Again, Left criticise govt but Labour was worse

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

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

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

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

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

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

From a CPAG paper about benefit sanctions:

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

Yesterday Carmel Sepuloni issued a press release:

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

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

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

Back to Carmel Sepuloni:

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

The employment of sole parents is gradually improving,

As is child poverty,



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

Greens demand all rights and no responsibility

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

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

The whole welfare state concept is paternalism writ large.

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

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

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

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

The Greens need to grow up.

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

Auckland Asian population

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

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

MSD CE travel expenses

Latest MSD Chief Executive travel expenses have just been released.

I've charted them.

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

There is a clear trend though

.

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

Are they connected?

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

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

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

More

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

Brookings lists ten economic facts about Cuba such as

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

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

More

I wonder if the two things are connected?

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

Sepuloni's spurious claim

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

These benefit cancellations relate only to people with dependent children.

There were 59,960 benefit cancellations as per dates.

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

That leaves 47,485 cancellations.

26,217 obtained work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last week I blogged about this CTU research from Bill Rosenberg

Only half of people get jobs when leaving a benefit

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

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



The percentages in the past are comparable.





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

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

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

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

And the Greens are claiming 

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

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

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

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

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

Using 'rape' to attack reform

A prime example of desperate opposition politics.

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

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

Nobody is forced to proceed with a pregnancy.

An SNP MP says,

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

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

She's not old enough to appreciate context.

Sole parents on welfare - decline continues

 

 There are a few provisos to the chart above.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

The calculation looks robust to me.

6 hours of work does not affect the benefit:

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

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

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

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

Questions

On my mind.

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

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

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

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



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

When are ratepayers going to revolt?

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

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

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

NZ First bags a performance better than its own

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

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

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

A none-news story from CTU

The Council of Trade Unions says:

“New data obtained by the CTU shows that less than half of people who come off a benefit are known to have obtained work,” says CTU economist Bill Rosenberg. “In 2014, MSD records show only 46% obtained work. We therefore cannot assume that falling benefit numbers means people coming off benefits found work.” The data was released to the CTU last month by the Ministry of Social Development under an Official Information request.
“Even adding on the 11% going into full time study means that as many as two out of five people leaving benefits aren’t going into work or study,” says Rosenberg.

The type of benefit isn't defined. All benefits or the Jobseeker?

 Anyway, we can check whether this is worse than in the past.

In 2006/07 only 41% of working age clients leaving the unemployment benefit had obtained work.

DPB was also 41%, sickness benefit 18% and invalid, 26% .

More people leaving a benefit are obtaining work now than they were in 2007.

Mad Max not so mad in UK

Max Rasbrooke, anti-poverty campaigner has gone to the UK. He writes a column that's published in the left-wing  Guardian newspaper about what UK child poverty campaigners could learn from NZ. He begins by painting the recent NZ picture:

Consider this scenario: a centre-right party, handed an unexpectedly large majority, sweeps into government – and promptly promises to make child poverty a key focus of its next term in power, before delivering the first rise in benefit rates in over 40 years.

"Sweeps into government"?  It was already in government.

"An unexpectedly large majority"? Unexpected by Max maybe.

 "First rise in benefit rates in over 40 years"?

This conveniently ignores that second tier assistance like accommodation supplement and family support preserved the value of welfare for families. As well benefits have been constantly raised to keep step with rampant inflation. For instance, from the 1976 Official Yearbook a 15% annual increase to match inflation that year:

 In both countries,benefits are low by international standards

The benefit most pertinent to child poverty is the sole parent support. So how do they stack up :

NZ is middling and the UK is high.

When it comes to solutions, both governments are focused on forcing people off benefits, with no real monitoring of what happens to them afterwards. They are also both cutting, or looking to cut, in-work benefits, sometimes by stealth

Yet the government is increasing  in-work benefits from April next year:

Lower-income working families not on a benefit also get a boost from the Budget. Working families earning $36,350 a year or less before tax will get $12.50 extra a week from Working for Families, and some very low-income families will get $24.50 extra.

Rashbrooke continues:

 New Zealand does, however, provide a slightly more fertile climate for anti-poverty campaigners: in a country of 4.5 million people, poverty is more visible than it is in Britain...

Wouldn't overcrowding make poverty more visible? The more eyes there are, the more visible something is.

But the campaigners themselves can take much of the credit. Focusing on child poverty as having both the most serious consequences and the greatest emotional pull, they have launched what amounts to a full-spectrum attack. New Zealand’s Child Poverty Action Group (Cpag) has publicly confronted governments of all stripes, taking them to court over the decision not to pay certain tax credits to beneficiary households. While the courts ultimately ruled that this decision was legal, they also found it was discriminatory. The court case kept the issue in the media for long spells and prompted many political parties to promise to end the discrimination. Meanwhile, Cpag also delivered a stream of carefully researchedreports on the consequences of and solutions to child poverty.

Many political parties? The Greens were the only party to campaign on it as policy in 2014.

My own experience of CPAG reports is that at least some aren't particularly carefully researched and I've corresponded with them to that effect.

