Mahuta Nanaia: Urgent Debates — Whānau Ora—Auditor-General’s ReportText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Urgent Debates — Whānau Ora—Auditor-General’s Report[Sitting date: 06 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3231. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):I move That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. As you rightly note Mr Speaker this is a serious issue. When the Auditor-General sought to look at issues around how Whānau Ora had been funded and the implementation of the policy over the first 4 years there were a number of things that were raised that I think the House deserves a response on. I am very pleased that we are able to have this debate today.What is most concerning about the report is that the Auditor-General said of the appropriations made in the first 4 years that a significant amount went into administration—about $42 million—when it could have gone into front-line services. After all when this policy was promoted by the Māori Party as a part of the coalition agreement with the National Government Whānau Ora was a flagship policy. It was there to ensure that those most in need would have an opportunity to have a different approach in the way in which services would be delivered to them. We heard numerous debates in this House about a policy that would change the way in which Government departments responded to those in need. However the Auditor-General’s report shows that those other ministries involved in the implementation of Whānau Ora—the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development—actually took a piecemeal approach to the way in which they participated in Whānau Ora. In fact they did not change their funding strategies; they still funded individuals rather than what was intended in the policy which was a whānau-centred approach. The Auditor-General highlighted that.The other concern that we want to bring to the attention of the House is the role of Te Puni Kōkiri. What we have found are numerous transfers and underspends over the first 4 years of funding for Whānau Ora. Except in 2010 and 2011 there were underspends in each and every year. The Auditor-General then highlights that there were reasons for slow decision-making. Well one may only assume that Te Puni Kōkiri did not have its act together.People listening to this debate should not misunderstand the intent of our criticism in highlighting the issues in this report. We know that out there in the communities there are a number of Whānau Ora providers that are doing some very good things. We understand that they are making the best of what they have in the challenges of the current funding environment. But they too would say if you were visiting their organisations that actually the whole policy has lacked clarity in its implementation. If there is anything to highlight in the way in which the Auditor-General has gone about her task of investigating the effectiveness of Whānau Ora it would be just that. She makes the point that actually it is very unclear as to what the objectives are with Whānau Ora. Yet we see that around about $7.2 million has been put aside for research to be able to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of Whānau Ora plans. Well where is that research the collection of ethnicity data that demonstrates that this funding was to go to all whānau whoever they are? Te Puni Kōkiri may have collected the data. However it has not published it in a way that you can measure outcomes. The Auditor-General speaks to those types of issues. Also there is no demonstration of what the short-term gains have been in the first 4 years.The Whānau Ora provider collectives have had research conducted as well. We are informed in the report to expect that research some time soon. If you are going to continue into the second phase of the Whānau Ora initiative as promoted by the Māori Party which is actually about the role of the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies surely the research of the first 4 years would be useful in order to inform that process.In fact we had the Prime Minister himself get up in the House and respond to questions from the Labour leader about what was happening in this space. The Prime Minister himself pointed to these Whānau Ora commissioning agencies. We have three of them. We have Te Pou Matakana we have the Pasifika one and then we have Te Pūtahitanga o Te Waipounamu down in the South Island. What is of most interest—and I challenge other members in the House to stand up—is that there have been numerous instances of feedback to members on this side of the House that good Whānau Ora providers have not been contacted at all by these commissioning agencies—not at all. Yet $68 million - odd dollars has gone as an investment into some of these providers and they have not been contacted by the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies. They are unclear about what the future funding landscape looks like.This report highlights I think some of the real challenges of the effective implementation of Whānau Ora a policy that was conceived by the Māori Party and was part of a coalition deal but actually one that was not implemented very well. I am sure that the Minister in his good conscience would want to respond to the issues that have been raised in the report. Indeed our Māori Affairs Committee considers that we are the best place to ask questions of this particular report and also seek answers from the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies about the way in which they intend to roll out their implementation plans and funding strategies for the second phase of Whānau Ora.The learnings of this report show us that although innovation occurs in the service delivery area it is not consistent throughout the whole country. There is not a widespread buy-in from the other Government agencies that are key supports to the successful implementation of Whānau Ora.I want to highlight something from the report. The Auditor-General said that “Whānau Ora was not consistently described which makes it hard for us to describe it and hard for the agencies to link results to objectives. Some results have not been adequately reported on …” As a member of Parliament responsible for the oversight of good spending of taxpayers’ money that would concern anybody. It certainly concerns me and it certainly concerns the Labour Party.This policy as I say was the flagship policy of the Māori Party. Who would have thought that such a policy with such high esteem would have unfair objectives that could not be measured by those Government departments?Sue Moroney: That has to be the fault of the Government.