Chris Hipkins out of his depth on unemployment

 The following exchange took place in parliament on Tuesday August 22nd:

_____________________________________________________________

Christopher Luxon: Given, and by his account, the economy is doing great, why are there 55,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit than when Labour took office, including 8,000 more in just the last four months?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are more people in New Zealand—that is absolutely correct. The New Zealand economy's fundamental indicators are looking more positive. Inflation is trending down, GDP growth is returning, and we continue to have record low unemployment. On this side of the House, we are unapologetic about our commitment to keep Kiwis in jobs. I note that's quite a contrast to members on the other side of the House, who are being quite open in their intention to increase unemployment.

Christopher Luxon: Why, then, if everything is so swimmingly great, are there 55,000 more people on jobseeker benefits?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I've indicated, the population is, of course, larger, but we should also note that there are more people in the labour market.

______________________________________________________________

The following are the Jobseeker totals just prior to Labour assuming government, and the most recently available.

September 30, 2017 120,726

August 11, 2023 177,138

Jobseeker numbers are indeed up by at least the amount Luxon claimed. But Hipkins explanation, “the population is, of course, larger …” does not justify the difference.

A chart from MSD illustrates that in June 2018 4.1 percent of the working-age population was on a Jobseeker benefit. In June 2023 it was 5.5 percent. It will be slightly higher now. Yes, the population is larger, but so is the share that is on a Jobseeker benefit.

As well Hipkins said, “…we continue to have record low unemployment.”

Also not correct. From StatsNZ:

(Right click on image to enlarge)

Unemployment has been creeping up since March 2022.

Looking at the chart you may start to scratch your head. Why were there far fewer people on Jobseeker benefits in September 2017 when the unemployment rate was bigger at 4.7%?

That is a highly technical question which StatsNZ deals with here. A diagram from their paper illustrates the two distinct groups: that from which the HLFS data is drawn, and beneficiaries. It’s the HLFS which provides the official unemployment rate. The potential for the two measures to get out of sync and even trend in different directions is obvious. For instance, if someone on a Jobseeker benefit is not required to look for work, they will not appear as unemployed in the HLFS.

The reality is the Labour government made it easier to get on a benefit and to stay on a benefit. The result is evident.

And the Prime Minister cannot bat it away with incorrect claims and excuses.

Cultural fixation is a crock

The public service’s dogged determination to impose Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations across the sector results in the absurd and incongruous.

According to Oranga Tamariki, formerly Child, Youth and Family:

Oranga Tamariki is currently introducing a new practice approach (completion 2024) that is framed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi, based on a mana enhancing paradigm for practice, and draws on Te Ao Māori Principles of oranga and transpires into a practice that is relational, inclusive, and restorative which is good for all tamariki, children, whānau, and families.[i]

It sounds rather like the ‘Maori way or the highway.’ In 2021 Te Pati Maori, supported by Children’s Minister Kelvin Davis, insisted that OT adopt a ‘by Maori, for Maori’ approach.

Children in OT care are now put into “four high-level categories”: Maori, Pacific, Maori/Pacific, and lastly, as an after-thought almost, NZ European and other.

But the definitions have become even more indistinct.

Just published, a survey of children and young people in state care contains the following table which illustrates my point:

(Left click on image to enlarge)

Children in the care of OT are now categorised as either Maori, Pacific, Maori and Pacific or non-etc.

Cultural identity is ‘paramount’ apparently ... but if you are Asian or Indian or NZ European ... yeah ... nah. You are just non-Maori or non-Pacific. The details of your lineage are of no account. In truth the only cultural identity of interest is Polynesian and OT struggles to disguise this.

How does the “bi-cultural practice” advocated in OT’s ‘Maori Cultural Framework’ serve, for example, a refugee child? When I asked OT which two cultures the framework catered to, the answer was inconclusive:

Under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki must ensure, wherever possible, that all policies adopted by the department, and all services provided by the department, recognise the social, economic, and cultural values of all cultural and ethnic groups; and have particular regard for the values, culture, and beliefs of Māori.

I can only interpret that as Maori and other. Whatever happened to multi-culturalism?

Oddly though, in this ‘by Maori, for Maori’ organisation, in April 2023 only 28 percent of staff were Maori. Nearly three quarters weren’t.

And here’s another irony. Of those who answered all the questions in the survey referred to, “99% answered in English only, none answered in Māori only, and less than 1% answered in both English and Māori.”

Staff are predominantly NZ European, and the language used by staff and their clients is predominantly English.

Oranga Tamariki’s crucial role is to ensure the safety and security of children. All and any at-risk children. Yet the survey itself showed “little overall improvement in tamariki and rangatahi experiences.”

Their fixation with culture is a crock.

[i] OIA response to L Mitchell 21 June 2023

Recession starts to bite

 In just one month the number of people receiving a main benefit has risen by almost 3,000.

