Held at Wellington, 6TH November 1998.
Prepared by
E.H. de Vries
For NZ Association for Impact Assessment Inc., December 1998
CONTENTS
Panel Discussion - Social Indicators in Assessment and Policy Development
SOCIAL INDICATORS AND SOCIAL CHANGE - THE BIG PICTURE
Dr. Judith A. Davey,
Department of Sociology and Social Policy,
Victoria University of Wellington, Box 600, Wellington
Paper Outline
What are social indicators?
Single Indicator - Index
External/Objective - Internal/Subjective/Perceptual
Indicators must be:
- Age
- Gender
- Ethnicity
- Region
Caveats
Using social indicators to extrapolate trends into the future
The focus of social impact assessment is the measurement and enhancement of social well being.
The improvement of well being is also a central objective of social policy.
In "The Welfare State? Social Policy in the 1980s", the Planning Council noted that the development of social indicators which measure social well being is an important element in the design of social policies (New Zealand Planning Council 1979, p 25).
What are social indicators?
Social indicators act as surrogates for states and characteristics which may not be directly measurable, just as body temperature may be used to indicate state of health.
Variable whose significance depends on it being a correlate of other phenomena. Causally connected to events - cf medicine - symptoms
Krippendorff, Klaus (1980)
Social Indicators operationalise abstract concepts, such as health and well being.
These measures may be expressed as a SINGLE INDICATOR, such as the percentage of the labour force unemployed, or several measures may be combined into an INDEX. The CPI or Consumer Price Index is an example, putting together prices for a range of everyday goods.
The indicators may be EXTERNAL - OBJECTIVE &emdash; (Hard?) part of the environment, such as level of income, access to car, employment status, and family type.
Objective indicators are more easily available through official surveys such as the Census, Household Labour Force Survey, and data from the health and education systems.
Or they may be INTERNAL - SUBJECTIVE, PERCEPTUAL (Soft?) - satisfaction with services, with job. These require special surveys.
Indicators must be:
Which and why? The basis may be sociological theory, for example explanations for inequality, or it may lie in policy objectives, which seek to promote social equity.
In any case it is important to be aware of differential policy impacts and to demonstrate social diversity which may call for differential policy responses.
So frequently we disaggregate by:
Regional differences can be important even in a small country like NZ, and especially for impact assessment work at the community level.
CAVEATS
Care must, however, be taken in the use of indicators.
For social indicators to be useful in policy formation and evaluation, they should be based on a political consensus
This will allow actual conditions to be compared to these established normative criteria, but is not often done explicitly, and there may be disagreement about desirable trends and directions.
One example is the situation of mothers of young children, especially those in one-parent families. Should they be encouraged to be full-time caregivers or to enter the paid workforce?
Another neglected aspect of social indicators work is the development of a "measurement rationale" justifying why statistics should be regarded as measures of the social variables under consideration (Carley 1986, p.154).
A SHORT HISTORY OF SOCIAL INDICATORS
In the 1950s the United Nations set up an expert commission measuring indicators of living standards.
The OECD began its work on social indicators in 1970.
Considerable interest was expressed in New Zealand during this period &emdash; by the former Social Development Council (SDC), the National Research Advisory Council, the National Commission for UNESCO and the Department of Statistics.
In 1980-81 the Department of Statistics carried out a Social Indicators Survey, which paralleled equivalent surveys in OECD countries. The full report of the survey’s findings was published in 1984, but it never became a part of regular official data collections.
Noll identifies the 1970s as the "boom period’ of social indicators research, which was followed by a period of stagnation and decreased interest.
The OECD programme was cancelled in the mid-1980s and social reporting in that organisation is now restricted to special areas such as education, science, health and the environment.
This change was ascribed partly to difficulties of a methodological nature, but also to the economic crisis which beset Western industrial societies at the beginning of the 1980s. This was accompanied by a change in political climate. The hegemony of economic rationality and market forces militated against anything, which smacked of "planning".
In the 1990s, however, there has been a revival of interest in social indicators and social reporting. This time the claims made for social indicators are more realistic. They have been applied within the context of social impact assessment, community development and sustainability (rural and urban sustainability).