New Zealand’s successes should not be overstated. We are a long way from making a real assault on poverty, but it shows that the debate can be shifted. 

How rich is this observation  when recently writing for a domestic newspaper angry Max could find nothing positive to say about "successes" on child poverty here?

Punishing all of NZ for Auckland's problem

How often does Labour try on this type of approach (as does National), so let's just say governments. Punishing a majority in futile attempts to control a minority.

Think anti-smacking legislation, drink-drive laws, dangerous dog laws, alcohol restrictions, etc.

It isn't just Aucklanders who will be told they can't sell their property to the highest bidder (outright wealth confiscation); so will the rest of New Zealand. On the face of it, as per Andrew Little's policy description to Paul Henry this morning, non-residents will be banned from buying residential property. Non-residents include skilled migrants who cannot gain residency for two years.

What sort of message is this? We desperately need your skills - the health sector is a prime example - but don't  expect to be able to guarantee your family security of settlement initially. You can put your salary into rent for two years, thanks.

And I won't even start on the racial profiling 'research'. Stupid Labour backed itself into a corner again. To prove it isn't a racist policy, people coming from anywhere will be punished. There are plenty of recently-arrived  Pommie families in my neighbourhood, who've brought their children here for a better quality of life, and good luck to them. They're allowing vendors to maximise their property values (and sustaining all the local services like schools, doctors and shops).

Greens talk up beneficiary debt

Green MP Jan Logie says the government is "forcing" beneficiaries into debt to MSD.

"Nearly 60 percent of all beneficiaries – 171,000 people – now have a debt to WINZ, of an average of nearly $2500 each. Before National was elected in 2008, just 49 per cent of beneficiaries had a debt to WINZ, and it was closer to $2000."

For starters "average" debt is not useful term.  MSD explained why in a letter to me providing data on debt,

"The average amount owed does not provide an accurate picture of the majority of clients who have a debt to Work and income.  This is because the average is distorted by a few large amounts  owed by a small number of people. A more accurate picture of the 'average' value of debt is shown by the median value. As at the end of November 2005, the median value of debt owed to Work and Income was $501.82 per client."

So the Green figures exaggerate individual debt. Typical.

In any case, the straight forward solution would be not to extend any repayable assistance to beneficiaries. Is that what beneficiaries want? I very much doubt it.

Logie says that benefits are not enough to heat a house or buy good food. Yet when the lowest income people are surveyed, fewer than a third say they don't have enough money.

I get sick and tired of the Greens talking up poverty and debt for cynical self-serving reasons.

Child deaths from family violence by ethnicity

Yesterday Leighton Smith had a caller who claimed to work in advocacy against family violence. She would not accept that more Maori children were victims and insisted she had seen statistics to the contrary.

For some time Cindy Kiro put about incorrect statistics and I am guessing this was the source to which she referred. See my challenge to Kiro here. She had told the media:

But out of 88 children killed between 2002 and 2006, 48 were Pakeha. Maori were 28. The remainder were Pacific Island and a few Asian.

Here are the statistics that prove she was wrong.

They come from the Office of Ethnic Affairs

In the period 2002 - 2008 (two years beyond Kiro's time frame) 49 children died through family violence.

17 were Pakeha, 23 were Maori.

Margin between benefit and work - take home incomes

Source


The first thing this graph highlights is how WFF and other means-tested assistance (like the accommodation supplement) reduces the incentive to work longer hours. Look how close the minimum wage lines are at 30 and 40 hours. The  wage difference is $14.75 (minimum hourly wage) x 10 or $147.50. After the means-tested tax credits are applied, the gap closes to around maybe $30. The Left would cry blue murder over someone working for $3 an hour - slave rates. Yet the wage subsidies they support create just that situation.

Second thing. Someone working at the minimum wage with no children will be earning $472 weekly ($590 less 20% tax). If they lived in South Auckland and rented at $220 a week, they would be eligible for $47 weekly assistance (using the AS calculator). Their take-home income would therefore be $519 a week.

The sole parent with two children in South Auckland  has a 'take-home' income of $642 weekly. Yes, I am comparing apples and oranges. But here's why. Before she becomes a sole parent, a young woman working and earning $519 doesn't see $642 as such a bad deal. Stay home with the babies and get paid considerably more.

Finally, I am pleased to see the actual margins here for the first time. The difference the IWTC credit has made - on average -  has always been difficult to ascertain.

In this scenario it looks like around $200 weekly, even at full-time employment. Hopefully it is enough to cover the costs of working like transport, clothing, and childcare. Some indication of whether it is might come from the sole parent employment rate over the same period.

Source:HLFS

Very slow improvement (GFC effects aside). Lets hope the benefit increase doesn't alter this rather tenuous trend.

I guess the pertinent question is, for someone who moves in low income circles, would you be prepared to forgo quarter of your income if it meant staying home with the kids and not having to go to work every day?

An unwelcome blast from the past

What should we do with people like this?

Still dangerous and dishonest. Still costing the country every day.