Academia, half-truths and political bias

Should New Zealand Universities be trusted disseminators of balanced information?

The following is a Facts Sheet produced by the University of Waikato. I assume it is intended for use by students and other interested parties. It is available on-line. 

 The first fact:

Sole Parents
   At the 2006 Census, the median age of New Zealand’s Sole Parents was 42.9
years.

According to MSD, also using 2006 Census data:

Sole mothers tend to be younger than partnered mothers, with a median age of 37 years in 2006, compared to 39 years for mothers in two-parent families. Conversely, sole fathers tend to be a little older than partnered fathers, with a median age of 42 years in 2006, compared to 41 years for fathers in two-parent families.

Why the discrepancy? The MSD report relates to sole parents with dependent children.

It is unclear what definition of sole parent the University has used but later in the sheet we see this claim:

 At the 2006 Census, two thirds of New Zealand’s Sole Parents had been
previously married or in a civil union ....   13 per cent were widowed (median age 63 years)

So not sole parents with dependent children.

Next though is a blatant omission of data resulting in a highly misleading picture:

 The majority of ex-nuptial births are to women aged 30-34 years, followed by
women aged 25-29 years. Rates are lower than they were in 1972 for every
age group except 35-39 and 40-44 years, for whom ex-nuptial births have
increased substantially. 

This leaves the average person with the impression that fewer children are born outside marriage today than was the case in 1972.

Following are the statistics  required to provide a comprehensive understanding:

In 1966 11.56 percent of all births were ex-nuptial
In 2012 47.66 percent of all births were ex-nuptial

So why two seemingly contradictory 'facts'?

Because in 1966 there were far fewer unmarried women.

Take one of the age groups whose rate of ex-nuptial child-bearing has decreased, 25-29 year-olds.

If, in 1966, the ex-nuptial birth-rate was 100 (meaning 100 births per 1,000 unmarried females aged 25-29), and  there were 9,746 unmarried (or never married) females, that would result in 974 births.

If the nuptial birth-rate was also 100 for married females, who numbered 70,726, that would result in 7,072 births.

So the rate of ex-nuptial and nuptial births were the same but ex-nuptial births represented only 12% of all births.

No effort has been made to explain this to a student via this fact sheet.

It's an appalling ommission.

The facts as they are presented on this sheet paint a picture of most sole parents having been married, and ex-nuptial child-bearing on the decline. It is designed to elicit sympathy and political support for sole parents.

(It did occur to me to look for a further sheet but none exists - or not on-line. But this presentation provides a clue to the professor's political leanings where she describes the 2011 budget as being an Oliver Twist budget and calls for more investment in children. Unsurprisingly it's hosted at the Child Poverty Action Group website which brings me full circle. It was a paper by their supervised young scholar that led me to the fact sheet in the first place.)

Under-employment in NZ and internationally

Statistics NZ yesterday announced a new measure of under-employment to be added to existng HLFS labour market measures. 

Underemployment in New Zealand

The underemployment measure identifies people with a job who face a partial lack of work. It is useful to look at the underemployment rate in combination with the unemployment rate; together these two measures provide a more comprehensive view of how much potential labour there is readily available in the labour force. Compared with other OECD countries, New Zealand has a high underemployment rate but a lower unemployment rate.

Women, youth and Maori, and workers in retail and accommodation are the most likely to be under-employed. Under-employment in NZ is comparatively high but look at Australia.

I wonder if the Australian statistic reflects a lack of welfare available for migrants?

Parallel universes

Auckland Action Against Poverty has three activists and Sue Bradford appearing in court tomorrow on trespass charges after protesting last September against the latest welfare reform legislation. Sarah Thompson says:

“These reforms will see ordinary New Zealanders sanctioned, work tested, drug tested and work ability assessed,” says Ms Thompson.

And?

Non-beneficiary "ordinary" New Zealanders also have to take available jobs, experience a cut in income if they don't, pass drug tests where required and negotiate with a medical person over their ability or otherwise to work. That's life. Why would they get outraged about beneficiaries having to live by the same rules?

These pro-welfare activists live in a parallel universe. Or using fashionable vernacular, live on planet-privilege. But that's unkind to the thousands of people on benefits who are not part and parcel of AAAP's particular culture. People who would just really love to have a job to go to tomorrow.

Some context and comment about falling benefit numbers

There's been quite a bit of media coverage about benefit numbers coming down. Of course, any genuine decline is good news. But some context is always useful. Here are the headline numbers for the past five years. The official statistics don't yet include March 2013 which the Minister released at the weekend as 310,146.

First, there is nearly always a drop from December to March for seasonal reasons. The fall from December 2012 (339,095) to March 2013 (310,145) is 8 percent - the same as the drop over the equivalent period 2012/11.

Fortuitously, the chart starts at December 2007. That just happened to be the month when NZ had record low unemployment of 3.3 percent. Is that as good as it gets? Still a quarter of a million people on benefits?

What worries me is that level of dependency has become an accepted feature of the economy. It's like having been in a lot of debt for a long time and feeling like you've achieved something when you wipe just a small amount out. That's how the government is behaving.

It's understandable. They need to make political mileage from the improvement however slight.

But they've finished with their reforms. The Minister says that all she is going to do now is tidy up the Social Security Act legislation which has become incredibly complex and voluminous.

So, no time limits. No decentralisation. No tax-payer opt-out. No attempt to privatise disability or unemployment insurance. Nothing radical.

All we can do now is wait and see what happens to the numbers as Work and Income adopt a more work-focussed approach with some extra legislation to assist them.

De javu. That's what we did when Maharey took charge and changed the DPB, Invalid's and sickness beneficiary approach. Waited and waited....

International:Growing intolerance of supporting single parents long-term

With the help of Linda I've been updating the Welfare Reform website.

Some news on what's happening in the UK and Australia.

