death rate over Covid-free summer

 

From the University of Waikato, this is a multi-layered chart.

The black line depicts deaths during the year from just before the first lock down to the end of  Feb 2021.

The gray lines depict deaths in the same period for each of the prior 9 years.

The red line depicts nine-year average deaths in the same months.

The black line veers strongly away from the norm after October/November 2020.

Officially:

"The fall in all‐causes mortality after lockdowns in 2020 is only a short‐term effect. A winter of no excess mortality was followed by four months of excess mortality totaling  about 1200 deaths (ca. four percent of annual deaths). The surge in deaths was concentrated on the elderly so public health interventions only slightly postponed death.  Repeating Covid control measures in future to deal with  seasonal influenza may provide just short‐term benefits."

But there was also a small "surge" in deaths in  0-64 year-olds around Dec/Nov:

I can only speculate. 

But Covid definitely affected death rates - just not in the way anticipated.

UNROC Submission

Periodically the UN requires the NZ government to report on the progress - or otherwise - it is making on upholding the many articles that form the UN Rights of the Child convention. This is my submission on the latest draft report.

Submission on the government’s draft sixth periodic report to the United Nations on the Rights of the Child (UNROC) 

I wish to make two observations regarding the government’s draft sixth report to the United Nations on the Rights of the Child (UNROC).

1/ UNROC ARTICLE 26 states: 

“Social security - The child has the right to benefit from social security.”

Data at Table 21 in the draft report shows the number of children dependent on a social security benefit increased by 14.4 percent or 25,842 between 2016 and 2021.

The length of parental stay on a benefit is also increasing. The proportion of sole parents dependent for a year or more grew by 3.6 percent over the same period.

The NZ government can claim to be upholding the right required by article 26.

However, analysis of data by the NZ Treasury shows, “There is a clear gradient between the proportion of time spent on a benefit as a child and the likelihood of future poor outcomes across all domains.”[1] 

2/ UNROC ARTICLE 19 states: 

“Freedom from abuse - The State shall protect the child from all forms of maltreatment by parents or others responsible for the child’s care.”

A strong association between dependency on a social security benefit and the incidence of child abuse also exists.

The Auckland University of Technology reported: “Of all children having a finding of maltreatment by age 5, 83% are seen on a benefit before age 2.”[2] 

NZ Police data at Table 13 of the draft report shows the number of reported cases of violence and abuse against children, including sexual abuse, rose by 4 percent or 435 cases between 2017 and 2020. However, Serious Assaults Resulting in Injury rose by 34% - from 2,023 to 2,706 while Common Assaults fell by 29 percent. This indicates that the severity of physical violence against children and young people is worsening significantly.

It can be seen from these two observations that UNROC articles 19 and 26 are not necessarily compatible. UN required adherence to article 26 does not guarantee enhanced child outcomes, and worse, may increase physical harm to children. That leads to a contravention of article 19.

This is just one instance of the folly in allowing the UN to dictate domestic policy. Furthermore, the hours and money spent fulfilling UN reporting demands would go a long way to funding effective initiatives which have a direct and positive impact on needy New Zealand children.

Note: The brevity of this submission is due to the late notice given by MSD who made public notification of the consultation period - July 20 to August 31, 2021 - on August 26, 2021, when only 2-3 working days remained. Whether intentional or incompetent, the process shows no commitment to ‘open and transparent government.’

[1] https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/ap/using-integrated-administrative-data-identify-youth-who-are-risk-poor-outcomes-adults-ap-15-02-html#section-6

[2] https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/vulnerable-children/auckland-university-can-administrative-data-be-used-to-identify-children-at-risk-of-adverse-outcome.pdf

ENDS

If you feel inclined to make your own submission the email address is uncroc@msd.govt.nz

I've focussed on my particular area of interest but you may have thoughts about the education system or the mental health of children, for example.

Most open and transparent govt ever

Most open and transparent govt ever. That's what the Prime Minister, who charged herself with bettering outcomes for NZ children, promised. 

I monitor the Ministry of Social Development's website daily.

Today the following notice appeared:

Every five years, New Zealand reports to the United Nations about what they are doing to make sure children’s rights are met. 

