Turner Judy: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4318] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Vote Social Development. This is the vote that represents 27 percent of total appropriations across all votes and has enjoyed a 5.8 percent increase in this financial year. It lists four key priorities. It refers to the work of Work and Income and Child Youth and Family Services and to work around aging issues. What really interests me and what I have a bit of a question mark over is the fact that one of the four priorities for this immense vote is “strengthening social development leadership”. I find that a bit nebulous and I would like the Minister David Benson-Pope to refer to what that is all about. Eighty percent of proposed departmental expenditure is dedicated however to two major areas. One is the benefit area and the second is divided between students and seniors. 
One of the things that concerns me—and I have not heard anybody mention it so far—is the merging of the two entities of the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. This is something that happened for reasons that none of us have ever had clearly explained to us. In fact when we talked to the Ministers about this they said it was done “because the stars were in alignment”. They then referred to the competency and skills of the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development Peter Hughes which I accept. He is a very competent person and nobody is doubting that. 
But I think we have to be honest about the fact that this has all come about because of the departure of Paula Tyler back to Canada. This was a huge disappointment to myself. She was employed because she had previous experience in the differential intake that Child Youth and Family Services were implementing. That idea was shared with the Minister by United Future in the last Parliament and we were pleased to see some uptake on it. We are a little concerned. We were assured that it has not stalled but to my understanding there are currently two pilots running. 
 I want to talk about this because this differential intake is the opportunity for the very very competent non-governmental organisation sector to contract to the Government to do the medium to low risk cases that Child Youth and Family Services is drowning under. Notifications to that department go up 15 percent a year. They went up 30 percent after the death of Coral Burrows. A great way to relieve the pressure on the department and to allow it to focus on the very good statutory empowerment work that needs to be done in the high-risk cases would be to give the medium to low risk work to the competent agencies in the community. 
If we read some of the comments made by COmVOices which is an organisation comprising groups such Philanthropy New Zealand and Volunteering New Zealand we will see its calculation that for every dollar value of social services those organisations provide in the community it would cost the Government between $3 and $5 to replicate that work. We have a huge capacity of social services in the community right now that United Future would like to see the Ministry of Social Development take a much stronger interest in. 
One of the problems community groups have is that when they take on Government contracts they sometimes feel that the obligations that come with the contracts kind of rip the soul out of their organisations. We are not against the ministry requiring accountability from those organisations for how they spend the money for the services they deliver and for the outcomes they get—of course they must be accountable for those—but sometimes the ways and means the organisations have of being effective can become undermined when they have to take on a Government contract. So I encourage the Government to consider seriously firstly looking at better utilising those groups in the community and voluntary sector that are already delivering cost-effective and fantastic services. If they were allowed to build capacity and get some good Government contracts then they could deliver even more substantial outcomes to New Zealand society than they are currently. Secondly I would like to think that the Government would consider looking very carefully at the kinds of demands it puts on those contracts—demands that could actually destroy the ethos and effectiveness of the organisations that are getting them. 
An example I had recently was of a provider in Christchurch that provides employment and accommodation for people coming out of prison. That provider has a phenomenal success rate but it is scared to take on a Government contract because it knows that the Government would then require it to take on anybody the Government asked it to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.