Eric Crampton recounts a response from Sir Bob regarding Eric's assessment of the economic impact of the proposed Morgan statue:
Dear Dr Crampton,
Your report on the long overdue Morgan statue has been shown to me. Plainly there has been a misunderstanding. It most certainly was not a “tongue in cheek” proposal. The widespread affection and admiration for Mr Morgan demands nothing less.
For example, indicative of the emotion stirred by this announcement, the chief Ombudsman Mr Peter Boshier, has generously offered himself as a ceremonial human sacrifice when the foundation stone is laid. He won’t take no for an answer.
As for the difficulties you describe there’s a simple solution, namely ask Mr Morgan. I gather that following imminent publication of his next two books (“Why Einstein’s Theory of Relativity Is Wrong” and “The Cure for Cancer”) written simultaneously, a pen in each hand, Mr Morgan will then be available to address your concerns.
I hope this is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Sir Robert Jones
Friday, March 04, 2016
The real cost of gangs
Earlier this week MSD released a report that found gang members had cost Work and Income, and Child Youth and Family $714 million in the 22 years between 1993 and 2014. I commented earlier that the annual cost of each gang member works out to $8,948 annually (3,627) - less than a superannuitant.
The remark was flippant. But I did mentally muse that raising the super qualifying age to 67 (in line with other countries we like to compare ourselves to) would save far more than $714 million over 22 years.
On a serious note - and the problem of gangs and their children is a very serious issue - the all-up cost to the tax payer is much higher than $32 million annually.
A few other major costs can be roughly (but totally unscientifically) calculated.
Not included in the MSD bill is the social security benefits of the mothers of gang member's children. Their welfare receipt will be greater than the father's. How much greater is unknown. But,
Not very long because the children would generally be included in the benefits of their mothers.
I reckon doubling the cost would be conservative. There's another $64 million.
Then there's the cost to Corrections. According to SuperU (ex Families Commission):
Next is the cost to the Justice system. It costs $450 million to run the Ministry of Justice. May as well carve off 10% of that for gangs. A further $45 million.
And the police of course. Their annual budget is $1.4 billion. Let's be conservative again and say 10% is spent on dealing with gangs so $140 million annually.
I guess ACC would have some involvement but wouldn't like to hazard a guess at a number.
So what have we got so far:
MSD $96m
Corrections $240m
Justice $45m
Police $140m
Total $521 million annually.
Or $143,645 for each gang member on average.
Credible? Maybe I've over-stated costs - maybe not. What I haven't done is include the Health system costs from violence and ill-health; nor Customs involvement nor Housing NZ.
While the MSD numbers were somewhat underwhelming, and expressed as a 22 year sum, not very helpful, this further exercise has rammed it home to me that breaking the cycle of inter-generational gang membership and activity would have enormous benefits for everybody.
The remark was flippant. But I did mentally muse that raising the super qualifying age to 67 (in line with other countries we like to compare ourselves to) would save far more than $714 million over 22 years.
On a serious note - and the problem of gangs and their children is a very serious issue - the all-up cost to the tax payer is much higher than $32 million annually.
A few other major costs can be roughly (but totally unscientifically) calculated.
Not included in the MSD bill is the social security benefits of the mothers of gang member's children. Their welfare receipt will be greater than the father's. How much greater is unknown. But,
"7,075 dependent children were included in benefits with gang members for an average of 2.8 years."
Not very long because the children would generally be included in the benefits of their mothers.
I reckon doubling the cost would be conservative. There's another $64 million.
Then there's the cost to Corrections. According to SuperU (ex Families Commission):
"As of April 2013, gang members and affiliates comprised over 30 percent of inmates, with over 10 percent of the prison population belonging to the Mongrel Mob."Thirty percent of prisoners equates to around 2,400 @ $100,000 each which represents a yearly bill of $240 million.
Next is the cost to the Justice system. It costs $450 million to run the Ministry of Justice. May as well carve off 10% of that for gangs. A further $45 million.
And the police of course. Their annual budget is $1.4 billion. Let's be conservative again and say 10% is spent on dealing with gangs so $140 million annually.
I guess ACC would have some involvement but wouldn't like to hazard a guess at a number.
So what have we got so far:
MSD $96m
Corrections $240m
Justice $45m
Police $140m
Total $521 million annually.
Or $143,645 for each gang member on average.
Credible? Maybe I've over-stated costs - maybe not. What I haven't done is include the Health system costs from violence and ill-health; nor Customs involvement nor Housing NZ.
While the MSD numbers were somewhat underwhelming, and expressed as a 22 year sum, not very helpful, this further exercise has rammed it home to me that breaking the cycle of inter-generational gang membership and activity would have enormous benefits for everybody.