The government has apparently prepared a response and says:

We would like your feedback on how well the Government has responded to the issues raised by the Committee.

Furthermore:

Submissions are welcomed and encouraged from-

children and young people

forums that operate on behalf of children and young people

iwi and Māori engagement forums, particularly those that work with tamariki and rangatahi Māori

parents

interested individuals and experts

non-governmental organisations (NGOs)

professionals who work with children.

Wonderful. Inclusive. Participatory.

Except the notification appeared today and...

The opening date for submissions and feedback is Tuesday 20 July 2021.

The closing date for submissions and feedback is Tuesday 31 August 2021.

So the notice appears 28 working days after the opening date and 3 working days before the submission closing date. 

No I'm not mistaken. MSD even dated the public notification:

This is a very shonky and incompetent government. Make no mistake.

Ardern will not want a report to the UN reflecting badly on her. The opportunity for criticism is minimised.

But 3 working days in lock down is three days when many people may have time on their hands.

Make a submission. I'm going to.

I may even mention the lack of commitment to 'open and transparent government'.

Cruel to be kind

'You have to be cruel to be kind' is a long-standing axiom.

Axioms arise from generational wisdom. Human nature doesn't change.

Jacinda Ardern consistently calls for Kiwis to "be kind". In today's 4pm stand-up, the record hadn't changed.

How would she respond if asked what cruelty she had exercised in the pursuit of kindness?

Because she has inflicted cruelty on New Zealanders through lock down.

Currently NZ has no 2021 Covid deaths and few hospitalisations (compared to 9 RSV deaths and over 4,000 hospitalisations) yet people are cut off from each other; from elderly, needy parents; can't work with their mates; can't  run their businesses; can't get treatment for life-threatening illnesses; can't socialise; can't arrange or attend funerals or weddings, and are encouraged to nark on anyone breaking these rules. 

Jacinda certainly fulfils the first part of the old wisdom. There's plenty of cruelty going down.

But does she even get close to the second goal?

Her pleading to "be kind", her kindness ideal, is no more than an instruction and expectation about how people should treat each other on a superficial level, bcause under lock down our interactions are no more than fleeting.

If she is asking people who barely tolerate each other in normal circumstances to transform under lock down, you know she lacks any understanding of the human condition under extreme stress.

She must. Or she wouldn't be pig-headedly pursuing the same pathway she led us down in 2020.

"Be kind" is a hollow platitude. That's all it has ever been.

Lock down cruelty can never be rewarded in the way the axiom intended.

MĀORI SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INDICATORS UNDER COLONIZATION: A Picture of Progress

 NZCPR has just published a brief paper I've written which leans heavily on graphic data hence the title:

 MĀORI SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INDICATORS UNDER COLONIZATION: A Picture of Progress 

"The over-riding theme from those academics, politicians and public servants currently holding sway is that colonization was and is a negative experience for Māori. Poor outcomes are given as concrete and conclusive evidence.

This paper takes a different tack. It examines social and economic indicators for Māori under colonization over various time periods (dictated by available data). It relies heavily on graphic depictions. Rather than comparing Māori to other ethnicities, the focus is on how Māori themselves are progressing or otherwise….

This brief paper shows for most Māori living standards have improved enormously, as has equality of opportunity. The progress of Māori social and economic indicators that has occurred under the process of colonization stands in stark contrast to the constant barrage of contrary claims."

Read the full report here

Eye-watering graph

 

Can our children and grandchildren repay all the debt being incurred as well as fund Super and aged Healthcare? Perhaps a cynic might reply 'yes' - they can spend it on us instead of all the children they don't have.

Something to think about while you twiddle your thumbs under lock-down.

New Zealand’s teenage birth rate: Is it time to stop worrying about it?

Family First has just published my new report examining New Zealand’s teen birth rate which has plummeted by almost two thirds since 2008. 

The report tracks trends in teenage maternal inputs and child outcomes, but finds that a number of the risks associated with teenage births have actually worsened.

