Portable pensions

The just-released HLFS population estimates show that there are 642,700 people aged 65+. It's an estimate based on the last census, births, deaths etc but it's the best data available. The large majority - but not all - of this group would qualify for super.

Yet at September 2015 there were 693,409 people receiving Super or a veteran's pension.

Is the difference made up by younger partners sharing the Super?

Not according to the table which I requested from MSD earlier this year showing the numbers and ages of non-qualifying spouses receiving Super. (OK the data is 9 months apart but that wouldn't account for the discrepancy).



Does this mean that the HLFS estimate is significantly wrong? No.

The difference must lie in the number of pensions being paid to people who are not currently residing in New Zealand. Officially...

You can reside almost anywhere in the world and still get part or all of your New Zealand Superannuation or Veteran’s Pension payments. What you’ll get depends on where you go to and how long you’ve resided in New Zealand.

 Potentially there  could be upwards of 40,000 superannuitants living outside of NZ.

Groupies

Statistics NZ surveys on all sorts of things that are no business of government and serve no useful policy information requirements. The data is then presented in such a way as to be of relevance to the moment.

For instance here's the headline:

New Zealanders belong to a sporting nationAlmost two-thirds of Kiwis belong to a club or organisation, Statistics New Zealand said today. In keeping with a nation that takes great pride in the All Blacks, Silver Ferns, and All Whites, sporting clubs are the most popular. 

Yet 72 percent - almost three quarters - do not belong to a sporting club.

The second highest group membership belongs to religion - 21 percent. A header that said New Zealanders belong to a religious nation would be unthinkable. Especially from a government department. Yet the difference between membership of sporting and religious clubs is only 7 percentage points.

Where does it stop?

So much more to be said.... like, individualised savings accounts would bypass a lot of the wrangling collectivised health and social security throws up, particularly of late. Of course that would require an element of compulsion.

And that this micro-management of people's lives isn't really about saving money, at least not in the overall scheme of government expenditure. It's about saving people from themselves. It's the imposition of a prescriptive set of behaviours that the state defines as acceptable, and the suppression of those it does not.

"Breaking the adoption 'taboo' "

A shift in thinking is gathering momentum in Australia as it should here. The same circumstances and questions apply in this country, where thousands of children are in state care next to a low number of adoptions.

How much CYF resource is wasted?

New data shows a significant drop in substantiated findings of child abuse:

 Yet there were 150,905 notifications in 2014/15 - a  3 percent increase on the previous year.

Only 30 percent of notifications require further action.

16,472 substantiated findings from 150,905 notifications (allowing for some year on year overlap) represents 10.9  percent. Note though that multiple findings can apply to one child, just as multiple reports could apply to one child so it would be incorrect to simply state that 10.9 percent of notifications are substantiated. But you get the picture.

Reports are trending up; substantiations are trending down.

The level of notifications that are unnecessary - perhaps even vexatious - must be very high. Or perhaps the difference reflects a gap between CYF's standards and the community's. Certainly the public has been heavily encouraged to report their concerns, and the police are also  now required to make a notification if attending a family violence incident even if the child/ren are not directly involved.

Whatever the reasons for the difference in reports and substance are, it must be costing a fortune in resource.

Latest Better Public Service progress results out

The BPS target progress results have just been published. A selection of graphs of interest to this blog:

Not a lot to get excited about.

Still, setting public goals and charting progress is, of itself, an improvement in how government runs services.

You can view other graphs and each one's rating eg On Track  here.

New painting

Updating my artist blog, this is a large palette knife painting of South Island drovers. It's based on a photograph (with a fair dose of artistic licence thrown in). Mt Cook in the background.

I don't often paint landscapes but the portrait commissions have been thin on the ground this year. Removed from my highly representational style this tends towards impressionistic. If the shapes and perspective are believable, the viewer's imagination will fill in the missing details. It would be truly laborious to depict each sheep.

Increasingly, painting with a knife using strong, often unmixed colours, is reducing my desire to paint with brushes and more 'natural' shades. Maybe my eyesight is degenerating.

Abuse of the Official Information Act - Ombudsman had enough

The Ombudsman has had enough. The abuse of the Official Information Act by those subject to it must stop.

The Chief Ombudsman has slammed the Prime Minister for delay tactics of releasing official information.
Dame Beverley Wakem says she intends to introduce a new set of standards covering Official Information Act (OIA) releases, as part of a major review.
Thomas Jefferson once said "information is the currency of democracy", but it's not always easy to get information...
Information can be accessed from the Government and its agencies under the OIA. They must respond within 20 working days, but several examples have shown that is not always the case.

Several examples? That's the understatement of the year.

The Ombudsman told me that 110 complaints had been received against MSD in the 2013 financial year. 62 were about delays. Those statistics represent only the people who bothered to complain.

And that's just one department.