Thursday, March 03, 2016
Wednesday, March 02, 2016
Presidential candidate's plans for reducing poverty
I found this a fascinating read. Oh how I wish that we had such variation and delineation of ideas in this country.
Ron Haskins lays out the difference between 1/ Democrat and Republican voter attitudes to poverty and 2/ the various anti-poverty/ poverty (some will make poverty worse) policies espoused by individual candidates.
My pick is Cruz' flat tax though his social conservatism would preclude me voting for him.
Haskins concludes:
Ron Haskins lays out the difference between 1/ Democrat and Republican voter attitudes to poverty and 2/ the various anti-poverty/ poverty (some will make poverty worse) policies espoused by individual candidates.
My pick is Cruz' flat tax though his social conservatism would preclude me voting for him.
Haskins concludes:
The main difference: The Republicans would transfer authority over how the money is spent to parents and to states and localities. If the specific proposals being offered by Bush, Kasich, and Rubio on programs for the poor were adopted, it would represent a historic shift in responsibility and control from the federal government to the states and to parents. By contrast, Clinton and Sanders would greatly increase the amount of money controlled by the federal government, an increase mainly secured through tax increases on the rich.
Tuesday, March 01, 2016
Gang women no tender lillies either
MSD are going to conduct trials designed to intervene in gang life and improve their children's outcomes. It's got to be better than trying to stamp gangs out - colossal failure.
In among the copious amount of statistics about gangs, their welfare receipt, and contact with CYF released today, this caught my eye:
This data also brought a wry smile to my face:
And that's just the benefit the gang member receives directly. What about the mother of his children?
And those stupid lefties carry on with the assertion that welfare reduces crime ergo welfare reform will increase it.
Welfare is staple diet for gangs but certainly only a small part of their real incomes.
Update: Prompted by Eric Crampton's post I did some quick calculations and left the following comment:
The total cost amassed to MSD (includes CYF) was $714 million over 22 years by 3,960 gang members.
$8,195 annually. Cheaper than a superannuitant.
In among the copious amount of statistics about gangs, their welfare receipt, and contact with CYF released today, this caught my eye:
The alleged perpetrator of abuse or neglect of gang member’s children was more often recorded as the child’s mother than the gang member father.Well, well. Though the perpetrator status is 'alleged' and not 'substantiated' . Maybe she is fitted up or takes the fall. Or maybe she just is the abuser.
This data also brought a wry smile to my face:
Ninety-two per cent (3,627) of the total 3,960 known gang members received main benefits from MSD at some stage between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 2014.
The 3,627 gang members spent on average 8.9 years on a main benefit (not necessarily continuously). Over half the time was receiving job seeker-related benefits and nearly a quarter of the time was receiving health or disability-related benefits
Eighteen per cent of all gang members had received a main benefit for a total of over 15 years, whereas 13 per cent received main benefits for two years or less, and eight per cent had not received main benefits at all.Is there any other group in society that can boast this degree of welfare dependence? None I can think of. Even the blind have better rates of employment and self sufficiently (no disrespect intended).
And that's just the benefit the gang member receives directly. What about the mother of his children?
And those stupid lefties carry on with the assertion that welfare reduces crime ergo welfare reform will increase it.
Welfare is staple diet for gangs but certainly only a small part of their real incomes.
Update: Prompted by Eric Crampton's post I did some quick calculations and left the following comment:
The total cost amassed to MSD (includes CYF) was $714 million over 22 years by 3,960 gang members.
$8,195 annually. Cheaper than a superannuitant.
Minimum wage earners wealthier than their employers?
Sunday, February 28, 2016
ACT Conference
I was at the ACT conference yesterday to speak about welfare, but also heard most of the other addresses. Some highlights:
1/When Ruth Money - an independent advocate for victims, particularly of sexual assault - took questions, two were from young members (male and female) who wanted to know whether she had concerns about 'victims' who were those falsely accused of crimes but acquitted. Should there be compensation for instance? This warmed my heart. It's very encouraging to hear the evidence of young minds appreciating the importance of justice at a more nuanced level, especially in ACT. It would be very bad form for a fellow speaker to ask a question when the time was limited but the one in my mind was similar. Does she have any concerns about the increasing numbers of people imprisoned without trial?
2/ Hearing Dame Lesley Max questioning bureaucrats prioritizing the non-stigmatization of children over the identification of the most at-risk groups. From memory she called it immoral
3/ Retirement funding specialist Michael Littlewood saying whatever policy decisions we make today will not effect what taxpayers choose to pay to support retired people at any time in the future. In 2066, or 2046 or 2086. Think about it.
4/ Seeing a couple of ex Libertarian buddies in attendance, and Don Brash still taking an interest. Just sorry I couldn't find the time to say hello to many familiar faces.