Despite a decade of fiddling with reform the UK numbers are fairly stubborn. The recent rise in Job Seeker benefit reflects not only the recession but the fact lone parents with children 5 and older are being transferred onto that benefit:

In Australia single parents with children 8 or older are also being transferred onto their unemployment benefit known as Newstart. That's caused a recent upturn in the statistics:

(In NZ the age of youngest child before transfer remains at 14. Why, I don't know)

Transfers don't get people off welfare but they do indicate a growing intolerance of supporting single parents for long periods as of right. I expect these countries are aiming to get dedicated single parent support down to youngest child ages of 1-3 as in the US and Scandinavian countries.

NZ Initiative: Thatcher's watch

The NZ Initiative included the following graph in this weeks Insight:

Lord Monckton lays a complaint with Victoria University

Worth a look.

Heart-warming to see some academics being taken to task.

"Deep thoughts..."

Another e-mail in-box arrival. Those my age and older will identify with 17:

Deep thoughts for those who take life way too seriously

1. Save the whales. Collect the whole set.

2. A day without sunshine is like......night.

3. On the other hand, you have different fingers.

4. Remember, half the people you know are below average.

5. He who laughs last thinks slowest.

6. Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.

7. Support bacteria. They're the only culture some people have.

8. A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.

9. How many of you believe in psycho kinesis?...Raise my hand.

10. OK...so what's the speed of dark?

11. When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.

12. Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film.

13. How much deeper would the ocean be without sponges?

14. What happens if you get scared half to death twice?

15. I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.

16. Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

17. Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what  happened.

18. Just remember---if the world didn't suck, we would all fall off.

19. Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

20. Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a really hot curry. What you do today might burn your ass tomorrow.

Conservative Party defends beneficiary freedom

The Conservative Party is defending beneficiary freedom of choice:

“Another freedom has been lost this week,” says Conservative Party Leader Colin Craig, “as the National Government have voted to dictate to beneficiary parents how their pre-school children will be educated.”
“The Social Security Amendment Bill appears to have, as an underlying assumption, that beneficiary parents are somehow unable to make the best choices for their children. This simply isn’t true; many of these parents are doing a great job in sometimes very difficult circumstances. They don’t need a bossy government dictating their choices,” he says.

But tax-payers have to put up with beneficiaries dictating their choices. There are probably thousands of parents who would like to stay home with their children, maybe even home school them but have to go to work to pay the taxes that support single parent's freedom of choice.

Craig is putting the cart before the horse. He should be defending the freedoms of those who are forced to fund other people choices, limiting their own in the process. We need to shrink the dependent sector to increase choice across the board.

National is creating demand for the pre-school infrastructure necessary (at least temporarily) to get more women working and off welfare.  The numbers can't come down without it. A social spin-off is some, not necessarily all, children are going to benefit from pre-school education.

Like Craig I'm a fan of woman staying home if they want. But not if they have to force someone else to fund it. Likewise I can sympathise with those who want to home school but not if someone else has to pay for it. 'Freedom' can't properly describe choices paid for by somebody else.

Truth column April 4-10

My Truth column from April 4-10

A well-known journalist recently had a pop at Radio New Zealand for being too left-wing.
Not being a listener myself, I can’t say if he’s right or wrong.
But I was once a guest on Kathryn Ryan’s Nine to Noon show discussing the blow-out of numbers on the sickness and invalid benefits (more than 10-fold since 1970).
The environment was clinical and coldly inhospitable. Perhaps my views about too much incapacity being self-inflicted had something to do with the ‘ambience’.

More

The lifespan of a democracy

 Arrived in my e-mail box and caught my attention:

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
 

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy; 

From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage." 

The Obituary follows:

Born 1776, Died 2016

Where is NZ right now?

Plummeting fertility after 1960

JC commented yesterday about the steep drop in Maori fertility after the pill was introduced.

There's likely a fascinating story to tell on Maori fertility. According to my Yearbook 2000 Maori women had 6 kids per female in 1960 but when the Birth Control pill arrived that plummeted to just over 2 per female by 1990 before a steady recovery to the present level. Even the arrival of the DPB in 1973 didn't slow the descent. So why did these women take such drastic control of their fertility back then, and why did it increase from 1990? The story is almost certainly rooted in changes in work, social changes, a precipitous fall in religious observation and marriage and Govt policies.

I agree. Any rapid change in social behaviour provokes curiosity. Here's a couple of charts, the first for Maori and the second for all births:

The second chart shows the same pattern occurring across all females. Maori just dropped from larger family size.

Women took control because they could. Maori and non-Maori.

They flowed into the workforce looking for better living standards. Infant mortality was dropping so fewer births were needed as  'replacements'. Abortion was easier to access. Family benefit was constantly decreasing in real value. Marriages were ending faster. Woman were increasingly marrying older reducing their child-bearing window of opportunity.

Effect of the DPB is at the margins, but possibly apparent during the (recessionary) 1990s for Maori fertility.

Any other ideas?

(The fertility rate pre-1960 is also interesting reflecting WW1 and 11 and The Depression.)

CPAG attack John Key and Paula Bennett for promoting myths about sole parents and the DPB

Late last month the Child Poverty Action Group launched a report written by Virginia Dale, "Myths and Facts: Sole Parents and the DPB"  

Unpicking the myths ; "This  backgrounder  uses  examples  from  politicians  and  commentators  and  contrasts  their statements with factual data that is readily available from Government and other websites and publications. "

The 'myths' quoted are from John Key, Paula Bennett, Don Brash, myself and unnamed sources.

Let's work through it and check their 'facts'.

 Of these sole parents [all with dependent children], nearly 36% were in full time paid work, and 19% in part time paid work. These employment rates for sole parents are better than the UK and Australia, although just below the  OECD  average.

She has used OECD data from here.

NZ's rate is only "better" than the UK and Australia because the data is more recent (2008 versus 2005 and 2004 respectively.)