At the national level, the reappraisal of the Welfare State and cutbacks in many programmes have focussed attention on threats to well being and on poverty. Now the impetus comes not so much from a desire to manage a growth period in social and economic development, but from a concern with the impact of social expenditure reduction in an environment of high unemployment and growing inequality.
There is now no single social indicator movement but a range of interests
all using social statistics in a range of different policy and programme contexts
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
The Public Finance and Public Sector Acts and their use of contracting principles, there is an interest in "social audit" and the development of indicators designed to increase public accountability.
Increasing emphasis on evaluation in the delivery of health, education and social services. This also is related to the contractual basis of delivery, and demands for higher levels of efficiency and accountability.
Examples - Education, schools funded using a SES index
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
VOLUNTARY SECTOR
Community-based social activists are examining the impact of government expenditure reductions on standards of living and social well being. They include the Salvation Army’s work on housing and Foodbank use and the Lower Hutt Family Centre’s research on poverty.
However, there is no agency tasked with bringing together work on social indicators and assessing the social impacts and outcomes of policy in the wider sense.
The "FROM BIRTH TO DEATH " approach
As part of its brief to monitor and report on trends, issues and option for social, economic, cultural and environmental development in NZ, the NZPC set up a Social Monitoring Group (SMG). It used a set of objectives strongly influenced by the Social Development Council’s statement. This was the basis for the selection of data for inclusion in their first report, "From Birth to Death’ (NZPC 1985).
The second SMG report used the same framework, but also sought to highlight and justify the disaggregation of data by age, gender and ethnicity (NZPC 1989 p.1).
In "From Birth to Death III" a model of how social monitoring could be incorporated in policy-making was set out, adopting a matrix of life-cycle stages and key indicators (Davey 1993).
OHP 1 show this matrix, which has been expanded for the analysis in "Tracking Social Change in New Zealand" (Davey 1998). And OHP 2 shows list of indicators
Information is sought to fill each cell in the matrix with disaggregation by gender and ethnicity. "Tracking Social Change" now covers four census dates from 1981 to 1996.
Some examples of using Social Monitoring in Policy Analysis
DIFFERENCES BY ETHNICITY
OHP 3 Usual Household Composition - Children under one year
OHP 4 Usual Household Composition &emdash; Adults aged 75 and over
DIFFERENCES BY GENDER
OHP 5 Age Groups 60 and over, Percentage with Personal Incomes $20,000 and over, by Gender
HOW FACTORS INTERACT IN THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
OHP 6 Death Rates from Injury and Poisoning
PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION
OHP 3 Usual Household Composition - Children under one year.
What is the significance of higher proportions of Maori and Pacific Island children living in multiple family households, compared to Pakeha/Other children?
LINKS TO SOCIAL OBJECTIVES
OHP 7 Children under five &emdash; Work Force Status of their Parents, comparing the situation of children in one and two-parent families.
How do these patterns fit with attitudes towards sole parenthood; mothers in paid work;
the role and responsibility of fathers?
EVALUATING THE OUTCOMES OF POLICY
OHP 8 Percentage of Children in One-parent Family Households, by age,1981-1996.
What is the significance of the plateauing in the proportion of children living in one-parent families/ how does it relate to policies tightening up on the DPB?
OHP 9 Housing Tenure by Ethnicity, 1981-1996 &emdash; Age Group 20-39.
There are differences in home-ownership rates by ethnicity for this age group &emdash; the main family-forming group &emdash; but ownership has fallen between 1991 and 1996 in all ethnic groups. Home ownership has always been a highly valued status in New Zealand. Does this fall relate to changes in housing and income policies and support to families?
Conclusion
Whatever approach we take to measuring the social impact of policy we should not lose sight of the basic questions posed by Haigh and Hucker.
Who benefits?
At whose expense?
Whose interests are being served?
And to be effective social assessment must take place within a socio-political environment, which recognises that the social outcomes of all policies are important.
Even if this exists, there remains the problem of putting a social assessment process into action. To do this we must face challenges posed by the inherent difficulty and complexity of the exercise itself, and also by the political sensitivity which surrounds it.
1: NOTES FOR SOCIAL INDICATORS IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY MAKING: THE CASE FOR MEASURING ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY
Michelle Rush
Senior Environmental Consultant
Agriculture New Zealand
Introduction OH 1
To get human beings to a point where they are using natural resources at a rate that equals the earth’s means to renew itself, then industry must reduce its use (and wastage) of those resources by 90%. Using current, off the shelf technologies we have the ability to reduce this use by 80%. Why is this not happening. Economic and social factors are why.