5/ Not seeing John Banks there (nothing personal. I just never thought he promoted the ACT values I identify with).
6/ David Seymour's refreshing resemblance to a real person and not a real politician. There was widespread popularity for his decision not to accept a ministerial role.
Whatever the media reports it was a very positive, good-humoured and forward-looking conference.
1/When Ruth Money - an independent advocate for victims, particularly of sexual assault - took questions, two were from young members (male and female) who wanted to know whether she had concerns about 'victims' who were those falsely accused of crimes but acquitted. Should there be compensation for instance? This warmed my heart. It's very encouraging to hear the evidence of young minds appreciating the importance of justice at a more nuanced level, especially in ACT. It would be very bad form for a fellow speaker to ask a question when the time was limited but the one in my mind was similar. Does she have any concerns about the increasing numbers of people imprisoned without trial?
2/ Hearing Dame Lesley Max questioning bureaucrats prioritizing the non-stigmatization of children over the identification of the most at-risk groups. From memory she called it immoral
3/ Retirement funding specialist Michael Littlewood saying whatever policy decisions we make today will not effect what taxpayers choose to pay to support retired people at any time in the future. In 2066, or 2046 or 2086. Think about it.
4/ Seeing a couple of ex Libertarian buddies in attendance, and Don Brash still taking an interest. Just sorry I couldn't find the time to say hello to many familiar faces.
5/ Not seeing John Banks there (nothing personal. I just never thought he promoted the ACT values I identify with).
6/ David Seymour's refreshing resemblance to a real person and not a real politician. There was widespread popularity for his decision not to accept a ministerial role.
Whatever the media reports it was a very positive, good-humoured and forward-looking conference.
"The Closing of the Liberal Mind"
Kim Holmes writes in advance of his forthcoming book, "The Closing of the Liberal Mind":
Why have liberals become so intolerant? They think nothing of denying someone as prominent as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from speaking on a college campus. They embrace activists who shut down speakers. They publicly shame people for the slightest deviation from liberal orthodoxy.
Their mindset is the very definition of closed-mindedness.
For them everything from science to the law is “settled” once they get into power. Progress is a one-way street. Their mindset is the very definition of closed-mindedness.
The easy answer would be “they are all bad people.” But frankly that’s a cop-out. Not all liberals are bad people, any more than all conservatives are angels. No doubt among the fevered minions of liberal activists there are people with, shall we say, psychological issues, but that doesn’t explain why so many otherwise reasonable people are so beholden to liberalism as an ideology.
The short answer is that it pays. A lot of people in and out of government benefit. Liberalism also makes people feel good. Whether you are politician dispensing government benefits or the citizen receiving them, liberalism hides the self-interest and sometimes even greed that motivate people.
But the devolution of liberalism into something now openly illiberal has causes far more complex than these familiar explanations provide.
For one thing, liberalism is no longer mainly about ideas. It is about power—as in who has it and who doesn’t. Believing they already know the answers to all questions, liberals view politics and governing as mopping up operations.
More
Why have liberals become so intolerant? They think nothing of denying someone as prominent as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from speaking on a college campus. They embrace activists who shut down speakers. They publicly shame people for the slightest deviation from liberal orthodoxy.
Their mindset is the very definition of closed-mindedness.
For them everything from science to the law is “settled” once they get into power. Progress is a one-way street. Their mindset is the very definition of closed-mindedness.
The easy answer would be “they are all bad people.” But frankly that’s a cop-out. Not all liberals are bad people, any more than all conservatives are angels. No doubt among the fevered minions of liberal activists there are people with, shall we say, psychological issues, but that doesn’t explain why so many otherwise reasonable people are so beholden to liberalism as an ideology.
The short answer is that it pays. A lot of people in and out of government benefit. Liberalism also makes people feel good. Whether you are politician dispensing government benefits or the citizen receiving them, liberalism hides the self-interest and sometimes even greed that motivate people.
But the devolution of liberalism into something now openly illiberal has causes far more complex than these familiar explanations provide.
For one thing, liberalism is no longer mainly about ideas. It is about power—as in who has it and who doesn’t. Believing they already know the answers to all questions, liberals view politics and governing as mopping up operations.
More
Friday, February 26, 2016
"Poor decisions" lead to poor lives
The NZ Initiative released a report into poverty this week. Co-author, Jenesa Jeram has a piece in this morning's DomPost explaining the various measures used to gauge poverty and how they can show very different things. She also points out that various parties are motivated to cherry pick to suit their purposes. That's fine but there needs to be transparency around exactly what the numbers they use mean.
The report is a good summary and a great reference source. Unfortunately the overriding message taken from the report (in part because the NZ Initiative chose to highlight it) was that high housing costs are making some people poor. That is undeniably true. It is a fact. But armed with the facts people continue to expose themselves and their children to that reality.
