Urgent Debates — Whānau Ora—Auditor-General’s Report

I have received a letter from the Hon Nanaia Mahuta seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 some issues with Whānau Ora revealed in the report by the Controller and Auditor-General, Whānau Ora: The first four years. The release of the report is a particular case of recent occurrence. As it is an Auditor-General’s report, there is no ministerial responsibility for the report, though I do accept that it deals with matters involving ministerial responsibility.

The House has in place a procedure to consider reports from Officers of Parliament. They stand referred to select committees for consideration and report. Any such select committee report is set down for consideration as a members’ order of the day. But this may take some time. Ultimately, a debate on the committee’s report may provide an opportunity to consider the quality of the Government’s response. However, serious issues have been raised.

Although the release of an Auditor-General’s report will not always warrant an urgent debate, on this occasion I consider the need to maintain public confidence in programmes such as Whānau Ora justifies the setting aside of the business of the House today. I call on the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.

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.

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.

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.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to check—the bell goes at 10 minutes?

No, you have got a 15-minute contribution. The bell will go when there are 5 minutes to go.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātau katoa i tēnei rā. Kia whai wāhi au ki te tuku i tētahi paku kōrero ki te kuia, ki te pou o te kōhanga reo kua mate nei inā tata nei. Ko Henrietta tērā. Kai te tangihia e te motu nā runga i te āhuatanga o tana ngākaunui ki tēnei kaupapa o te Whānau Ora ka mutu, ki ngā tamariki, ki ngā mokopuna o roto i te kōhanga reo. E kui, te pou o te kōhanga reo, e moe, e moe, e moe! Ka hoki mai ki a tātau e hui nei i tēnei rā, e te Whare Pāremata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Acknowledgments to us all today. I have an opportunity to make a brief statement to the elder matriarch and pillar of the kōhanga reo movement who passed just moments ago. That was Henrietta. She is to be mourned by the nation because of her huge commitment to this policy of Whānau Ora and, furthermore, to the children and grandchildren within the kōhanga reo movement. To the matriarch and pillar of the movement, rest, sleep, and slumber! I come back to us assembled here on this day, to the House I acknowledge, salute, and greet you collectively; my appreciation to us all.]

Firstly, can I say that I appreciate the comments made by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and, indeed, endorse the comments in respect of the opportunity that this debate has given for us to place some issues on the table and, in fact, on the record. It is my role, I think, to address a number of the concerns, and I wish to do that. I want to do it in a very considered way, to ensure that all the facts are on the table. I can say that this opportunity has arisen because of the Auditor-General’s report. I would say this: the Auditor-General’s report and, indeed, the Productivity Commission’s report told us that there is huge, huge potential for Whānau Ora and that we should definitely not throw it out with the bathwater. I would also accept that there are some bits that we have to tidy up. We need to put it in the context that this kaupapa—this report—was over a 4-year period when, in fact, we have moved on. We have moved on to the second phase, so I want to put it in that context.

One of the questions that is always raised is: what is Whānau Ora? Well, Whānau Ora is an approach to help families and whānau in need. Just like the people who are represented by the Rt Hon Winston Peters and by the Hon Hekia Parata, it is looking after those people who are in need. It restores whānau as masters of their own destinies. Whānau Ora is not about the Government fixing whānau; it is about whānau looking after themselves. It is about whānau empowering themselves as a whole to identify what matters to them, rather than focusing on the individuals in isolation.

There is a statement that says it takes a pā to raise our children, and I agree with that. This is what the basis of Whānau Ora is. Whānau Ora requires providers to work together in the interests of whānau and not just the individual, which is a departure from strategies used by previous Governments over many years, which have not solved the issues one iota. So the Government, along with the Māori Party, chose to be bold, to be innovative, and to come up with a new pathway that might address those issues.

Why was Whānau Ora established? It was established because too many whanau and families have complex needs, and the Government simply wanted to do something about it and to make a positive difference—as did we in the Māori Party, the originators of this kaupapa. Actually, I had better say that we are not the originators of this kaupapa; it is people like John Rangihau, through the report called Puao-te-ata-tū, who actually put this kaupapa on the table. I want to acknowledge those who are a part of that scheme. Whānau Ora means that providers work together with each other to respond to the whānau needs and use their service contracts to address those needs.

What are the outcomes that Whānau Ora is designed to support? Well, as the approach is led by whānau, you would understand that outcomes are tailored for its members. No two families are the same, and therefore from time to time the outcomes that are measured are clearly going to be different. Whānau Ora is designed to support whānau in need. Whānau Ora is intended to restore whānau as masters of their own destinies.

Whānau Ora is about making people move towards a positive lifestyle—“whānau” meaning families; “ora” meaning well-being. Whānau should work towards a stronger economic base. So it is not just about the doom and gloom, but it is actually about seeking horizons and looking at future prospects and the potential within whānau. This, in turn, leads to whānau being active participants in Aotearoa New Zealand. These outcomes were where the original task force report set the scene for how phases one and two of Whānau Ora would be rolled out.

One criticism in the report was that people did not have a good understanding of Whānau Ora. Well, Whānau Ora, for the record, was radical, it was a new idea, it was inventive, and it showed that we wanted to look down a new pathway to look at the potential of families. Back in 1988 Puao-te-ata-tū challenged, in fact, our country to change our approach to supporting families in need instead of concentrating on the individuals. For decades Governments have counted outputs rather than outcomes, and Whānau Ora is all about being brave enough to measure real change in people’s lives over a far longer period.