More recent OECD data (see slide 5 here) shows the UK and Australia with higher sole parent employment rates by 2009.

The majority (81.4%) of sole parents on the DPB are aged between 25 and 64 with 1.7% of individuals  making  up  the  18-19  age  brackets.

The percentage has consistently been between 2 and 3 but dropped to 1.7 percent after a few hundred teenage parents were moved onto the recently created Young Parent Payment. The writer used December 2012 statistics. If she'd contrasted December 2011 she would have found the percentage was 2.8 and wondered (perhaps) why it had suddenly dropped by 39 percent.

18 and 19 year-olds have never made up a large percent of the total DPB numbers because they represent just a narrow age-band. Looked at differently, the higher percentage that 18-19 year-olds constitute, the better. That would mean they are leaving the DPB sooner. She has also ignored 16 and 17 year-old single parents.

 Myth 1: Breeding for a business
[Labour’s policy has led to] the situation where people have been, for want of a better term, breeding for a business. John Key, 2002

There  is  no  evidence  that  anyone  ‘breeds  for  a  business’  or  that imposing  work  obligations  change  fertility  outcomes.  Relationship  breakdown  is  a  major cause of women becoming sole parents. At the 2006 Census, two thirds of sole parents had  been  previously  married  or  in  a  civil  union.

This claim is astonishing. I checked her source for this and found it came from a Waikato University Facts sheet "Sole Parents, Teenage Fertility and Ex-nuptial Fertility."

Of the two thirds referred to above

o   8 per cent were still married (median age 43 years)
o   20 per cent were separated (median age 43 years)
o   24 per cent were divorced (median age 46 years)
o   13 per cent were widowed (median age 63 years)

So if at 2006 your elderly Mum was alive but your Dad has passed away, she'll be in this group of 'sole parents'? Look at the median ages. These are not generally sole parents with young dependent children and as such are totally unrelated to the DPB. I'm utterly flabbergasted by this University-produced fact sheet (and explored it further here). What are elderly widows and middle-aged divorcees doing on a fact sheet related to sole parents, teenage fertility and ex-nuptial fertility? Unbelievable.

The median age of those on the DPB is 32. The median age of sole mothers who had never married or been in a civil union is 33. There's correlation.

 When  a  spouse  dies,  or  the  relationship becomes violent, access to the DPB contributes to the protection and well-being of the child.

Small point but when a spouse dies the widow has access to the widow's benefit - not the DPB (although that will soon change.)

...employment levels among sole parents move with the overall state of the economy. In the mid-2000s when there were increasing general levels of employment, there was a marked increase in the employment rate of sole parents. The numbers on the DPB fell. This ‘gain’ disappeared when the onset of the recession in 2008 led to rising unemployment.

Yes, but when NZ had the lowest unemployment rate in the developed world, December 2007, there were still 98,154 people drawing the DPB. Most, but not all, were single parents.

Now the writer cites one of my blog posts:

Myth 4: DPB pays more than the average female worker’s wage

DPB pays more than average female worker’s income...choosing motherhood over work is entirely economically rational. Lindsay Mitchell, Welfare Commentator, 2010

Her link from the paper to my blog does not work because the final 'l' has been omitted. Intentional? But here is the post she refers to and I stand by. It shows that the average weekly earnings for a female in 2010 were $519  whereas someone living on the DPB in Auckland with two children was receiving $580.

Lindsay Mitchell appears to be adding on things like the accommodation supplement and Working for Families: The net basic rate for the DPB of $293.58 (2012) with an extra $92 for the first child and $65 for the second from Working for Families. The accommodation supplement will only meet part of her housing costs, now much greater as she has children. 

 I used the official MSD figure of $580 which obviously includes all top-ups to the basic rate.

 This myth directly contradicts the myth that ‘work is the way out of poverty’.

No it doesn't. Firstly jobs change. People join an organisation and move up or work more hours. But perhaps even more importantly, work, and associated environments, are often where people meet new partners. Forming relationships and sharing costs is another way out of poverty.

Myth 5: Welfare traps people in poverty

[The Welfare System] de-motivates and traps people who are perfectly capable of being independent. Lindsay Mitchell, Welfare Commentator (2010).
Facts: 
There is no evidence for the claim that welfare demotivates those who receive it. It is equally likely that the experience of being on welfare is sufficiently awful to provide an incentive to move into work at the earliest opportunity. The problem is availability of good secure full-time work .The Beneficiary numbers move in line with the general state of the economy, that is, when  employment  is  available,  beneficiary  numbers  decrease.  This  would  not  happen  if people were ‘trapped’ on welfare.

As mentioned above the numbers on the DPB did not drop substantially when the economy improved. Unemployment benefit numbers did but that's not what this paper is about. The writer doesn't disprove that those who remained on welfare during the economic boom weren't trapped. In any case she goes on to talk about the high effective marginal tax rates associated with trying to leave the DPB which I agree are a problem.

While the total numbers in receipt of the DPB may remain similar for long periods, there is a high turnover: 25% of those currently on the benefit have received DPB for under a year, 66% have been on it for less than four years, and only 10% have been on it for ten years.

 

These percentages relate only to 'current' spell. Many leave welfare and return and the clock starts afresh. When MSD researchers looked at sole parents on welfare at the end of 2005

·          just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits. I tire of this wilful misrepresentation of dependency duration.

Myth 11: DPB separates children from their fathers
The DPB has clearly contributed to many children growing up without fathers, often without even knowing who their father is. Past Leader of Act Party Don Brash, 2005.
 

Why describe Don Brash as past leader of the Act Party when the quote is taken from his time as leader of the National Party? Political bias is why.

Look I'm not even going to tackle this one. It is absurd to deny that the DPB hasn't affected the rate of single parenthood and subsequently, the number of children who grow up without a father in situ or possibly unknown to the child. There is ample international evidence to the effect that the level of welfare payment correlates with the rate of single parenthood. If fathers aren't substantively financially supporting their child or their child's mother  it's a fair assumption that some, if not many, aren't around at all.