Take a step back. Those now three famous ways to steer clear of poverty are; finish your education, have your children after you marry, and stay married. Life's expenses are manageable if people make sensible choices, and most do.
The report does allude to this in the executive summary:
This isn't about being judgmental or on a moral high horse. People need to think ahead, take seriously the consequences of the choices they make especially about forming relationships and having children. Unfortunately welfare has relieved them of the worst outcomes and diminished that ability.
The report is a good summary and a great reference source. Unfortunately the overriding message taken from the report (in part because the NZ Initiative chose to highlight it) was that high housing costs are making some people poor. That is undeniably true. It is a fact. But armed with the facts people continue to expose themselves and their children to that reality.
Take a step back. Those now three famous ways to steer clear of poverty are; finish your education, have your children after you marry, and stay married. Life's expenses are manageable if people make sensible choices, and most do.
The report does allude to this in the executive summary:
Benefit levels and conditions presumably reflect public opinion about the causes of hardship. The more than four-fold increase since 1970 in the proportion of the working age population on a benefit other than the unemployment benefit could be influencing public perceptions. One survey of public perceptions suggests that many might not be accepting the most exaggerated claims of the extent of child poverty and consider poor decisions to be a material reason why some people of working age are experiencing hardship.Poor decisions lead to poor lives. I have made some shockers in my own but I did learn from them.
This isn't about being judgmental or on a moral high horse. People need to think ahead, take seriously the consequences of the choices they make especially about forming relationships and having children. Unfortunately welfare has relieved them of the worst outcomes and diminished that ability.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
The rush to be state house kids
An interesting piece in today's NZ Herald highlights excerpts from speeches of various MPs deliberately personalising the "kiwi dream" by relating their own childhood experiences. It makes the MPs seem a little silly and their anecdotes contrived when thrown together but it could be coincidence. Whatever. The mad rush to be a state house kid (or grow up next to one) began with the Prime Minister.
The nostalgia for the sixties should be tempered though.
I was flipping through a book at Lower Hutt library yesterday and stopped on a page describing 1961. TV was just being introduced. A handful of restaurants were being granted licences to serve alcohol (their names were recognisable to me illustrating how few there were). The only businesses open at the weekend were dairies. Every man trundled home to his suburban housewife and kids to embark on a weekend of gardening and home maintenance maybe with a trip to the park or some sports game or beach. Lives were quite predictable and uniform.
I also picked up Gordon McLauchlan's The Passionless People Revisited and opened it somewhere at the back. He was explaining why New Zealand wives last so long as sexual partners. Apparently because they have so few moving parts. I thought that was jolly funny and decided to take the book out. But on getting it home I was disappointed to find it opens with a deeply grudging literary assassination of John Key and a litany of every thing wrong with New Zealand. Another soul pining for regulation and state control.What a drudge. That's going back unread.
It is true we have left behind some good values, or moved away from them increasingly. But it is also true much that was undesirable has been consigned to the past - thankfully. If the sixties were put up for auction I doubt there'd be a bidder in the room.
The nostalgia for the sixties should be tempered though.
I was flipping through a book at Lower Hutt library yesterday and stopped on a page describing 1961. TV was just being introduced. A handful of restaurants were being granted licences to serve alcohol (their names were recognisable to me illustrating how few there were). The only businesses open at the weekend were dairies. Every man trundled home to his suburban housewife and kids to embark on a weekend of gardening and home maintenance maybe with a trip to the park or some sports game or beach. Lives were quite predictable and uniform.
I also picked up Gordon McLauchlan's The Passionless People Revisited and opened it somewhere at the back. He was explaining why New Zealand wives last so long as sexual partners. Apparently because they have so few moving parts. I thought that was jolly funny and decided to take the book out. But on getting it home I was disappointed to find it opens with a deeply grudging literary assassination of John Key and a litany of every thing wrong with New Zealand. Another soul pining for regulation and state control.What a drudge. That's going back unread.
It is true we have left behind some good values, or moved away from them increasingly. But it is also true much that was undesirable has been consigned to the past - thankfully. If the sixties were put up for auction I doubt there'd be a bidder in the room.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
The left in charge...in Wgtn anyway
Local body politics in Wellington is dominated by left activists including churches, unions, political party members and lots of troughers.
Living Wage Wellington is calling for wider implementation because,
So I had a quick scroll through submissions (737 pages).
The following form-submission appears many, many times. Obviously cut and paste from a source and simply e-mailed in. Now there is nothing to stop other non-Left groups encouraging people to do the same, but it tends not to happen.
