Coroner Garry Evans granted suppression of Ms Kahui's image today, after she told the inquest her children were bullied during her brother's trial for the twins' murder.
The power of incentives with illegal migration
2 hours ago
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Image supression?
Not far below a NZ Herald photo of Chris Kahui's sister, who gave evidence at the Coroner's trial into the deaths of her twin nephews yesterday this appears:
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Australia moves on welfare for teenage parents
The World Socialist Website reports on a pilot scheme to target teenage parents who receive welfare:
Good job too. The Welfare Working Group made extensive suggestions about conditions that must be put on young parents if they are to receive taxpayer funds.
The source of this excerpt is a socialist site which, naturally, can only see what is designed to enhance the life chance of both young mothers and their offspring, as part of a capitalist plot.
Sounds just like the Greens and soon, the Mana Party.
The program will affect some 4,000 parents, predominantly mothers, aged 19 or under who receive the Parenting Payment. When their baby turns six months old, they will be required to attend so-called support and engagement interviews at the government’s Centrelink agency. They will be forced to develop a “participation plan” which will include compulsory activities designed to ready them for the workforce, including placing their one-year-old infants in childcare while they finish secondary school, or engage in other training or paid work. Attendance at regular interviews will be mandatory until the parent completes Year 12 or its equivalent, or their child turns six years old, when they will then be obliged to look for work.
Good job too. The Welfare Working Group made extensive suggestions about conditions that must be put on young parents if they are to receive taxpayer funds.
The source of this excerpt is a socialist site which, naturally, can only see what is designed to enhance the life chance of both young mothers and their offspring, as part of a capitalist plot.
The Labor government’s objective is to increase business profitability and make Australian capitalism “internationally competitive” in order to attract globally mobile capital. The systematic dismantling of the welfare system will facilitate the lowering of business tax rates, while at the same time expanding the pool of exploitable labour, using those cut off welfare to leverage to drive down the wages and conditions of the working class as a whole.
The rationale driving the government’s stated goal of “breaking the cycle of welfare-dependency” is not that of helping the impoverished, but of eliminating the basic right to welfare altogether.
Sounds just like the Greens and soon, the Mana Party.
Seeking redemption or justice? Either way it's a joke
What does Macsyna King expect to achieve through telling her side of the story and naming who she thinks killed her children?
She has no moral compass afterall. So what is motivating her? She obviously liked sex, especially with younger men but didn't like the result. There seems not to be a mothering bone in her body. Does she understand that most people find her indifference to all of the children she has given birth to utterly abhorrent? Or has she changed her ways, perhaps become a Christian and needs forgiveness? That isn't an uncommon transformation and might explain Ian Wishart's involvement.
Don't look here for it.
She may be able to convince readers she is innocent of murder, but she will never convince me she was innocent of ongoing gross neglect and inhumanity. These I consider worse crimes than a murder committed by a child too young to know what he was doing.
If I seem harsh, here is a taste of what the book might read like:
A look of shock passed over the doctor's face as he examined the fatally injured Kahui twins, says their mother.
"His eyebrows raised, his eyes widened," said Macsyna King.
Macsyna King 31, was giving evidence in the High Court in Auckland where her former partner Chris Kahui is on trial for the murder of their three month-old twin boys Chris and Cru.
"I remember thinking that if he's looking like that and he's a doctor, then what else is wrong."
Ms King she decided after talking to Kahui to take the babies to their GP. Cru was due for a follow up visit and she was concerned about what had happened the night before, she said.
She collected the car seats and strapped the boys in, not stopping to change their nappies or clothes.
On the way to the doctors, they stopped at MacDonald's for breakfast but could not remember if she took the twins in with her, or left them strapped in their car seats in the car.
They arrived at the doctor's surgery about 1pm and told the reception they needed to see their GP, that it was "about the boys".
They waited about 20 minutes then were shown into the doctor's room where the twins were examined one at a time while they remained strapped in their car seats.
After examining the babies, Dr Nayar said he was concerned about the boys and would write a referral.
"He needed me to take the boys to Middlemore Hospital."
Asked by Crown lawyer Richard Marchant who was the dominant person in the relationship, Ms King replied "I thought I was".
"I would yell the loudest, I would swear at him and I just wouldn't stop till I got my way," she said.
"I've kicked him in the shin, I've slapped his face before."
Kahui, eight years her junior, was a quiet, softly spoken person who would bottle things up.
"That would come out when he'd get really angry – he'd lose it."
Ms King told the court she had three children to two different fathers prior to meeting Kahui in 2004. All three children were now cared for by their respective fathers and she did not have contact with them.
She started living with Kahui shortly after meeting him and quickly fell pregnant, giving birth to a boy, Shayne, in 2005.
In September that year, she split with Kahui for several months and went to live with her sister Emily.
During that time she got into a relationship with another man but then returned to Kahui.
She fell pregnant with the twins soon after her return.
Kahui's sister, Mona, later questioned her about the paternity of the twins.
"She asked me if Chris was the father of the twins" Ms King said.
"I said 'Yes'."
Ms King said she then went to Kahui and repeated the conversation to him and reassured him he was the father.
The next day, after a second argument with Kahui about taking time out, she left again for Emily's place.
About 6pm they went to visit a friend of Emily's where they drank and talked.
As she had only had one or two glasses of wine, Ms King said she drove them home about 1am, and she slept on the couch.
Although she could not recall anyone trying to wake her in the night, her sister told her in the morning that had attempted to, to tell her that Cru had "held his breath overnight", she said.
"That was the very first time I knew about that."
She got home about 10am, to find her brother Stuart King looking after the twins.
As he was telling me what happened the night before, Ms King said she was walking towards the nursery. She dropped the side of the cot, bent down and felt their breath on her cheek.