I note that CPAG has not pushed this paper hard. It only came to my attention when I visited the Auckland Action Against Poverty site this morning to see what they are saying about the welfare reforms legislated last night.

If I am guilty of promoting myths, the CPAG is even more so.

Most newborns born onto welfare are Maori

Continuing with Sunday's theme of the gradual decline of the financially independent, working, two-parent, Maori family the chart below shows that 59 percent of newborns added to an existing benefit, usually the DPB, are Maori:

The data is sourced from a cabinet paper.

It represents 4,800 newborns - a five year average over 2006-2010.

The count includes newborns added from the date of their birth,  to a benefit that has been in place for 42 weeks or more, and where there are older children.

Interestingly the paper suggests reduced employment opportunities for men are lessening the likelihood they'll be a family breadwinner. But Pacific people have higher unemployment than Maori and are not particularly over-represented in either their share of the DPB (10 percent)  or the rate of adding children (12 percent).

So that's a crock.


Then over the course of the year in which they are born, many more babies will go onto a newly granted benefit resulting in 21 percent of all babies being dependent by year-end.

I seriously stuffed up

My apologies to the Herald. I misread their reporting on the latest welfare reforms. Too much haste. On returning from walking the dogs I re-read my post and realised MY mistake.  Hang head in shame.

On faith versus fact

Yesterday someone made an absurd (and irrelevant to the post) claim:

The fact that Maori birthrates are higher is not an indication that they are more promiscuous. But more an indication that non-maori have more abortions.
Teenage pregnancy rates are exactly the same.
Teenage birth rates are different because of NZ European Abortion rates... Who is worse - someone who has a baby as a teenager or someone who murders an unborn..?

What I wonder about is where this sort of thinking comes from? In this day and age it is very easy to check the veracity of your claim before making it. But I suspect this man, young man (?) has latched on to an idea that suits his ideology - anti-abortionism -  and never felt a desire to question or doubt it. Perhaps he'd gotten the idea from a source he trusted.

It recalled an ocassion which taught me to be more thorough. I was giving a presentation on the US welfare reforms and a catholic attendee stood up and claimed the reforms had pushed up the abortion rate. I thought she was wrong but wasn't 100 percent certain. She repeated it as absolute fact. As I was prepared to admit I didn't know and she was adamant she did, I came off the worse in terms of credibility.

I contacted her later to say she had in fact got it wrong. But the damage was done. She'd won support for her objection by being dishonest but resolute.

Anyway, for Ben, if he comes back, here's a scan from a paper amongst my files. It's 1997 but the relative teenage fertility  patterns have not changed substantially.

Tax avoiders bad: tax takers good?

Mark Hubbard drew my attention to a post about tax avoidance by Massey University tax lecturer Deborah Russell:

Despite everything you might hear, most New Zealanders mostly pay their taxes, on time and in full. We’ve got a very good compliance rate here. Somewhere between 80% and 90% of taxpayers pay their tax on time, and over 60% file their returns on time.

Like we have any option? The case for citizen buy-in is impossible to assess or prove when the law forbids choice.

People who won’t pay their taxes free ride on other New Zealanders.
Tax aoviders not only free ride on other New Zealanders, but they undermine the whole tax system. Tax compliance is a trust game: if people think that other people comply with tax law, then they are more inclined to do so themselves. But if they think that other people are rorting the system, and not paying taxes, and squirreling money away, then they lose confidence in the system, and start to avoid paying taxes themselves. The reasoning is straightforward: who wants to be the only schmuck left.

This interests me because it's exactly the same thought process I've heard blamed for benefit exploitation in Europe. The reason for the decades-long increase in people relying on state hand-outs is attributed to progressive capitulation from those thinking, "If you can't beat them, join them." The more normalised living off the state becomes, the greater the benefit uptake will be.

The one defense that these tax avoiders might try is that their activities are perfectly legal...But even if the procedures used are legal, it’s not clear that they are ethically acceptable. This is in fact the closest I can get to understanding exactly what a rort is: it’s something that is technically legal, but nevertheless pushes the law to such an extent that it is immoral.

Again the "perfectly legal" tax avoidance defence has its parallel with the 'perfectly entitled' tax take defence. Many have become far more concerned with legal entitlement to benefits than moral.

But look what follows:

We’ve heard a great deal of nasty rhetoric about people on benefits in recent years, but very little about the scungy behaviour of tax avoiders and tax evaders.

By Russell's logic, we should be hearing "nasty rhetoric about people on benefits" if the behaviour of tax avoiders and evaders is also "scungy". If people who don't pay tax are "free riding" so too are those who take it when they do not need to.

The problem is both groups are failing to accept her "common good" philosophy.

This isn't a defence of greed or laziness. But without the "common good" ends realised only via state force, those character traits would be visited upon their bearers - not you and I.

That portrait of Margaret

Back in my 'student' days, art student that is, back when I was reasonably apolitical, I wanted to paint a large scale portrait of someone famous. It was an exercise in capturing a likeness really. I can't recall why or where but I came accross this amazing photo of Margaret Thatcher back in the 'big hair' days.  It was the composition that drew me in; that and the expression in her eyes. Now I wouldn't even know where to find the original image though a google search might locate it.

It seems to me it could do with a few more coats and is far more detailed than anything I'd produce today. It lacks weight. Perhaps, typically, I lost interest when it came to the clothing. But I wasn't displeased with it at the time.

Of course it unleashed a few derisive sneers and raised eyebrows amongst some of my folk. Not for the attempted grandness but because I grew up in a 1960s Labour household where Harold Wilson had been loved, like Mickey Savage. Benevolent Harry and his lovely labradors I remember.