Whānau Ora has been criticised for being confusing and riddled with inconsistencies. I think that has been overstated. For far too long we have focused, as I say, on the individual and what has gone wrong for them. I am unapologetic about the brave departure from the status quo. I believe in Whānau Ora, I believe in the results, and I believe in it because I have seen the results. I have spoken to people who have sat alongside navigators. In fact, in only one week on the road, I went out and had Whānau Ora families sit in front of me, and all of those families, with their children, shed tears about the impact that not Whānau Ora per se but the individual providers—the navigators—had had in assisting their families. I am talking about mothers. I am talking about gang mothers who have changed their lives. I absolutely believe in this kaupapa. It is right for this country and it is right for our people.

Who is Whānau Ora for? Well, it is not for the down and out only. As I said, it is for everyone. But I will be clear—it is by way of a Māori lens for dealing with these solutions. Does that mean it is hard for anybody else to see it? No, it is not. Why? Because at this point in time the statistics I have say that about 35 percent of families receiving support from Whānau Ora are from ethnic groups other than Māori and Pasifika. That tells us it works. It can work for others, but it is definitely through a different cultural lens, which may be why the Auditor-General suspects that it was hard to understand. But I take the point. There is no use hiding from it; let us put it out there.

How does it work? Well, Whānau Ora is influenced by what families and whānau wish to do—not by somebody telling them, but by what they want to do. It puts the mana and the power back in their hands. Sometimes a navigator helps the family to work it out and guides them as to what might assist them in getting and achieving their goals. When a whānau visits a social service, the intent is that the provider worker or the navigator is able to link up the family with what is required, and I have seen the benefits of that.

The question was asked around what a whānau plan is. Well, a whānau plan is the tool for whānau to say what matters to them. They choose it. A lot of whānau want the same things. Of course they do—better lives for children, employment, homeownership, education, health outcomes, and skill development. Those are generic things that most families want. Some are fortunate to have them.

Developing a whānau plan means that the whole family works together. We are not just talking about mum, dad, the eldest child, or the four in the house; we are talking about whānau in the widest sense, because whānau could be the rugby league club secretary, it could be the parent teacher association, it could be a teacher, it could be the coach, or it could be all of those. They decide and they define it.

Developing a whānau plan means that everybody works together and that if you have to find work, everybody pitches in. If you have to give up smoking, everybody assists in that because if one person in the house is smoking, it affects everybody. That is what it is all about. A plan usually involves a number of actions. Some actions do not require Government support, and that is even better. It is far more fiscally neutral and delivers the results because the family have bought into it.

What are the key elements of Whānau Ora? Well, we have talked about navigators. Navigators, in my humble opinion, are the key to Whānau Ora. Why? Because they are from those communities, they know those communities, they know the people, and they make the connections. I have seen it for myself. They are the ones who work at the coalface. They support the family to identify their needs and achieve their goals. They are often the link. They join up the family, the whānau, with the services. Or perhaps it is information that they might need—identifying early childhood education options for mum; that could be it. So they are an important ingredient in Whānau Ora.

The other part is commissioning agencies, and these are only a new beast that has come on the scene. I will not talk about them too much because they are not very relevant in terms of the report. Suffice to say that they are the second phase of the roll-out of Whānau Ora. “Beast” is not the best term for that particular element of Whānau Ora, but I use it in the wider sense, if you do not mind.

Provider collectives—this is the great innovation about Whānau Ora. It actually brought people together to work for the purposes of the family. It is not just one in one box, another over there, and another over there. They actually joined hands in the best interests of the families. So Whānau Ora provider collectives are an important key of this kaupapa. They are accountable for the delivery of services for health, education, and the social sectors, as well. Whānau Ora supported those collectives to come together and have a collective impact, not solely focused on their own provider interests.

Some have asked about the results of Whānau Ora. Well, here it is. We do have the statistics that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta talked about—9,408 whānau representing 49,625 individuals received whānau-centred services. Of those, 5,499 whānau representing 23,855 individuals worked with navigators. Provider collectives have orientated themselves towards whānau-centred perspectives to focus not just on the individual.

So what has changed? I have told you that Whānau Ora has had a huge impact on a huge number of people throughout this country. We must allow it to roll into phase two.

The other questions that were raised are around why it is that Te Puni Kōkiri will be leading Whānau Ora, and there were, I suppose, criticisms made by some members about the involvement of Te Puni Kōkiri. Whānau Ora is based on kaupapa Māori, with core elements applicable to whānau. That is why Whānau Ora is under the auspices of Te Puni Kōkiri.

Were there delays in spending that meant funds originally set aside for whānau and providers did not reach them? Money did not pass hands unless contracts and expectations were in place. This is prudent management. The expression of interest process for provider collectives was significant, with 300 wanting to be a part of Whānau Ora. That process and assessment took longer than anticipated. Yes, there were transfers of resources between financial years. However, I can say this: 99 percent of the funding intended for whānau and providers reached their hands. The criticism has been that it did not reach their hands. I am saying to you, on the advice that I have, that 99 percent of that money did reach the hands of those who needed it. The Government made decisions in July 2013 to move to phase two of Whānau Ora, and all uncommitted funds were redirected to the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies—that is why.