Teen mothers are increasingly likely to live in the poorest quintile; obesity, which increases pregnancy and birth complications is rising; and the dependency rate on welfare benefits appears slightly elevated. The disproportionate perinatal mortality rate – the death of babies between 20 weeks after conception to 27 days after birth – remains tragically and unacceptably high, and possibly rising according to official data.

The smoking rate for pregnant teens, which increases risk of miscarriage and premature, low weight births, is much higher than for other teens. There was only a small reduction in mothers under 20 smoking at registration with Lead Maternity Carer between the periods of 2008-2012 and 2013-18 from 36.4 to 34.4 percent. Indicators for drug and alcohol use also suggest higher rates among pregnant or teen parents.

Compounding all of this, teen mothers and their children are susceptible to ‘falling through the cracks’. Drop-out from the longitudinal Growing Up in New Zealand study typically comprised Māori and Pacific teen mothers living in high deprivation areas with incomplete education. About those children who present the greatest concern, we know the least.

Based on the findings of this report, a continuing decline in the teenage birth rate should be actively encouraged and welcomed. There is no margin for complacency.

Read the report here.

"Should Maori children be placed with non-Maori families?"

That was the question headlining a lengthy article by Marty Sharpe in the weekend's DomPost.

Here are my questions in response. 

What if the Maori child's aunties, uncles and grandparents are non-Maori families?

More Maori partner with non-Maori than Maori. This is a long-standing trend.

Will the radicals who are currently pushing a separatist agenda decide that a Maori child must be placed with a Maori family in preference to kin family? 

Will cultural ties triumph over blood ties?

These questions literally keep me awake at night.

In the sixties in Auckland more Maori married non-Maori than Maori. These people formed life-changing and often lifelong bonds. They were possibly the most important thing in each others lives. 

They were being what it is to be human.

In the same way children can and do form bonds with caregivers. They don't care about about skin colour.

Pause.

So not far on from the original question posed in the headline, will we hear, "Should Maori be having children with non-Maori?"

When that sort of thinking gets a grip, well...

I am reminded of a  gut-wrenching novel I read in the late 1990s, Holly, by Albert French, set in North Carolina 1940s. The story of a young negro who fell in love with a white girl, Holly, who reciprocated. She got pregnant. He lost his life for it.

Gillespie wrong about ACT's support for conversion therapy law

 I was somewhat surprised at the following piece of information from Polly Gillespie in her SST column today about her support for conversion therapy legislation. She uses the example of John Key siding with Labour on the anti-smacking bill to show how National should support Labour on this issue:

"The current lot in Opposition might be wise to choose similarly around their peculiar stand on the evils of conversion therapy. Even ACT, who it can be argued have some flamboyant conservatives lurking about, are standing on the right side of history. ACT who, but for the general all round likability of David Seymour, possibly would not have a s... show of sitting in the parliamentary chambers. They are clearly morally intact around this."

Now I did't know what ACT's position is but I'm surprised because what I've read about the proposed legislation is concerning, especially the intent to criminalise and imprison parents who talk about conversion therapy to their children. So I did a search and found the following report from RNZ:

ACT this afternoon said it would support the bill at its first reading, but had "serious concerns" about it in its current form. National's Justice spokesperson Simon Bridges said the party supported the intent of the bill, but it would need amendment.

Heading into the debating chamber, Seymour said it was "very unlikely" the party would continue to support it - although the majority Labour government will have little trouble getting the bill passed.

"If I was taking odds at the TAB I wouldn't want to bet on ACT voting for this further on," Seymour said.

Gillespie doesn't distinguish between supporting a bill through to select committee and voting for it to become the law.  

Benefits viewed as self-reliance

 RNZ reports on research from a Christchurch Beneficiary Advice group which looked at the effect of benefit sanctions, the consequence of not meeting obligations - those pesky things we wll have in our lives. Here's the quote that stopped me:

"We had clients talk about how they had to go and ask friends and family members for food for their children, which I think quite often causes embarrassment. They don't want to be seen to not be providing for their family," she said.

This amply illustrates that many people whose income arrives weekly from WINZ make no dinstinction between that source and earnings from work.

They don't want to be reliant on visible people but don't understand that they are reliant on invisible people. 