My parents hated Thatcher. Or that's what I recall. Though I never knew or cared why. They just gave me the overwhelming impression that she was callous and hard. As children, even young adults, do, I believed them without giving it very much thought.

Later though realised what an amazingly determined and steely character she was. And of course I came to understand and believe in the same political and philosophical values she espoused - free markets and individualism. "There is no such thing as society..." doesn't mean every man is an island. It means that in the final analysis any true right or responsibility lies with the individual. Assign them to groups and they cause conflict.

So I dragged out my portrait today and we'll have it sitting on the mantelpiece in her honour. RIP Maggie.

4 in 5 Maori children born outside marriage

The earliest statistics kept on Maori ex-nuptial births were in 1968. The percentage of Maori children born outside marriage would have been even lower pre-1968.

Does marriage matter? Of course it does. Married people tend to be wealthier, are more likely to stay together, and provide their children with greater security and opportunity. A great deal of Maori disadvantage is due to the picture below.

What's wrong with Radio Live?

The NZ Herald reports that latest Auckland audience polling shows Radio Live losing listeners in a big way. Marcus Lush, Michael Laws and Willie and JT all lost significant audience share. And it isn't just Aucklanders tuning out.

Laws may have lost audience because he was leaving. People anticipating his departure began looking for an alternative earlier than they needed to? I listened to Laws sporadically usually because he was running a subject that interested me and he didn't suffer fools.

Lush is an unknown but from the promos for his show I've never been tempted. Not enough gravitas in his presentation or content.

Willie and JT are entertaining at times but the (sometimes juvenile) slagging each other off wears thin. A lack of professionalism and repetition of race-related comment make Willie tiresome. JT has a wider field of knowledge and depth of insight but seems to mentally (and physically) disappear quite often. His solo shows make for more compelling listening. Their political panel show frequently degenerates into the verbal equivalent of a bar brawl. Again, I'm only a sporadic listener.

I tuned into Sean Plunket a couple of times during his first week. His style was unchanged since hosting NewstalkZB in Wellington 2011-12 during which time I started to gravitate over to Laws and RadioLive. Perhaps if he incorporates more interviews and news content - competing directly with his nemesis, Radio NZ - he could pull in people like me who refuse to listen to state radio but don't necessarily want music.

Duncan Garner is totally not my cup of tea. Three or four times I've persevered through the hour before Larry Williams starts on NewstalkZB. Garner gets an idea or takes a position (eg a nasty set against Susan Devoy) than asks people to text their support - repeatedly. He has a motor-mouth but not a motor-brain. Shallow and disappointing.

I've listened to RadioLive since the Radio Pacific days. Through many hosts like Jenny Anderson, a consummate professional, Paul Henry, very quirky and comical then, John Banks, cutting and polarising, Alan Dick, personable and forthright.

They just don't have any talent right now.  Perhaps they get what they pay for. In which case it's a downward spiral.

(Mea culpa to Mitch Harris who does run a good show when he gets behind the mike.)

Bulls**t detector

Here's a bit of fun. The NZ Initiative asks,

"How full of it are you? Run your writing (or indeed any writing at all) through this website to get a bulls**t reading. "


I've scored from .17 to .22 - apparently showing "only a few indications of bullshit language" to "some signs but within acceptable limits."

Truth column March 28 - April 3

My Truth column for March 28 - April 3

Labour was once proudly the party for the workers; the triers and the battlers.
That’s how our oldest living generation remembers them.  But, over the decades they’ve morphed into the party that espouses entitlements and rights before responsibilities.  They shut down free-thinkers with political correctness, but champion free-riders with their promotion of generous, unconditional social security. If you doubt me, consider this recent parliamentary exchange between social development minister Paula Bennett, and Labour’s Jacinda Ardern, complaining about sole-parent benefit reforms:

More

"I don't like the income tax"

Another great quote dug up by the Freedom Foundation:

I don't like the income tax. Every time we talk about these taxes we get around to the idea of "from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs." That's socialism. It's written in the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him.
 

- T. Coleman Andrews, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, U.S. News & World Report [May 25, 1956]

UK Chancellor defends welfare reform

The UK Chancellor is the equivalent of our Finance Minister. A report from today's Scotsman:

GEORGE Osborne yesterday attacked critics of the UK government’s welfare reform claiming they were talking “ill-informed rubbish” as he defended his controversial policies.
The Chancellor said the welfare system was “fundamentally broken” and he was “proud” of the stance being taken by the government, which has come in for severe criticism for introducing such measures as the “bedroom tax”.
Speaking at a Morrisons’ distribution depot in Kent, Mr Osborne also defended the decision to cut tax for higher earners by slashing the top rate.
“In a modern, global economy where people can move anywhere in the world, you cannot have a top rate of tax that discourages people from living here, from setting up businesses here, investing here, creating jobs here.”
His speech provoked a furious backlash in Scotland where the SNP claimed 105,000 households will be £600 a year worse off as a result of the changes.
But Mr Osborne said: “Those who campaign against a cap on benefits for families who aren’t working are completely out of touch with how the millions of working families, who pay the taxes to fund these benefits, feel about this.
“I’m proud of what we’re doing to restore some common sense and control on costs. In recent days we have heard a lot of, frankly, ill-informed rubbish about these welfare reforms.
“Some have said it’s the end of the welfare state. That is shrill, headline-seeking nonsense. I will tell you what is true. Taxpayers don’t think the welfare state works properly anymore.”
Mr Osborne said the system had not only become unaffordable, it was now so complicated people were better off on the dole rather than going to work.
“These vested interests always complain, with depressingly predictable outrage, about every change to a system which is failing. I want to take the argument to them,” he said.
“Because defending every line item of welfare spending isn’t credible in the current economic environment. Because defending benefits that trap people in poverty and penalise work is defending the indefensible.
“The benefit system is broken; it penalises those who try to do the right thing; and the British people badly want it fixed.”