Another criticism was about why Te Puni Kōkiri spent nearly one-third of the funds on administration. I have said publicly in the media that Whānau Ora is a new kaupapa. It was starting up. There were a lot of costs associated with designing Whānau Ora and the parts of this approach. Going forward, I expect to ensure that all the administration costs are in line with the task at hand. The Office of the Auditor-General counted in its account the design, development, implementation of phases one and two, evaluation and action research, and costs for governance groups and regional leadership groups. Te Puni Kōkiri’s specific administration costs equate to about 20 percent, and it is my understanding that that is pretty reasonable under normal circumstances within Government departments.

Will I be investigating the administration and management of Whānau Ora? The costs in the report referred to are for the last 4 years. They have been accounted for. Te Puni Kōkiri has received a clean audit report from Audit New Zealand. In each of the last 4 years or so it has received a clean report and all of the money has been accounted for. Going forward, I have asked the chief executive to ensure her management decisions and the costs for Whānau Ora are prudent and not over the top.

Whānau Ora has my absolute commitment. Why? Because I have seen the results. I know what it can do for families, children, mums, dads, uncles, and those in need. There are so many people in our country who have that need, and the State has failed to deliver that in the past. Whānau Ora was always going to be a new approach. It was innovative. It was always going to have some bumps along the way, but there can be no doubting the evidence that I have had presented to me—and, indeed, that was presented to the Hon Tariana Turia—that Whānau Ora is right for this country. It does produce results. In fact, many of the people who receive the benefits of Whānau Ora, with some of its mistakes, are the people whom many of the people in this House represent.

In that regard, I would hope that I am clear that this Government is committed to Whānau Ora, as am I, to ensure that the issues that have been raised will be dealt with in the best possible way. Whānau Ora, kia kaha. And to all of the providers and workers in Whānau Ora, I say job well done, kia kaha.

Whānau Ora is a new and innovative approach to working alongside whanau, and it has enormous potential to be successful. But Whānau Ora is at great risk of death by a thousand cuts due to mishandling by the Minister for Whānau Ora and Te Puni Kōkiri, and by a lack of commitment from Government agencies. That is what this Auditor-General’s report shows really clearly.

I want to describe the report in a bit more detail than has been given so far because, actually, it is very balanced, and I think the Auditor-General has done a great job. But she shows very clearly that between failing to address issues that have previously been raised around evaluation and reporting and failing to give clear indications of progress and success, Te Puni Kōkiri and the Minister have failed. Alongside that, a complete lack of investment or commitment from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development now means that where there is potential for progress and change, it is being hindered by progressive Government agencies.

💬 Pita Paraone: Patch protection.

“Patch protection”, my friend says. The report shows that there have been some really good outcomes, but it also indicates where those outcomes are at great risk. I understand the Minister’s saying that he believes in this programme, but, with respect, Minister, it does not matter whether you believe in the programme. Your job is to instil confidence and certainty in the rest of the country that this new and innovative approach is working and is cost-effective. That is what will ensure that it is able to continue and build and do better. If you cannot instil that confidence and certainty, the programme will eventually be cut. We can see that happening. We can see the progress of that. So right now is the time to be most concerned with doing the best work for the programme and making sure it has all the best aspects of evaluation, monitoring, and reporting. It is not a time for sitting back.

We all know that Māori programmes, just like Māori people, have to do significantly better than others in order to avoid the extra scrutiny, if you like, that we all attract. We know that that happens. Māori programmes get additional scrutiny; so do Māori people. We have to do three times better to get anywhere. So one of the major problems that this report responds to is a failure to build resilience into the system from the start, acknowledge that there is extra risk, and, therefore, make sure the programme would be able to stand up to that risk.

This is not the first report that has criticised Whānau Ora. There was, in 2012, a serious report showing issues with the funding assessments. We were assured then that there would be new evaluation and monitoring put into Whānau Ora that would improve those systems, but the Auditor-General’s report shows yet again that that has not been done, and that is a failure of the ministry and Te Puni Kōkiri.

But I will say that the report does talk about favourably about the programme. It is not just a criticism. The Auditor-General says: “I have no doubt that some commentators will make light of the successes described in this report and make much of the criticisms.”—and I think that has been true—“However, an innovative idea should not be abandoned just because of implementation problems. I earnestly hope that those involved with the next phase of Whānau Ora are able to take my criticisms on board and learn from them.”

She also went on to describe a couple of examples where Whānau Ora has worked effectively, one of which was where a woman who had had mental health issues for 40 years had a Whānau Ora intervention. A person went to her home every week for more than a year to assist her to build up her capacity and resilience to operate well within the whānau. After a bit over a year her family were able to say: “Yes, we trust you with our kids. We are able to engage with you as a person of our whānau, and we can wrap around you with some sense of security and certainty.”

I do not know of any other agency that can consistently provide weekly support to someone in this situation in their own home. She did not qualify necessarily for major mental involvement from the health agencies, but Whānau Ora was there to give her and her whānau the support that they needed.

The report also has an example—a very tragic one in my view—of a Whānau Ora navigator who was involved with a man who was an insulin-dependent diabetic. He suffered amputations and he needed more assistance. This navigator worked with this man’s children to get him prosthetic legs and other aids that he needed, and that meant a huge amount of advocating, writing letters, working with the ministry and other agencies, and getting funding for vehicle modifications and bathroom alterations. It meant helping him to resolve delays in getting his financial entitlements—he was not getting all that he was due—and it also meant that not only did he get some back-pay in terms of money he had not been paid but that he was in an improved financial situation. He was also connected to a rural nurse to help him manage his diabetes.