Data released today shows that the percentage of the working-age population dependent on a main benefit rose from 11.2% at the end of June 2023 to 11.3% at the end of July 2023.

Over the same period in 2022 the increase was just 1,100 claimants meaning the proportion of the working age population stayed at 11%

Most of last month’s increase was due to a rise in Jobseeker numbers with approximately 1,800 more on Jobseeker Work Ready and a 900 increase in Jobseeker Health Condition/Disability claimants. The first reflects a weakening labour market while the second reflects an unresponsive and ineffective health system.

MSD acknowledges that, “The work exit rate for main benefits in July 2023 was relatively low compared with July months in prior years. In recent months, we have seen a reduced demand for labour, as indicated by the decline in online job advertisements in the June 2023 quarter.” They offer no rationale however for why numbers unable to work due to a health problem are over and above forecasts.

Māori made up the majority of the increase with 1,400 more main benefit clients; NZ European accounted for 800; Pacific people 400 and Asians 200 (almost 400 people did not specify an ethnicity, and some specified more than one ethnicity.)

Three years post the initial Covid lock-down key statistics continue to head in the wrong direction:

Source: https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/monthly-reporting/

NB: The Monthly Benefit data series began during the first Covid lockdown and only dates back to April 2019.

Working at the fisheries

@lulusuapopo

♬ original sound - Lulu Suapopo

Source: https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/benefit-system/total-incomes-annual-report-2023.pdf

Children on Welfare: Highest in Labour's Term

The number of children reliant on a benefit is at its highest point since Labour became government in 2017.

The number - 211,617 - even surpasses the total at the end of 2020 after the chaos of Covid. The number is 26% higher than in March 2018, the end of labour’s first full quarter. Over 43,000 more children are now dependent on welfare. Was that the price former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was willing to pay in her naive pursuit of poverty reduction? It was a massive risk to keep increasing benefit rates and tax credits for children. This is the result.

The majority of children on welfare are attached to single parents. Those with Māori ethnicity[i] make up the largest and fastest growing group of sole parents on welfare. This is not a win for the country or Māori.

The degree of dependency is worsening:

Long-term dependency on welfare translates into more child abuse and neglect, truancy, youth and eventually adult crime.

And there is another huge concern.

11.2 percent of the working age population is now reliant on a main benefit – up from 11 percent a year ago.

Over 7,000 more people can't support themselves through work. Yet the most recent unemployment rate available is low, at 3.4 percent in March this year. The continuing story still seems to be one of employers crying out for staff. 

But a fair chunk of the increase is sickness related with 3,000 more people on the Supported Living Payment (which used to be called the Invalid's benefit) and 3,000 more on the Job Seeker/Health Condition or Disability (formerly the Sickness benefit). The largest and most rapidly growing incapacity is psychological or psychiatric. 

Mental health - or more accurately, mental ill-health - is an epidemic. 

When Labour said they would put $2 billion more into mental health we didn't think they meant benefits. 

Anyone with personal experience, first-hand or through friends or family members, knows there is next to no help available beyond anti-depressants. It's a dire situation. 

This quarterly data is the last we will see before the election in October. 

Make your own mind up. But by no stretch of the imagination can Labour claim to have made a positive difference to dependence on welfare during their two terms in government.

 

 

---

[i] During Labour’s term the way ethnicity is recorded by the Ministry of Social Development was changed from the ‘priority’ to ‘total’ method. A beneficiary with more than one ethnicity will be counted in each group meaning that total claimants sum to more than 100 percent.

 

More racial discrimination looming in the health sector

FREE cervical screening will be rolled out from September this year.

Free, that is, to Maori and Pacific women (or to use Te Whatu Ora’s terminology, “people with a cervix”), those with a community services card, and those who have never been screened or not within the last five years.

Te Whatu Ora claims the new initiative is about improving access.

Yes, the rates of cervical screening are lower among Maori and Pacific but the same is true of Asian women. If targeting by race is to achieve equity, why omit Asian women from the free service? In any case, while NZ European women have the highest screening rate, in absolute numbers they still make up the largest group of non-screened.

Alternatively, if preferential treatment is simply to satisfy another new-found Treaty of Waitangi principle, why are Pacific women included?

In practice, Maori and Pacific women who can afford and have regularly used the screening service will be switched to the free programme while other ethnic groups will continue to pay. That’s certainly not equitable.

The truth is many women put off testing due to discomfit, inconvenience or fear of cancer. The new self-tests will hopefully remove some of these barriers, but they should either be free for all or a cost for all. Analysing their take-up will be confused by varying accessibility.

Making Maori and Pacific ethnicity a condition for free eligibility cannot be justified on any sound basis. A publicly funded health system can never guarantee equal outcomes, but it can do its utmost to offer equal opportunity.