Minister Bennett mistaken or misled

A 'welfare commentator' must be politically even-handed. If Jacinda Ardern gets it wrong I'm quick to criticise.

When it was reported  Paula Bennett said, "There were 659 subsequent children born to parents already claiming a benefit this January," I knew the number was either aberrant or wrong.

So I queried the number with MSD and received this response,

"to answer your question the number does not necessarily relate to children born in January - but rather children who were to be added, in January, to client benefits as subsequent children."

So then I asked,

What were the ages of the subsequent  children added to an existing benefit in January?

 but was told

unfortunately we are not able to provide an age breakdown for subsequent children

A subsequent child could be added to a foster carer's benefit; or moved into a 'safer' family at CYF instigation; moved from a mother to a father; adopted (particularly whangai) and so on.

Subsequent babies born directly onto a  benefit number annually around 4,800 or
400 monthly.

 "As the second round of welfare reforms come back before Parliament, Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says the 650 children born to women already claiming a benefit in January are reason enough for her tough reforms"

250 would represent an increase of 62 percent.

There is no need to exaggerate  statistics to justify crucial reforms, especially when inaccurate claims could undermine support.

Pay your weight

What's the difference between carrying extra kilos in baggage and extra kilos on your person, except you get charged for the first? The economies of air travel are directly linked to weight carried and in an increasingly tight market I'd expect this policy to become more widespread. It will only take one major airline to adopt it, making them more attractive to most flyers, and the competition won't be able to afford not to. The NZ Herald is running a poll:

Is it fair to charge overweight passengers more to fly?

1500–1550 votes

Yes - it should be a policy on all airlines.

69%

Maybe - but only a small fee.

12%

No - it's discrimination.

19%

Reducing inequality among road injured

Data has been available for some time that shows Maori are statistically more likely to be involved in a road accident. Now the University of Auckland has measured the risk for Maori children in that region:

Maori children are 65 per cent more likely to be killed or hurt on our roads than children of other ethnicities.

This is synonymous with heightened risk of poverty, neglect, abuse, ill-health, educational under-achievement,  involvement with crime, etc. It is hardly surprising. What captured me was this sentence:

University of Auckland researcher Dr Jamie Hosking said the report highlighted what needed to be done to reduce inequality among those injured.

Another 'inequality obsessed' academic not thinking through the implications of his words.

A reduction in inequality amongst the injured could be achieved if more 'rich' people had accidents. Or more Asians, who are apparently the safest road users.

The goal is surely a reduction of injuries irrespective of ethnicity or economic status.

Does he come out with this sanitised-speak simply to avoid saying, we need to see an improvement in the safety practices around and on roads by Maori, and particularly Maori parents?


Of course describing road-risk  as an 'inequality' problem segues nicely into the logical next step which is, naturally enough, to spend more money righting it.

Calls for more spending/borrowing are astonishing

It is not my primary intention to argue against tax cuts but I couldn't accept the PSA Secretary Richard Wagstaff's rationale for extending Paid Parental Leave. My response in Monday's DomPost:

DomPost: Early work tests for adding children to a benefit fair

Yesterday's DomPost editorial was pleasantly forthright.

After the usual preamble about welfare being a social contract which most beneficiaries do not exploit, it continues,

"Sadly, however, some beneficiaries see it as their God-given right to remain on welfare for life and not only make no effort to improve their lot, but add to the burden on taxpayers.
They include women on the domestic purposes benefit who seem to believe they can have as many children as they want while remaining dependent on the state, and that workers will be happy to pay for them to have that privilege...."

More

The falling teenage birth rate

A commentor yesterday was surprised that the teenage birth rate is dropping.

I've extracted the data from Statistics NZ and charted them. The first chart shows the birth rate per 15-19 year-olds has been dropping since 2008. The Maori rate is much higher which left me with the question, is the total rate falling only because the Maori rate is?

So I've charted births in absolute numbers. There's a slight quirk in that the Maori data is for births under twenty but there are very few under 15 so the line wouldn't change significantly.

Births for both Maori and non-Maori are dropping. I didn't chart the Pacific and Asian data but the trend is the same. So the reasons, whatever they are, are at least cross-cultural. That's a start. It'll be fascinating to see where the lines go in the next seven years.

Update. The birth rates are falling in every age group except 40 plus. Better half has just said to me it's the recession and that the same thing happened in the Depression. I imagine that the 40 plus females are going against the trend because they are running out of time and have better financial means. Also WFF introduced in 2005 seemed to produce a bit of a temporary baby boom, so a return to more 'normal' rates would be seen as a fall. But the teenage birth in 2012 was the lowest it's ever been (at least according to data going back to 1962 and you wouldn't expect it to be lower in times when people married and started families relatively young).

"You shouldn't leave a man alone with a baby"

Whaleoil has blogged a YouTube clip supposed to provoke outrage against male physical play with a baby.

By coincidence we had a visiting 15 month-old today.

My (almost) 19 year-old son looked after her from the outset. Her step Granddad was doing swing rides with secure hands, they encouragingly guided her up and down steps, they 'danced' to get her dancing. She loved every moment.

Any 'movement' against men looking after babies is tragic.