This whānau needed someone to intervene on their behalf and advocate for them, and this is what Whānau Ora did. This is what Whānau Ora does, today, with whānau. But alongside every story of success is the fact that every time there is a legitimate criticism of the funding, the management, and the evaluation, the programme is at risk of being cut. So the Minister has to take these criticisms from the Auditor-General very seriously and make a very firm commitment to fixing this, because otherwise it will be lost.

The Auditor-General also made significant criticisms of other agencies—the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development. One criticism in particular is the fact that these ministries were not able to describe Whānau Ora, how it works, and what it does. Actually, I think it is a failing on their part. It is not that difficult to understand, actually, and they have been working on this now for some years. The fact that people in the ministries could not describe it is their own failing in terms of not investing enough in understanding how the programme works.

There was criticism of the agencies for their funding failures and the mismatch of services. The Auditor-General talks about the fact that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development engaged with Whānau Ora and Te Puni Kōkiri but had an individualised funding approach. There is a significant mismatch, she says, between the services that providers must deliver under their contracts with those ministries compared with Whānau Ora and Te Puni Kōkiri. She goes on to say that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development have done no work on changing the way they operate—and have no intention to—so that they are working with the Whānau Ora approach, as opposed to working with an individualised approach.

She describes in this report that providers are very concerned that they may have been doing this work with this woman with the mental health issues for 12 months under a Whānau Ora contract, and that once that ends there is no funding to enable them to continue to support that whānau in the same way because the Ministry of Health does not have a contract approach that allows for a whānau approach to her needs. When the Ministry of Health funding and the Ministry of Social Development funding is for different purposes, when they have different kinds of contracts, and when they are not engaging with the new approach that is needed and changing their own systems so that they can help to manage the gaps that will always occur when you have one service or agency involved in the whānau and another coming in behind afterwards, well, of course there are going to be problems. Of course there are going to be failures. Those failures are not failures of the programme. They are not failures of the approach. They are not failures of Te Puni Kōkiri or the Minister. They are failures of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development, and their leadership and their Ministers, in that they have not been properly engaging with Whānau Ora and committing to the approach.

So at the end of all that, you end up with a man in similar position, a man who has not yet engaged with Whānau Ora, and a man who, what—never gets his prosthetic legs, a man who never gets the vehicle or the bathroom modifications? At the end of that, is the woman with decades of mental health issues never to be trusted by her family to look after her grandchildren because she cannot get the intervention she needs to become safe? Those are the kinds of families in Aotearoa that we in this Chamber will allow to fall through the cracks because of the failure of the Government, its agencies, and this Parliament in general to commit to an approach that actually works for the people we are here to serve.

This report is very serious and does need to be taken very seriously. It is a severe criticism, I think, of Whānau Ora, Te Puni Kōkiri, and the Minister but also other agencies involved and the Government’s lack of commitment to the concept of Whānau Ora. Thank you.

Whānau Ora was established from a report that did not contain one scrap of empirical fact or evidence. It was based solely on anecdotal evidence, rumour, and bias. The second thing is that there is nothing as antiseptic as the statement: “We told you so.”, but New Zealand First did, from the time we first saw that report. What this says, when you look at the answers from the Government and, in particular, the Prime Minister today, is just how smug and arrogant this Government has become. It is not prepared to even listen to something as authoritative as the first investigation of this operation for 4 years by the Auditor-General. This is what we find: spending on Whānau Ora is completely politically motivated. Four years after its inception, the programme is still a byword for the squandering of public money.

The sad thing is that there are some great Māori deliverers and providers out there that had their programmes taken off them and who were sidelined or had to come under the umbrella of Whānau Ora. What we have got to say today is that we have got no concern in respect of them—they are doing a fine job. But what we have got to ask today is who is culpable in this waste and why it is so damaging to the future of Māori and the taxpayer, as well.

At a time of fiscal restraint, widespread cost-cutting, and hardship for many families, this so-called programme is deeply offensive to many Māori New Zealanders. It is offensive to the many Māori who are struggling to pay their bills, find work, and raise their children. It is offensive to all taxpayers, who are seeing money that could be spent on worthwhile purposes being squandered to indulge the Māori Party and its cronies. It is offensive to the many families in New Zealand facing serious stress, who could make good use of the extra financial support—$140 million is an incredible amount of money. Why, it could, for example, easily fund people in this country with very rare diseases or syndromes, many of whom are Māori, over a period of probably 7 or 8 years.

The latest report by the Auditor-General confirms that there is absolutely no evidence that good value for money has come out of the $140 million so far spent on Whānau Ora. To say that the objectives of Whānau Ora are vague, amorphous, woolly, and unmeasurable is an understatement. If there are no clear goals, aims, and objectives, any spending can be justified. In the history of public expenditure in New Zealand it will be hard to find any other programme that has so little in the way of justification or evidence to warrant its continued existence. I know of many brilliant Māori programmes around this country and they did not need some dreamtime, esoteric view of how the world works from the Māori Party.

With the greatest respect, we have spent more time out there. We know what poverty smells, tastes, and feels like in places like Kawakawa and Kaikohe on the East Coast, and none of this is designed to help them. What it is designed to help is the bureaucracy, and I will prove how it does that. Whānau Ora could never withstand any real scrutiny. First investigation—down it goes. For that reason it has been allowed to obey the usual standards of open and accountable public administration. As we have repeatedly said, Whānau Ora is a programme that has never made even the smallest gesture to good financial practice and accountability. It is an embarrassment to Māoridom. In fact, Whānau Ora has always been nothing more than a grubby and cynical deal between National and the Māori Party.