At the same time, she noticed a fresh bruise on baby Chris's face.
"I stood up and started on my brother about where the hell was he when all this was going on."
Then Kahui arrived and she started yelling at him.
Kahui told her Cru had held his breath the night before and had to be given CPR and that the bruise on baby Chris' face was from Shayne.
He told her he had left the babies on the couch in the nursery after feeding them, while he returned the bottles to the kitchen.
The door to the nursery had been left partially opened and Shayne had pushed it opened, climbed up on to the couch and "got at the boys".
She accepted his explanation but then Kahui started blaming her.
"He said "well you should have been home taking care of the kids," she said.
"He was blaming me. If I had stayed home and looked after the kids this would not have happened, I would know what happened."
KING ADMITTED VIOLENCE, SOCIAL WORKERS SAY
Earlier today, social workers told the court they had discussed referring Ms King to Child, Youth and Family in the weeks before their deaths.
Social worker Nadine Ingham said she first met Macsyna King after the twins were born and were being cared for in Middlemore Hospital’s neonatal unit.
Hospital staff were concerned about the lack of visits to the unit by Ms King and her partner Chris Kahui.
Ms King said she did not like being told what to do by hospital staff and had a problem with their "expectations".
She said she had not been up to the hospital because the house she was living in was unsuitable for the babies and she had to find somewhere else for them to live. She also had to train a new person to take over her job.
During her conversation with Ms Ingham, Ms King said she sometimes hit Kahui – but not around the head or face – and occasionally smacked their one-year-old son Shayne with an open hand. She also said she was attending an anger management course.
She also said she like to go out with her friends and get drunk but would get the babies "out of her hair" first.
Hospital staff had discussed referring her to Child, Youth and Family, but the referral was never made, she said.
'DELIBERATE KILLING'
The Crown alleges the babies were killed deliberately, with the fatal injuries being delivered shortly before an episode in which baby Cru’s eye rolled back, his lips turned blue and he stopped breathing.
Kahui was alone with the babies in the nursery for up to 10 minutes before the episode and was the only one who had the opportunity to harm them.
The babies' mother, Macsyna King, was not home at the time so could not have been the killer, the Crown alleged.
But in her opening address yesterday, Kahui’s lawyer Lorraine Smith said the mother was the most likely killer and had confessed that she "did it".
Medical experts would testify the babies’ injuries could have been caused earlier than the Crown alleged, at a time when Ms King was at home with the babies, she said.
This morning Counties Manukau District Health Board homecare nurse Jane Eyres said the twins showed no sign of being injured in the weeks before their deaths.
They slept in a "beautiful", clean, warm nursery, were feeding well and were putting on weight, she said.
Despite stripping each of the twins to examine them, she never saw bruises or any other sign that the babies were injured.
It was only after they were killed that she became aware one of the babies had an old brain injury and the other an old wrist fracture.
Middlemore Hospital play specialist Kathryn Greenwood said Macsyna King told her the babies had been hurt by their toddler brother.
Greenwood told the court she first met Kahui and Ms King when their twins were in the neo-natal unit in April 2006 at Middlemore Hospital.
She looked after their eldest child Shane, who was 10 months-old.
Miss Greenwood was working on June 13 when Ms King brought the twins into hospital and went to see her in the resuscitation room where the twins were being treated.
Ms King told Ms Greenwood that Shane had climbed onto a couch at home and into the twins cot and "got them".
Ms King talked about how busy she had been and how life was a balancing act, she said.
Initially Ms King was angry but became more in control over the course of the day, Ms Greenwood said.
Her observations of Shane before June 13 was that he was not an "active child" and was not able to hold himself up but could crawl, Miss Greenwood said.
She has no moral compass afterall. So what is motivating her? She obviously liked sex, especially with younger men but didn't like the result. There seems not to be a mothering bone in her body. Does she understand that most people find her indifference to all of the children she has given birth to utterly abhorrent? Or has she changed her ways, perhaps become a Christian and needs forgiveness? That isn't an uncommon transformation and might explain Ian Wishart's involvement.
Don't look here for it.
She may be able to convince readers she is innocent of murder, but she will never convince me she was innocent of ongoing gross neglect and inhumanity. These I consider worse crimes than a murder committed by a child too young to know what he was doing.
If I seem harsh, here is a taste of what the book might read like:
A look of shock passed over the doctor's face as he examined the fatally injured Kahui twins, says their mother.
"His eyebrows raised, his eyes widened," said Macsyna King.
Macsyna King 31, was giving evidence in the High Court in Auckland where her former partner Chris Kahui is on trial for the murder of their three month-old twin boys Chris and Cru.
"I remember thinking that if he's looking like that and he's a doctor, then what else is wrong."
Ms King she decided after talking to Kahui to take the babies to their GP. Cru was due for a follow up visit and she was concerned about what had happened the night before, she said.
She collected the car seats and strapped the boys in, not stopping to change their nappies or clothes.
On the way to the doctors, they stopped at MacDonald's for breakfast but could not remember if she took the twins in with her, or left them strapped in their car seats in the car.
They arrived at the doctor's surgery about 1pm and told the reception they needed to see their GP, that it was "about the boys".
They waited about 20 minutes then were shown into the doctor's room where the twins were examined one at a time while they remained strapped in their car seats.
After examining the babies, Dr Nayar said he was concerned about the boys and would write a referral.
"He needed me to take the boys to Middlemore Hospital."
Asked by Crown lawyer Richard Marchant who was the dominant person in the relationship, Ms King replied "I thought I was".
"I would yell the loudest, I would swear at him and I just wouldn't stop till I got my way," she said.
"I've kicked him in the shin, I've slapped his face before."
Kahui, eight years her junior, was a quiet, softly spoken person who would bottle things up.