The TV3 report continues:

3D waited two years for information from Auckland police on burglary statistics.
A complaint to the Ombudsman's office has been with it for a year.

I've had a complaint lodged with the Ombudsman since September 18, 2014 and still no resolution.

Obviously they are unable to cope with the level of complaints being received.

It's not a good look for the National government and I am pleased to see mainstream media giving the issue some coverage.

Prime Minister John Key has previously admitted his office uses delaying tactics in releasing official information. Dame Beverley told The Nation that's unacceptable.
"There's a disregard for the law," she says.

From the top down.

Paying out benefit-liability $ to Tuhoe

MSD has released a commissioned report about decentralising welfare to Tuhoe.

Tūhoe is a relatively young population with high levels of unemployment, welfare dependency and low incomes....

In 2011 the Crown entered into a relationship agreement with Tūhoe in which it acknowledged the mana motuhake of Tūhoe and its aspirations to self-govern. Tūhoe have their  aspirations to become independent of the Government, generate its own revenue and become self-sustaining. MSD has asked whether or not it is feasible to transfer a portion of the Crown’s liability to Tūhoe. 

 In plain English can benefits be paid forward in a lump sum to enable Tuhoe to establish employment initiatives and their own social services?

Tuhoe has high forward liability:

29 per cent of Tūhoe received a benefit payment (unemployment, sickness, invalid, or
domestic purposes) as a source of income at some time in the 12 months prior to the 2013 Census, compared to 24 percent of the Maori population, and 10 per cent of the total 

The above shows benefit receipt for the general population (col 1), then Maori, then Tuhoe.

That's snapshot data. Because young parenting and youth unemployment are high, the length of time spent on benefits is greater.

The research considers international attempts at self governance and suggests:

Experience shows that a goal of profitable business ventures is the most effective way to
increase employment opportunities in the long-run. 

It considers some NZ initiatives and describes them a s a "mixed bag". However the "risks" are less than the "lost opportunity".

The rest is essentially suggested scenarios for transferring the "liability" (cash resource) to Tuhoe.

Apparently MSD are in the process of assessing the actuarial liability of Tuhoe.

What does Tuhoe want to do with the funds?

With the return of Te Urewera together with Tūhoe current land interest brings land value in excess of 300,000 acres. Tūhoe have identified they are capable of developing a range of industries that will create employment opportunities and thereby reduce welfare
dependencies. The industries they have identified as possible within their rohe include the following:
• Pharmaceuticals
• Science and research
• Eco-tourism
• Food and technology
• Horticulture
• Agriculture
• Biodiversity
• Culture & Heritage.

Tūhoe have also identified a number of social sector initiatives such as:
• Development of charter schools that embrace tribal tikanga, set up in the rohe with
consolidated governance arrangements.
• Health centres in each of the four Tūhoe settlements that meet the needs of the rohe’s
population including mental health and addiction.

It's a reasonably lengthy document so take my speed-read summary on trust.

But I am left with questions. If it happened for Tuhoe, wouldn't it conceivably have to happen for any other tribe, group, or even individual, with a (expected)  forward liability?

And I wonder what Savage would have made of the evolution of  social security? I don't imagine his vision of providing income security to the poorest, most disadvantaged in the here and now extended to calculating forward lifetimes of income dependency to be paid in advance.

Then again the dependency is real and if Tuhoe can do a better job of reducing it than the state, why not?

And a pointless, after the fact final question. Wouldn't it have been better if the dependency hadn't been enabled in the first place?

Latest benefit numbers: continuing downward trend but.....

The general gradual downward trend, continues.

Over the year ending September 30, 2015, MSD says, "...the proportion of the working-age population in New Zealand receiving a main benefit fell slightly (from 10.7% to 10.2%)."

But here's the worrying statistic.

In the last quarter, while 43,369 people came off a benefit, 46,374 went on one. A net gain. Not such good news. In the Sept quarter last year 47,447 left; 47,566 arrived. So this year's net gain, over the same period, was significantly higher.

Now that cancellation data is being provided, I also note that the numbers leaving a benefit to go to prison are trending upwards. Interesting.

(Left click on image to enlarge)

On ACT and other matters

There was little chance of my voting elsewhere but David Seymour has guaranteed my tick for ACT in 2017 by lodging a new voluntary euthanasia bill. It's a huge task (if drawn) to front foot such a controversial issue as a single MP. What will stand him in good stead is the weight of opinion is now firmly on his side.

"Not working on it full-time" but you wouldn't need to be at $2000 a day. I'd have thought Rebstock negotiated a rate that is "twice the usual"? Is she worth it? I can't answer positively when another CYF  overhaul isn't the answer.

Should it be a crime to have your baby sleeping with you? It's not necessarily best practice if you are overweight and inebriated, but my second child constantly slept by my side. It was the only way any of us was going to get some rest. I fear charging a mother with "criminal nuisance" after a SUD death, with a possible jail term of one year, is a step too far. When will police begin checking bedrooms?

