I'll miss Mitch Harris

Radio Live is kaput

Haven't listened to them during the day for a long time. Not since Sean Plunket departed.

Back in the day Paul Henry was a great morning host (or was that when they were Radio Pacific?) Anyway, before he made the transition from normal human to over-weening human

JT and Willie was listenable when JT was steering but when Willie was in control,  an air of flippant insincerity prevailed.

When JT departed and Alison Mau joined Willie she brought an ugly element of female bullying to the afternoon. Opinions she cared not for were loudly talked over.

Why they picked up Nissen Windell (correct me please for I have never paid enough attention to remember) is unfathomable.

But Mitch. Mitch Harris combined a compelling mix of humour, self-deprecation, true two-way communicative skills and great musical appreciation and knowledge.

By no means a religious listener, many a night I have drifted off to sleep to his thoughtful utterances and  dulcet tones. I'll miss that.

Update: The idea of a radio station that combines talk and music - in this case Magic Talk - is doomed IMO. If I want to hear how people are reacting to something topical I'll tune in to NewstalkZB; if I want music, I tune into Coast. And even Coast irritates when the hosts start prattling. Most music stations like to boast they have more music and less chat because that's what the punters want. A talk/music channel is a hair-brained idea.

Making light of a serious subject

In my recent paper about  Imprisonment and Family Structure,  I touched on the phenomenon of multi-partner fertility and how it increases prison populations.

If you don't know what multi-partner fertility looks like...

Updating artist blog

Just updating artist blog with this pastel of Wesney, who is now the grand age of 15.

Unemployment numbers that don't stack up

The unemployment rate has dropped to 3.9% - a great result for the government.

But since the non-publication of latest official child poverty data due to "uncertainty" and a "lack of confidence" in the Statistics NZ  Household Economic Survey sampling, I am wary. More wary than I was anyway.

The unemployment data comes from the Statistics NZ  Household Labour Force Survey.

I had a dig into the tables looking for any stand out development.

Here's one.

In the Manawatu-Wanganui region, the unemployment rate (2nd to last column above) between June and Sept 2018  dropped three whole points from 6.6 to 3.6 percent.

This should be reflected in benefit statistics, no?

It isn't. The number on Jobseeker Support rose.

I checked out the number for the Manawatu-Wanganui region - a different stat which slightly more closely matches the region surveyed in the HLFS.

In June 2018 there were 8,352 people on a Jobseeker benefit: in Sept 2018, 8,532.

The Taxpayer's Union has also questioned the broader opposing trends.

We can measure unemployment three ways: through the HLFS, through the numbers on unemployment benefit and via the Census. Obviously the last count is too infrequent and time-lags terribly.

Just be aware that the positive HLFS result is not mirrored in the benefit data result.

The HLFS result is probably a facet of the growing working age population and labour force. The denominator is increasing faster than the numerator. But it could also be a 'rogue' result.

No beneficiaries will be forced into jobs

The aged-care sector is asking government to change rules to allow more immigrants to fill the shortage of care-givers. Apparently some beneficiaries are being trained but according to MSD Minister, Carmel Sepuloni:

"...no one would be forced into jobs."
"First and foremost it's about making sure that MSD clients are going into work that is sustainable and meaningful to them. We know that that makes the difference with respect to how long they stay in that employment and whether they end up back on benefit. This is not a situation, and we won't be getting into a situation, where we are forcing people to take up particular work," she said.

So beneficiaries won't been "forced" to take available jobs, but the taxpayer will be forced to keep them.

There are over 70,000 work-ready JobSeeker beneficiaries and another 58,000 on Sole Parent Support.

While the Greens love this indulgence of the lazy,  how does the NZ First/Labour coalition deal with the conflict? Labour doesn't want to force New Zealanders to take the jobs and NZ First doesn't like immigrants taking the jobs.

What a shocker of a government.

Increased cash hand-outs reduce incentive to work

Seems obvious to you and I, but a fact that the Left has long resisted. Their response is always to indignantly insist, "...people want to work."

But MSD doesn't necessarily agree. At least the actuarial arm which produces an annual Benefit System Performance Report.

Below is a graph tracking exit rates among Jobseeker-Work Ready (JS/WR) beneficiaries. The associated commentary notes that recent exit rates are lower than during the GFC!