Submissions
Dear Annual Plan
I write as a citizen and ratepayer of Wellington to call on Wellington City Council, through
your 2014/2015 Annual Plan, to:
Fully implement your decision to become a Living Wage employer and ensure all
Council workers, including directly employed and those working through CCOs and
contractors, are paid a living wage
Make this a priority in order to address inequality in our city and recognising that the
benefits of a living wage far out-weigh the costs
Meet the cost through a range of measures, including from the Council’s current
wage budget and through negotiation with relevant contractors. Any cost to
ratepayers will be staged as contracts come up for renegotiation.
I was astonished at the huge number of submissions from cyclists wanting better cycle ways, and other multiple submissions were from anti-fluoridation advocates.
One gets the strong impression that the left are highly organised in Wellington and accordingly, have a great deal of pull with the council.
As far as I am aware the council did not poll on the living wage issue so we cannot know that "the people of Wellington have backed it".
The only "known" is overwhelming support from the very sources you would expect.
Living Wage Wellington is calling for wider implementation because,
"Becoming a Living Wage council and paying the Living Wage to all council staff — directly employed and those employed via contractors and in CCOs — was overwhelmingly supported in public consultation for the 2014/15 Annual Plan and the 2015/25 Long Term Plan. The Council has voted for this. The people of Wellington have backed it. Now it’s time to make the commitment to the Living Wage a reality.”
So I had a quick scroll through submissions (737 pages).
The following form-submission appears many, many times. Obviously cut and paste from a source and simply e-mailed in. Now there is nothing to stop other non-Left groups encouraging people to do the same, but it tends not to happen.
Submissions
Dear Annual Plan
I write as a citizen and ratepayer of Wellington to call on Wellington City Council, through
your 2014/2015 Annual Plan, to:
Fully implement your decision to become a Living Wage employer and ensure all
Council workers, including directly employed and those working through CCOs and
contractors, are paid a living wage
Make this a priority in order to address inequality in our city and recognising that the
benefits of a living wage far out-weigh the costs
Meet the cost through a range of measures, including from the Council’s current
wage budget and through negotiation with relevant contractors. Any cost to
ratepayers will be staged as contracts come up for renegotiation.
I was astonished at the huge number of submissions from cyclists wanting better cycle ways, and other multiple submissions were from anti-fluoridation advocates.
One gets the strong impression that the left are highly organised in Wellington and accordingly, have a great deal of pull with the council.
As far as I am aware the council did not poll on the living wage issue so we cannot know that "the people of Wellington have backed it".
The only "known" is overwhelming support from the very sources you would expect.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Has the 'child poverty' barrow stopped working for the Greens?
Shedding a third of their vote (12% down to 8% in the latest Colmar Brunton poll) is either about Green MPs or their ideas. Some people think it's a strategic decision by voters to ensure a strong Labour. I'm not buying that. A vote for the Greens is a vote for a Labour-led government after all.
Child poverty is an issue the Greens own. They blatantly campaign in primary schools enticing young minds into their own victimhood mentality. They exploit children on campaign posters in the most thinly-veiled attempt to buy votes.
Never forget that the Greens are Marxist. Child poverty has been an effective way to win the public over to greater wealth redistribution compelled by government.
It doesn't matter to Metiria Turei that redistribution has so far not only failed to improve the lot of children - it's worsened their outcomes.
Doesn't matter that making more people reliant on welfare will make more people more miserable.
Instead of re-evaluating their ideas based on evidence, they forge on, most recently joining and heavily promoting a social media campaign built around the slogan "Child poverty - it's not a choice."
I believe this slogan was arrived at exactly because of the realization that voters aren't disassociating children from their parents. Voters think that child outcomes are heavily influenced by parental decisions. Voters think that parental choices have a good deal of bearing on whether a child will experience hardship.
Next, showing exactly how out of touch they are, the Greens nominated Sue Bradford for Children's Commissioner. Perhaps they think a blast from the past (a more glorious Green past) would boost their ratings. Fail.
The next poll may very well prove me wrong but my money is on Metiria Turei and child poverty - the MP and the idea - being a loser for the party.
Child poverty is an issue the Greens own. They blatantly campaign in primary schools enticing young minds into their own victimhood mentality. They exploit children on campaign posters in the most thinly-veiled attempt to buy votes.
Never forget that the Greens are Marxist. Child poverty has been an effective way to win the public over to greater wealth redistribution compelled by government.
It doesn't matter to Metiria Turei that redistribution has so far not only failed to improve the lot of children - it's worsened their outcomes.
Doesn't matter that making more people reliant on welfare will make more people more miserable.
Instead of re-evaluating their ideas based on evidence, they forge on, most recently joining and heavily promoting a social media campaign built around the slogan "Child poverty - it's not a choice."
