Shanks Katrina: Urgent Debates — Ministry of Social Development—Job Cuts 
Shanks Katrina: Urgent Debates — Ministry of Social Development—Job Cuts 
[Volume:655;Page:4826] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I would like to talk about the Ministry of Social Development staff changes. Staff changes in a department are operational and normally it is the chief executive who makes the overall decisions as to how the organisation is managed where it is going and how it will get there with its staff. This was signalled by the chief executive in the briefing to the incoming Minister last year. That means the process was begun under the previous Labour Government. In fact we know that the Ministry of Social Development had been going through a value-for-money process for the last 2 years under the previous Labour Government. It is part of the organisation’s strategy for directing resources where they are most needed. Although this review was not a new initiative from the National Government we will continue it. 
In these tough economic times the Government must also tighten its belt in the same way that everyone else has to. We believe that all taxpayers will support our drive to ensure that departments are delivering value for money and that the Government is delivering value for money to the taxpayers and to the people of New Zealand. This is one of the biggest sectors in New Zealand so we have to ensure that every dollar counts. 
The National Party campaigned on moving resources from the back offices to the front line. We are delivering that and we make absolutely no apologies for delivering on our campaign policies. The Ministry of Social Development stated that many areas needed to be improved in terms of their efficiency and effectiveness. It has moved slowly through this process and this is one last place it is moving to now. The ministry has already stated that it is moving through this process. It will keep on looking at value for money within the organisation as all good organisations should do to stay current with the issues they face. 
The concentration of these changes ensures that the ministry moves people into roles that will achieve the overall goal of boosting the front line and streamlining all its operations. This change process as the select committee was informed is part of the ministry’s ongoing value-for-money programme. Through the value-for-money programme the ministry seeks to save $440 million. What will these changes mean? There will be more front-line social services within Child Youth and Family immediately with more to come later in the year. These changes are going where the need is—104 extra Work and Income front-line staff have already been recruited. These changes are going where the need is. 
This process will generate savings of around $22 million per annum of which $10 million is additional savings. The Ministry of Social Development baseline is over $900 million. The changes being initiated by the Ministry of Social Development are designed to reposition the ministry to deliver better front-line services for those people feeling the effects of the recession and to put more social workers on the front line. This is in contrast to the 9 years under Labour when numbers and costs of backroom staff rose substantially. 
Let us talk about departmental extravagance. In November 1999 Helen Clark said that Labour wanted to look ordinary hard-working taxpayers in the eye and say that their tax dollars were being spent on the things that mattered. She promised that a new era of moderation and integrity would develop throughout the public sector. Expenditure on salaries has increased from $240 million in 2002-03 to $566 million in 2006-07. Expenditure on recruitment advertising has increased by 255 percent. Recruitment costs have trebled from $604000 to $1.8 million. The number of communications public relations and media staff has increased by 150 percent. That helps those children getting abused does it not? That is 150 percent of spin. The number of policy analysts increased from 202 to 351. The number of staff earning more than $100000 per annum increased from 54 to 397. Even allowing for mergers with other departments there has been a 28 percent increase in staff in just over 5 years despite there being fewer beneficiaries. How does that work? How can the number of staff increase by 28 percent when there are fewer beneficiaries? How does that work?