But notice also the bold type sentence below the graph. Paying those JS beneficiaries with children MORE has reduced their exits off welfare.

This slowing exit rate is further broken down into with or without children:

The report goes on to state:

 Establishing causality is difficult, though the widening of the gap appears to correlate with the introduction of the Child Material Hardship Package (CMHP) in April 2016. Benefit rates were increased by $25 for families as part of this package. 

It then speculates:

 Changes to the accommodation supplement from 1 April 2018 could have similar effects, although accommodation supplement is also available to low income families.

It doesn't mention the significant increase to Family Tax Credits (including the Best Start $60 weekly baby bonus) from July 2018 but presumably the same applies.

Further into the performance report comes another gem of commonsense:

IRRS is more generous than AS and can act as a poverty trap.

This means that Income Related Rents - whereby the state house tenant only ever pays a fixed percentage of his income - is a more generous subsidy than paying part of a tenant's rent in the private sector. 

The "poverty trap" describes what happens when the tenant is disincentivised to improve his income (through employment) because he will lose a substantial portion in increased rent. It's similar to the disincentive Child Support imposes. Not infrequently the two disincentives coincide.

There is a very real concern that state housing turnover has slowed up considerably due at least in part to this 'generosity' (causing lengthening waiting lists and recourse to emergency accommodation.)

This sentiment is reiterated later:

In previous reports we highlighted that the design of IRRS, AS and TAS creates financial disincentives for clients to move out of public housing and into the private market and employment.

Yet greater generosity of benefits and other assistance is synonymous with the current government which steadfastly ignores that the associated disincentives come at a devastating social cost, particular to children.

The socialist approach to alleviating poverty merely entrenches it.

Travesty over child poverty stats breaks at last

NZ Herald reports today:

Child poverty rates unknown as targets about to become law

I blogged about this over 2 weeks ago but far more 'important' issues have dominated. A fine example of how personality politics suppress matters of important policy.

This is the PM's priority policy. And it's based on statistics. It's bad enough that relativity defines 'poverty' but when the relativity is not even reliably measured, policy only deteriorates from bad to worse.

Graph of the Day

(The first bar is 2017; the second, 2018)

Maori now account for the highest share of Jobseeker dependence, reflected in the regional differences.

MSD comments:

We can and must do better to support Māori clients. While there are many programmes and services that are successful in achieving positive outcomes for Māori clients, the outcomes gap between Māori and non-Māori is getting worse. 

Source

Gobbledygook

MSD has rewritten the old Social Security Act. Today they publish some legislative terminology changes.

Example:
Old term     
Attention and supervision substantially in excess of that normally required 
New term
Substantially more attention and supervision than is normally required.
Reason (for change)
Plain English

OK.

Then:

Old term
Normal functions
New term
Everyday functions
Reason
More inclusive language

Is 'normal' ok or not? Probably not but you can't say 'everydayly'.

What concerns me is the time and expense that went into the exercise bearing in mind:

The new Act replaces some outdated terms with more inclusive language and plain English. MSD is updating all its websites, forms and letters with the new terms.

Heavens to Murgatroyd!!

Yikes. That dated expression should no doubt also be 'updated'.

Any ideas for a 'plain English' or 'inclusive' alternative??

Nailing it

Final paragraph from this week's Free Press, ACT's weekly email newsletter nails it:

New Zealand’s real problems are not identity politics, no matter what the left may think. They are that the welfare state has failed. Too many kids don’t get educated. Too many working aged adults are on welfare. Too many are in jail because there is too much crime and they’re never rehabilitated. Housing has gone from a commodity to a ponzi scheme. Our productivity growth is anaemic. With government's and councils’ approach to regulation, it’s amazing anyone still does anything. That’s why we need an ACT Party in New Zealand.

In general men are physically stronger than women

A fact.

But there are naysayers who will make a gender issue out of practical reality.

This one is lucky she received a personal and polite explanation for why her job application was unsuccessful. That's rare.

And she will find that she has a very long wait in the queue of people complaining to the Human Right's Commission - a highly dysfunctional body.