Reported progress with youth

The current government has been keen to increasingly involve the private sector  in a number of areas. MSD has just reported on the progress of their Social Sector trials which have been running in half a dozen locations - Taumarunui, Tokoroa, Te Kuiti, Kawerau, Levin and Gore - and will be extended and rolled out elsewhere. They involve smallish communities finding their own solutions to problem youth. Some of the trials are led by employed individuals, others by charitable trusts. They build on and co-ordinate  existing services and programmes which are highly practical. Apparently:

Momentum around the Social Sector Trials is strong. Anecdotal evidence suggests increased levels of cooperation, collaboration, transparency and accountability around programmes and services as well as progress towards impacts on outcomes.
Outcomes reported at the local level include:

• truancy levels trending downwards
• disengaged young people being identified and supported into engagement in education, training and employment (through new local programmes, advocacy, and exposure to opportunities)
• young people who would not normally access services being able to in their own environment (nurses, doctors, youth workers, and social workers being available in schools)
• individual plans being put in place for young people with high and complex needs
• young people having access to positive opportunities such as holiday programmes, youth hubs, intensive mentoring and community events
• more young people accessing help for drug and alcohol problems
• young people being supported to pay off justice sector fines and be supported through activities such as drivers licensing to reduce the possibility of fines occurring
• young people knowing how/where to access programmes and services

It's all very paternalistic but we are talking 12-18 year-olds. Someone has to step in when normal parenting is absent. Just a thought and mentioned before, I've been scratching my head over the dropping teenage birthrate. These programmes may be one factor.

Truth column March 21-27

My Truth column from March 21-27:

It is my fervent hope that National exercises its financial veto against extending paid parental leave from 14 to 26 weeks.
Apparently, many mums and dads and babies turned up at the select committee last week to support Sue Moroney’s member’s bill.
“Think of the children,” they said in one voice.
Well why don’t you, the parent, think about the children?

More

DI rolls "heading for collapse" in US?

The NCPA has a piece on the soaring disability insurance numbers in the US:

Since 1970, the number of individuals receiving DI has grown sixfold (from 1.4 million to 8.8 million), and the program expenses have grown tenfold, which is unsustainable.

How does NZ compare?

Using sickness and invalid benefit annual totals, the numbers have grown from 14,310 in 1970 to 147,029 in 2011 - more than ten-fold. Measured against the total population there are 28 claimants per 1,000 in the US compared to 33 per 1,000 here.

(That ignores long-term ACC claimants.)

Meanwhile both country's populations have grown by around 55 percent over the same period.

Still, neither country's problem is as big as some EU countries.

She believed the rhetoric

When was the last time you heard someone say "It takes a village to raise a child"? Not long ago I bet. Or "... children are a community responsibility". All the time. These are OUR children we are told.

And that's what the mother of a baby left in a Porirua Pack'n.Save carpark thought too. Baby all tucked up and sleeping peacefully, she left a note asking anyone who saw it wake ring her cellphone.

But wait now for the howls of outrage from the collectivists....

Rubbish from Russel Norman

Green co-leader Russel Norman says:

90 percent of Kiwis not interested in Key’s asset sales

He bases this on the 425,000 registered expressions of interest as a share of the total population. That includes the million or so children.

Roughly, there are around 1.5 million households in New Zealand with an average of 3 occupants. In general only one occupant, the main bread-winner, would make the expression of interest. So 425,000 expressions could easily represent interest from 1, 2, 3 or more others.

Being as loose as Russel Norman with statistics I could simply say the expression of interest represents 28 percent of households. And then claim that  72 percent of Kiwis aren't interested.

Of course that would still be untrue as many people would be interested but 1/ unable to afford the shares, or 2/ simply not registered their interest. For instance, I'm still thinking about it.

I haven't registered an interest in buying Mighty River shares but I support their sale and asset sales in general.

It's just desperate and dishonest stuff from Norman. It must be humiliating to have to chase after the votes of fools. Only an idiot would believe this claim.

Why some people can't get jobs

 According to Stuff:

"Some employers say they are dealing with dozens of applicants unpresentable and unfit for work and they fear it's only going to get worse as the next wave of benefit reforms starts to settle in and more beneficiaries are forced to actively look for work...despite the many jobless, employers say continual absenteeism, substance abuse and poor work ethic appear to be making a lot of them unemployable."

Employers occasionally speak out about their difficulty in getting good people. It's more often a lament heard on talkback radio than read in print but the stories aren't uncommon. I don't doubt their veracity and they make me angry, despairing and worried.

These 'inadequates' to put it politely will doubtless be passing on their own attitudes and impaired intelligences to their children. I fear that cutting off their benefit incomes won't motivate them positively. It'll just turn them into more resentful, more bitter and more desperate characters.

That is not to say it shouldn't happen.  A line has to be drawn. Society has to concede that some people have been helped as much as possible. Their education, their health, housing and income needs have all been met by the state to no avail. In fact, to their detriment.

The "next wave of benefit reforms" will begin to pull back the carpet under which we have swept this problem for too long.

One in five babies welfare dependent by year-end

Media Release

ONE IN FIVE BABIES BORN 2012 ON WELFARE BY YEAR-END

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Data released under the Official Information Act shows that 21.2 percent of babies born in 2012  were dependent on a caregiver receiving a welfare benefit by the end of the same year.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said that, "Over one in five babies reliant on welfare by year-end is a sobering and sad statistic. But it's worse for Maori at over 1 in 3 or 35.9 percent."

"There is now an established pattern of childbearing involving birth onto an existing benefit or recourse to welfare soon after.  This occurs during good and bad economic periods. For instance, in 2007, when New Zealand briefly experienced the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD, the percentage only reduced to 19.1%"

"In general, the younger that children go on welfare, the longer they will stay in the benefit system. This leads to chronic child poverty and the many associated risks."

"Current and forthcoming welfare reforms are aimed at reducing this incidence but the answer remains largely with young females who need to be persuaded to gain educational qualifications, work skills and a committed partner before embarking on motherhood. "

(Talking to Larry Williams on NewstalkZB about this issue)

Paula outbats Jacinda again

An exchange in parliament today:

Jacinda Ardern: Should a sole parent be able to study to become a nurse or a social worker while on the DPB or in her new categories of sole parent support or job seeker; if not, why not?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: It will depend on how that fits with their work-test obligations, so that will depend on the age of the youngest child. If they are aged under 5 years old, there will be absolutely no trouble in the parent studying full time. If they are aged over 5, there may be some part-time work obligations alongside of them, and the parent can still study if they are doing those.
Jacinda Ardern: No, they can’t.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, they can. They can perfectly well study and work 15 hours a week. In fact, most of us over this side did that. I know that the member would not be able to associate with that, but that is actually true. Parents can study part-time or full-time and also meet their part-time work-test obligations, which I think are entirely fair.

