Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2008. Volume:647;Page:16759. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Is she confident that the Ministry of Social Development is meeting the Prime Minister’s expectation of moderation and thrift? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes because I know that the ministry is constantly reviewing and prioritising its funding to ensure that it achieves the best possible outcomes for children young people and their families. As the member did not raise any questions about the ministry in relation to moderation and thrift at the Social Services Committee yesterday I assume she shares my confidence. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that “Labour wants to be able to look the ordinary hard-working taxpayer in the eye and say that their tax dollars are being spent on the things which matter.”; if so does she think that increasing the communications media and public relations staff to a whopping 61.5 this year—up from 54 last year and up from 22 in 2002—is spending on things that matter? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The answer to the first part of the question is absolutely yes. I would be interested to know whether the National Party would stop efforts to ensure that every New Zealander receives his or her full and correct entitlements such as the outward calling programme to actively search out people and ensure that they are receiving their entitlement. In respect of public information and awareness campaigns on programmes such as Working for Families there have been 97 significant events at malls throughout the country at which an estimated 1.3 million New Zealanders had contact with the staff to ensure that they were aware of their full entitlement and were receiving it. Which part of that communication would that member’s party cut? 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What has been the impact of the building of policy capability in the Ministry of Social Development? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In 2001 the Hunn review pronounced the former Department of Work and Income to be a department without a brain. The Ministry of Social Development has since built policy capability in order to develop policies such as Working for Families Working New Zealand and Pathways to Partnership. It has also built regional policy capability. For example a number of regions have completed a seasonal labour strategy and valuable work on housing sustainability. That is ridiculed by Tony Ryall and Judith Collins but is critical to achieving better outcomes for New Zealand families. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the Minister guarantee that the tax dollars of hard-working taxpayers are being spent on the things that matter when 450 front-line caseworkers have been cut in the last year but policy staff have increased from 200 people in 2002 to a staggering 350 people today? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes. 
Judith Collins 
: How can it be that having fewer beneficiaries was cited yesterday as the reason for the reduction of 450 in front-line staff yet there has been no corresponding requirement to reduce or even contain the bureaucracy now that there are fewer beneficiaries than there were previously? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That assertion is incorrect as the member had explained to her at the select committee. 
Judith Collins 
: Does she agree with the Hon Dr Michael Cullen who said yesterday that— 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes. 
Judith Collins 
: —do not be too eager honey—”The economic situation is challenging.”; and if that situation results in more people losing their jobs does she think it is wise to get rid of 450 front-line staff at a time when a lot of New Zealanders are losing their jobs? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I wish the member could make up her mind. Does she support having fewer or more staff in the Ministry of Social Development? I can confirm categorically that I agree with the deputy leader of my party far more often than she would ever agree with her deputy leader.