"That would come out when he'd get really angry – he'd lose it."
Ms King told the court she had three children to two different fathers prior to meeting Kahui in 2004. All three children were now cared for by their respective fathers and she did not have contact with them.
She started living with Kahui shortly after meeting him and quickly fell pregnant, giving birth to a boy, Shayne, in 2005.
In September that year, she split with Kahui for several months and went to live with her sister Emily.
During that time she got into a relationship with another man but then returned to Kahui.
She fell pregnant with the twins soon after her return.
Kahui's sister, Mona, later questioned her about the paternity of the twins.
"She asked me if Chris was the father of the twins" Ms King said.
"I said 'Yes'."
Ms King said she then went to Kahui and repeated the conversation to him and reassured him he was the father.
The next day, after a second argument with Kahui about taking time out, she left again for Emily's place.
About 6pm they went to visit a friend of Emily's where they drank and talked.
As she had only had one or two glasses of wine, Ms King said she drove them home about 1am, and she slept on the couch.
Although she could not recall anyone trying to wake her in the night, her sister told her in the morning that had attempted to, to tell her that Cru had "held his breath overnight", she said.
"That was the very first time I knew about that."
She got home about 10am, to find her brother Stuart King looking after the twins.
As he was telling me what happened the night before, Ms King said she was walking towards the nursery. She dropped the side of the cot, bent down and felt their breath on her cheek.
At the same time, she noticed a fresh bruise on baby Chris's face.
"I stood up and started on my brother about where the hell was he when all this was going on."
Then Kahui arrived and she started yelling at him.
Kahui told her Cru had held his breath the night before and had to be given CPR and that the bruise on baby Chris' face was from Shayne.
He told her he had left the babies on the couch in the nursery after feeding them, while he returned the bottles to the kitchen.
The door to the nursery had been left partially opened and Shayne had pushed it opened, climbed up on to the couch and "got at the boys".
She accepted his explanation but then Kahui started blaming her.
"He said "well you should have been home taking care of the kids," she said.
"He was blaming me. If I had stayed home and looked after the kids this would not have happened, I would know what happened."
KING ADMITTED VIOLENCE, SOCIAL WORKERS SAY
Earlier today, social workers told the court they had discussed referring Ms King to Child, Youth and Family in the weeks before their deaths.
Social worker Nadine Ingham said she first met Macsyna King after the twins were born and were being cared for in Middlemore Hospital’s neonatal unit.
Hospital staff were concerned about the lack of visits to the unit by Ms King and her partner Chris Kahui.
Ms King said she did not like being told what to do by hospital staff and had a problem with their "expectations".
She said she had not been up to the hospital because the house she was living in was unsuitable for the babies and she had to find somewhere else for them to live. She also had to train a new person to take over her job.
During her conversation with Ms Ingham, Ms King said she sometimes hit Kahui – but not around the head or face – and occasionally smacked their one-year-old son Shayne with an open hand. She also said she was attending an anger management course.
She also said she like to go out with her friends and get drunk but would get the babies "out of her hair" first.
Hospital staff had discussed referring her to Child, Youth and Family, but the referral was never made, she said.
'DELIBERATE KILLING'
The Crown alleges the babies were killed deliberately, with the fatal injuries being delivered shortly before an episode in which baby Cru’s eye rolled back, his lips turned blue and he stopped breathing.
Kahui was alone with the babies in the nursery for up to 10 minutes before the episode and was the only one who had the opportunity to harm them.
The babies' mother, Macsyna King, was not home at the time so could not have been the killer, the Crown alleged.
But in her opening address yesterday, Kahui’s lawyer Lorraine Smith said the mother was the most likely killer and had confessed that she "did it".
Medical experts would testify the babies’ injuries could have been caused earlier than the Crown alleged, at a time when Ms King was at home with the babies, she said.
This morning Counties Manukau District Health Board homecare nurse Jane Eyres said the twins showed no sign of being injured in the weeks before their deaths.
They slept in a "beautiful", clean, warm nursery, were feeding well and were putting on weight, she said.
Despite stripping each of the twins to examine them, she never saw bruises or any other sign that the babies were injured.
It was only after they were killed that she became aware one of the babies had an old brain injury and the other an old wrist fracture.
Middlemore Hospital play specialist Kathryn Greenwood said Macsyna King told her the babies had been hurt by their toddler brother.
Greenwood told the court she first met Kahui and Ms King when their twins were in the neo-natal unit in April 2006 at Middlemore Hospital.
She looked after their eldest child Shane, who was 10 months-old.
Miss Greenwood was working on June 13 when Ms King brought the twins into hospital and went to see her in the resuscitation room where the twins were being treated.
Ms King told Ms Greenwood that Shane had climbed onto a couch at home and into the twins cot and "got them".
Ms King talked about how busy she had been and how life was a balancing act, she said.
Initially Ms King was angry but became more in control over the course of the day, Ms Greenwood said.
Her observations of Shane before June 13 was that he was not an "active child" and was not able to hold himself up but could crawl, Miss Greenwood said.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
On Cactus standing for ACT
I am pleased to see Cactus is going to stand for ACT. Why? I'm not sure. I have never met Cactus. Not that I am aware of. We have communicated sporadically via e-mail. We seem to favour the same ACT types. Or maybe it was just Rodney. She has been incredibly loyal to ACT whereas I, as she puts it, "chucked my toys". Fair enough. Don't want to revisit why.
Cactus personifies what I value most in people. Honesty. But when she enters politics there will trouble. For everyone, including Kate. I expect she has the constitution to handle it. Although she is deep, I have seen no sign that she is sensitive. Or the trait is well-buried for her own protection.
Unavoidably politics is also about compromise. Does anyone see Cactus as a compromiser? Me neither. My sympathy is extended in anticipation.