Carmel clutching at straws again

Here's Carmel Sepuloni clutching at straws again.

She is reported in today's DomPost:

Fewer people coming off a benefit and moving into work shows a "stalling economy" and a "failing Government", says Labour.

But the Government says Labour had gotten its maths wrong on figures the party obtained.

While the real numbers of beneficiaries moving into work had decreased, the overall percentage of people going into work had actually gone up, as the total pool of beneficiaries decreased, said Social Development Minister Anne Tolley.

At the end of March 2015, 284,260 working age people were receiving a main benefit.  That was down from 295,000 people in June 2014, according to the Ministry website.

"At the same time the New Zealand Income Survey shows an extra 27,500 people were receiving government transfers - primarily benefits and superannuation - as their main source of income compared to 12 months ago.

"Crucially, there was a 38.85 per cent increase in the number of people aged between 50 and 59 years on these transfers between 2014 and 2015," Sepuloni said.

The definition for 'government transfers' is

Government transfers: income from benefits, working for families tax credits, paid parental leave, student allowances, ACC payments, New Zealand Superannuation, and veteran's and war pensions.

At June 2015  1,193,800 people received income from government transfers.
At June 2014  1,166,300 people received income from government transfers.

There's the 27,500 increase she cites.

The increase relates almost entirely to people receiving Super (which is irrelevant to the working age arguments.)

In fact she could have checked exactly how many by consulting the Benefit data tables at MSD

The number of people receiving Super or a veteran's pension rose by 25,983 between June 2014 and June 2015.

The number receiving income from government transfers aged 50-59 rose from 32,600 to 40,500 or 24% not "38.85 percent". Some of this rise will be attributable to younger partners of newly qualified Super recipients becoming dependent on government transfers.

Christianity perverted

A Reverend has this to say about a landlord who is complaining about tenants taking advantage:

"He can afford for them to take advantage of him."

Is this the message of Christianity? If so, I'll stick with atheism.

People who "take advantage" of other people's generosity (in this landlord's case, child minding and rubbish removal) should be dumped or dumped on. It has nothing to do with power balance or material inequity.

A poor person can afford to be as fair as a rich person. Transactions between people, no matter what is involved, that aren't mutually satisfactory, will be very short-lived. Many people of means are generous. They enjoy being able to help. Often they want nothing in return. Their reward is the act of relieving a problem for someone else.

BUT it doesn't follow that when their generosity is abused they should turn the other cheek.

This reverend's attitude is at the heart of socialism and is essentially what makes socialism untenable. Values are not shared. Different rules apply to different people by dint of their economic status.

There is no excuse for abusing goodwill ever. Rich, poor or otherwise.

Stalled recovery?

Apropos of nothing in particular, here is the current state of unemployment. In terms of pre-GFC it's not pretty, particular for females.

Not to mention the rates for Maori and Pacific which would require a much taller graph.

The current Maori unemployment rate is 12.6% and Pacific is 11.3% (June quarter).

One thing I would note is that pre-GFC unemployment levels were unusually low. That's the only positive (spin) I can find. Oh, and NZ is still faring relatively well internationally. Though I doubt that is much consolation for the unemployed.

Asian upward mobility?

Statistics NZ released the latest Income Survey last Friday.

From the tables, the following caught my eye.

Asian median incomes are rising fast. Over the 2011 - 2015 period, their income from self-employment was also growing at the fastest rate; income from government transfers was the lowest and declining (largely reflecting a younger population).

In part the increases across all groups represent a recovery from the GFC but the Asian increase is a stand out.

('All people' = 15 and older.)

Bennett's biggest contribution

I had cause to make the following graph so thought I would post it here. The drop in Maori teenage birth is quite phenomenal. Though untested, the Youth Parent Payment reforms must be a factor. The point I was making to my correspondent was, I consider this Paula Bennett's biggest contribution as Social Development Minister. (The 10-14 years-old rates barely register but using Infoshare data I couldn't easily or quickly remove them.)

More political bias from DomPost

Page two of the DomPost has a large headline:

Complaints blamed on greater demand: MSD
 "A staggering increase in complaints by Work and Income clients have been written off by a government ministry which blames the increase on more Kiwis using its services.
Since National took office in 2008, the number of complaints about incorrect information being provided by Work and Income has risen by 122 percent - from 537 complaints in 2008 to 1197 this year."

Here is the table:

The first thing I notice is that the number of complaints requiring action has actually dropped from 2,298 in 2008/09 to 2,233 this year. If I were to look at a similar table depicting CYF notifications, I'd be primarily interested in the substantiations as an indicator of actual problems.

The journalist completely ignored the top line though and focused on the worst line - the one that would provide the biggest % increase. Even then, we cannot draw a conclusion because there is no breakdown of the complaints that actually required action.