Should there be some form of plain-English Work and Income pamphlet that explains how benefits are funded, how taxation from workers is spent on non-workers, and the incongruity of a beneficiary describing her or himself as a "provider"?

Yet again we see another example of the inversion of English. Words have lost their original meaning and with it comprehension of real life.

The people to blame for this are not those dependent. It's the people they deal with, who should know better.

Child Poverty Reduction Minister is a foolish risk-taker

 According to a report in Stuff the Prime Minister - also Child Poverty Reduction Minister - asked for advice on raising benefits by $50 weekly. That would bring more children out of poverty on paper. But she was advised that the incentives to work, which are already weak for sole parents, would be even further eroded.

The PM seems disinterested in the question of whether it is more important for children to be in working homes than on benefits.

Her overriding goal is for family incomes to rise regardless of source.

Since she became responsible for reducing child poverty Ardern has done a number of things including creating Best Start, lifting child tax credits, linking benefits to wages and increasing core payment rates (and it won't stop there based on the advice sought since.)

That has coincided with a nineteen percent increase - or 32,427 - more children in benefit households.

Currently almost two thirds of the children are in sole parent homes and the proportion of parents who have been dependent for more than a year has increased from 75 to 79 percent.

Now consider the following Treasury evidence (work done under Bill English) about the poor outcomes associated with benefit dependency:

These are the real risks the PM is prepared to take so she can talk about lifting thousands of children out of poverty.

Perhaps in a generation's time there will be damaged adults calling for an apology from her for being reckless with their lives?

The conundrum of low unemployment and high benefit dependence

Stats NZ reports that the June 2021 unemployment rate has fallen to just 4 percent.

MSD reports that the June 2021 working-age Jobseeker dependency rate was 6.1 percent.

The graph at StatsNZ is interactive and shows that back in September 2008 the unemployment rate was 4.1 percent.

Yet in September 2008 MSD reported only 3.6 percent of the working-age population was on a Jobseeker benefit.

Graphed, the difference between the two quarters is quite remarkable.

It is possible to work part-time and receive Jobseeker but the last time I requested relevant data  - December 2019 - only 6.8 percent of Jobseeker recipients were declaring earnings.

As mentioned previously the denominators for the unemployment rate and jobseeker dependence rate differ slightly but that isn't material to the massive difference between Sept 2008 and June 2021.

Out of interest I will chart the percentage unemployed against total benefit dependence.

This graph confirms is that the 2008 lower jobseeker % wasn't because people were 'hidden' on other benefits.

The central question is, why are 190,257 people on a Jobseeker benefit when only 117,000 are officially unemployed?

According to StatsNZ, "Additional people captured only by Jobseeker Support are benefit recipients seeking full-time or part-time work but unavailable for a short period of time, benefit recipients working part-time, and benefit recipients not working or seeking work."

That confirms people are on a Jobseeker benefit but not necessarily counted as unemployed.

That's very handy for the government.

Re-imprisonment rate climbing

 

Source

The blue line depicts the percentage of released prisoners who are re-imprisoned within 5 years.

The red line depicts those who have been given a community sentence and enter prison within 5 years.

Covers all bases

1. We don't need no hate speech laws

We don't need no “one source of truth”

No criminalising of academic freedoms

Labour, leave them scientists alone

Hey, Faafoi, leave our speech alone

All in all you're just another brick in the wall

All in all you're just another stick in the craw

 