But Lordy politics is not going to be dull if she is in the house. And no-one will be left wondering what the heck is going on with ACT. Unlike Heather Roy who essentially wasted her time as an MP and Minister, Cactus will take her portfolio and stamp herself indelibly all over it. I expect she will fearlessly rark up every one and everything she sees as needing it.
The other morning I was watching that awful Jacinda Ardern on television and musing mawkishly that she could be a future Prime Minister, such is the sad state of NZ politics. Now mercifully I can see the perfect foil for her.
Cactus personifies what I value most in people. Honesty. But when she enters politics there will trouble. For everyone, including Kate. I expect she has the constitution to handle it. Although she is deep, I have seen no sign that she is sensitive. Or the trait is well-buried for her own protection.
Unavoidably politics is also about compromise. Does anyone see Cactus as a compromiser? Me neither. My sympathy is extended in anticipation.
But Lordy politics is not going to be dull if she is in the house. And no-one will be left wondering what the heck is going on with ACT. Unlike Heather Roy who essentially wasted her time as an MP and Minister, Cactus will take her portfolio and stamp herself indelibly all over it. I expect she will fearlessly rark up every one and everything she sees as needing it.
The other morning I was watching that awful Jacinda Ardern on television and musing mawkishly that she could be a future Prime Minister, such is the sad state of NZ politics. Now mercifully I can see the perfect foil for her.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Crisis? What crisis?
The Alternative Welfare forum last Monday was addressed by Professor Paul Dalziel. According to Metiria Turei:
From page 58 of this report you can view the various modelling charts that attempt to estimate what will happen with the numbers of beneficiairies and associated costs. This is what the group found under a 'current trends' projection:
A rise from the current 12 percent to 16 percent would increase costs by a third.
GDP would have to rise much faster if the increased costs were to account for a lower percentage than now.
And even if working age welfare was consuming a smaller percentage of GDP, Super and the health costs of our ageing population will be consuming considerably more.
But isn't the crisis of sustainability as much about lives impaired by welfare as the financial cost? Is it OK to give our blessing to spending X amount of GDP on welfare and disregard the social fall-out?
The Greens and other adherents of the modern-day welfare state seem to think so.
Professor Paul Dalziel from Lincoln University pointed out that the Welfare Working Group attempt to portray some sort of “crisis of sustainability” in the welfare system was not backed by the evidence. Welfare payments as a percentage of GDP are actually dropping and will continue to drop, even under the Welfare Working Group’s worst case scenario. As I suspected, the whole basis upon which the Welfare Working Group’s report was based is flawed.
From page 58 of this report you can view the various modelling charts that attempt to estimate what will happen with the numbers of beneficiairies and associated costs. This is what the group found under a 'current trends' projection:
"....if current trends continue, there would be 16 percent of the working age population on a benefit by 2050. This would be unsustainable, particularly in the context of an ageing population, and would reduce the government’s ability to respond to a serious economic downturn."
A rise from the current 12 percent to 16 percent would increase costs by a third.
GDP would have to rise much faster if the increased costs were to account for a lower percentage than now.
And even if working age welfare was consuming a smaller percentage of GDP, Super and the health costs of our ageing population will be consuming considerably more.
But isn't the crisis of sustainability as much about lives impaired by welfare as the financial cost? Is it OK to give our blessing to spending X amount of GDP on welfare and disregard the social fall-out?
The Greens and other adherents of the modern-day welfare state seem to think so.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
Alternative to the alternative
Here is the one of the up shots of Monday's meeting of the Alternative Welfare Working Group. The one that wants more welfare. The Greens are sticking with their effective use of children (saccharin images) to promote policy. Policy that will unfortunately work against children's best interests.
This is a Green e-card designed to be sent to Paula Bennett. Below it I have used a different image and written some alternative (alternative to the alternative) text. Please feel free to e-mail this blog post to the Minister.
Dear Paula Bennett
Please reject the Welfare Working Group report.
The report's recommendations are extreme and will hurt vulnerable New Zealand families.
New Zealand kids deserve access to essentials and opportunities, especially in hard-times.
Cutting benefits, work-testing parents, and targeting the disabled will leave many people and their children out on the cold.
Please reject this report and give all our kids a chance.
Please accept the Welfare Working Group Report.
The report's recommendations are rational and will improve the lives of New Zealand families, especially in the long term.
New Zealand children deserve access to essentials and opportunities. Most importantly, they deserve parents who will do everything in their power to support and care for them through work, and who will instil similar expectations in them.
As benefits will not be cut where genuine attempts to find and accept work are made, and the small number unable to support themselves will not be targeted, children will not be out in the cold.
Please accept this report and give all our kids a chance.
This is a Green e-card designed to be sent to Paula Bennett. Below it I have used a different image and written some alternative (alternative to the alternative) text. Please feel free to e-mail this blog post to the Minister.
Dear Paula Bennett
Please reject the Welfare Working Group report.
The report's recommendations are extreme and will hurt vulnerable New Zealand families.
New Zealand kids deserve access to essentials and opportunities, especially in hard-times.
Cutting benefits, work-testing parents, and targeting the disabled will leave many people and their children out on the cold.
Please reject this report and give all our kids a chance.
Please accept the Welfare Working Group Report.
The report's recommendations are rational and will improve the lives of New Zealand families, especially in the long term.
New Zealand children deserve access to essentials and opportunities. Most importantly, they deserve parents who will do everything in their power to support and care for them through work, and who will instil similar expectations in them.
As benefits will not be cut where genuine attempts to find and accept work are made, and the small number unable to support themselves will not be targeted, children will not be out in the cold.
Please accept this report and give all our kids a chance.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
What Thompson said is not a hanging offence...