OH 2 Current work on environmental indicators
MfE work establishing a core set of national environmental performance indicators (EPIs)
Their understanding/definition of an EPI (link to Judith Davey’s discussion of social indicators in keynote paper)
The Pressure-State-Response model - what it is and where it came from.
OH 3 Social Aspects of EPIs
Outline current aspects explored in literature on social aspects of EPIS
OH 4 Social Aspects cont.
OH 5 and OH 6
"For most of human history, the ability to read and interpret the signs of nature has been an art or craft crucial for survival. However, since the agricultural revolution and particularly since the industrial revolution, humans have become progressively more insulated from the immediate need to be able to read and understand nature in order to eat, be clothed, or find shelter. Such skills still reside within some indigenous communities and are being relearned and rediscovered by people seeking alternative forms of land management.
"The personal and direct involvement of people in gathering and interpreting information about the health of the land around them as an everyday activity seems to be inextricably linked with an accompanying ethic of land stewardship and respect for and humility towards nature." Campbell, A. (1995)
Such an understanding comes with direct involvement in gathering an recording information about vital signs such as water quality, the extent and status of indicator species, problems such as soil salinity and erosion and so on.
OH 7 Why Indicators of Environmental Literacy?
Economic, cultural and social factors in their broadest sense are where the blocks to sustainable management are.
The concept of literacy and stewardship are inextricably linked - building environmental literacy in a community cannot but help build a strong ethic of stewardship towards the environment.
Sustainability is a dynamic concept. The solutions are not easy. They will require a "trial and error" approach whereby people have both the skills and confidence to adjust practices and to continue to readjust them over time, making the activity more and more sustainable.
Environmental literacy recognises that we live in the environment, and not on it - it takes us away from a Western concept of man being separate to nature that underpins much of our current behaviour - including current behaviour of many "environmentalists."
OH 8 Indicators of Environmental Literacy
In NZ - we are using some, but on an isolated, ad hoc basis, eg attitudinal and behavioural change studies by some local authorities, rural evaluation of sustainability projects using extension methodologies
Overseas - OECD uses awareness indicators. Work has been done amassing community-generated indicators and this indicates attention to matters such as awareness.
Australia - National Landcare Program developed some national measures for landcare that are relevant.
OH 9 Community Monitoring Examples
International examples include:
(Hart Environmental Data, Maureen Hart, Indicators of Sustainability, 1996.)
OH 10 National Landcare Programme Performance Measures
Provide us with a start toward possible "literacy" indicators.
The Future OH 11
Sum up
2: MAORI DEVELOPMENT -KEY POINTS
Paora Howe (Te Puni Kökiri)
A summary of the indicators from the GAPs report.
3: EDUCATION INDICATORS: PANEL CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIAL INDICATORS AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP
Cathy Wylie, NZCER (cathy.wylie@nzcer.org.nz)
What’s used; what isn’t used; problems with the measures.
The two main kinds of indicators used in education at the national level are:
Access Achievement.
Largely because of the ‘equity’ strand running through the social policy changes, which began under the fourth labour government, it is increasingly common for these indicators to be disaggregated:
- it began with gender,
went into ethnicity,
now socio-eonomic status (mostly at school level)
- beginning to get some data allowing all 3 levels to be looked at simultaneously.
- esp after the last one was used as an indicator of funding needs for schools, and ‘objective’ data collected accordingly (census).
Access is the less problematic of the two.
Participation rates
Retention rates
Suspensions and expulsions
Truancy
Has led to some policy developments, eg truancy initiatives. Participation rates in ece - tinkering round edges rather than support for services (eg PAFT, family service centres) and information is available, but I don’t think used in policy development on issues related to access, such as the increasing dependency on personal and institutionally raised funding for education (% university spending, school spending - from 9 percent to 12 percent of total income of school sector `92-`96; increase in local funds 69% cf govt - 16%).
Access to what?
However, participation is one thing; the quality of what is accessed is another.
Some people use truancy data as an indicator of quality, in the sense of a match between student and school - relevancy; yet it can be an indicator of family commitments as well..