All the usual rules for scrutiny and oversight have been abandoned. Those people up there like Chris Bishop and others talk about accountability: “It’s a tight time. We haven’t got much in the way of public money to spend.” Consistencies, accountabilities, sunlight—when it came to this, they turned a blind eye. New Zealanders are right to be outraged with this waste and squandering of public money. For example, how many people who benefited from the $40 million in administration costs alone that went to Whānau Ora were allied with or supported the Māori Party? Even in the contracts awarded and the three commissions “appointed” to deliver this kaupapa, how many people were allied to the Māori Party?

Then the questions were asked today of the Prime Minister: “Prime Minister, how come a third of all payments made to whānau and provider collectives went to just two of Te Puni Kōkiri’s 10 regions?”—and guess which two? The ones with Ministers from the Māori Party. I want to ask Marama Fox about how this works when, for example, the greatest population of Māori come from the far north, that magnificent place deprived of sound economic and social management. How much money went to them? How come the two Māori Party Ministers got all the money in terms of percentages? Just two of the 10 got one-third of all payments. That, Marama Fox, is inexcusable. Next time you are in Kaitāia or Kaikohe, or in the far north, or in the other regions, or in the deep south—down there at Ngāi Tahu—explain how this happens, in 2015.

💬 Pita Paraone: What about her people on the East Coast?

Oh, what about her people on the East Coast.

💬 Pita Paraone: They missed out.

They missed out completely. My colleague Pita Paraone, who is very familiar with the East Coast, of course, knows how they feel down there. What are we hearing from the local member as to this improper expenditure? Not a mutter, not a murmur, not a syllable, not a sound. How can you possibly face your people when you go back there, where you are meant to be their loyal and faithful servant, knowing that down here you have turned a blind eye?

Here is the next one: a quarter of all individuals accessing Whānau Ora funding through the Whānau Integration, Innovation and Engagement Fund in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 years were in just one of Te Puni Kōkiri’s regions. It has got 10 regions, and a quarter of the funding went to one region. Guess which one? Why, the region of the former Minister for Whānau Ora herself. And what did the Prime Minister do? This arrogant and smug man said today that he did nothing—nothing.

We in New Zealand First know the propriety that is required to be an accountable party. That is why we are the most frugal party in Parliament by miles. We know what it stands for to be accountable, but what do we have here? How does, for example, the Prime Minister, anybody in the National Government, Marama Fox, or, for that matter, the member for Whangarei possibly describe this to the Māori people up there—that $20,000 went from Whānau Ora to the Mongrel Mob in Dunedin? Did it spend it on Māori causes and purposes? No. Did it spend it on sick Māori or Māori who needed education? No. It spent it on, what? Cannabis. How do I know that? Because I raised the matter in Parliament, and the Minister denied it and got caught out 3 days later. That is how I know that. One of the things we do in the New Zealand First Party is we do our homework—we do our homework. We are not fast on the lip and slow on the hip. No, we do our homework. We raised that one then, and that was what you might say was a dead one as well.

Then we asked: “How come you gave $80,000 to the Whānau Ora Palmerston North Māori Women’s Refuge, where it has not got one client?”. No, no, the Māori women down there who wanted refuge went off to the European women’s refuge. How do you possibly justify that?

Then, of course, there was the doozy of them all—to use the name of one of the guys on the backbench of the National Government—$60,000 went to Ōtaki’s Rāhui Rugby and Sports Club for a 1-day hooley so that it could have whānau connectedness. Now I know that at Mōtatau and up there in Ōtīria, and, in fact, all around the north and on the East Coast—

💬 Pita Paraone: And Whananaki.

—and, indeed, in Whananaki, I could gain some serious connectedness with $60,000. And, you know, I have had the temerity of some of the commentariat who say to me: “But, Mr Peters, they did some good, didn’t they?”. Well, let me tell you this: with $140 million I could do some serious good—yes, I could—but would it be fair? Would it go to all of Māoridom and, at the end of the day, would it have this one aspect, which has always been the aspect of unique Māori service: personal sacrifice? That is something that is not big over there in the Māori Party, is it? Or with the National Party—oh no, it is all about egregious self-advancement.

We in New Zealand First know that with all these programmes there has to be some sacrifice. There has to be some pain, some commitment, and some suffering. That is why we were proud to say from the word go that this programme should be stopped, and the Auditor-General has now said that everything that New Zealand First has said was correct.

Can I just start by acknowledging the considered speech by the front-bench Labour Party spokesman on Whānau Ora. It was a bit surprising. The Labour Party has been deeply confused by this policy. It cannot quite decide whether to be for it or against it. It cannot quite decide whether it is for it or against it, but on the day it made the right decision, which was to critically analyse the Auditor-General’s report, support its conclusions, and urge the Government to implement them, and that is good.

Surprisingly, given the political advantage Mr Peters now has over the Labour Party, he took the wrong tack. I mean, to have the member for Northland say that he needs another $60,000 and that that would fix things is, frankly, ridiculous. There is no shortage of Government money in Northland—no shortage of Government money in Northland. Now the member, of course, faces the challenge that as he moves on, apparently, from his career of “egregious self-advancement”, of which he accuses everyone else, he is now going to have to come to grips with the reality of the continued ineffectiveness of many traditional Government programmes in Northland—programmes and services that as often as not undermine what resilience the families in those lower-income communities in Northland actually have. They have resilience, they have aspiration, and, too often, the chaotic, crisis-driven interventions of Government in the lives of those families make them worse, not better—worse, not better.