...except maybe in this country.
Women Take Almost 50 Percent More Short-Term Sick Leave Than Men
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204212846.htm
According to data from the U.S. Labor Department released last November, both married and unmarried women with children report a higher rate of absences from work than those without children.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4241746&page=1
Women take more sick days than men
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8534796/Women-take-more-sick-days-than-men.html
And:
http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2006/07/menstruation2.html
Why won't New Zealanders grow up and engage in rational debate instead of indulging emotion?
Women Take Almost 50 Percent More Short-Term Sick Leave Than Men
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204212846.htm
According to data from the U.S. Labor Department released last November, both married and unmarried women with children report a higher rate of absences from work than those without children.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4241746&page=1
Women take more sick days than men
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8534796/Women-take-more-sick-days-than-men.html
And:
In most Western countries illness-related absenteeism is higher among female workers than among male workers. Using the personnel dataset of a large Italian bank, we show that the probability of an absence due to illness increases for females, relative to males, approximately 28 days after a previous illness. This difference disappears for workers age 45 or older. We interpret this as evidence that the menstrual cycle raises female absenteeism. Absences with a 28-day cycle explain a significant fraction of the male-female absenteeism gap.
To investigate the effect of absenteeism on earnings, we use a simple signaling model in which employers cannot directly observe workers' productivity, and therefore use observable characteristics – including absenteeism – to set wages. Since men are absent from work because of health and shirking reasons, while women face an additional exogenous source of health shocks due to menstruation, the signal extraction based on absenteeism is more informative about shirking for males than for females. Consistent with the predictions of the model, we find that the relationship between earnings and absenteeism is more negative for males than for females. Furthermore, this difference declines with seniority, as employers learn more about their workers' true productivity. Finally, we calculate the earnings cost for women associated with menstruation. We find that higher absenteeism induced by the 28-day cycle explains 11.8 percent of the earnings gender differential.
http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2006/07/menstruation2.html
Why won't New Zealanders grow up and engage in rational debate instead of indulging emotion?
What is the 'official' unemployment rate?
On the front page of Statistics NZ the unemployment is given as 6.6 percent for the March quarter.
That is the figure provided by the March quarter HLFS.
Yet when using Table Builder the rate appears as 7 percent.
That is a big difference.
And the sets of figures that produce the rate vary yet my understanding is the source for the data is the same.
Now this all may seem pedantic but when official unemployment rates are released a song and dance is made about them. They are taken as a significant indicator of how the economy is faring and add to or detract from business confidence.
NZ hasn't seen an unemployment rate of 7 percent or over this decade. Sorry, this century (according to TableBuilder). Was it there in March?
I will query Statistics NZ. There is probably an explanation but I want to know what it is.
Update: Very quick response from Statistics NZ. Inside two hours. Big tick.
Both figures are from the HLFS.
The 7.0% figure from Table Builder is the number of unemployed persons
expressed as a percentage of the labour force as of the quarter. These
statistics are averages for the three-month period.
The headline 6.6% figure is seasonally adjusted. Seasonal adjustment aims
to eliminate the impact of regular seasonal events on a time series. In the
labour market, cyclical events that affect labour supply and demand occur
around the same time each year. For example, in summertime a large pool of
student labour is both available for, and actively seeking, work. Demand
for labour in the retail sector and in many primary production industries
also increases.
Seasonal adjustment makes data for adjacent quarters more comparable by
smoothing out the effect on the times series of any regular seasonal
events. This ensures that the underlying movements in the time series are
more visible. Each quarter, the seasonal adjustment process is applied to
the latest and all previous quarters. This means that seasonally adjusted
estimates for any of the previously published quarters may change slightly.
That is the figure provided by the March quarter HLFS.
Yet when using Table Builder the rate appears as 7 percent.
That is a big difference.
And the sets of figures that produce the rate vary yet my understanding is the source for the data is the same.
Now this all may seem pedantic but when official unemployment rates are released a song and dance is made about them. They are taken as a significant indicator of how the economy is faring and add to or detract from business confidence.
NZ hasn't seen an unemployment rate of 7 percent or over this decade. Sorry, this century (according to TableBuilder). Was it there in March?
I will query Statistics NZ. There is probably an explanation but I want to know what it is.
Update: Very quick response from Statistics NZ. Inside two hours. Big tick.
Both figures are from the HLFS.
The 7.0% figure from Table Builder is the number of unemployed persons
expressed as a percentage of the labour force as of the quarter. These
statistics are averages for the three-month period.
The headline 6.6% figure is seasonally adjusted. Seasonal adjustment aims
to eliminate the impact of regular seasonal events on a time series. In the
labour market, cyclical events that affect labour supply and demand occur
around the same time each year. For example, in summertime a large pool of
student labour is both available for, and actively seeking, work. Demand
for labour in the retail sector and in many primary production industries
also increases.
Seasonal adjustment makes data for adjacent quarters more comparable by
smoothing out the effect on the times series of any regular seasonal
events. This ensures that the underlying movements in the time series are
more visible. Each quarter, the seasonal adjustment process is applied to
the latest and all previous quarters. This means that seasonally adjusted
estimates for any of the previously published quarters may change slightly.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
What effect the earthquakes on beneficiary numbers?
With reports of increased domestic violence, stress, workplace bullying, and job losses I thought I would have a quick look at Canterbury beneficiary stats.
The national increase across all benefits was 2 percent. In Christchurch it was 3.8 percent. On the face of it, surprisingly small.
But intriguingly, DPB numbers, against the national trend, have dropped, but only very slightly. 15 to be exact. I suspect this is because single parent families have packed up and left. Beneficiaries have, in some respects, more economic mobility than others. Their registration would shift to whichever region they moved to. There have been some significant DPB rises in places like Invercargill and Timaru.
