Dear Stats NZ,

I am writing to request information under the Official Information Act 1982 regarding mortality statistics, social harm indicators, and their relationship to economic conditions. This request focuses on data that Stats NZ collects or could analyze through its existing data infrastructure.

1. SUICIDE AND MORTALITY DATA

1.1 Annual Suicide Statistics:

Please provide for the period 2015-2024 (or most recent available):

Annual suicide deaths by:
Age cohort (15-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65+)
Gender
Ethnicity
Employment status at time of death
Benefit recipient status at time of death
Geographic location (territorial authority level)

1.2 Monthly/Quarterly Data:

Whether Stats NZ collects suicide data at monthly or quarterly intervals (not published annually)
If yes, please provide this granular data for 2015-2024
If no, please explain why annual reporting is considered sufficient given the fiscal and policy importance of this data

1.3 Data Collection Methodology:

Documentation of how Stats NZ receives and processes mortality data from coronial services
Average time lag between death occurrence and statistical recording
Any quality assurance processes for suicide classification

2. SOCIOECONOMIC DISAGGREGATION OF MORTALITY DATA

2.1 Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) Linkages:

Stats NZ's IDI links multiple administrative datasets. Please confirm:

Whether suicide mortality data is linked to:
Inland Revenue earnings data
MSD benefit receipt history
Health service utilization records
Housing status (rental vs. ownership)
Education records
Justice system involvement

2.2 Deprivation and Income Analysis:

Please provide any Stats NZ analysis showing:

Suicide rates by NZDep (New Zealand Deprivation Index) quintile
Suicide rates by household income decile
Suicide rates by benefit dependency duration
Suicide rates comparing beneficiaries vs. employed population

2.3 High-Risk Cohort Identification:

Using the IDI, please provide:

Any analysis identifying population cohorts with disproportionately high rates of suicide
Analysis of individuals with multiple risk factors (e.g., long-term benefit receipt + mental health service use + justice involvement)
Whether Stats NZ has quantified what proportion of suicides come from these high-risk cohorts

3. ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND SOCIAL HARM CORRELATIONS

This section requests analysis of whether Stats NZ has examined relationships between economic conditions and social outcomes:

3.1 Interest Rate and Monetary Policy Correlations:

Please provide any Stats NZ analysis examining correlations between:

Official Cash Rate (OCR) changes and subsequent suicide rates
Mortgage interest rate changes and mental health hospitalizations
Periods of monetary tightening and domestic violence reports
Economic recession periods and suicide rate changes

3.2 Unemployment and Benefit Changes:

Please provide any Stats NZ analysis of:

Suicide rates among newly unemployed individuals (within 12 months of job loss)
Suicide rates among individuals whose benefits were sanctioned or reduced
Changes in suicide rates following major welfare policy changes (e.g., 1991 benefit cuts, 2013 welfare reforms)

3.3 Cost of Living and Social Harm:

Please provide any Stats NZ analysis examining:

Correlations between food price inflation and family violence
Correlations between rental cost increases and mental health service demand
Correlations between fuel price increases and financial hardship indicators

3.4 Time-Series Analysis:

Whether Stats NZ conducts time-series regression analysis to identify leading economic indicators of social harm
If yes, please provide methodology documentation and key findings
If no, please confirm whether this is due to methodological constraints, resource limitations, or policy direction

4. WELLBEING FRAMEWORK AND SOCIAL HARM INDICATORS

4.1 Wellbeing Statistics:

Stats NZ publishes wellbeing indicators. Please provide:

The full list of social harm indicators currently tracked in wellbeing reporting
Whether suicide rates are included as a wellbeing indicator
Whether mental health hospitalization rates are tracked
Whether family violence rates are included

4.2 Wellbeing and Economic Policy:

Please confirm:

Whether Stats NZ's wellbeing framework is designed to assess the social impacts of economic policy decisions
Whether wellbeing indicators are reported to Treasury for inclusion in fiscal planning
Whether Stats NZ has been asked by Treasury to provide wellbeing data for cost-benefit analysis

4.3 Gaps in Current Wellbeing Measurement:

Please identify:

Any social harm indicators that Stats NZ believes should be tracked but currently are not
Any requests from other agencies (Treasury, MSD, Health NZ) for data that Stats NZ cannot currently provide
Any barriers to more comprehensive social harm monitoring

5. DATA SHARING WITH TREASURY

5.1 Current Data Provision:

Please provide documentation of:

What mortality and social harm data Stats NZ routinely provides to Treasury
Whether Treasury has access to Stats NZ's IDI for analyzing fiscal impacts of social harm
Any memoranda of understanding or data-sharing agreements between Stats NZ and Treasury regarding social harm statistics

5.2 Treasury Requests for Analysis:

Please provide (titles and dates only):

Any requests from Treasury in the last 5 years for:
Suicide data disaggregated by socioeconomic status
Analysis of social harm correlations with economic indicators
High-cost cohort identification
Intergenerational welfare dependency projections

5.3 Unused Data Holdings:

Please confirm:

Whether Stats NZ holds data that could inform Treasury's fiscal modeling but has not been requested
Whether Stats NZ has data showing economic policy impacts on social harm that is not currently published

6. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS AND BEST PRACTICE

6.1 Comparable Countries:

Please provide any Stats NZ analysis comparing New Zealand's approach to social harm statistics with:

Australia's monitoring of welfare and suicide correlations
UK's tracking of "deaths of despair" and economic conditions
Nordic countries' integrated social and economic data systems