No, I don't give a fig for enshrined so-called human rights, now so far departed from original intention they provide 'legitimacy' to any and every trivial disgruntlement.

What is wrong with these crybabies?

They seem to live by the letter of bad law.

Benefit sanctions reduce by 36 percent

A thirty six percent reduction in benefit sanctions between the September 2017 and 2018 quarters.

And a 7.4% rise in Jobseeker numbers.

My comment in the Taxpayer's Union recent report into benefit sanctions:

Obligations are a reality in the workplace, in schools and in our relationships. Why wouldn’t they be part of the benefit system? Far from being unfair to beneficiaries they ensure integrity and a level playing field for all who have dealings with Work and Income. Beneficiary advocates should support - rather than oppose - obligations because they build public confidence in the benefit system, lift empathy and regard for those who rely on it, and willingness to pay for it. Most New Zealanders believe in a social safety net but also want to trust that it is not being abused.

Sometimes we change our minds

Moral standards in politics

It's odd. I've been around politicians. I know they can be coarse of language, and that they try to bend rules within legal bounds.

Why then am I surprised, even shocked by Simon Bridges comportment?

Simon toured NZ telling us what a wholesome family man he is. Ironically the tour's expenses began (reportedly) this vendetta. (Jamie Lee Ross is well beyond the pale and not the focus of my thoughts.)

This now is his biggest problem.

The persona he was at pains to portray is at odds with the man who we now know casually and crassly passes judgement on those who have stood by him.

There is just something missing in him.He's a sham.

Breaking: MSD won't publish latest child poverty rate due to "uncertainty" and "lack of confidence" in data

Big news not reported in mainstream yet.

From the latest Household Incomes Report, (Headline findings), the source of official statistics for child poverty:

• The 2018 reports do not publish low-income and material hardship rates for children for 2016 and 2017:
o Last year’s reports noted that several of the key rates for children for 2016 were surprisingly low compared with the relatively flat stable trend for the previous three years and warned against reaching any definitive conclusions on the short-run trends using the 2016 figures. The 2017 figures are much the same as the 2016 figures. There are no known factors in the economy, the housing market or policy change that can explain the falls to 2016 and 2017. While sampling error can account for some of the difference, considerable uncertainty remains.
o Stats NZ is scheduled to report on these statistics for children in their new Child Poverty Report in early 2019, using more up to date survey information, supplemented with administrative data.
o MSD has therefore decided to take a pause on reporting these rates for children in the 2018 reports. Stats NZ supports this cautious approach. 

You can read the Minister's briefing for detailed explanation which essentially blames sampling and non-sampling error. This sums it up:

"...the 2016 and 2017 samples may have some sample bias away
from poorer households with children. As noted above (para 17), one way that sample bias can occur is through non-responders being different from the responders in important ways that are not addressed by standard weighting procedures. If, for example, it proves more difficult to get responses from households with low incomes or high material hardship than it does to get responses from better off households, then the sample is likely to be biased and the bottom end will likely look better off than expected. The investigation to date is not conclusive on this, and does not explain why it suddenly appeared, but it does point to something unusual happening with the samples."

To not publish their data is quite extraordinary though labelled a temporary measure:

44 We have briefed the following parties on the decision to not publish low-income and
hardship rates for children, and the rationale for that decision: your office, DPMC, the Child Poverty Unit, the Prime Minister’s Office, the Minister of Finance’s Office and the
Treasury.
45 The relevant staff at MSD and Stats NZ have also been briefed.

Looks like the media has missed this. As per usual the report was put on the MSD site Friday.

Here's the big deal about this.

If the data can't be relied upon for whatever reason what is the point of the Prime Minister's Child Poverty Reduction Bill? Her self-proclaimed raison d'etre.

Sepuloni says:

This year’s report does not include low-income and material hardship figures for children in 2016 and 2017 because of sizeable changes in levels that officials cannot fully explain, even when the relatively small sample size (3500) is taken into account. More information can be found here
From next year, the Incomes Report will use improved data from Stats NZ. From 2020, it will provide greater precision by drawing on a sample of 20,000 households.

You could draw on 100,000 but if the non-responders are disproportionately poor the results will be skewed. 

