Financial Review Debate — Ministry of Social Development

As usual there are a number of critical issues arising from the financial review of the Ministry of Social Development, and I simply do not have time to go into all of them here. However, one of these is the ongoing problem around third-tier benefits, and in particular the seeming ongoing inability of Work and Income across the country to implement the supposed nationally applied edict that staff “ensure clients receive their full and correct entitlement”. In his comment to the Social Services Committee this time around, the chief executive explained that the ministry was still striving to achieve more geographical evenness in terms of the special benefit, and that the budget for the total expenditure was not capped.

It is good news that we have a Government that acknowledges the problem, and a chief executive officer who is committed to overcoming it, but what is not so great is that tens of thousands of beneficiaries continue to miss out on what they are entitled to. All the statistics I have seen continue to show a massive regional variation in how the special benefit is applied, with very low rates proportionately in places as diverse as Te Awamutu, Dargaville, Taihape, Marton, and Timaru.

I also note the Gisborne special-benefit impact initiative that was carried out by a number of beneficiary advocacy groups in the Tairawhiti region late last year. People queued up literally for days to get assistance with applying for their benefits. As with similar, previous exercises in Rotorua and Hawke’s Bay, the department suddenly and once again found its way clear to pay a whole lot more to people in terms of their full entitlements.

I congratulate the beneficiary groups on their extraordinary commitment in travelling to the East Coast from all over the country to help local people simply get what they are entitled to, but they should not have to do that. I believe that if the Ministry of Social Development is serious about implementing its avowed commitment to paying income support at the rates the Government itself sets, there needs to be a lot more done to support and train all its staff to make that happen where it counts—at every front desk in every office around the country, every single day.

The second area I will touch on quickly today is the Jobs Jolt policy, which was developed by the Ministry of Social Development during the period of the financial review. Numerous measures were included in this package, and one of them was the introduction of work testing for unemployed people aged 55 to 59 years. The reason given for this extraordinary step was that this group of people “may become impoverished” and “confront significant barriers to employment”. Both of these factors are all too true, but I would seriously question whether imposing the same work-testing requirements on 55 to 59-year-olds as are placed on unemployed 18-year-olds is actually the solution. If the Government had chosen all the services of the department in terms of vocational guidance and support, benefits could have been offered without the imposition of work testing.

On top of this, of course, so-called limited employment locations or remote areas—more colloquially referred to as no-go zones—have been introduced. It is interesting to note that in its report to the financial review committee, the department states that ancestral links to certain areas are considered. This refers to the question of whether tangata whenua who are living in, or returning to, their papakāinga districts should be treated the same as all other unemployed beneficiaries. Subsequent to the completion of this review, Minister Maharey has made it clear in the House that in that situation tangata whenua will not be treated differently from others. Like a number of groups around the country, I would welcome a clarifying statement from the Minister on this matter in the not too distant future.

I also continue to question the necessity of identifying 259 limited employment locations at all, when the department already has many means at its disposal—including what it calls intensive case management—to make sure that everyone on the unemployment benefit is meeting all the department’s work-testing requirements. I would much rather see the department focus on the good work it does in helping people into sustainable employment than engaging in a very odd kind of social and economic engineering that only serves to tar 259 separate localities as being somehow economically hopeless.

The Government’s willingness to get it right when it comes to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is certainly reflected in the additional amount of funding given to this essential service. However, with the number of notifications increasing at a rate of 15 percent per year, with the recent 40 percent increase in what seems like a community response to the Coral Burrows case, and with the very concerning findings of the baseline review, United Future believes that more needs to happen than merely funding.

The preventive side of work is as much a statutory requirement as the child protection work, yet if the department’s social workers are drowning in the high number of notifications and are tied up responding to the most critical cases, this fence at the top of the cliff continues to fall into disrepair. The baseline review puts the priority function of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services as preventing recurrence of abuse, but when 99 percent of the 4,595 unallocated cases as at 31 January this year are at the bottom two criticality levels, it is clear that the department’s function of preventing first occurrence of abuse is just not happening in a timely way.

As volume takes precedence over quality, cases rated as low urgency wait and situations deteriorate, re-notifications occur, and the rating goes up. Meanwhile, non-governmental organisations, including voluntary agencies that are well equipped to respond with the necessary help and interventions, are powerless to do so. The public perception of the department deteriorates to the point that in some areas agencies like schools, mental health specialists, and general practitioners are reluctant or unwilling to make notifications because they no longer trust the department to act in a timely or appropriate manner. This poor public perception is very discouraging for everyone who works for, or relies on, the department in some way, and it is making it harder to recruit and retain experienced staff.