For example, early childhood education is of no use if poor quality..(US study - key variable, level of teacher pay; others, teachers properly qualified).
Achievement
The use of achievement data poses some hard dilemmas, some of which surfaced recently in reactions to the green paper on primary assessment. What are they?
national mandatory assessment; standards
- how do you set relevant ones;
(3Rs; new competency areas.. Q adult literacy..)
- use national samples to get idea of change over time (NEMP, IEA studies, ARBs)
- individual level - feedback on work more likely to lead to improvements than external exams; marks..
- how do you use them constructively, cf league tables, or political targets that make people cynical (US; England - Blairite targets, so many achieving x at age x..)
- english experience, because high grades reported, effort to bring kids over into lowest of those grades. There’s an increase at the lower end - resulting in a ‘longer tail’- so overall disparity increases, and overall standards don’t increase.
-% of those taking it, so further room for playing round..
Important that achievement data is not available for public consumption at individual institutional level. We know from research that availability of this kind works against school improvement, rather than fostering it. Schools need the information, and need to use it to decide what changes to make themselves - what works for school and student achievement improvement is internal processes of analysis, action, reflection -
the ‘virtuous’ processes of self-development unhindered by external accountability, which tends to over-emphasize what can be easily measured.
Accountability requirements may use social indicators, but it uses them in the wrong way, so that in the end accountability is counter-productive.
What’s not here?
- what may seem harder to measure;
- what may be harder to achieve given current policy emphases;
- what may be more likely to make a real difference.
inclusive policy and resources development (National~schools)
trust, respect, (morale)
balanced socio-economic intakes for ece and schools
inequality of housing, employment, health, family resources.
The indicators I would go for in education would be quite different.
To improve overall achievement, what I would be aiming for is that all schools have a balanced socio-economic intake. This is the best and most efficient way to improve learning for all groups (it doesn’t disadvantage the high achievers, or those from high
socio-economic status homes).
I would also be using as an indicator of systemic capability, the degree to which policy is integrated with operations, the inclusion of school professionals in policy development; and the provision of useful infrastructure for schools in terms of classroom curriculum and pedagogical resources, teacher supply (both quality and quantity), and support for schools in their work of school development.
Cathy Wylie
Group Leader, Educational Policies and Institutions, NZ Council for Educational Research, P O Box 3237, Wellington, New Zealand
4: INDICATORS OF WORK AND INCOME
Paul Callister
Indicators of paid work are reasonably well developed by official collectors of statistics. However, even within paid work the collections focus primarily on "standard" work. So in New Zealand we know a reasonable amount about the occupations, industries, incomes and hours of people in paid work. However, we currently know very little about issues such as tenure and turnover, time worked over a day or week, terms of contracts (such as whether it is casual work), and we certainly know little about work carried out in the informal/illegal economy. Issues such as time worked over a day are important for planning in areas such as transport or the provision of childcare. From overseas studies we do know that "non-standard" work is increasing in size and represents a key part of economic activity, so there is a challenge to develop such data collections in New Zealand.
There are also many problems in devising measures for those not in paid work. For example, the category "unemployed and seeking work" can be expanded or contracted by the criteria set for determining whether someone is actively seeking work. A person who is discouraged and only looks in the newspapers for jobs rather than actively contacting potential employers could, in some measures, no longer be part of this group. A person not seen as actively seeking work is then placed in the non-labour force category. A person in this group could be in jail, have won lotto and retired, could be undertaking further education, could be an invalid, or could be at home looking after children. It is a very diverse group and more information is needed than this single indicator to determine a person's wellbeing.
For people in paid work and not in paid work having more information about their family/household living arrangements, and the financial and other resource transfers within that household is important in determining wellbeing. For instance, if a person is in a low paid, insecure job, but lives in a high income household, then their overall standard of living may be far higher than someone who lives on their own home but has a middle range income.
Currently there is little reliable information on unpaid work. The Time Use survey should provide some useful information in this area. Unpaid work is often divided into that carried out within the home and work carried out for a wider community. Given emerging concepts of "social capital" there is an increasing interest in unpaid community work and involvement.
