Dodgy stats

This table is taken from the statistical snapshot that informs the Children's Commissioner widely reported comments about inequity between the Oranga Tamariki's treatment of Maori and non Maori babies pre and post-birth:

Notice that the number of 'Ethinicity [sic] not specified' has climbed significantly since 2004 when they numbered just 3 - or 1.6% of all reports. Last year they numbered 336 - or 21.8% of all reports.

Now, the more babies that are removed from the non-Maori group the greater the gap grows between Maori and non-Maori.

Look at it this way. In 2004 Maori reports made up 53 percent of the total. And in 2019 Maori reports made up ... 53 percent of the total.

I don't think any conclusive claim can be made about Maori versus non-Maori with such a significant non-specified group. For instance, "There were eight times more concerns reported for unborn Māori babies in 2019, as compared with 2004. In that same time, reported concerns for non-Māori increased only 4.5 times."

And it leaves a question mark over the rest of the data pertaining to 0-3 month olds.

Is the removal of Maori babies "racism and bias"?

According to RNZ:

"Māori babies were five times more likely to end up in state care than non-Māori last year and their rate of urgent entries into state care has doubled since 2010, official figures show.

In that same period, 61 Māori babies were ordered into state care before they were born, compared to just 21 non-Māori.

Children's Commissioner Judge Andrew Becroft released the statistics this morning as part of a widescale inquiry into the removal of Māori babies, aged up to three months old, by the state.

That age group had been selected because that was where the statistics showed there were problems, and because it was a crucial bonding time for mother and child.

Judge Becroft said the figures raised clear questions about racism and bias within the state care sector.

"I've said previously that it's impossible to factor out the enduring legacy of colonisation... or modern day systemic bias," he said.

"Now that, to some extent, will obviously be at play here as it is across all decision-making and all government departments."

The inequities for Māori had grown over time and continued to worsen, Judge Becroft said."

 Is it not also possible that the high degree of risk-aversion rife through the public service is playing a role? After all the  rate of child abuse and neglect deaths has also been much higher among Maori children.

Previously I have posted the official stats as published by the Family Violence Death Review Committee. The most recent:

If the risk is greater based on factual evidence, and authorities act on that known risk, is that "racism and bias"?

But I also have sympathy for those who are decrying the high rate of removal. Personally nothing riles me more than laws, regulations and processes designed to tackle a small minority of offenders being over-zealously or even universally applied.

Children threatening to report parents

Looking at poll results commissioned by Family First regarding the anti-smacking law a couple of things stood out.

22% of parents with young children said their child had threatened to report them to the authorities if they were smacked

Coincidentally I overheard a conversation between a Maori and Pacific family in a hospital waiting room recently. Grandparents were comparing number of mokopuna. The Maori lady expressed a view that her mokopuna were scared of her because they knew she was tough, whereas they would manipulate their parents by threatening to call the cops if they were smacked.

That may be a good or bad thing. Maybe it serves the purpose of cooling the parent down momentarily. But maybe the better result is that the child stops whatever behaviour is heading for a smack. Whatever the case the children may fear the grandmother more but they also respect her more.

I wonder if children also threaten to call the authorities if they are under the age of 14 and left alone?

Somehow I doubt it.

50% of respondents said that despite the law they would smack their child to correct their behaviour if reasonable to do so.

A law that is so widely disregarded is not good law.

But we seem to have plenty of them.

Fact or fib?

Working through more of MSD's published OIA responses, one topic caught my eye. This'll be interesting I thought. It was. It's one of mine!

It concerns a state-sponsored 'fact' which isn't.

Here's screenshot from a current on-line 'fact sheet' published under the auspices of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, furnished by information provided by MSD:

If the claim had been,"Over 50% of  children growing up in households receiving a main benefit are Maori," I wouldn't have blinked. But as it stands I am deeply suspicious.

MSD has now published my OIA request for verification of source and their response:

Contained therein:

So where did it come from?

6 months on, no action has been taken to remove this unverified 'fact'.

What the hell. Under this government it will probably become true at some point.

Motel charges premium for emergency housing

At long last MSD has updated OIA requests. Responses up to November 2019 are on-line and always make for interesting reading. For instance payments made to the Olive Tree Motel for emergency housing.

Clients are granted an amount which is paid directly to the motel.

In the June 2019 quarter the motel was receiving $265 per night.