I believe this slogan was arrived at exactly because of the realization that voters aren't disassociating children from their parents. Voters think that child outcomes are heavily influenced by parental decisions. Voters think that parental choices have a good deal of bearing on whether a child will experience hardship.
Next, showing exactly how out of touch they are, the Greens nominated Sue Bradford for Children's Commissioner. Perhaps they think a blast from the past (a more glorious Green past) would boost their ratings. Fail.
The next poll may very well prove me wrong but my money is on Metiria Turei and child poverty - the MP and the idea - being a loser for the party.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
That damned flag
In today's HOS this photo appears with the by-line: It’s not over yet, but it looks like the old flag, left, will win out over the new in the upcoming referendum.
A friend gave me a book yesterday called Who moved my cheese? which is a little parable about accepting change. After I finished it I thought, I still don't like that damn flag.
I have listened to all the sensible arguments for change yet when I look at the photo above I feel something for the flag on the left that I don't for the flag on the right. So maybe I am letting emotion override logic? How can I have feelings for a set of colours and lines?
I suppose as an artist (I allowed myself to think in terms of being an artist when I started to sell paintings and receive commissions and had to describe how I earned income) I live and breathe colours and lines. And when it comes to what I like - which heavily influences what I produce - it's about beauty, harmony and depth. I hate art that merely serves a purpose or expresses some deep-seated anxiety or is invented only to shock.
But it is virtually impossible to describe why certain colours and lines evoke a good emotional response. And I have never wanted to analyse it.
The current flag is far more aesthetically pleasing to me than the alternative.
And that's why I can't change my mind.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Kim Workman on the 'low' murder rate
Kim Workman kindly sent me a graph which depicts murder rates in New Zealand extending back even further than mine. I've included his commentary below it.
Hi Lindsay
You might like to post the attached graph on your blog – it shows the murder rate from 1879 through to 2010 – it was prepared by the Ministry of Justice.
What it shows is that there was a very high rate from 1880 to 1890 – New Zealand was a very ‘atomised’ society, high numbers of single men, high levels of vagrancy, itinerant workers significant drinking culture. A significant downward trend to around 1905, and then it was all over the place until 1950 when there was a significant rise until 1990, when it started to decline, and has been declining ever since. Well over half the murders today are within the family, or people that are in a relationship. About 1 to 1.5 murders a year are random killings of people who are unknown to the murderer.
There is no evidence that I know of, which shows that ethnicity is a factor – but a lot of evidence which points to general social dysfunction. The latest NZ Crime and Safety Survey, (which is the only statistical survey that’s reliable , given the propensity of government agencies to play around with stats) shows that 3 percent of the population experienced more than half of all crime in 2013, - a greater concentration of crime than in 2008 when six percent of the population experienced 52 percent of all crime. In other words there is a small group of chronic victims, living in marginalised communities. And the distribution of victimisation is becoming more unequal over time.
You might like to post the attached graph on your blog – it shows the murder rate from 1879 through to 2010 – it was prepared by the Ministry of Justice.
What it shows is that there was a very high rate from 1880 to 1890 – New Zealand was a very ‘atomised’ society, high numbers of single men, high levels of vagrancy, itinerant workers significant drinking culture. A significant downward trend to around 1905, and then it was all over the place until 1950 when there was a significant rise until 1990, when it started to decline, and has been declining ever since. Well over half the murders today are within the family, or people that are in a relationship. About 1 to 1.5 murders a year are random killings of people who are unknown to the murderer.
There is no evidence that I know of, which shows that ethnicity is a factor – but a lot of evidence which points to general social dysfunction. The latest NZ Crime and Safety Survey, (which is the only statistical survey that’s reliable , given the propensity of government agencies to play around with stats) shows that 3 percent of the population experienced more than half of all crime in 2013, - a greater concentration of crime than in 2008 when six percent of the population experienced 52 percent of all crime. In other words there is a small group of chronic victims, living in marginalised communities. And the distribution of victimisation is becoming more unequal over time.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Justice sector: "The murder rate is low"
You will be pleased to know that the murder rate is low:
The natural reaction of older folk like me is, Compared To What?
The natural reaction of older folk like me is, Compared To What?
Not 50 years ago.
Data source
(The population grew by 126% over the same period. How to put in a secondary axis has temporarily evaded me.)
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Pacific Islands Family Study: Fathers also victims of partner violence
There are a number of longitudinal studies underway in NZ.
The well-known Christchurch Health and Development Study (birth cohort 1977); the Dunedin Multi-disciplinary Study (birth cohort 1973); and Growing Up in New Zealand Study (birth cohort 2009-10) are those that jump to mind.
But today I learned of the Pacific Island Family Study (birth cohort 2000) reported here.
Readers might be interested in some of the findings to date.