For every Coral Burrows or James Whakaruru there are dozens of children who are waiting for their cases to be reviewed so that they can be returned to the safe care of their families. Parents who have complied to the letter with every demand the department has made to facilitate the return of their children are yet left waiting, literally for years, for someone to have enough time on his or her schedule to review their case. In the middle of this crisis are a band of largely competent social workers who are frustrated by the workload, and by the fact that they are dealing with serious cases that are second and third notifications that could, and should, have been addressed in the first instance.

The pressure that has placed on workers has seen a 15.8 percent turnover in staff. In fact, on six sites, staff turnover has been as high as 25 percent. These figures must also thwart the Government’s intention to have a fully registered social-work staff in the next 5 to 6 years. United Future agrees that more social workers are needed, but the fear we have is that all that will happen is that the urgent will be better managed and families needing minimal but essential help will have to wait until they become critical before getting attention.

We are also concerned about the potential reduction in non-departmental output class funding as the department reviews which contracts with community agencies doing preventive work will be renewed. If preventive work gets cut down, is that not simply the department shooting itself in the foot? More and more demand for services will result.

The problem is not particular to New Zealand. Other countries are struggling with resourcing the agencies that deal with a large number of families where there are multiple notifications. United Future believes that much can be learnt from the very good work that overseas concerns are considering, and that we need to be always mindful of international examples if we want to be solutions-focused in this very important area.

We are concerned that the current culture of the department being responsible for parents’ failings needs to change. If New Zealand is to be the best place in the world to raise a family, we need to tidy up our work with families at risk, because we seem to be very hesitant at this stage to make that claim.

I am sorry I was a little slow in rising to my feet, but I understood that the member was going to take a second call, and I was giving her the courtesy of allowing her to do that. But as she is not doing that, I am happy to take the call now.

It is my honour to be the Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment and to contribute to this debate in that capacity. I would like to make specific reference to three of the areas commented on in the 2002-03 financial review of the Ministry of Social Development by the Social Services Committee. Those are the Future Directions package, our intolerance of fraud, and jobs. I would like to take a further call later in the debate on the Department of Child, Youth and Families Services, directly in response to the member who has just resumed her seat, and to the issues raised in the review of that department by the Social Services Committee.

Firstly, in relation to Future Directions, this significant programme of work is a huge credit to Minister Steve Maharey and to the team within the Ministry of Social Development. I congratulate him and them on this major piece of work. It will significantly increase direct income-support and incentives for people to move from welfare benefits into paid employment, and it will make housing more affordable for low-income families and single adults. Never has there been a package that more strongly reflects the basic principles of my party, the Labour Party, and they are secure housing and a decent job. This is a great piece of work, and I look forward to others sharing the detail of it following the forthcoming Budget.

The second issue I want to comment on is our intolerance of fraud. Last year the Ministry of Social Development discovered that a $1.9 million fraud had been committed by one of its staff. That person was recently convicted of both benefit and departmental fraud, and was sentenced earlier this month to 5½ years in prison. The only point I want to make in this area is to give the highest commendation I can to the leadership given by both the Minister and the chief executive, Peter Hughes, in relation to our total intolerance of fraud of any kind. The report of Audit New Zealand, which looked at the Ministry of Social Development’s response to this fraud, described it as “exemplary”. Mr Chair, you and others in the Chamber will be familiar with the normal terms used by Audit New Zealand. It uses terms like “good”, “very good”, and “satisfactory”. They are appropriate terms; it is an auditor. But its specific response to the way that the Ministry of Social Development dealt with this fraud and showed its intolerance of fraud was to describe it as “exemplary”. I think that all of us in Parliament should place on the record our total support of its attitude towards that.

The final point I want to make is about jobs. I start by commending the Minister, Steve Maharey, for his work on issues relating to people who are on sickness and invalids benefits. I am frankly delighted at the support that is now actively being given by the Ministry of Social Development to people who have been ignored for far too long. Steve Maharey has ensured that the principles of the disability strategy are implemented in this critical area of obtaining work for people on sickness and invalids benefits, including supporting sustainable employment outcomes; personal client-profiling to identify needs and employment options; developing employment programmes tailored to address barriers to employment, and ways of removing those barriers; ensuring account management that focuses on supporting employer labour needs; matching client capability to the labour market; ensuring that we have early intervention and support for people; and providing services that broker social support for those for whom employment is not currently an option, particularly when that is due to ill health. That is the sort of support that people who have been on invalids and sickness benefits in the past have been waiting for, and I am delighted we have given people that positive response.

Unemployment, at 4.6 percent, is at one of the lowest levels in 16 years, and this rate ranks us sixth in the OECD. There are more people in work in our country than at any other time of our history. There are 176,000 more people in jobs since the election of a Labour-led Government. The number of long-term unemployed has dropped by 4,200 over the year in question. Our unemployment rate is below that of Australia, which is 5.6 percent, below that of the United States of America, which is 5.9 percent, and well below the OECD average of 7 percent. Our unemployment rate is below that of any of our major trading partners.