But nightly charges per unit range from $145 to $165 according to their website. Charges reduce for longer stays.

Another request reveals that over 600 accommodation providers  received emergency grants in the June 2019 quarter. How many share a similar premium policy? It's certainly a booming 'industry' with a 49 percent increase in average grant between Sep 17 quarter and June 19 quarter:

I leave the comments to readers.

My prediction Ardern would increase child poverty

New Year seems to be a time when predictions are checked. In September 2017 I predicted Jacinda Ardern would increase child poverty if she became Prime Minister.

On 7 of 9 measures introduced under the Child Poverty Reduction Act, to June 2018 poverty had increased. That's fairly out-dated data now and not a particularly useful measuring stick.

But also now known is that children in benefit dependent households rose between June 2018 and 2019. From Otago University's Child Poverty Monitor:

It's not a big rise but it's the first in 10 years.

I argued, and still do, that despite studying the child poverty problem as Labour spokesperson for six years, Ardern didn't understand the drivers.

Essentially the more a country chooses to decrease poverty through redistribution, the more joblessness grows.  It is well documented now that despite having low unemployment, numbers on the jobseeker benefit - and more recently the sole parent benefit - have increased. The kind of people who choose not to work when they could, aren't necessarily stupid. But they are quite probably not good money-managers.  For instance, they don't prioritise their children's needs. There is usually wisdom behind old adages. In this case, 'Easy come, easy go.'

I don't know if the Left will ever figure out that state-enforced redistribution to the poor doesn't solve their problems in a meaningful or sustained way. It won't under this leader anyway.

But here's an election year question for you to ponder. If Ardern claims this year that her Families Package has reduced child poverty (BUT more children are in non-working homes) is that a success?

Stuff and Inequality - only half the story

2020 just hours old and that hoary old chestnut is already rolled out. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer!

From Stuff where only half of the story is ever provided:

Rasbrooke said the data that was available suggested wealth inequality had worsened in the past decade or two..."There are very few demands on wealthy people in New Zealand, no meaningful taxes on their wealth."

From New Zealand's official source on household incomes (my emphasis):

• New Zealand does not have a robust time series on wealth inequality, so we do not know if there are any changes in this aspect of household resources.

 Household income inequality in New Zealand is a little above average for OECD countries and wealth inequality is about average

• New Zealand’s wealth inequality is about average for the OECD, with the top 10% of households holding around 50% of all household wealth.

• As for other OECD countries, household wealth inequality in New Zealand is greater than income inequality. New Zealand ranks in the middle of the table, with around 50% of wealth held by the top 10%, similar to Canada, Norway and France. For the USA, 76% is held by the top 10%.

• The Gini measure of inequality is a popular one but, because it uses information on all household incomes, it is susceptible to showing large fluctuations because of sampling issues for very high income households. The report therefore highlights the Gini trend for the lower 99%. There is no evidence of any sustained rising or falling trend in the last 25 years for the lower 99%, using the Gini. 

• There is no evidence of any sustained rising or falling trend for BHC [before housing costs] income inequality, with New Zealand levels a little above the OECD average and similar to Australia. The share of total income received by the top 1% has been steady in the 8-9% range since 1990, similar to Finland and Norway, a little lower than Australia, and much lower than the UK (14% in 2015) and the US (20% in 2015).

Bush fire headlines

The idea that 'We live in apocalyptic times' might be misguided.

Questioning the idea might equally be challenged.

To satisfy my own curiosity I searched 'bush fires' in Papers Past.

1915

Read more

1936

Read more

1946

Read more

Just 'cause it's in the paper doesn't make it true

Not on-line but here is a quote from a Stuff journalist expressing opinion in today's Dominion Post:

My BS detector always goes off when I read claims about big economic differences between New Zealand and other first world English-speaking countries.

Here apples are not being compared with apples. Coughlan has compared NZ 'core' spending with UK 'total'.

The two following graphs show similar trajectories (as you would expect). In 2019 NZ spending 37.1% of GDP and the UK 39.4%

Total Crown Expenses

Public Spending as a percentage of GDP in the UK

"...continued creep of managerialism"

Opinion by Mark Blackham published in today's Dominion Post:

The response to the White Island tragedy is a stark insight into the continued creep of managerialism. It undermines the ability of state services to help citizens, but empowers it to infantilise us.
We're discouraged from acting on our own, and forced to bow to experts. Yet systems and fancy talk prevent experts taking substantive action for fear of career, safety, or arbitrary consequences for taking the "wrong" action. In these environments, there are no career prospects for heroes.    