Measures of income are also complex. Income may come for the legal labour market, from illegal activities or from investments, and it can be measured before or after various deductions (such as tax or child support). In addition, the concept of income can be widened to include benefits such as free health care or education, or perhaps the benefits of living in a freehold house. In addition, a person with a low labour market income may have considerable assets and, equally, a person on a high income may have few assets.
Finally, increasingly in measuring work and income there is an interest in dynamics rather than just a "snap-shot". People can, and often do, shift between various work and income status. Therefore a lifecycle approach along with the use multiple indicators, is often needed when trying to determine and fully understand the work and income status of an individual.
Working groups were established to discuss the use of indicators in different contexts. The following groups were run.
Subject Coordinator Recorder
Environment Michelle Rush Wendy Boyce
Education Cathy Wylie Paul Callister
Health John Eastwood
Community Margie Scotts Hattie de Vries
Theory Christine Laven Fiona Ross
Economy Julie Warren
Wellness is measured using established SF36 + 12 indicators. These include self and community perceptions of wellbeing.
There is a need to get beyond disease data to see what lies behind. This then needs to be overlayed spatially to see where factors connect. There is a need to measure variation in order to make sense of the data. This could be done using geographical information systems (GIS). This will enable a move from single cause and effect to multiple cause and effect diagnosis of risk factors.
There are many vehicles for ‘health action’. These are organisations such as SCC, Healthy Cities. There is possibly room for a new health act. More community involvement is recommended.
Secondary data sources are key in particularly those that are locally based. These could include participation in sport, the number of clubs etc.
What do policymakers / treasury / academics relate to versus what do communities relate to.
- need for a combination of issues and indicators.
- Such indicators might not be as robust or time serviceable but this is acceptable.
Measuring disparities.
Varies.
What is the relevance of indicators in terms of inputs / outputs / outcomes.
Indicators need to be related to goals.
When changes in policy lead to different indicators being used there can be no follow up monitoring. This can be problematic.
Government departments use both positive and negative indicators in the process of working towards change. However these indicators can sometimes be used against the departments by media and opposition parties to demonstrate that these departments are ‘not doing their job’. Thus instead of negative indicators leading to improvement there is often a negative response to indicator information in an environment of accountability.
There are limitations to indicators. It is hard to tell if they are relevant. Relevance depends on the perspectives of those being measured &emdash; e.g. culture.
There are also questions about the robustness of data sources and data collection. Then there are problems about indicator ownership and issues of building consensus.
Issues:
Solutions:
The best possible scenario sees the best teachers evenly distributed across schools with students with greatest need.
Issue:
There are gaps between informal indicators used by parents (such as league tables) which can be seen as the market approach or the standard approach, and research which shows that kids in school improve through less formal public external / standards/ accountability approach.
The problem is then how to get indicators of citizenship / social participation / tolerance etc.
Focus should be on lifting bottom end of achievement rather than using the top end as an indicator. Reasons are that resources tend to get focused on those that do not need additional help. Research shows that when the bottom end lifts the top end does not suffer. Systems such as buddy programs where top students assist others show that both students benefit. Market approach tends to widen inequalities.
Process
1. Definition
It is important to define what is meant by community in order to derive indicators, which are meaningful. Community can be defied arealy or along lines of interest. Communities will vary depending on which is used.
2. Community needs to define its on indicators of well being.
For instance a community can have high levels of unemployment and high levels of social cohesion at the same time. This is particularly the case in communities which are united on political issues such as mining, logging etc.
3. Community indicators should be derived in a bottom up process.
Separate indicators should be used for separate issues. The community should provide their own interest groups rather than being directed to by forms of government.
Issues
Community Well being
To measure community well being indicators need to examine:
What indicators should we be using?