In relation to those two fundamental issues that I mentioned at the beginning of my previous contribution, I am very proud of what the Labour-led Government has done. We have provided support, both in practical and in financial terms, for people who want to have secure housing, and there is a huge initiative and move into the area of providing support to enable people to enter paid work—support of a kind that New Zealand has never seen in its history.

I will now move to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services and make a couple of points in relation to what I consider is very, very worthy and highly supportable work in the implementation of the baseline review. I am very proud of the leadership, the senior management team, and the staff throughout the country, who, despite the best attempts of Opposition parties to undermine them and destroy—

💬 Mark Peck: Which ones?

I refer in particular to Katherine Rich and Muriel Newman, who do not seem to be taking a call in this debate in support of the department and its good work. Despite the very fine work of the staff, they are often not commended and valued. The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services does have a very difficult job, but for me as Minister it is also the most challenging but most satisfying work, because it gives us the opportunity to intervene and help in the lives of people who, without that help, would often be in not only sad but tragic situations. Our front-line staff in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services deliver that support every day, day in and day out, and, tragically, the only time they get recognised in the media, with very few exceptions, is when things go wrong. It is about time this House showed stronger support for the good work that the many staff of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services do, and gave them support for that good work while ensuring that we keep on track to improve the quality of their services, as well.

That is exactly what Russ Ballard, who is acting chief executive, the senior management team, and staff throughout the country are doing with regard to their implementation of the baseline review. In this Committee we all know what the baseline review found. We all read it, and we are very familiar with it. Most of us could quote it off by heart, so I will not go through it point by point, but I want to bring to the attention of the Committee, and in particular the members of the Social Services Committee, some of the key issues that have been completed and implemented since that baseline review was presented publicly.

The first is in relation to the package of initiatives under the governance heading. There is now the establishment of a clear governance structure for the implementation programme of the baseline review. That includes an internal steering committee, and an advisory group that includes central agency and key stakeholder representation—that is a point that was raised by the member who just resumed her seat, Judy Turner of United Future—ensuring that the department has better links with community organisations. I know that she will be supportive of the advisory committee’s role in that regard. We now have the establishment of a programme management office with very strong leadership to coordinate the implementation programme across the whole department. We now have the development of the implementation plan for the first phase of the programme. So the change in the department’s governance structures has given clear separation between the oversight of day-to-day management and the longer-term strategic issues—something that I know will be welcomed by the select committee.

I will now move on to the management issues. There has been a realignment of the senior management structure within the national office to provide greater clarity of accountability. There has been increased frequency of communication with staff through use of a new, Intranet-based newsletter, there have been salary and progression processes for social workers, and we have seen the completion of two funding draw-down requests, both of which have been approved.

I will briefly touch on some of the operation issues, which I know will also be of interest to the Committee. We have seen the development of the interim demand management strategy, which is now in its implementation phase. We have seen planning for implementing the increased expenditure for the convening of family group conferences and the development of those agreements. We have seen the recruitment and appointment of additional front-line staff, including 28 permanency workers. One of the criticisms of the baseline review was that not only did we put too much focus on quantity, but that it was often to the detriment of quality; the appointment of those permanency workers will certainly help with that. We have seen the development of a monitoring and reporting plan. We have seen the development of a comprehensive implementation plan for the remainder of the programme. We now have the review of the regional structures for both resources and support. We have seen the alignment of the national office structures. We have seen the recruitment of review and evaluation analysts. We have seen the development of a revised social worker workforce capability strategy, and a youth justice capability review. The non-departmental output class review is under way, looking at the range of services that are currently funded by the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services: should they be funded more appropriately through another department or agency, and is the widespread range that is currently funded through the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services undermining the ability of the department to have a clear focus on what should be its key outcomes? We have seen the development of demand forecasting models and the development of caseload management systems.

That is a huge amount of work for the department in just a few months. During that time it has seen an unprecedented increase in the number of notifications to the department. Sometimes it feels as if we are a little stuck between a rock and a hard place. We want people in our community to be totally intolerant of child abuse, we want people to ring for help, but if they do, we have to be able to ensure that we can give high-quality help, if it is required as a result of that phone call. Ensuring that the department moves along, that it is able to meet the demand that it support communities’ intolerance of child abuse, so that we know that our children will be safe, particularly in their own homes, is the hardest challenge for us.

We have an extraordinarily competent bunch within the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. The staff work under immense pressure, and in my view they deserve recognition and valuing for the quality of the work they do and for the huge challenges they face in the future, and they deserve the support of everyone. I wish that somebody from the National Party had taken a call in support of the work that the staff are doing, but it seems that will not happen. Certainly, from the indications that I have had from both United Future and the Green Party, and probably from New Zealand First as well, I know that that hard work is not going unvalued or unrecognised, and we will continue to offer the staff of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services our support in the future.

Reports noted.

Ministry of Justice