So if many leave (transfer registration) but quite a lot go on (newly register in Christchurch) we could see either a small net loss or gain. Consequently the earthquake may have contributed significantly to more people on benefits but it isn't immediately obvious by viewing the Canterbury statistics.
The national increase across all benefits was 2 percent. In Christchurch it was 3.8 percent. On the face of it, surprisingly small.
But intriguingly, DPB numbers, against the national trend, have dropped, but only very slightly. 15 to be exact. I suspect this is because single parent families have packed up and left. Beneficiaries have, in some respects, more economic mobility than others. Their registration would shift to whichever region they moved to. There have been some significant DPB rises in places like Invercargill and Timaru.
So if many leave (transfer registration) but quite a lot go on (newly register in Christchurch) we could see either a small net loss or gain. Consequently the earthquake may have contributed significantly to more people on benefits but it isn't immediately obvious by viewing the Canterbury statistics.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
DPB - more going on than leaving
Just for the record, Paula Bennett told a Welfare and Social Sector Policy Reform conference in Wellington yesterday:
Part-time worktesting when the youngest child is six was introduced in September 2010.
Here are the DPB totals for each quarter over the past year:
June 2010 111,689
Sept 2010 112,765
Dec 2010 112,865
March 2011 113,077
Ops normal.
More people going on the DPB than leaving.
(While that conference was taking place so was another meeting of the Alternative Welfare Justice group and supporters. The organiser was the Catholic Social Justice Agency, Caritas. Expect rumblings from that today. The NZ Herald Social Issues reporter did not report on the conference Bennett attended so he may have been at the other.)
The number of those coming off the DPB since part-time work requirements were introduced had increased by 22 per cent over the past year - to more than 3,500 people.
Part-time worktesting when the youngest child is six was introduced in September 2010.
Here are the DPB totals for each quarter over the past year:
June 2010 111,689
Sept 2010 112,765
Dec 2010 112,865
March 2011 113,077
Ops normal.
More people going on the DPB than leaving.
(While that conference was taking place so was another meeting of the Alternative Welfare Justice group and supporters. The organiser was the Catholic Social Justice Agency, Caritas. Expect rumblings from that today. The NZ Herald Social Issues reporter did not report on the conference Bennett attended so he may have been at the other.)
Monday, June 20, 2011
Votes needed
I am a big fan of aspiring people seeking sponsorship through the private sector. Rather than via SPARC or Creative NZ or other taxpayer-funded bonanzas.
Here's an inspiring case.
It only takes a moment to register your vote.
A lot of special needs young adults have been stuffed about by poor government policy over recent times. Give this guy a break.
Here's an inspiring case.
It only takes a moment to register your vote.
A lot of special needs young adults have been stuffed about by poor government policy over recent times. Give this guy a break.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
MSD spinning
The glossy Ministry of Social Development's Rise magazine (note to self - ask how much it costs to produce under the OIA) was released during the week, and contains an article about the Manurewa-based Taonga Trust, which works with teenage parents. For a change some statistics, but not good ones, are presented:
We are second only to the US where their rate is also boosted by very high minority teenage birth rates.
The piece continues:
Well this is refreshing. An acknowledgement that having babies very young is neither good for the mother nor the children.
But what would I put this unusual frankness down to?
Pleading on behalf of the Trust? They will always need more funding.
But the pleading highlights the way government handles the problem. Pour in more and more corrective resources.
Instead of saying, hang on a minute. This is avoidable. Why are the statistics so high? What has the welfare incentive got to do with it?
Health analysts have no problem grasping the concept of prevention. It is cheaper (and better for the patient) than treating disease.
In the social arena however the attitude seems to prevail that the high teenage birth rate is fait accompli, a cultural tradition even.
And as I re-read the article it strikes me, looking at the cover and the smiling faces, that this is published by the MSD as a good news story. Look at us. Look how well we are doing.
But it isn't. It's a bad news story about a government-created social disaster which provides work for worthies. That's all.
(The number registered on the DPB in Manukau has risen 18.5 percent in the ten years to March 2011. There are 1,621 on the DPB with roughly 2,500 children. That would fill half a dozen good-sized schools. That's just Manukau. In Mangere there are 3,329 and Manurewa 2,929 - attached to which will be around another 10,000 or so children. I don't think 'disaster' is too strong a word.)
New Zealand has the second highest teenage birth rate among the world's developed countries. In 2009 there were 4,670 births to New Zealand teenagers.
In Manukau City around 630 teenagers give birth each year.
We are second only to the US where their rate is also boosted by very high minority teenage birth rates.
The piece continues:
Vulnerable and unsupported teen parents and their children can face a multitude of disadvantages. New Zealand studies show that compared with women who had not become mothers by age 21, teen mothers are:
nine times more likely to have no qualifications
twice as likely to suffer from major depression
twice as likely to be substance dependent
three times more likely to be suicidal at times
and three times more likely to be dependent on a benefit.
Well this is refreshing. An acknowledgement that having babies very young is neither good for the mother nor the children.
But what would I put this unusual frankness down to?
Pleading on behalf of the Trust? They will always need more funding.
But the pleading highlights the way government handles the problem. Pour in more and more corrective resources.
Instead of saying, hang on a minute. This is avoidable. Why are the statistics so high? What has the welfare incentive got to do with it?
Health analysts have no problem grasping the concept of prevention. It is cheaper (and better for the patient) than treating disease.
In the social arena however the attitude seems to prevail that the high teenage birth rate is fait accompli, a cultural tradition even.
And as I re-read the article it strikes me, looking at the cover and the smiling faces, that this is published by the MSD as a good news story. Look at us. Look how well we are doing.But it isn't. It's a bad news story about a government-created social disaster which provides work for worthies. That's all.