The reason we are having this debate today is that the Māori Party, rightly, came to the view that something different needed to be done. Is there evidence of the need for something different to be done? Absolutely—absolutely. If you look at the data for communities around New Zealand, there are three factors that, combined, predict pretty bad outcomes. They are a Child, Youth and Family notification in respect of children in the household, one parent who has had a custodial sentence—that is more common than people think; in Rotorua 10 percent of all children have a parent who has had some kind of corrections-related sentence—and the third factor is spending 75 percent of your life on a benefit. In Rotorua there are 470 of those families, and I would defy any member of this House to dispute what the Auditor-General is saying, which is that something different needs to happen because it is a deeply embedded pattern of persistent deprivation and social failure.

I saw an example of this the other day in Palmerston North. I saw a video of the male from a household that had had in 12 months 161 calls to the police station—161 calls. We know that that is a sign not just of great expense for every one of those calls and the concern about the welfare of the parents and the children in that household. We know that it shows all sorts of other problems, which are long running and intergenerational. It also denotes a pretty miserable household having an impact on the community that is very negative.

The interventions that have gone with, in that case, the Whānau Ora provider, mean that in the 6 or 8 months since they started there have been no phone calls to the police—none. That is a dramatic shift. I would not mind betting that if you went and looked at that family’s interaction with public services for the last 20 years, it would be regular, it would be crisis-driven, it would be chaotic, it would be very expensive. What we know is that a lot of it had not worked.

That is why the Government has backed the approach embedded in Whānau Ora. The Auditor-General’s report draws attention to the nature of the spending. We could go into that in a bit of detail, but one of the ironies here, of course, is that one reason there was significant administrative cost was to absolutely ensure that the money could be tracked so that it could be demonstrated that it was used carefully. For instance, there was a requirement that a number of Whānau Ora providers did not like, nor the families, that if the Government gave money to a whānau, it had to be to a legal entity. Yes, it is a bureaucratic compliance requirement, but I can guarantee that if that was not there, New Zealand First would be ranting about that today. New Zealand First would be saying “Why do you just give money to some individual citizen out there? Aren’t all 4 million of them entitled to the same thing?”. Well, that would have been a fair question.

The other issue that has come up is around evaluation. It is interesting to hear New Zealand First taking the same argument as officials who do not want anything to change. That argument goes like this: how can you put that programme in place when it has not been evaluated? Well, the answer is because it did not exist, that is why. If we followed that argument, we would just stick with the programmes that we know consistently fail—that we know consistently fail. Part of the money here has actually been to set up the evaluation to find out whether it has an impact—to find out whether it has an impact.

In that respect, can I say that Whānua Ora has been subject to more audits, more examination, more testing of outcomes, more oversight than any other social programme. Among the Government’s spending, these numbers over the years add up to $100 million. Over that period we have spent billions on programmes that have been unexamined. I would not say they have been unaudited—they have certainly been audited. They have been subject to high-level oversight and are not subject to anything like the expectation that they will have an impact, as Whānau Ora is.

The Auditor-General is criticising the outcomes framework. If we knocked on the head every Government programme that does not have an outcomes framework, we would have been in surplus 5 years ago. Most Government spending has not had an outcomes framework, and that is why we are changing it. A lot of it has no obvious intent to make an impact. It has got well-intentioned people, it has got providers who can lobby and get the media and who do really care, it is just that it does not make much difference.

Whānau Ora is a programme—the only one I know of, actually—that from its inception has been required to make a difference to the lives of people who desperately need that difference. In some cases it has. In some cases the value for money in year 1 of a programme and year 2 of something new with quite a different view, cutting across the way that the Government is traditionally organised, and quite a different aspect on our families and communities—in some cases that money may not have been applied in exactly the best way. We accept that. The Government accepts the recommendations of the Auditor-General. We made changes back in 2013 that deal, actually, with a number of the Auditor-General’s issues, though not all of them, and we will make sure that that contributes.

I invite every member of Parliament to look at this, and I welcome today the considered debate from most parties—except New Zealand First. There is one challenge for New Zealand First: show us what difference it is going to make in Northland, and what is the magic new recipe? That is what we want to hear from New Zealand First. All we heard today was: “Don’t do this.” All we heard today was: “Don’t try to work with families to help them stand on their own two feet.” Somewhere there is some other magic recipe that is going to fix Northland. You know what? I wish New Zealand First knew—because it is a long, hard road, and a lot of solutions have been tried and failed—as much as it says it does. I just suspect that maybe it does not.

Ā, tēnā koe e te Kaiw’akawā o te Whare nei, otirā, e te W’are tēnā tātou. Tēnā tātou i runga i tēnei kaupapa nunui kei waenganui i ā tātou iwi katoa puta noa i ngā moutere nei. Oti noa, e tika ana ki a mi’i ki a rātou mā, ki te kuia kāta’i anō ka mate. Nō reira, e te whaea haere atu rā.

[And so, my thanks to you, Mr Speaker of this House, but at the same time, salutations to us of the House, acknowledgments to us in regard to this massive matter amongst all of our people throughout these islands. It is appropriate indeed that we acknowledge those who have passed away, namely the elderly one who has just died. Therefore, farewell to you the matriarch.]