Truth Column March 14 -20

 My Truth column March 14 - 20

It was embarrassing listening to a woman bleating about the status of New Zealand females, their lack of representation on boards and experience of pay discrimination.  On International Women’s Day, March 8, 2013, I could find far, far more to celebrate than bitch about.

 More

The starting out wage

The government wants to introduce (or re-introduce) a minimum youth rate and call it a Starting Out rate. It'll be $11 per hour.

Their professed aim is to get youth into employment.

My problem is this. Will more jobs be created because the price of labour is lowered, when job subsidies already exist and we still have high youth unemployment? An employer can already hire a young person at less than the minimum wage if he receives a Work and Income subsidy.

While NZ is still feeling the effects of the GFC will the difference between $13.75 and $11 create more jobs or simply represent a loss to the worker and a gain to the employer? In a growing economy I'm sure the optimum would be realised - more jobs. But currently, I don't know.

I support the move but with reservations about it being the silver bullet for reducing youth unemployment.

Council rate increases

Local government finance and policy analyst Larry Mitchell has a short piece in The Truth about council rate increases:

New Zealand Councils, particularly in this election year, make great PR play by citing their proposed current year’s percentage rate increases, more so if an increase is considered modest.
Public interest is drawn to such statements. The problem with council rate increase announcements is that they need not be correct. In fact many are downright misleading and here’s why.

Right on cue here comes my council, Hutt City:

Hutt City Council is proposing an average annual rate rise of less than one per cent in its annual plan for 2013-2014, says Lower Hutt Mayor Ray Wallace.
Mayor Wallace says councillors have proposed increasing rates revenue by an average of 0.9 per cent reflecting the strong financial management of the Hutt City Council’s finances.

Strong financial management? With operating expenditure of around $126 million and debt of $67 million and a deficit for the past two years?

Larry also produces a League Table for the 67 local authorities in NZ. It measures economic sustainability and affordability. Hutt City rates 43rd. For financial performance it rates 'fair'. A few councils achieve a 'good' or even 'very good'.

He writes about the reasons for council indebtedness:

The “it’s not our money” coupled to “castle-building” attitudes of elected members. We have elected many Councillors over the last ten or so years whose debt-fuelled adventures with our money have lead to Council debt levels and gold plated community infrastructure without consideration of their basic affordability to ratepayers and their effect upon ongoing financial sustainability. Large stadia (Dunedin) expensive Council organisations with expensive tastes (with Auckland Council leading the way) and bloated payrolls have unfortunately become the norm. Audit meantime has stood idly by without exercising their wider mandate powers to ensure that public monies are not wasted. Elected members have failed to adequately set and supervise affordable policies that match the incomes and demographics of their ratepayer-electors....

And finally, the role played by the beauracrats. There are some very good people out their working for Councils. But far too many, starting at the top and with CEO leadership missing in action who have paid little heed to matters such as cost containment . They continue to project expenditure/rates increases that pay little heed to the realities of a persistent recession. Enough has been written already of inflated senior staff salaries. I would just add this. Within the relatively stable, secure, mostly risk free circumstances of their employment Council employee terms of engagement do not justify the present private sector competitive rates of payment.

And the following (included in the League Table report) referring to any effect of the GFC, is an article published in Local Government Magazine Feb 2011:

Mr Mitchell says longer term recovery strategies will be needed by 2012 or earlier. Financial plans must now

confront the budget realities of affordability and ‘cut the cloth’.

“These steps should be followed by meaningful and ongoing audit and performance assurance, coupled with

independent advice on the matters. Elected members must avoid ‘staff capture’ by insisting upon provision 

of independent advice covering a range of well understood and fully cost/benefited options.”

Mr Mitchell says he doesn’t accept that councils’ financial problems are principally due to the recession 

which has gripped New Zealand since the international banking crisis hit.“No, I don’t think so. This situation, 

let’s call it a crisis, for that it may well be, has been a long time in the making.

“A major reason that springs immediately to mind is a perverse and unforeseen consequence of the 2002 Act.

This legislation that promised so much has put councils into something of an inflexible and unresponsive

medium term (three to ten-year) straitjacket. It is called the Long Term Council Community Plan. While this

plan is regularly reviewed, it tends to build a model that has in its effect constrained councils’ ability to

readily react to the external financial-economic environment. And this is particularly so of course, when a

recession hits as quickly as this one has.“If you go back to the 2006 and earlier plans, all o

f their projections were for steady increases, as if there was no tomorrow, including − and this is the killer −

the failure to control maximum prudent-affordable-sustainable debt levels. The interest only content of an average residential rates bill for highly indebted councils is alreadyover 25 per cent of its total; a bit like some heavily mortgaged homeowners really to put this into some context."

He believes that current financial difficulties have been exacerbated by the effects of the

short term changesbrought about by a three-year election cycle, coupled with the hands-

off compliance and procedural nature of audits of the LTCCPs.

The LTCCP unfortunately has become a more prescriptive document than is desirable, he says.

“It tends not to stress the importance of affordability and sustainability issues; it pays only passing regard for

the need to adopt accountable economic and financial performance measurement and to cap that lot off its

legislative structure limits the flexibility of councils to make changes even when they see the tsunami coming.

“I believe councils tend to get locked into their plans. If it was a private-sector company, it could react within

a month or at most within a quarter. Given council inertia linked to their legislative and operational

environment it’s like turning around the Titanic.

“Councils are going to have to get pretty active in the next 12 to 24 months because they won’t have many

easy options left. And now they just have! to take the correct actions.”