Advocates for a 'child pension' fail to mention WFF

Here's a supposed intelligent man being intentionally provocative on the subject of providing a "pension" for children:

"If I had my way you'd take it away from the decrepit old folk and give it to the young ones. Make super means-tested and a benefit for children unconditional. Older people don't need it, they have money."

Here's the thing. Not once in the entire article is Working For Families mentioned.

The author writes:

It would not be the first time such an initiative has been offered: New Zealand had a family benefit until April, 1991.

When it was scrapped it was worth $6 per week. 

$6 in wages in 1991 would be worth $13.55 today.

Even in 1946 when the universal family benefit was introduced at the rate of 1 pound a week that equated to only $76.87 today calculated under general CPI.

Here are the family tax credit rates from 2018. The IRD no longer publishes them (or I cannot find them).

I have included the Best Start payment which applies until 3 years-old for lower income families.

Clearly children are getting more cash assistance today than they were in 1991.

If you were a visitor from another country reading this claptrap though you'd think NZ gave no financial support to children at all. 

How the Church warnings about welfare came to pass

I don't know why MSD continues to surprise me. But they do. TVNZ had a piece about how beneficiaries are being provided with My Food Bag deliveries so I did a search of their site to find out more. No joy but this turned up under how MSD helps people live successful lives. Such utter tosh that I hardly know where to begin.

Perhaps I'll begin by remembering the warnings about welfare I posted a couple of days back, that the Methodist church foresaw the moral and spiritual disintegration benefits had the potential to create.

Sorry I cannot paraphrase what I just consumed. You'll have to read the whole thing:

Lea is a Samoan woman in her late 50s who lives alone, has never married, and has no children. She has lived in New Zealand off and on for about 30 years.

She has been employed most of her life but she lost her cleaning job after a miscommunication with her employer, and is now out of work. She is having difficulties in finding employment and she believes her age is the barrier for her getting a job. She is on a benefit and lives in a Housing New Zealand flat.

She met a man who has ‘befriended’ her and moved into her flat. He refuses to pay rent, won’t contribute to paying the power bill, and he eats her food. Lea says he uses all his benefit for gambling, alcohol and cigarettes. He often comes home drunk late at night. Lea is torn because she is active in her church and culturally, she knows it’s the right thing to do to help people. She has asked him to leave and he refuses. Lea doesn’t know what to do and she is worried that if it weren’t for her, he would be living on the streets. But having him there means she is sliding into debt and she has approached Work and Income for help. She is afraid to tell them what is really happening – she assumes they won’t understand.

Being Samoan means that questioning authority is a challenge for Lea. She is vulnerable to being taken advantage of and as English is her second language, she does not feel confident enough to stick up for herself.

In her words
"I got someone to help me, my friend… he never helped me, he just move in my place to live… he was working but he never pay anything to me. I think he’s using people."

"I didn’t want that thing, they [a jewellery store] force me to, they put it in the box, 'this is for you, you can take it home now’ but I don’t want because I can't afford. I said to her no I can't afford and she put it in my bag, she forced me to take home…"

"I always put $20 out from my benefit to put in the church every Sunday… even if I got no money I still put $20."

"My rent is $160, my benefit is $210. I always go and find a job but I think the hard thing for me to find a job because my age."

Her strengths
Lea has a generous spirit and supports those around her
She is resilient in the face of difficult situations and circumstances
She is self-sufficient
She is motivated to find employment even when she experiences constant set-backs.
How can we support Lea to thrive
Find an empathetic supporter who can understand her circumstances, preferably one who can communicate with her in her native tongue, empower her to have better boundaries and help her navigate around the NZ system.
Introduce her to other forms of resources e.g. use of Pacific Island radio station to access information in a language that is easy for her to grasp.
Support her in learning a non-judgemental approach to saying 'no'.
Acknowledge her need for boundaries and her desire to help others.
Focus on ways of protecting her from harm.
Locate a supportive job broker.
Link her to other Pacific entities to provide her with additional support.
Provide Lea with a Building Financial Capability programme that is grounded in her cultural context, e.g. MoneyMates programme run by her church community, using familiar Samoan concepts.

That's it.