(The number registered on the DPB in Manukau has risen 18.5 percent in the ten years to March 2011. There are 1,621 on the DPB with roughly 2,500 children. That would fill half a dozen good-sized schools. That's just Manukau. In Mangere there are 3,329 and Manurewa 2,929 - attached to which will be around another 10,000 or so children. I don't think 'disaster' is too strong a word.)
Friday, June 17, 2011
Why is wowserism no longer the domain of women?
I usually don't catch up with NZ Herald columnists till the following day, given I read early and they are not published till later. Garth George yesterday called for the drinking age to be raised to 21. If you go back 100 years there are plenty of headlines about the demon drink and expunging it entirely from society. Yesterday I was reading from the Evening Post June 16, 1911 about the Women's Crusade for Prohibition in the Dominion and the eliciting of pledges from men not to drink. The campaign actually had a name. Catch my pal.
But the calls 100 years ago were largely from females. Now there are largely from men. I wonder why.
Oh and I see George is blaming alcohol for so many people being on the DPB. So if we legally withhold alcohol from them under-21s won't go on the DPB? Isn't it just better to withhold the DPB which indulges the consequences of drinking?
George blames alcohol for reliance on benefits and so reasons, take alcohol away from everyone under 21. Even those who drink responsibly.
Whereas I blame benefits for the abuse of alcohol. Nothing like a state income free of obligation to sooth a "shuddering hangover" Garth.
But the calls 100 years ago were largely from females. Now there are largely from men. I wonder why.
Oh and I see George is blaming alcohol for so many people being on the DPB. So if we legally withhold alcohol from them under-21s won't go on the DPB? Isn't it just better to withhold the DPB which indulges the consequences of drinking?
George blames alcohol for reliance on benefits and so reasons, take alcohol away from everyone under 21. Even those who drink responsibly.
Whereas I blame benefits for the abuse of alcohol. Nothing like a state income free of obligation to sooth a "shuddering hangover" Garth.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
The psychology of the welfare debate
Unusually insightful article here from one Kevin E Schiemsing.
US religionists are in disagreement about proposed cuts to welfare programmes. The disagreement isn't just between various sects but between Catholics. This arises out of how different Catholics view the role of government. Without doubt the same variance of view exists in NZ.
The proponents of government welfare programmes came up with this declaration called The Circle of Protection. It appears that signatories insist that cuts will hurt the poor.
But this is what really struck me:
Totally.
This explains why people like me are characterised as selfish and uncaring. Pro welfare types don't actually believe that I believe welfare hurts individuals. In which case I must have another evil agenda. Racism, or eugenics, whatever.
Talking to Leighton Smith the other day, the matter of my paper Maori and Welfare came up. He asked an odd question I thought. Pretty much, do you believe the things you write? Or maybe it was, do you believe the things you write to be true or factual? That was what I took from the question anyway. Which actually made me burst into laughter. Of course I believe them I said. I wouldn't write them if I didn't.
But here's another thing. I don't reflect the other side's disbelief. That is, I do not characterise proponents of government welfare as evil or having secret agendas. I describe them as well-intentioned but misguided. Patronising at best. Dangerous at worst. But nevertheless sincere in their clinging to faith in government efforts to reduce poverty.
Back to the column:
So, do you think this fellow really believes all that?
You bet. And so do I.
US religionists are in disagreement about proposed cuts to welfare programmes. The disagreement isn't just between various sects but between Catholics. This arises out of how different Catholics view the role of government. Without doubt the same variance of view exists in NZ.
The proponents of government welfare programmes came up with this declaration called The Circle of Protection. It appears that signatories insist that cuts will hurt the poor.
But this is what really struck me:
Defenders of government welfare programs not only cannot conceive of the possibility that government programs actually harm rather than help the people they target; they cannot conceive of the possibility that anyone else could conceive of the possibility. Those of us who sincerely believe that such programs are harmful are baffled at what we perceive to be stubborn resistance to the facts of the matter.
Totally.
This explains why people like me are characterised as selfish and uncaring. Pro welfare types don't actually believe that I believe welfare hurts individuals. In which case I must have another evil agenda. Racism, or eugenics, whatever.
Talking to Leighton Smith the other day, the matter of my paper Maori and Welfare came up. He asked an odd question I thought. Pretty much, do you believe the things you write? Or maybe it was, do you believe the things you write to be true or factual? That was what I took from the question anyway. Which actually made me burst into laughter. Of course I believe them I said. I wouldn't write them if I didn't.
But here's another thing. I don't reflect the other side's disbelief. That is, I do not characterise proponents of government welfare as evil or having secret agendas. I describe them as well-intentioned but misguided. Patronising at best. Dangerous at worst. But nevertheless sincere in their clinging to faith in government efforts to reduce poverty.
Back to the column:
What unemployed and impoverished people really need is not government handouts, but access to, and the capacity and inducement to engage, the market economy—as Pope John Paul II put it, to “enter the circle of exchange.” Government policy should be encouraging companies to hire and potential employees to be hired. Yet, to take but one example of recent counter productivity, economists have shown that extending unemployment benefits beyond a certain length of time correlates with higher unemployment rates. If a safety net becomes too comfortable, people are inclined to remain in it. Welfare program advocates deny this vehemently—everyone wants to work, they say; they just need the chance—but statistical evidence and a realistic understanding of human nature contradict them. It could be that the perfect job is not available; maybe finding work means picking up and moving, or taking a cut in pay, or training to acquire a new skill. People faced with these situations deserve our compassion and assistance. But if we minimize the incentive to do what is necessary to find employment, we do neither the out-of-work individual nor the overall economy any favors.
So, do you think this fellow really believes all that?
