See http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1805/S00451/a-response-to-jim-rose-on-maori-prison-population.htm for the remainder. I must write a reply.
Extra prisoners are nearly all gang members - that's hardly a crisis stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/…—
Jim Rose (@JimRose69872629) June 11, 2018
Jim Rose (@JimRose69872629) June 11, 2018
NZ is no longer standing by watching runaway climate change. We're right in there, building solutions to get to net… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
Green Party NZ (@NZGreens) June 07, 2018
Source: released under the Official Information Act by the Department of Corrections, 18 May 2018.
“Thanks for your email.
It is unfortunate that you dressed up email exchanges and office conversations as something more than they were. You were attempting to glean credibility from watercooler conversations.
The Gluckman report refers to a briefing which implies that it is a document, but as you now advise, it refers to iterative communication between analysts. I have already asked for those emails.
If this briefing by the justice sector were conversations, you must say that the information I asked for is not available because it is impractical to recall those conversations. It would have helped if you said in the report that you are referencing conversations at work as a credible backup for a controversial policy claim.
I chat to people all the time but do not reference those conversations in anything I have ever written. If I plan to reference a conversation, I write a note for file.
People reference presentations and public lectures, but they reference them precisely as that giving the date and location and a URL whenever possible.
You must say that your briefing does not exist or cannot be found. That is the requirement when I ask for official information and you cannot find it.
It is basic to good scientific practice if you reference something you must be prepared to show it to someone when they ask for it. It is clear you cannot do that.
This official information request is well past its due date and should have been actioned and finalised a long time ago.
I asked for those emails that were part of the iterative communication between analysts repeatedly and they have not been supplied. Supply them.
If the iterative communication between our analysts were just office conversations around the so-called water cooler, own up and say the information cannot be found because they were office conversations that were not documented. I suggest you check archives and official records laws about keeping proper notes of important information.
You are perfectly aware that anything cited in the footnotes of an official document can be sought under the Act. More so if you are attempting to add credibility to a controversial social policy area.
A key purpose of the Official Information Act is to catch bureaucrats with their pants down. Saying things they cannot back up at all or exaggerating the credibility of what they are saying.”
Source: Benjamin Bridgman & Ryan Greenaway-McGrevy (2016) The fall (and rise) of labour share in New Zealand, New Zealand Economic Papers, DOI: 10.1080/00779954.2016.1219763
To quote their abstract
The share of national income going to labour in New Zealand fell substantially between the 1970s and the end of the century. Approximately half of this decline was then recovered in the following decade. In this paper, we argue that the decline from the mid-1980s onwards is due to public sector reforms. Corporatisation re-orientated the public trading enterprises away from a broad range of social and trading objectives towards generating profits, while increased fiscal discipline in non-market government departments reduced payroll costs. Consistent with this hypothesis, we show that most of the decline in aggregate labour share from the mid-1980s onwards can be attributed to a significant fall in the labour share of the public sector. To more formally analyse the effects of the reforms, we build a simple model of structural transition. The model yields several predictions that are consistent with observed trends in sectoral labour share. First, there is a large and permanent decline in public sector labour share after the reforms. Second, there is a smaller, short-run decline in private sector labour share that is reversed over the long run. The model can, therefore, explain not only the decline in aggregate labour share from the mid-1980s onwards; it can also explain the partial recovery in labour share beginning in 2002.
At a Parliamentary select committee this morning, a Labour and a Green MP were convinced that the labour’s falling share of GDP was evidence of rising profits to capital because of a loss of union bargaining power.
Instead, in the USA, where the data is best analysed, this decline in the gross labour share is a statistical illusion bought on by a greater part of GDP going to depreciation of ICT equipment which depreciates faster than in the past. The decline in the gross labour share does not mean the capitalists are sharing more of the total left. As Benjamin Bridgman said
US labor share has been falling since the 1970s. I show that it has not fallen as much once items that do not add to capital, depreciation and production taxes, are netted out. Recent net labor share is within its historical range, whereas gross share is at its lowest level. This effect holds for other high-income economies. The overall picture is no longer one of unprecedented, globally declining labor share. Using gross share as a proxy for net share can give misleading results. US gross share and inequality are correlated, whereas net share, the correct measure, is not.