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins recently took a step back when the public reacted adversely to the use of ethnicity to decide priority for surgery saying he would get the Health Minister to “make sure there’s no discrimination.”

But Te Whatu Ora just steamrolls on with exclusionary policies based on race. There is no other name for this approach than discrimination.

Exclusion by race

Here we go again. Part of the panacea for solving the health system crisis is the brand-new Community Pharmacy Minor Ailments Service. A free service to treat minor ailments like skin infections and diarrhoea will be provided by local pharmacies to ease the pressure on GPs.

This is of course a ‘borrowed’ idea. But probably a good one going by Scottish experience where a survey showed, “Positive perceptions and experiences of those using MAS [Minor Ailment Service]”. These services are available across UK countries but differ from New Zealand in one major respect.

They are not restricted by ethnicity.

According to Te Whatu Ora, In New Zealand “Māori and Pacific, children under the age of 14 and their whānau, and Community Service Card (CSC) holders will be able to get free consultation and receive funded treatment for certain minor ailments this winter.”

The majority of the population is excluded.

Was that clearly signalled?

Discussion about the service cropped up on a Wellington talk show earlier this week. The host described his experience taking a family member with a large stye into his local pharmacy. Apparently, the pharmacist told the family member to book a GP consultation and the patient had to take the remainder of the week off work awaiting doctor treatment.

Perhaps the family member was the wrong colour but the pharmacist didn’t want to point this out?

The government seems to have built an expectation that the service is for everyone. At least that’s the perception that emerges when you are reticent about revealing it is actually restricted to Maori, Pacific, the poor and children.

On Tuesday NewstalkZB Wellington led their news bulletins with versions of the following: “76 pharmacies across the district are signed up to a scheme allowing them to treat minor conditions and ease pressure on GPs and hospital services over the winter months.”

Media coverage in Stuff makes no mention of restrictions to the service.

As a consumer of mainstream media, the fact that the service is actually severely limited later came as a complete surprise.

This Labour government, riddled with communications specialists and purportedly the most “transparent and honest” ever, unfortunately has a memory like a sieve.

In the early 2000s Helen Clark was forced to run a massive damage-control strategy when her ‘Closing the Gaps’ policy eventually sunk into the collective consciousness. The public was justifiably angry and unaccepting that services were restricted by ethnicity. She had to change the focus and rebrand the spending initiatives ‘Reducing Inequalities.’ She understood that Labour voters would accept targeting help to the poorest and neediest. And while many Maori and Pacific people fall into this group, a good many do not.

But in 2023 they are making the same mistake all over again.

Let’s not beat about the bush. All non-Maori and non-Pacific people who don’t have a Community Services card and are older than 13 are excluded from the pharmacy service. Pity the poor pharmacist who has to break the news to the sick patient presenting but ineligible.

This is a dying administration desperately grasping at straws, neither thinking policies through nor even reflecting on past experience. For these reasons alone, they need to go.

The Plague of Entitlement

The subject on Kerre Woodham's morning talk show today was the cost of living and how dire some people's circumstances are becoming. A texter wrote in:

"Kerre, As a solo mum of two year-old twins I was recently offered a role for $96,000. I chose not to take it because the cost of living means I'd actually only be getting about a hundred extra dollars a week to what I am getting on the benefit. Something is very wrong with that scenario. Rent - and childcare if I work full-time - is $80,000 gross. So getting offered a job at $96,000 …  financially, this single mum is better staying on a benefit. And what does that tell you?"*

I am assuming the texter is saying that a well-paying job, but not paying enough to attract her off a benefit, is confirmation of the extremely elevated cost of living. The answer to her rhetorical question is implicit. We are expected to agree and sympathise.

I would answer her last question rather differently. What her text tells me is this:

1/ She has no sense of gratitude or shame that other people are working so she doesn't have to 

2/ She has no motivation to contribute to the economy

3/ She has no interest in 'cutting her cloth' to cope with the consequences of her personal decisions

4/ She has no apparent awareness that increasingly generous benefits are a factor fuelling inflation and the cost of living which she is currently so concerned about

Over twenty years ago now, I launched a petition to parliament asking for an inquiry into the DPB. A local newspaper wrote about the petition which provoked howls of outrage among beneficiaries. One lady took umbrage at my assertion that being raised on benefits was not good for children. She wrote to the editor saying her children had turned out fine. Indeed, her daughters were now raising their own children on the DPB! 

This elicited a response I shall never forget and when in need of some sanity and solace I revisit it:

Here we are, a generation down the track, and it's not just the value of money that is subject to rampant inflation. So is the plague of entitlement.

*(NewstalkZB, Week on Demand, 30/6/23, 9:45am, at 6:00 in, https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-demand/week-on-demand/)