Next, a journalist seeking to provide balanced information would have requested and published statistics from the  period prior to  National becoming government.(She may have but they didn't suit her purpose?)

At least  each parliamentary representative - government and opposition - was asked for comment.

Carmel Sepuloni duly provides and not unusually shoots herself in the foot in the process.

And it wasn't only beneficiaries having a tough time with Work and Income. "There's a whole lot of New Zealanders out there...like hardworking New Zealanders who should have access to things like childcare subsidies that are getting inaccurate information."[my emphasis]

Could that be 'deserving' New Zealanders?

To be fair the DomPost should be awarded some neutrality points for publishing that comment. Once again it highlights Labour's identity crisis. Who do they represent?

Duff rides again

Alan Duff has a go at Tuku Morgan, his greed and lack of a "self-regulation" button. He proceeds onto the lack of Treaty money spent on creating employment and helping "flax roots Maori."

Then he takes an interesting turn.

You live overseas for a few years and come to realise it's quite an advantage being part-Maori.
There's the warrior bit that makes you feel pretty safe in most situations and not afraid of being mugged or attacked on some dark city street. (And anyway, it just about never happens, or not in France; they're a civilised people, the French. Booze does not give them an excuse to be violent.)
There's the musical side, and when you get a group of Maori and a guitar or two, it is quite a neat feeling all singing together at least knowing you're in tune and by French musical standards pretty damn good.
Just being an expat Kiwi feels great - our friendliness, our love of rugby, the people we know in common.
By French drinking standards, we're a bit thirstier and definitely rowdier. However, we have all embraced the behavioural code here.
But I believe being a Maori in Enzed is a more negative experience. All that compulsion to live by the myth of whanau, hapu and iwi. Ask many Maori who have moved to Australia; they'll tell you living as an individual is infinitely better. If I was a benign dictator I'd pack every Maori off out of the country so they could realise what a wonderful thing it can be to be Maori and Kiwi and individualistic at the same time.
Many of our Maori leaders have to invest in this potential and step away from the Champagne tap.

(The "warrior bit" worked for him second-time around. First time he ended up in a British prison.)

How many second chances when children involved?

The NZCPR has an expanded version of my earlier blog post as their guest commentary this week.

"New Zealand (as represented by the child protection authority and its practices) is currently officially anti-adoption. The anti-adoption groundswell that built over the nineteen seventies and eighties grew out of an abhorrence of the past removal of babies from unmarried mothers. Today most feel repugnance for the practice. 

But isn’t wholesale shunning of adoption an over-reaction? There are many instances whereby newborns go directly into the care of CYF. The prospects for these children are bleak yet their rights seem trumped by the rights accorded to their birth parent and extended family. Babies aren’t simply removed from mothers by dint of being ‘illegitimate’. These babies are removed because their mothers are criminal; are incarcerated or live on the streets; have abused prior siblings and pose a serious threat to their newborn. The principle of redemption or second chances is all well and good when offered to the adult individual. But how many times should a child be exposed to known risks in order to satisfy liberal impulse? 

Children’s lives shouldn’t be gambled with. And they needn’t be if we once more considered adoption."

More

Muriel Newman's associated column provides an excellent summation of the Expert Panel report into CYF and concludes:

"It is an unfortunate fact of life that at the heart of the child abuse crisis are government incentives for women to have children they are ill-equipped to provide for. Until the State stops paying women to have babies, children will continue to suffer. The State is no substitute for a loving mum and dad, and no role model for a child. In fact it’s a tragedy that idealists have exerted such influence on policy and brought us to the systemic failure we have today. 

The child abuse crisis is a national disgrace. Only the State could fail children on such a monumental scale. Anyone concerned should read the Expert Panel’s report. It helps to explain why, in spite of the very best efforts of those who are trying to help, the child abuse crisis continues unabated."

More

60 percent of rental properties subsidised

I frequently use my blog as a filing system. While I don't use 'labels', running a 'search'  for what I want inevitably leads to success.

So the reason for this post is primarily to record a new fact - new to me anyway.

60 per cent of all rentals in New Zealand are subsidised by the Government.

Six out of ten rented homes are subsidised by the taxpayer.

That's all....apart from..... I would also observe the speech from Bill English (source of the information) began with:

I am old enough to remember the mid-1980s. After leaving university, I was involved in farming. At that time we had a number of arrangements in New Zealand that meant people who were involved in farming weren’t getting the right price signals. Then, suddenly, they did. I was a part of communities that were drastically affected by that. Farm subsidy systems were abruptly removed. Our communities changed drastically and dramatically.That was a sharp personal lesson, and one that many New Zealanders also experienced.

A strong focus of our policy is to make sure our markets work.

Yet the rental property market is still heavily subsidised and still not working.