2. We don't need no revised history

We don't need no NCEA reform

No rank separatism in the classroom

Labour, leave them kids alone

Hey, Hipkins, leave our schools alone

All in all you're just another brick in the wall

All in all you're just another thick in the brawl

3. We don't need no carbon zero

We don't need no SNAs

No farmland to pine forest conversions

Labour, leave them farmers alone

Hey, O'Connor, leave our Ag alone

All in all you're just another brick in the wall

All in all you're just another tick in the fall

 4. We don't need no fair pay agreements

We don't need no ute tax

No extra holidays in the workplace

Labour, leave them trades alone

Hey, Wood, leave our work alone

All in all you're just another brick in the wall

All in all you're just another mick in the hall

 5. We don't need no 3 waters reform

We don't need no foreshore and seabed

No centralisation of our assets

Labour, leave them councils alone

Hey, Mahuta, leave our water alone

All in all you're just another brick in the wall

All in all you're just another chick in the mall

 7.  We don't need no brand new taxes

We don't need no rent caps and freezes

No removal of interest tax deductibility

Labour, leave them landlords alone

Hey, Robinson, leave our Rentals alone

All in all you're just another brick in the wall

All in all you're just another prick in the stalls

 8. We don't need no maori wards

We don't need no 50/50 co-governance

No treaty partnership in our constitution

Labour, leave them votes alone

Hey, Mahuta, leave our democracy alone

All in all you're just another brick in the wall

All in all its just another kick in the balls!

Anon

(left as a comment)

Seymour responds to Tamihere

Yesterday I linked to a column John Tamihere wrote about David Seymour not before reflecting on whether I should give it any further exposure. Seymour did the same. Here is his response, unpublished by Stuff, who were however happy to run Tamihere's piece:

There’s a dilemma we all face when personally attacked. Just ignore them, (like most people probably have already), or set the record straight. Ignoring them is easier, but maybe they think throwing enough mud will see some stick. Setting the record straight takes more time, and risks giving them and their argument more attention than deserved.

The dilemma is harder when the attack is dishonest, but from someone who’s done little to earn your respect. We’ve all been there, and John Tamihere’s article about me, The subtle dig at Māori in race-based politics and how it's swinging voters' judgement, is so filled with outright mistruths, that the record needs to be set straight.

Tamihere’s argument is summarised in his words: ‘Act Leader David Seymour plays a far more insidious, sophisticated and covert form of race-based politics.’ He goes on to say that my criticism of the Reserve Bank spending $400,000 on a monstrous piece of artwork is really an attack on Māori because the artwork was supposed to represent Tane Mahuta, the god of the forest.

He goes on to say that I wouldn’t criticise the America’s Cup losing hundreds of millions of dollars because it’s a white man’s sport. Here’s the problem. I am on the record criticising the America’s Cup getting taxpayer money. Just Google ‘David Seymour America’s Cup circus.’

Tamihere goes on to ask ‘Can you imagine a Waka Festival losing thousands of dollars being swept under the carpet by Seymour?’ Well, actually, something similar did happen when I was responsible for charter schools in the previous Government.

Te Kāpehu Whetū, a charter school in Whangarei was attacked for using its flexibility of funding to buy a waka. I believed, and still do, that charter schools were a power of good, and defended that school for that action among many others connected with the policy. They were a policy supported by ACT and the Iwi Chairs Forum because they were good for Māori.

That’s where the wheels really fall off Tamihere’s argument. On the basic facts, he’s not only a little bit wrong, but shilling the exact opposite of the truth. But on the wider issue of who really cares about Māori kids’ opportunity, it is Tamihere who’s played politics.

He forgot to mention his Waipareira Trust applied to operate a charter school, apparently believing in the power of the policy. He went through most of the application process then tried to renegotiate the terms he’d signed up to at the last minute.

He thought he could steamroll the young first term MP in charge of charter schools. Big mistake. When he didn’t get his way, he publicly trashed the policy that was working for disadvantaged kids, including those at his old friend Willie Jackson’s charter school, Te Kura Māori o Waatea.

It would be easy to dismiss Tamihere. He had a short parliamentary career, that ended with losing his seat, before losing his radio show for gross misogynistic comments, then running a disastrous campaign for the Auckland Mayoralty, then failing to win a seat in a short-lived revival as co-leader of the Māori Party. Why give him time?

The problem is that he’s doing such a terrible disservice to the very people he claims to represent. Just like his disgraceful conduct over the charter school affair, he is prepared to play politics without truth on the very important cause of solving poverty and improving education for Māori.

In his mind, to attack egregious waste at the Reserve Bank, gangs, and welfare abuse, is to attack Māori. Really? Do Māori speak with one voice? If we listen to John Tamihere, being Māori means you can’t want responsible Government spending, gangs to be treated with the contempt they deserve, and welfare dependency to be reduced.