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I think that is the fault of the Government. That to me indicates that the Government took a hands-off approach to the implementation of Whānau Ora even though some of its Government Ministers were intimately involved with the implementation and an arm’s-length approach to ministerial oversight and good implementation. We should be concerned.We should also be cautioned by the recommendation of the Auditor-General that says that where innovation occurs let us not stop it. However let us have a robust debate about transparency and accountability for taxpayers’ dollars which should be spent in the area they were designed for. Quite simply there were a number of areas in which the funds set aside for Whānau Ora did not go to the people who needed them most. This is a kick in the guts to providers which are doing very good work out in the region. This is kick in the guts to those navigators who are in organisations working with a number of stakeholders at a community level trying to get the types of outcomes for whānau so that they are not going down the wrong path so that they are able to build resilience and do things: get employment get training lift the aspirations of their whānau. This is a kick in the guts for those providers which will fight tooth and nail for every cent that they get and continue to argue that working with Government agencies is so difficult when you have to jump through three hoops and give 50 reports while going through those three hoops.The integrated contract environment that the Auditor-General spoke of is a positive thing. However there still need to be improvements in that space if the Government is serious about the new approach that is indicated in Whānau Ora. I note Mr Speaker that you said that there is no ministerial oversight on this particular report. However as a policy that has potential—and if we are to take the inference from what the Auditor-General has indicated we should not throw the baby out with the bath water—the new contracting environment that would help facilitate whānau-centred outcomes will require integrated contracts and it will require innovation in this space and better coordination of the Government sector. If there is a true intent of the National Government to support any positive part of this particular initiative I hazard a guess that the emphasis should be in this space.But let us not get away from the fact Minister that there are questions that must be asked of your department. I think that a cynic might say that all along the grand design of the Whānau Ora initiative may well have been to get rid of Te Puni Kōkiri and just devolve funding straight to iwi. But I am not that cynical. I am sure that the Minister would want to maintain the judicious oversight of Te Puni Kōkiri and respond to some of the real challenges here. Why did it take so long for Te Puni Kōkiri to go through some of these arrangements these plans of Whānau Ora collectives and then devolve out the funding? Why did so many transfers happen over 4 years? Why did Te Puni Kōkiri not make it a priority to report on the data gathered to give people assurance that funding was going to where it needed to be? There was a high emphasis on vulnerable families in a mid-point change in this particular policy. Why did the Minister not ask questions?Why did the Minister not ask questions when there was continual underspending of funding? I think that is a serious question because the vulnerabilities over the last 6 years have only increased not decreased and here is a perfect pool of funding that could have supported many many whānau in need. Why did the Minister not have proper oversight in this area?It is really important to ensure that as conscientious members of this House we utilise the Auditor-General’s report as an opportunity to hold the Government to account to hold the Minister to account to hold his department to account in ways that ensure that policies are designed to help the most vulnerable and to change the processes to ensure that providers are supported and that we can get funds out there to support them.Hon Member: A third on admin.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: You know that is right. It is absolutely unbelievable: one-third of the funding set aside for Whānau Ora is going on administration. There are unclear objectives which are unable to be measured and reported on; a landscape of providers out there who are unsure about what the future holds; and the setting up of whānau commissioning agencies where we are not entirely sure about what their future accountability structures look like or what the implementation plans for the next phase of Whānau Ora will look like. These are all serious questions that must be responded to.The Auditor-General I think has done whānau a very very great service because she has supported the need for a different approach to ensure that whānau who need good wraparound services have an environment where there is better collaboration so that they can change their lives. She has actually supported that. She has done us a great service. She has ensured that we as a Parliament hold the Government to account on the implementation of a policy.It is clear that the Minister’s department has been woeful in many areas and it is evident that in the second phase of funding—and here is one little question on the second phase of funding. Can we expect in Budget 2015 an increase in funding for Whānau Ora commissioning agencies to implement the second phase? And will the Minister respond to some of the issues identified in the report prior to transferring funding to the whānau commissioning agencies? These are valid questions all as a result of the Office of the Auditor-General’s report.I am pleased to be able to have an urgent debate to highlight these issues and assure those providers out there that Labour is on their side. We know that you are doing good work but we must make sure the Government is accountable for a policy that has actually fallen short of expectations. Thank you.