Taxpayer's Union defends benefit sanctions

The push is on to make getting a benefit and staying on it much easier. That's Labour's idea of 'compassion'. Sir Apirana Ngata would have termed it 'cruelty'.

The Taxpayer's Union released a new report by Jim Rose on Monday this week.

The author takes a straightforward yet quirky and highly readable approach to the subject.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says, “Beneficiary advocates have good intentions, but their prescriptions – removing requirements to seek work and removing sanctions – are a social and moral failure. The Green Party’s policy to make life on a benefit will simply encourage a culture of welfare dependency and fraud.”
“Rates of welfare fraud are many times higher than most New Zealanders would expect or find acceptable under the current system. The report canvasses the evidence that easing up on sanctions and obligations for beneficiaries would dramatically increase fraud and dependency. That means driving up the cost of the welfare system for taxpayers and leaving less room in the Budget for other forms of social spending.”

More

Explaining the high prison population

The little-known Practice:The New Zealand Corrections Journal, included an interesting but unreported article in its July edition. Below are brief excerpts and a couple of the graphs:

The findings of this paper indicate that New Zealand’s prison population is unusually skewed in terms of sexual and violent offenders...The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this paper and require further research. However, one reason might be that the majority (63%) of sexual offenders in New Zealand prisons are serving sentences greater than five years.

Illustrating the opening observation the next graph shows has much greater proportionally sentencing for  sexual offending is in New Zealand

Given such a high proportion of sexual offenders are in New Zealand prisons, and the fact that they are mostly serving very long sentences, two hypotheses present: that similar offenders in other jurisdictions spend less time in prison, and/or New Zealand has larger numbers of these offenders entering prison....With a high prison population rate, it is clear that some features of crime and justice in New Zealand are problematic. One of these areas is the disproportionate number of people in prison for interpersonal violence. Understanding what drives this requires more research. It may be due to the nature of our judicial settings, it could mean there is a concerted effort to tackle normally under-reported violence, or it may be as a result of some feature of the nature of crime in New Zealand.

Personally I believe our judiciary has clamped down hard on sexual offending and interpersonal  violence (often overlapping or indistinguishable occurrences) because of political ideology (including tough- on- crime and feminist influence - right and left). This may or may not be an over-reaction. Each case has its own characteristics. But just as sure as there are victims on the outside there are some victims on the inside.

The metamorphosis of social security

The metamorphosis of social security and the growth of expectations and entitlement began early...

 ...and continues

How does MSD head get his numbers so wrong?

With the establishment of a new Ministry for Housing and Urban Development the head of MSD is reiterating his department is the first port of call for those needing housing assistance:

"At the Ministry of Social Development we will still provide services such as covering emergency housing costs, providing access to transitional housing, and offering financial assistance such as the accommodation supplement.
"Last year we provided approximately $900 million in rental subsidies for those in need."

Last year MSD spent $1.942 billion on the accommodation supplement and income related rents.

That's a minimum figure for total subsidies. There are other expenses like putting people up in motels ie emergency housing provision.

What is he talking about?

It's welfare Jim, but not as we know it

Let's be clear. There is no need for active nastiness and degradation in the welfare system. Just an even-handed application of the rules. The  benefit system - an alternative source of income to work - features rules, obligations and consequences for failure to meet them just like the workplace.

But the Greens are kicking off their obligation-free welfare campaign today. They want an open slather welfare system.

The party's own policy includes increases to benefits - particularly for low-income parents with children - and removing all of the financial penalties and sanctions currently in place for failing drug tests, not showing up for appointments, or not applying for jobs.

They call it a benefit system governed by compassion.

For who?

The children of beneficiaries whose parents are being enticed into self-destructive behaviours that currently result in sanctions?

Those working in physically hard jobs, labouring long hours and constantly required to meet demands of their bosses, who are constantly required to meet the demands of ever increasing health and safety bureaucracy? The neighbours of the beneficiaries who do as they please daily?

Victims of the crimes that will no longer risk loss of a benefit?

WINZ case workers who will be expected to dish out benefits and other grants to obvious malingerers?

Genuine users of a system that will engender far more reproach from the general public than in the past?

That's compassion?

The voters are amenable to some ideas. Sometimes they can be persuaded in time. Especially if they actually make sense.

This one? Not a show.