Rich Katherine: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Rich Katherine: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14332] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 What a mess this portfolio is—what an absolute shambles. We have seen some major community programmes—some organisations that did good community work throughout New Zealand—reduced to an absolute shambles. I am referring to the Community Employment Group and the various programmes and activities that that organisation carries out within New Zealand. New Zealanders were pretty proud of that group in 1999. At that time it was run by a future Labour Cabinet Minister Parekura Horomia and undertook a wide range of community projects up and down the country that were good basic common-sense projects. But Labour came in and wanted to put in place its far-flung bizarre programmes and partnerships and about eight different programmes later we now have just a remnant of what was a very well-run section of Government. 
We have seen in the estimates process that there will be no change in the way community employment is delivered. We have seen vague objectives loose applications of guidelines—that is if the guidelines for grant applications have been followed at all—and some results that cannot be described in any better terms than “dubious” and “waste of money”. 
I am referring to projects like the now infamous hip hop tour. As my colleagues on this side of the Chamber know given the $26000 that was spent on that tour our concern is not about the music. Members on this side have nothing against hip hop as a musical genre but some community members are asking whether taxpayers should be asked to spend good money on researching how hip hop came to New Zealand—somehow we are supposed to think via Paris Samoa and Hawaii. That is where the applicants said they chilled out and had a very relaxing time. Most people concluded that it was not a good way to spend taxpayers’ money except for the Minister and the then general manager who went on National Radio and said he thought that it was a pretty good way. We on this side of the Chamber totally disagree. 
Some of the reports that have been released lately look at the way guidelines have not been applied when it comes to grant applications and the way some groups barely look at the guidelines at all before they are handed taxpayers’ money. We think the Community Employment Group needs to get back to basics—the good common-sense approach to community development—and to take out what is fast becoming a lot of rhetoric and garbage spoken about that area. 
A lot of the Minister’s speeches go something like: “Blah blah social capability; blah blah social capacity building; blah blah whole of Government; blah blah joined-up Government; blah blah interconnectedness.” I can basically rewrite some of his speeches myself. I thought: “Gee this social capability term is very interesting. I’ll look it up.” Treasury was very helpful so here is the definition: the term “social capability” is defined as “society’s capacity for collective action in a variety of spheres including non-market and market involving voluntary interactions as well as the coercive powers of the state.” 
 Well that clears things up. I feel a lot happier. If one feels like Manuel of  
Fawlty 
 Towers 
 in saying: “¿Qué?” one is not alone. And that is where a lot of New Zealanders are at the moment—putting their heads to one side and asking what this is all about. I do not think New Zealanders want to talk about such vague academic concepts. They do not want issues like community development to be an academic subject. I think they do want to get back to some basics and do want this particular organisation to fund programmes that are actually going to make a difference. 
We are not talking about researching hip hop tours. We are not talking about sending people off shore who did not know how to research and freely admitted they knew nothing about hip hop before they went. We are not talking about craft trips to Melbourne. New Zealanders do not fairly expect that we will use taxpayers’ funding to fund projects of a dubious quality particularly when one looks up and down the country and sees hard-working community organisations that find it really difficult to raise funds and provide some of the basic services that New Zealanders hold dear like Plunket or the Women’s Refuge. There are many organisations that were absolutely gobsmacked when they saw the long list of projects and programmes that had been funded through that particular organisation. 
We want more than a shake-up and we were not made to feel confident in dealing with this particular part of the Budget when various officials came before the select committee. We felt very concerned that not only had we seen $21 million go into a black hole last year but we had the concern that it would happen again because the guidelines have not changed. We are still seeing a very loose application of guidelines. 
A lot of money is being spent in areas where most Kiwis would really question the reason for some of that expenditure. So we have to get out of some of those kinds of strange projects that make New Zealanders just shake their heads. We have to ensure that if taxpayers’ money is going to be spent it is going to be spent well and spent on things that actually make a difference. 
One of my favourite Community Employment Group projects in relation to which I have just received an answer to a parliamentary question today will interest people. I asked about a project that received funding to look at the best way for the people of a particular marae to communicate with one another. The answer came back that almost $2000 had been spent on the development of a website. I said that was great and asked where the website was. I asked them to give me the proof that there was a website. The Community Employment Group came back and said that it was all right and I was not to worry about it because the field worker had sighted the website so it was in existence. But I said no. Being a trusty Opposition member I wanted to see the proof. Here it is. This is a printout of a website—one page—and the information on it states: “NgatiKere site coming soon.” That is the website; that is what we got for $2000. 
When it comes to serious investment in Maori leadership Maori land partnerships or the various programmes that that Minister has imposed on the Community Employment Group—as a result of ideology as opposed to the desire to allow the organisation to continue its work—I think if that group could get back to some of the basics over the coming year then we would see some improvement. This is not about throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is about tightening some of the guidelines so that some of the taxpayers’ money being spent in this area is first going into projects that do make a difference; second going into projects without such bizarre and vague objectives that nobody can really understand what they are anyway; and third going into projects that are described in terms that actually mean something. 
I think we need to move away from making this community and voluntary sector an academic subject and move back into something that communities can understand and implement. This vote is not supposed to be a slush fund for all and sundry. It is supposed to fund a programme that can assist communities to develop locally. By that I mean various projects that have worked in the past. One could look at going to Ranfurly to see the work that has been done there on its art deco project or look at the Otago rail trail project. They are good solid thoughtful community development projects not hip hop tours to Hawaii whereby someone gets $26000 to go and “chill out” at the taxpayers’ expense. 
When the Minister takes a call he might like to tell us whether those applicants from the Social Entrepreneur Fund will pay back their grant. We have also seen that particular fund go by the way thankfully. Although the Minister says fund applicants are all community champions and examples of human innovation a lot of other members on the Government side of the Chamber obviously agreed with members on this side which is why we have seen that entire project canned as a result of concerns raised by the Opposition. We need to get better accountability and we need to ensure that money is spent wisely and in areas that will really make a difference to local communities.