The first thing I notice is the man - the predator - is working and on a benefit. Apparently Lea must be helped to say 'no' in a 'non-judgemental' way. What about Work and Income saying 'no' to this guy? He's a fraudster and a sot. Not satisfied with leeching on the taxpayer he's leeching on this hapless woman. But then the benefit system makes women hapless because they become isolated and lacking in self-esteem. Targets for scumbags.

Lea is neither resilient nor self-sufficient. But the MSD looking-glass view of the world portrays her as exactly that. Her church happily takes $20 off her every week yet she still apparently needs to be linked 'to other Pacific entities' for support.

MSD says they can help her 'locate a supportive job broker'. Hello???? She's on a benefit. Why doesn't she already have one? Oh I remember Work and Income have drastically reduced efforts to get people into jobs putting all of their resources into dishing out more money.

And yes I've bought into it but the whole tone of the 'story': man bad - woman good. Man criminal - woman victim. MSD is mostly staffed by women and I suspect that particularly ideology prevails.

I find this cameo and MSD's response to it immature, indulgent and childish.

Generations down the track, welfare has made too many people weak, helpless, stupid, and deceitful. Somehow MSD turns that into a good news story because - wait for it - they can wave a wand over Lea's life and she will live happily ever after. It is inconceivable that they are in fact the problem.

Sorry Lea. You are your own worst enemy and to be told otherwise isn't going to help.

Graph of the Day

Source

Update: Sharp-eyed reader points out that the part labelled "profit" isn't all profit either. It's the 'importer margin' - The importer margin is the gross margin available to fuel retailers to cover domestic transportation, distribution and retailing costs in New Zealand, as well as profit margins.

I could be wrong but I heard the CE of Z being interviewed and I think he said the profit was 7% or thereabouts. Not an area I'm very au fait with the point remains. If anyone is fleecing us its the government.

Warnings about welfare: Blast from the past

Some quiet time to enjoy surfing through old newspapers, the following snippets caught my fancy. The first is a letter to the editor regarding Michael Savage's promised social security:

Source

The second is a warning from the President of the Methodist Church regarding the same:

Source

And finally a response to Mr Copeland:

Source

How prescient was that remark?

Kidscan: Are you sponsoring a child or a horse race?

I make no secret of my interest in horse-racing and that I have a very small share in a pacer. Yesterday I noticed this from the Pukekohe meeting:

If I was a sponsor to this organisation I'd probably be miffed.

I'm not because I disagree with the idea of sponsoring New Zealand children when the government already redistributes so much to their parents. We have a heavily-dependent parent population and Kidscan arguably makes them more reliant by assuming their responsibilities. For nearly three decades I've sponsored African children who are in rather more desperate communities where putting in irrigation, sanitation and schools is my idea of constructive charity.

Kidscan has been criticised in the past. I understand the arguments for charities getting involved in entertainment activities to lift profile and they may have had a marquee for supporters to thank them. It was probably a Xmas meeting where corporates traditionally lay on functions for clients, businesses host parties for staff etc. There may have even been an arrangement whereby some of the the day's prize money was donated back to the charity.

But if you are giving a dollar a day to support a New Zealand child through this charity are you happy to see it diverted in this way? Did you sponsor a child only to find you were sponsoring a horse-race?

Prisoners voting - letter to Leighton

Like the two commentors on my last post Leighton Smith is opposed to the reversal of National's blanket vote on prisoners voting. I sent him the following:

Hi Leighton

Prison serves three purposes: to protect the public, to punish the offender, and finally, to rehabilitate the offender.

Victims matter. We don't want more of them. Hence rehabilitation is vitally important. Those serving three or fewer years are amongst the most salvageable of prisoners and we expect them to leave prison, find jobs and contribute to society in the near future. It is therefore consistent and useful to reinforce that expectation by according them a say in that society.

And it will matter to some inmates. Prison is a very boring place where pecking orders are established and privileges sought. Those who get to vote will feel different from, perhaps a tad better than those who, by their worse crimes, have relinquished the opportunity. That too will enhance their potential for rehabilitation.

So based on successful reintegration into society being the most important function of prison for those serving three or fewer years, I am happy with the reversal of National's relatively short ban on all prisoners voting.

Best Wishes

Lindsay

He subsequently invited me onto his next podcast to argue my position. Which I did. Possibly not very well but I won't relinquish it. Will put up a link when the podcast goes public.