ACT says all New Zealanders benefit from better policy. All New Zealanders want less crime, less tax, and greater independence. The idea we can’t have honest conversations about the challenges our country faces because we might offend Māori doesn’t just stop us making progress. Ironically enough, it is patronising and belittling of Māori who, unlike John, overwhelmingly want a better world through better policy.

John was once billed as a future Prime Minister. Now the best lesson he shows young New Zealanders of all backgrounds is not to waste their talent on hubris.

Claim lodged for Maori to receive half of benefit system resources

Lady Tureiti Moxon, on behalf of the National Māori Urban Authority (NUMA), has lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal.

According to the Child Poverty Action Group, who provded evidence for the claim, Moxon maintains, “The only way we can change the whole [welfare] system is by allowing Māori to take care of themselves and by sharing resources by splitting it 50-50.”(P59)

It's difficult to know how to respond to such on outlandish proposal. Is this the realisation of what 'Treaty Partnership' actually means? 

Maori presently receive rather more from the benefit system than matches their share of the population. 36 percent of working age beneficiaries are Maori.

But some are not satisfied with that. 

From Te Ao Maori News:

The claim addresses the Crown's failure to acknowledge the historic issues of loss of land and culture and the overarching effects of colonisation.

She [Moxon]says the benefits system and processes have been harmful to Māori over generations.

“For a lot of people going on the benefit is actually quite a traumatic experience. It's quite traumatic. And yet they're made to feel even worse about that, that they're undeserving of a benefit, undeserving of being able to participate,” she said.

“It's how we're viewed, how Māori are viewed, that we're just takers, we never give anything. Cripes, we gave this whole country over,” she says.

This riles me no end. Non-Maori being told what they think of Maori.

Any rational person is presented with evidence of employed Maori working all around them every day. Yes, I think there are some poorly motivated Maori just as there are some poorly motivated non-Maori. Yes, some Maori on benefits are deserving and some aren't; and the same goes for non-Maori. It shouldn't need to be spelled out.

But the likes of the 'Dames' and NUMA CEO John Tamihere (who yesterday launched this childish rant at David Seymour)  constantly seek to stir up racial division and animosity.

The original concept of the Waitangi Tribunal was worthy but it's now being abused. And in the current climate members may just capitulate.

The stunning drop in women having children

No, it's not news but I thought I would update the chart to latest available. June's not up but here's to the end of March. Trends that happen so rapidly are quite fascinating. I wrote a paper about it here.

Total fertility rate is defined as "the average number of live births that a woman would have during her life if she experienced the age-specific rates of a given period (usually a year)."

The rate is 1.6 births at March end. I wonder how low it will go?

What prompted me to look for an update was Peter Willliams interviewing a woman  on Magic Talk today who advocates against loneliness, wants a Minister for Loneliness appointed even.

Shrinking families won't contribute to a reduction in loneliness. That's for sure.

Closing the gap - Maori on benefits

Here's a closing gap. Not sure it's quite the type envisaged by left-wing politicians.

According to population estimates there were 489,620 Maori aged 18-64 at June 2021.

128,877 on a benefit equates to 26.3 percent or over one in four.

36.3% of all beneficiaries are Maori. A percentage as high as it has ever been.

In the Maori electorates Labour enjoy strong support.

I don't know why.  Maori never fare very well under Labour governments. 

More people on benefits than a year ago

 At the end of June 2021 there were more people on benefits than there were a year ago.

Yet MSD Minister Sepuloni is calling this good news.

In fact her release is headlined: 

Government Initiatives Contribute To Fall In Benefit Numbers

Including those on a Jobseeker benefit who are temporarily sick, the total number reliant has barely budged.

And numbers on a Sole Parent or Supported Living Payment (ex Invalid's) benefit have both risen.

This is a very poor result in a country that can't import labour - or in only a very limited capacity.

Update: It is surprising how media outlets accept the spin and turn out similar headlines to the Minister's. The important point being missed is that because of considerable seasonal variation in benefit numbers quarterly change has less significance than annual change. That is why MSD presents the numbers as year-to-year data.

Number of Maori children entering state care plummets

Oversight of Maori children at risk is being transferred to local and community efforts.

Regardless of our individual political and philosophical views I am sure we all hope it works for the children concerned.