Last year during the election campaign whenever I spoke on w’ānau ora, I always prefaced my comments by making certain that the people I was speaking to knew exactly which w’ānau ora I was talking about. I always talked about w’ānau ora, the kaupapa—the concept, the philosophical base that those of us who believe in this kaupapa operate within. I also spoke about w’ānau ora, the model of practice. That is the way that providers provide their w’ānau-centred services to the families that they engage with. Then I talked about the Government programme, the Government policy Whānau Ora, and that is what I want to talk about now.

Last year I actually got myself—I do not think I was in trouble, but I managed to make some statements about the Government policy of Whānau Ora that attracted comment from the then Minister for Whānau Ora, Tariana Turia, who said that I was wrong. Today we have a report that actually says that I was right. I was right to comment on Whānau Ora, the Government policy, because the criticisms that we made last year have now been reported in the Auditor-General’s report.

I think that every party in this House, and the Government and the Minister in particular, needs to take responsibility for the issues that have been raised—not to be talking in this House about the kaupapa or the model of practice, but actually addressing the issue of the Government policy, which is wrong. That is what the Government needs to be talking about. It is easy for us to be talking about what is wrong with our families and bring that to the House as if that is the issue; I can tell the House that that is not the issue. The issue is the way that the Government is implementing this policy of Whānau Ora.

In a way, it is a great sadness to me that the Government chose to use the name “Whānau Ora” for its policy and its programme. It should have left that as a kaupapa, as a concept, and left it as a model of practice for those providers that deliver the services to the people. They should own w’ānau ora, not the Government. I do not need, and my whānau and everyone’s families do not really need, the Government to tell us what w’ānau ora is. What we need is what the Auditor-General has said in her report.

Last year we in Labour campaigned on a policy of reviewing the Government’s policy of Whānau Ora, and that is exactly what the Auditor-General has now told the whole world—that there needs to be a thorough investigation of this Government policy. That is one of the key points that I want to make to this House because, actually, what we have heard so far is a lot of justification.

We have heard about everything that is wrong with our families and about how good the providers are doing, and I agree with that. I agree that our providers out there are doing an excellent job of delivering services under a policy that is quite confused. I can say that because 4 years ago I was the chair of an iwi health provider in Whanganui that went through this process, and I am not surprised at the level of administration and the cost of administration needed to implement this policy. The number of hoops that we had to go through, hurdles we had to go over—change of venues, change of game, and change of the rules—while this policy started to be implemented meant that it could not possibly have been anything else but highly costly administratively.

I do not completely blame Te Puni Kōkiri by itself. I think, and I am speaking from my personal experience, that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development were actually, how would I put it—they were not willing participants in this process. I got the sense when we met with those ministries that Te Puni Kōkiri was having to push them forward to make sure that they participated, and I have spoken to a number of people who have gone through the same experience. The cost of administration was necessary. I think that sometimes Te Puni Kōkiri can be overly risk-averse and that sometimes it puts too many processes in place. When maybe one process might be sufficient, it will have two or three in place, and this is what has happened with Whānau Ora, the Government policy.

The Auditor-General pointed out a number of issues. For example, it has a lot of potential. I think that is one of the highlights of this report, in a report that does not have very many highlights. I think that both the kaupapa—the model or practice—and, indeed, the Government policy have potential if they are done the right way. To me, quite clearly, this has not been done very well. The implementation of it has not been good.

Last week I spoke in the annual review debate and I raised the issue of Māori housing, where in June last year the then Minister announced that a Māori housing fund would go to Te Pou Matakana, a grassroots organisation, so that it could operate that funding for Māori housing. After the election, in December last year, that decision was overturned, and now it is going back to Te Puni Kōkiri. I wonder whether it is time to readdress that particular issue in light of the criticisms in the Auditor-General’s report on Te Puni Kōkiri. Maybe that decision should be revisited and Te Pou Matakana should be given a shot at having that funding for Māori housing. While I am on it, what progress has actually been made in those areas? We have heard nothing about those policy areas since they were announced.

I think it is really important for members on our side of the House to highlight the fact that we did have a policy on w’ānau ora. Within the Auditor-General’s report it says that w’ānau ora actually started in 2002, with a w’ānau ora policy within the Ministry of Health, but one of the key things that stood side by side with that policy was Labour’s funding for outcomes. This is now the basis for the integrated contracts that each and every one of the Whānau Ora providers has had to go through. This is a really important point for me to make because I think that that is one of the three cornerstones of the current Government’s Whānau Ora policy, and that actually started with the Labour Government. We on this side of the House were talking about having integrated contracts with organisations that provided an integrated service. Thank you very much.

I call Marama Fox—5 minutes.

Whānau Ora is an approach to help families and whānau in need. It is radical. I heard the Hon Annette King question what is so radical about it. I will tell you what is radical about it. What is radical about it is that, in fact, Mr Rurawhe was talking about Labour wanting to do something that would bring an integrated approach to supporting whānau, but it did not actually do anything. So on one hand Labour wants to criticise Whānau Ora and on the other hand it wants to claim that it was its idea, which I find quite remarkable.

In fact, this was not our idea. This has nothing to do with Tariana; she did not dream this up. In fact, she says in her own words that Whānau Ora is from Māori. It is a Māori concept for Māori people by Māori—for Māori and, ultimately, for all of Aotearoa New Zealand. This is about value being added to this country based on a kaupapa Māori perspective. Should we claim it in the Government? Is it wrong to claim kaupapa Māori ideas? Why? Because they do not work? They do work, and 45,000 New Zealanders in this country have had the benefit of Whānau Ora—yes, up and down the East Coast, because, yes, there are Whānau Ora providers on the East Coast, and, yes, in the far north.