Participants: the PIF Study recruited 1,376 mothers of a cohort of 1,398 Pacific infants (22 pairs of twins) born at Middlemore Hospital (a large tertiary hospital) in South Auckland between 15 March and 19 December 2000. An infant was deemed eligible for the study if at least one of their parents identified themselves as being of a Pacific ethnicity and was a permanent resident of New Zealand
Data collection: the PIF Study primarily collects self-reported data through structured interviews with mothers and fathers in their homes and with children in their schools. Children and their families have been visited when the children were aged six weeks, and 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 and 11 years
The well-known Christchurch Health and Development Study (birth cohort 1977); the Dunedin Multi-disciplinary Study (birth cohort 1973); and Growing Up in New Zealand Study (birth cohort 2009-10) are those that jump to mind.
But today I learned of the Pacific Island Family Study (birth cohort 2000) reported here.
Readers might be interested in some of the findings to date.
Participants: the PIF Study recruited 1,376 mothers of a cohort of 1,398 Pacific infants (22 pairs of twins) born at Middlemore Hospital (a large tertiary hospital) in South Auckland between 15 March and 19 December 2000. An infant was deemed eligible for the study if at least one of their parents identified themselves as being of a Pacific ethnicity and was a permanent resident of New Zealand
Data collection: the PIF Study primarily collects self-reported data through structured interviews with mothers and fathers in their homes and with children in their schools. Children and their families have been visited when the children were aged six weeks, and 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 and 11 years
This one intrigues me because fathers were less likely to smoke over time but mothers more.
This caught my eye because it shows (as often argued on this blog) that men are also victims of partner violence. At Year 11 of the survey 10% of fathers and 16% of mothers reported being victims of minor physical partner violence; 4% of fathers and 8% of mothers reported being victims of severe partner violence.
Noteworthy is this commentary:
"The PIF findings are consistent with those reported in other New Zealand groups (Magdol et al, 1977), and revealed that mothers were just as likely as fathers to perpetrate and be victims of severe IPV."
Overcrowding is not unusual in PI households but this puts some dimensions on the extent. This prompted me to speculate about the apparent poverty of PI children using the official child poverty measurements which are based on equivalised household incomes. Equivalising means adjusting for numbers of household members. So the more members, the lower the equivalised income will be.
While it is quite true that more members will require more financial resources I am nevertheless reminded that child poverty measurement is based on a constructed household income - not actual household income.
Here's a final observation I also found interesting:
The high percentage of traditional gift giving among Pacific families, and the level of financial stress associated with such practices, may play a role in reducing the financial security for some of these Pacific families. There is growing evidence that younger, New Zealand-born, Pacific people are becoming less committed to traditional gift giving to churches and other cultural obligations.That may be a good or bad thing depending on which side of the transfer one stands.
Monday, February 15, 2016
PM says something useful
In Parliament last week, after a great deal of belly-aching and nagging by Metiria Turei about taxing people more, the Prime Minister responded:
Then, with some prompting from David Seymour
Just thought I'd put that up this morning because we don't hear the PM nailing his colours to the mast (other than the flag mast) often enough.
Many of us don't see a great deal of difference between National and Labour when it comes to spending. But it is also inescapable that to stay in power National has to play a pragmatic game balancing taxing and spending for the greatest political gain. It must frustrate the PM and a number of MPs equally. But in a democracy, is there a choice other than slowly,slowly, catch a monkey?
"...our whole system relies on people getting out of bed in the morning, working hard, and paying taxes. In my experience, there are literally millions of New Zealanders who get up every morning, who do not want the Government to give them a handout, and certainly just want to have a fair system in which to operate."
Then, with some prompting from David Seymour
"As we know, when we have a broad-based, low rate that is fairly applied, actually what you see is that New Zealanders get on and they pay their tax bills. They do not spend time trying to avoid taxes. What we know, actually, with the Green Party and, to be frank, with the Labour Party, is that all they know how to do is spend other people’s money, when the rest of the country is actually focused on how to make money."
Just thought I'd put that up this morning because we don't hear the PM nailing his colours to the mast (other than the flag mast) often enough.
Many of us don't see a great deal of difference between National and Labour when it comes to spending. But it is also inescapable that to stay in power National has to play a pragmatic game balancing taxing and spending for the greatest political gain. It must frustrate the PM and a number of MPs equally. But in a democracy, is there a choice other than slowly,slowly, catch a monkey?
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Some religion on Sunday
My sentiments exactly, but expressed by Rodney Hide in today's Herald on Sunday. On the govt's attempt to tax smokers out of existence
"Taylor's proposal would see a packet of cigarettes priced at a $100 by 2025.
I suspect that would achieve the Government's target. New Zealand would be smoke free. Taylor would not be seeing any smokers. The job would be done.
