Golden Bay affluent?
Regular Bay income $173 lower than national median. Photo: Maria Polglase
Steve Wilkinson of Takaka regards himself as a fairly typical Golden Bay resident, juggling family commitments with work and earning a living. Last August he tried to go back into the work force full time as a plasterer, advertising for work that earns enough money to see him and his two boys through.
When he heard on the news that the “average” wage in this country is now up around $900 per week, he felt puzzled.
“There must be a lot of people earning more than me to jack those figures up so high. All the time we hear how much better off we are supposed to be, even here in Golden Bay, but I can’t see the reality of any claims like that. I just see a lot of people struggling out there.”
It’s little wonder Golden Bay folk like Steve get a little confused, and dubious, as to exactly how “affluent” we are supposed to be. Statistics drawn from a variety of sources and used as a basis for various funding and social purposes—like support for schools or the medical centre—seem inconsistent, often contradictory. Some say we’re economically disadvantaged, others that we’re too wealthy to qualify for better funding.
According to the most recent Quarterly Employment Survey conducted by Statistics New Zealand (April-June 2010 quarter), the average income in New Zealand is now a whopping $959.13, calculated on wage and salaries plus all overtime and benefits added on. Yet it’s well known that three-quarters of New Zealanders earn far less than this.
A more realistic local perspective comes from looking at the median or mid-range statistics, because they don’t take into account extremes, such as massive corporate salaries. Census figures based on all residents aged 15 years and over indicate that the median income in Golden Bay (admittedly back in 2006 when a census was last conducted) was little more than $19,000 gross per annum, as compared to $21,000 overall in Tasman and $24,000 nationally.
Around $6m is pumped into the Golden Bay economy annually as welfare benefits, including superannuation. Golden Bay’s resident population is currently around 5,180, of which 2,950 are engaged in some sort of employment: 2290 as employees, and 660 self-employed.
These income figures for the Bay realistically break down to an median income of $365 per week. This is significantly lower, even adjusted for five years of inflation, than the latest NZ Income Survey quarterly figures that put the current national median at exactly $538 per week.
The mix of these up-to-date and older census figures is confusing, but determines how billions of dollars of government funding are spent around communities nationwide—decisions about key services such as hospitals, schools, roads, public transport and recreational facilities. These figures are used by councils, community groups and businesses to plan for the future.
In terms of “low cost access” medical funding, Government policy today takes into account not only areas of low income, but of Polynesian and Maori population density, which in Golden Bay is low. In fact, Tasman has the highest proportion of ethnic Europeans in the whole of New Zealand: 96.2 per cent. For that reason, we fail to qualify for a range of funding.
If you thought income statistics were confusing, the decile system, which rates all school communities from one to 10 (1 being “poor” and 10 “rich”) and determines how a portion of their public funding is allocated, is little short of baffling for most. Rather than shining any light on the socioeconomic status of students, it supposedly indicates to what extent a school “draws” its students from low socio-economic communities. As explained on the Ministry of Education website, student addresses are supplied by the school to the Ministry of Education, which then assign “meshblocks”, each containing 50 households, based on census information for those with school-aged children. The number and percentage of students from each meshblock is then examined against five socio-economic factors. It is not the general area around the school that is used to calculate the final decile, but the specific meshblocks where students live. After the last census in 2006, all of Golden Bay’s schools were reallocated a decile 6 rating.
Principals around the country have challenged the school decile rating system ever since it was introduced in 1995. Generally, they claim that country and provincial schools tend to be more disadvantaged because, being more “poor and rich integrated”, they qualify for less Government funding and are forced to rely more on parent donations to make up the shortfall. This contradicts Education Review Office directions, which actually slap schools on the hand for charging parents donations.
GBHS Principal Roger File says if the rating was based purely on local incomes, GBHS would rate around decile 3.
“But the qualifications of parents within the community alone rate it somewhere in the decile 8 range. Theoretically a highly qualified community can be expected to earn more money, but it just doesn’t happen here because our community is so small and doesn’t have those sorts of jobs available. In effect, our school is losing out on around $40,000 to $50,000 funding a year because of that anomaly, and this has to be made up from other sources within our community.”
The next census, to be held on Tuesday, 8 March, 2011, will certainly provide an update for Golden Bay residents about everything from resident population to income, and exactly how many of us have access to broadband, now a seen as one of the key “affluence” factors. But don’t expect much to change, unless the funding criteria used by government agencies change first.
Gerard Hindmarsh