You bet. And so do I.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
On Whaleoil's latest foray - hurray
When I thought Cameron Slater had hacked into the Labour site I was conflicted. Glad he had (intentionally or otherwise) avenged the Brash burglary, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Now it is clear he merely helped himself to what was on offer through another party's carelessness, the morality changes. And context is everything.
Although his outing of the on-line alias 'Micky Savage' (a person with views that would offend the original name-bearer) may have not been facilitated by his newly acquired database, if it has, I look forward to lots more.
Some of us have put our opinions and addresses and images out there for all to see, for some years. It gives me immense pleasure to see those who haven't, who have used the cloak of either an alias or anonymity to ridicule, malign, lie or bully, get their come-uppance.
Now it is clear he merely helped himself to what was on offer through another party's carelessness, the morality changes. And context is everything.
Although his outing of the on-line alias 'Micky Savage' (a person with views that would offend the original name-bearer) may have not been facilitated by his newly acquired database, if it has, I look forward to lots more.
Some of us have put our opinions and addresses and images out there for all to see, for some years. It gives me immense pleasure to see those who haven't, who have used the cloak of either an alias or anonymity to ridicule, malign, lie or bully, get their come-uppance.
Monday, June 13, 2011
More tripe about children in poverty
The DomPost reports that according to the school principal at Cannon's Creek School, "... about three quarters of parents are unemployed." Money is tighter than ever before apparently. It's the worst the principal has seen. In 30 years!
Slightly odd that as there are fewer people drawing an unemployment benefit in Porirua now than there was in 2006*. More on the DPB though.
Hasn't some well-meaning lefty pointed out to her that being on the DPB does not mean a parent is "unemployed"? Parenting is work afterall.
Seriously, when will 'child poverty' start being blamed on family structure instead of unemployment?
And Kidscan, who are supplying raincoats and breakfasts to the pupils only make it easier for their parents to get by on benefits.
*Porirua Unemployment Benefit March 2006 1,421 March 2011 1,261
Porirua Domestic purposes Benefit March 2006 2,108 March 2011 2,152
Slightly odd that as there are fewer people drawing an unemployment benefit in Porirua now than there was in 2006*. More on the DPB though.
Hasn't some well-meaning lefty pointed out to her that being on the DPB does not mean a parent is "unemployed"? Parenting is work afterall.
Seriously, when will 'child poverty' start being blamed on family structure instead of unemployment?
And Kidscan, who are supplying raincoats and breakfasts to the pupils only make it easier for their parents to get by on benefits.
*Porirua Unemployment Benefit March 2006 1,421 March 2011 1,261
Porirua Domestic purposes Benefit March 2006 2,108 March 2011 2,152
The Official Information Act for Officials?
Reading a NZ Herald report about households receiving high total benefits due to high total occupants had me thinking...
... how can the Herald get the sort of specific information I can't? The answer is, they can't. But the Minister can.
I can provide many examples of refusal to release information by MSD.
Ah, but now I understand. The Official Information Act is so-called because it refers to Information accessible only to Officials.
A report obtained under the Official Information Act shows 14 people, including three children, were listed at one household in Papatoetoe. Collectively it was getting over $4000 a week net in benefit payments - adding up to about $224,000 a year.
... how can the Herald get the sort of specific information I can't? The answer is, they can't. But the Minister can.
She [Paula Bennett]had asked for the breakdown of benefit payments per household as part of work a panel of ministers is doing on welfare reforms following the Welfare Working Group report.
I can provide many examples of refusal to release information by MSD.
Ah, but now I understand. The Official Information Act is so-called because it refers to Information accessible only to Officials.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Kill some local economies
I remember the first ACT 'do' I ever attended. Still a member of the Libz, I had been very active in campaigning against the DPB from the social, economic and philosophical viewpoints. It was 2002. The local candidate had persuaded me to attend this dinner and he would sit me next to Muriel Newman and we could exchanges ideas etc about welfare. It was at the Hutt Men's club, very plush and with many grey-haired, well-heeled in attendance. I was dumbstruck when this gentlemen, who had begun the conversation about welfare, said to me, smugly I thought, "If we took away the DPB it would kill some local economies. Can't be done." Because it was such an unexpected comment with validity, because I was amongst business people who may well share the same attitude, I let it go. If it was repeated to me today I would agree and explain why those particular economies need to be killed off. Economies that survive on the money pumped into them every day by Work and Income. Places like Ruatoria, Te Kaha, Waverley, Flaxmere, Reporoa and Kawerau. And certain suburbs near all of NZ's major towns and cities. Places of hopelessness. Places where inhabitants experience small superficial highs and desperate deep lows. Where life is about day-to-day survival with no capacity to aspire to anything else.
False economies do not work on a large scale, and they do not work on a small scale. The Labour government's official recognition of this manifested in the Jobs Jolt policy, which forbade unemployed people from moving to places where there were no jobs - not if they wanted to receive taxpayer support anyway. But because they never extended the policy to other beneficiaries, particularly those on the DPB who could support a none-work inclined partner, the jobless economies survived.
The remark from the ACT dinner attendee was probably well-intentioned in his view. It may have been self-interested. But it was shallow in its ignorance of 'that which cannot be seen' and a denial of the day of reckoning which must surely come.
False economies do not work on a large scale, and they do not work on a small scale. The Labour government's official recognition of this manifested in the Jobs Jolt policy, which forbade unemployed people from moving to places where there were no jobs - not if they wanted to receive taxpayer support anyway. But because they never extended the policy to other beneficiaries, particularly those on the DPB who could support a none-work inclined partner, the jobless economies survived.
The remark from the ACT dinner attendee was probably well-intentioned in his view. It may have been self-interested. But it was shallow in its ignorance of 'that which cannot be seen' and a denial of the day of reckoning which must surely come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