|
First Name |
Last Name |
Organisation |
|
|
|
Teena |
Abbey |
Auckland City Council |
abbeyt@akcity.govt.nz |
|
|
Lesley |
Baddon |
ARC |
lbaddon@arc.govt.nz |
|
|
Noreen |
Barton |
Opus Consultants |
noreen.barton@opus.co.nz |
|
|
Wendy |
Boyce |
Environment Waikato |
wendyb@wairc.govt.nz |
|
|
Raye |
Boyle |
Wesley Care Wellington |
rboyle@methodistmission.org.nz |
|
|
Margaret |
Brooker |
Kapity Coast District Council |
||
|
Mike |
Burtenshaw |
Open Polytech of New Zealand |
burmik@topnz.ac.nz |
|
|
Helene |
Carbonatto |
Crime Prevention Unit |
helen.carbonatto@parliament.govt.nz |
|
|
Anna |
Carrell |
Opus Consultants |
anna.carrell@opus.co.nz |
|
|
Janet |
Carson |
Ministry of Women's Affairs |
carson@mwa.govt.nz |
|
|
Elizabeth |
Clark |
University of Otago - Geography |
lizclark@xtra.co.nz |
|
|
Megan |
Courtney |
Waitakere City Council |
megan.courtney@waitakere.govt.nz |
|
|
Virginia |
DeJoux |
Self Employed |
virginia.dejoux@xtra.co.nz |
|
|
Susi |
Easting |
Ministry of Women's Affairs |
||
|
Gerard |
Fitzgerald |
ASA Convenor |
gf@irlch01.chch.cri.nz |
|
|
Kaye |
Goodger |
Social Policy Unit |
kay.goodger@dsw.govt.nz |
|
|
Dairne |
Grant |
Te Puni Kokiri |
grand@tpk.govt.nz |
|
|
Michelle |
Grigg |
Te Puni Kokiri |
grigm@tpk.govt.nz |
|
|
Carra |
Hamon |
Te Puni Kokiri |
carra.hammon@tpk.govt.nz |
|
|
Rosemary |
Hovey |
Wanganui District Council |
rosemaryh@wanganui.govt.nz |
|
|
Phil |
Huges |
PCE |
phil@pce.govt.nz |
|
|
H.J |
Jagger |
MAF Policy |
jaggerh@maf.govt.nz |
|
|
Meg |
Justice |
University of Otago - Geography |
not applicable |
|
|
Suzanne |
Kennedy |
MAF |
kennedys@maf.govt.nz |
|
|
Paul |
Killerby |
Rotorua District Council |
paul.killerby@rdc.govt.nz |
|
|
Christine |
Laven |
Crime Prevention Unit |
christine.laven@parliament.govt.nz |
|
|
Paul |
Lister |
Development Policy Hutt City Council |
paul.lister@huttcity.govt.nz |
|
|
Jo |
Lynch |
lynch@glider.wn.planet.gen.nz |
||
|
Greg |
Mason |
University of Waikato |
teresa.sanders@stonebow.otago.ac.nz |
|
|
Jill |
McCluggage |
Kapity Coast Safer Community Council |
||
|
James |
Newell |
MERA |
jnewell@mera.co.nz |
|
|
Rosanna |
Nicholson |
Franklin District Council |
||
|
Ann |
Pomeroy |
Social Policy Agency |
ann.pomeroy@dsw.govt.nz |
|
|
Fiona |
Ross |
Ministry of Women's Affairs |
||
|
Teresa |
Sanders |
University of Waikato |
Teresa.sanders@stonebow.otago.ac.nz |
|
|
Margie |
Scotts |
Internal Affairs |
margie.scotts@dia.govt.nz |
|
|
Marilyn |
Stephens |
Labour Policy Unit |
marilyn.stephens@parliament.govt.nz |
|
|
Nick |
Taylor |
Taylor Bains Associates |
n_taylor@tba.co.nz |
|
|
Julie |
Warren |
Cresa |
julie@cresa.co.nz |
|
|
Adrian |
Whale |
Wellington City Council |
whalea@hadrianus.wcc.govt.nz |
|
|
Tony |
Wharton |
MAF |
whartont@maf.govt.nz |
|
|
Mandy |
Whyte |
Fletcher Challenge Energy |
mandy.whyte@fce.co.nz |
|
|
Panel |
Members |
|||
|
Paul |
Callister |
paul_callister@actrix.gen.nz |
||
|
Judith |
Davey |
Victoria University |
judith.davey@vuw.ac.nz |
|
|
John |
Eastwood |
NIHS |
john.eastwood@nihs.co.nz |
|
|
Paora |
Howe |
Te Puni Kokiri |
howep@tpk.govt.nz |
|
|
Michelle |
Rush |
Agriculture New Zealand |
rushm@voyager.co.nz |
|
|
Cathy |
Wylie |
NZCER |
cathy.wylie@nzcer.org.nz |
|