That would be because we smokers would be holed-up, out of sight, hidden in the hills, puffing furiously on our home-grown weed - bandits and outlaws, but free.
I hope I would be with them. I would prefer the fun and the freedom compared to the prissy lot we have become."
Risk-free living is a relatively new most unwelcome religion.
After the tragic recent spate of drownings we are being told
"Never swim alone and only ever swim at patrolled beaches."
How realistic or desirable is that?
Alcohol causes cancer. Take the law into your own hands and refuse to serve a pregnant women.
Meat causes cancer. Don't barbecue.
Speed kills. Fine the bejesus out of minor offenders. And again wrest keys of suspect drivers if you like.
Gambling is an insidious addiction further encouraged by alcohol sponsorship. Ban it like we banned tobacco sponsorship.
And while you are at it ban it from all sports. Young minds are too impressionable.
Facebook is a fiendish scourge on young minds too. It drives people to suicide.
Quad bikes. More dangerous than a loaded gun. Guns!! A horrible symbol of animal exploitation and male dominance. Ban them.
I could go on and on. But in the interests of my own safety and sanity ...well it's just too risky or I'll end up in Them Thar Hills too, swinging off the branches of some nasty non-native tree. Or holed up in my non-consented tree house.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
"...their problems are therefore those of the Maori people..."
It has been clear for a long time that a disproportionate number of children who are reported to CYF, have a substantiated finding of abuse or neglect against their parent or caregiver, or end up in state care are Maori. But I haven't seen the statistics put in these terms before (or if I have I've forgotten):
Statistics relating to ethnicity are increasingly redundant as more and more New Zealand-born children report (or their parents report) more than 1, 2, or even 3 ethnicities.
The above finding is particularly intriguing because many Maori children who also have Pacific Island, NZ European, Asian, etc parentage will be counted as Maori because of the hierarchical system government uses.
From a Families Commission report 2004:
"...if a person reports more than one ethnic identity they will be counted only once, in the following priority order: Māori, Pacific peoples, Asian, other, European."
(Yes, some reporting systems take account of multiple ethnicities leading to annoying and meaningless totals for the purposes of research, and reliance on self-identification produces Maori as the overriding ethnicity anyway.)
I came across a passage (not on-line) the other day that crystallizes the problem.
I have been reading up on mixed marriages/partnerships and the rate of partnering between Maori and non-Maori is very high especially when compared to other races in other countries.
Personally I think it's a good thing but when it comes to problems with offspring it has to be said the contributing ethnicity who is not Maori gets of scot free when it comes to the reporting of ethnic contribution.
"...35 per cent of all Maori children are notified to CYF before age 5, compared with 11 per cent of non-Maori children."This is from the 'interim' report by the group led by Paula Rebstock tasked with examining CYF.
Statistics relating to ethnicity are increasingly redundant as more and more New Zealand-born children report (or their parents report) more than 1, 2, or even 3 ethnicities.
The above finding is particularly intriguing because many Maori children who also have Pacific Island, NZ European, Asian, etc parentage will be counted as Maori because of the hierarchical system government uses.
From a Families Commission report 2004:
"...if a person reports more than one ethnic identity they will be counted only once, in the following priority order: Māori, Pacific peoples, Asian, other, European."
(Yes, some reporting systems take account of multiple ethnicities leading to annoying and meaningless totals for the purposes of research, and reliance on self-identification produces Maori as the overriding ethnicity anyway.)
I came across a passage (not on-line) the other day that crystallizes the problem.
The children of a mixed marriage are also usually very readily accepted by their grandparents, both Maori and Pakeha. In the wider community such children are nearly always looked on as Maori if their ancestry is at all obvious (the term ‘half-caste’ seems to be used less now than formerly), and their problems are therefore those of the Maori people… Harre 1968
I have been reading up on mixed marriages/partnerships and the rate of partnering between Maori and non-Maori is very high especially when compared to other races in other countries.
Personally I think it's a good thing but when it comes to problems with offspring it has to be said the contributing ethnicity who is not Maori gets of scot free when it comes to the reporting of ethnic contribution.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Anti-smacking law is bad law
The anti-smacking law has failed to reduce the abuse and neglect of children. It was never going to make a difference because lawless people don't give a damn. In fact normally law-abiding people don't give a fig for it either. On a recent plane trip, the row in front of me contained a mother and two youngsters one of whom was being stroppy. I didn't see what the child did (to her sibling I think) but what I did hear was the mother, having handled the situation saying to the daughter, "I'm sorry if I tapped you too hard but...." She followed the law by changing the language.
Many people think we should just get over it and get on with it. But this report highlights that the anti-smacking law, which is being policed, may actually be making the situation worse.
It's bad law. I've listened to people speak who have been criminalised by it and their experiences have been harrowing.
Read the report summary here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