6.2 OECD Standards:

Please confirm:

Whether Stats NZ follows OECD guidelines for measuring social harm
Whether OECD standards recommend tracking correlations between economic policy and social outcomes
Any gaps between OECD recommendations and NZ current practice

7. LONGITUDINAL STUDIES AND CAUSAL PATHWAYS

7.1 IDI Longitudinal Analysis:

Using the IDI's longitudinal capabilities, please provide any Stats NZ research on:

Life trajectories of individuals from benefit receipt → suicide
Economic shocks (job loss, benefit reduction) → mental health service use → suicide
Intergenerational patterns: children in poverty → adult welfare dependency → premature mortality

7.2 Natural Experiments:

Please provide any Stats NZ analysis of "natural experiments" such as:

Impact of the 1991 benefit cuts on subsequent suicide rates
Impact of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis on NZ suicide trends
Impact of COVID-19 economic support (wage subsidy) on mental health outcomes compared to periods without support

8. PUBLICATION AND TRANSPARENCY

8.1 Unpublished Analysis:

Please confirm:

Whether Stats NZ has conducted analysis on any of the above topics that has not been publicly released
If yes, please provide the reasons for non-publication (e.g., commercial sensitivity, policy sensitivity, methodological concerns)

8.2 Data Access for Researchers:

Please provide:

Current processes for researchers to access IDI data for analyzing social harm and economic policy correlations
Any barriers that prevent independent researchers from conducting this analysis
Whether Stats NZ would support making this data more accessible for public interest research

9. METHODOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES

9.1 Current Analytical Capacity:

Please confirm:

Whether Stats NZ has the technical capability to conduct time-series analysis of economic indicators and social harm
Whether Stats NZ has econometric expertise to model causal relationships
Whether resource constraints limit Stats NZ's ability to conduct this analysis

9.2 IDI Potential:

Please provide Stats NZ's assessment of:

Whether the IDI contains sufficient data to track fiscal policy → social harm pathways
What additional data linkages would be needed to comprehensively model these relationships
Whether there are privacy or ethical constraints on this type of analysis

10. CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS

10.1 Does Stats NZ consider it within its mandate to analyze relationships between economic policy settings and social harm outcomes?

10.2 Has Stats NZ ever been directed NOT to publish or analyze correlations between economic conditions and suicide rates?

10.3 If Stats NZ has data showing strong correlations between economic hardship and suicide/social harm, does Stats NZ proactively share this with policy agencies or wait to be asked?
RATIONALE FOR THIS REQUEST:

This request addresses fundamental questions about whether New Zealand's official statistics are being used to inform evidence-based policy.

Stats NZ holds comprehensive, linked administrative data through the IDI that could definitively answer whether:

Economic policy decisions increase social harm
Fiscal consolidation creates costs that exceed savings
Specific population cohorts bear disproportionate harm from economic policies

If this data exists but is not being analyzed or shared with Treasury, it means fiscal policy is being made without evidence of its social impacts.

If this data exists and shows harmful correlations but is not published, it raises questions about statistical transparency.

If this analysis is technically possible but not being conducted, it suggests a systemic gap in evidence-based policymaking.

The public has a right to know:

What data the government collects on social harm
Whether this data is analyzed for policy-relevant correlations
Whether policy agencies use this data when making decisions
Why this data might not be publicly available despite its obvious public interest

This request is made in the context of Treasury's recent OIA response (Reference: 20250861) claiming no documents exist regarding economic efficiency analysis of welfare expenditure related to suicide and social harm. If Stats NZ collects the underlying data but Treasury doesn't use it, this represents a critical evidence gap in fiscal policymaking.

I am happy to discuss this request if clarification would be helpful, particularly regarding appropriate privacy protections for disaggregated data.

Yours faithfully,
Hayden

Reply to Stats NZ OIA Response

To:Fau Logo, Senior Manager Executive and Government Relations, Stats NZ
Subject:RE: Official Information Act Request Follow-up Questions

Thank you for your response of 31 January 2026.

I appreciate the thoroughness of the refusals and the helpful suggestion that I, a random member of the public, should apply for IDI access, acquire "a high level of technical and coding skills," and conduct my own bespoke research to answer a fairly basic question: does economic policy correlate with people dying?

I confess I had naively assumed that Stats NZ - being the "national statistical office" with, presumably, a building full of statisticians on the public payroll - might have looked into this at some point. My mistake.

I was particularly interested in your statement that "assessing policy impacts on suicide or social harm is outside Stats NZ's mandate."

This raises a genuine question I'd like answered:

If Stats NZ doesn't assess whether policies impact suicide or social harm, who does?

When Cabinet is considering a policy that might affect employment, benefit access, housing affordability, or monetary conditions - who provides them with analysis of whether similar policies have historically correlated with people dying? Do Ministers do their own stats? Does Treasury have a secret squad of mortality analysts I should be OIA-ing instead? Is there a spreadsheet somewhere, or do we just... not check?

I understand that correlation isn't causation and this stuff is methodologically complex. But you hold the data. You employ the people with the skills. You have the mandate to "inform decision-making" and "enable more effective policy development."

So when you say assessing policy impacts on social harm is "outside your mandate" - I'm asking, in all sincerity: whose mandate is it inside?

Because if the answer is "no one's," that seems like something the public might want to know.

I would appreciate a response identifying which agency, if any, is responsible for analysing correlations between economic policy decisions and mortality/suicide outcomes in New Zealand. If no such agency exists, please confirm that in writing.

Ngā mihi,

Hayden