December 4 Podcast here

Ex-communicating National

National removed all prisoner voting rights on the back of one-term MP Paul Quinn's private member's bill in 2010. Andrew Little now says he will restore voting rights to those serving three years or less. Why? I haven't asked him but if a person is expected to contribute to society they should have a vote. If a prisoner will be released within the term of the next government they should have a say in how the country is run. They will be expected to work and pay taxes after all. But Bridges comes out crowing 'soft on crime.' National will rescind the change! A nonsensical call to the unrelentingly punitive element if ever I heard one. 

Then National's overwhelming opposition to the voluntary euthanasia bill revealed more about the party than I wanted to know. 

I've paid close attention to them for two decades and felt the odd flicker of excitement - when John Key called Working For Families 'communism by stealth', or Bill English said prisons were an 'economic and moral failure'. But the weak flame has now sputtered out.

It'll never be enough Carmel

Earlier this week the Child Poverty Action Group conference was giving stick to the Minister of MSD for not doing enough to ease poverty. She appeared, didn't take questions and has retaliated with a press release showing that:

1 million New Zealanders warmed by the Winter Energy Payment
36,000 families bank the Best Start Payment in first year
6,000 more families received the Family Tax Credit, 220,600 in total
They receive an increase too – from an average of $117 to $157 a week for Inland Revenue clients, and from an average of $147 to $188 a week for MSD clients
People receiving the Accommodation Supplement got an average increase from  $71 to $98 a week
13,500 carers receiving the new Clothing Allowance
We are on track to lift 50,000 to 74,000 children out of poverty

Ah but the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommended increases to core benefit levels of up to 47%. When is that going to happen?

It must be a thankless task being a left-wing Minister and continuing to be criticised even when you do as you were asked.

I have an idea for Carmel. A little experiment.

Agree to give a beneficiary a meaningful % increase (up to 47%) if they opt to be paid in-kind, ie their benefit is loaded onto electronic card that can only be used for specified items. Otherwise the status quo remains.

It would be most interesting to observe the uptake.

But it'd fascinating to see the reaction of CPAG who would be severely conflicted over the civil liberties of beneficiaries to spend their money as they see fit versus the offer of a significant increase in income.

Is having to feed kids breakfast at school cause for celebration?

MSD thinks so:

The KickStart Breakfast programme will tomorrow celebrate 10-years as the only national breakfast programme of its kind in Aotearoa, serving more than 30 million breakfasts since 2009.

73% of Northland schools participate down to 26% in Canterbury.

Now this government 's goal is to replicate the dependency on lunches as well.

Truly aspirational.

If only Huntaways could vote

Switch on the computer this morning and  kick off with the really important stuff - an article  and short movie about my favourite dog - the Huntaway (mine waits impatiently as I write to get out and into it, despite the foul weather). Designed to run up to 20km a day, they relish their work, their freedom to work and purpose.

Feeling cheery I move on to an opinion piece by David Seymour at Magic Talk.

While encouraged to see him published for wider consumption, as I read it I am reminded about how bad this government - and National - really are. As well as last week's Zero Carbon abomination,

In ‘Red October’ last year, it was left to ACT to vote against the entire Parliament on three issues. Market studies legislation gives massive powers to bureaucrats at the Commerce Commission to demand sensitive commercial information from entire industries even if no allegation of uncompetitive behaviour has been made. The Prime Minister’s child poverty legislation focuses on inequality (and therefore ‘fixing’ it with income redistribution) rather than child poverty and neglect. ‘Equal pay’ legislation gives courts the power to decide how much workers in entire industries get paid.
Aside from a few brave academics and activists, we’ve been the only voice against new restrictions on what New Zealanders are legally allowed to say. Freedom of expression is important because it respects the fact that every one of us has a unique view of the world and because it allows us to make progress on difficult social issues.
Only ACT said ‘no’ to the first tranche of firearms legislation because it treated firearms owners with contempt and because rushed law is bad law. We are now seeing the consequences – just 32,000 of perhaps 240,000 firearms have been handed in to Police.

Matthew Hooton made mention of UMR polling last week finding ACT pushing 3 percent.It is probably premature to get excited about doubling (or more) their 2017 vote.

But as Seymour says, "...we believe in a free society..." They appear to be the only party in parliament that truly does right now. And they need support.

If only Huntaways could vote.