I was invited to the far north to launch a Whānau Ora initiative that saw Pasifika whānau and Māori whānau come together. Are we in the Māori Party dealing with Pasifika needs, not just those of Māori? Yes, we are. That is the Whānau Ora provision called The Fono, and it has put Whānau Ora providers in the far north. Whānau Ora has benefited people, and everybody has said that. On one hand they talk about how wonderful these navigators are who go out around the country and support whānau to transform their lives and to go from being dependent on Government services to being independent and realising their dreams and aspirations. Yes, the catchcry for Whānau Ora is “Dream it, plan it, live it.” Nobody has criticised that, because that cannot be criticised.

Whānau Ora navigators are doing good work, but what is the response from the Opposition when the approach gets criticised? It says “Oh, let’s cut it. Let’s just cut it. Let’s throw those families back on to the heap, and let’s not give them some provision.” When the services that are currently out there try to deliver services to whānau—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: We didn’t say cut it; we said cut the spending but don’t cut the programme.

You know and I know, Ms Sepuloni. You know—excuse me. Ms Sepuloni may know, although she may be having trouble grasping this, that when there is an issue, Child, Youth and Family rings Whānau Ora navigators. When there is an issue, Ministry of Social Development staff ring Whānau Ora navigators. Why? Because they have success, and this programme has success.

In fact, I sat in on a Whānau Ora hui with young men who otherwise would have been tossed on the heap, young men who had been referred for support because they were being thrown out of school. They were sons of gang members and were getting into trouble. They were on the borderline of being thrown into jail. Instead, what did they do? They went to Whānau Ora providers, who turned their lives round. I watched as 17-year-old hardened young men softened their hearts enough to ring their fathers and organise father-son dates. That is what they called it—their words, not my words. They spent time connecting with their whānau, with their mothers, turning their lives round. They went from having no hope to having a future where they could see themselves with bright and prosperous aspirational gains they never thought were available to them before.

Yes, we need to strengthen Whānau Ora. We could take the $300 million that other services get and put that in Whānau Ora and build the infrastructure, but to say that the policy is flawed—the implementation may be flawed, but these things are being worked on, and that is what we have been doing from the moment we stepped into this building.

Whānau Ora is the way of the future. People all over the world have been asking us to tell them how this works, because before this time, people only spoke about it. I sat in a meeting in about 2002 and listened to people talk about how we could come together as providers and support whānau. Well, this is it, and it is not about the individual; it is about whānau. Kia ora.

Marama Fox from the Māori Party said that when things go wrong, when there are problems with something, the Opposition’s first position is to say “Cut it.” At no point have we said “Cut it.”, but what we are saying is that the responsible thing now is to explore the findings of the Auditor-General and to ask the question why. We support the concept of Whānau Ora. We support the idea of integrated services provision. We support the idea of addressing the needs of a whole family rather than just an individual, but we have to ask questions following the release of this report.

The biggest question we have to ask is around spending. One third of the money put towards Whānau Ora—$42.3 million—went towards administration of the programme. I want to say that I understand that when you start something new, there are going to be additional administrative costs, but one third of the funding going towards administration is something that needs to be explored.

The thing is, too, that that $42.3 million—one third of the funding that went towards Whānau Ora, which has been attributed to administration—is the administrative cost only at the Te Puni Kōkiri level and at the commissioning agency level. If you look at the providers who would then be commissioned by the commissioning agencies, there are going to be further administrative costs there. I do not think that the administrative costs of those providers will reach one third of the funding that they get. But if they were to reach that level of funding, you would be spending two thirds of the funding allocated towards Whānau Ora on administration at the Te Puni Kōkiri level and at the commissioning agency level, and then at the provider level. Effectively, out of $130 million you would be left with only about $40 million that would be going directly to whānau.

That was never the intention of the programme, from what we believe, with regard to when the Māori Party first announced it. The idea was that more money would go directly towards helping whānau. If only $40 million, one third of the funding, is actually reaching whānau, after you take the administration from Te Puni Kōkiri, the commissioning agencies, and then the providers, well, effectively, this is how much money those individuals who were getting help were getting.

We know there were 43,000 because Te Ururoa Flavell said that about 43,000 individuals were helped by Whānau Ora funding and about 9,000 families. If you add that up and say that only $40 million made it to the actual ground, then that would be less than $100 per person who benefited in some way from Whānau Ora. That would be only $444 per family who benefited from Whānau Ora.

So you can see here that there are real problems with the way in which Whānau Ora is operating under the National Government, and we need to investigate it further. It is not just us, on this side of the House, being cynical, but actually it is the responsible thing to do, and it is actually what the Auditor-General said needs to be done. It needs to be explored further. This is not us criticising just for the sake of criticising; this is us being the watchdog of Parliament, holding the Government to account on its spending and saying, actually, that this is not responsible, nor is it acceptable—$43 million on administration just at Te Puni Kōkiri and at the commissioning agency level.

I ran an NGO for 3 years before coming here, a Pacific NGO, and I know how hard our NGO sector works. I know how hard they are working, on the smell of an oily rag. I know that many of the providers out there have had no funding increases for the last 6 years under this National Government. I also know that it was not all smooth sailing when the Whānau Ora funding was rolled out. There were problems that occurred even within my own Pacific community—competition that came about that was not necessarily the healthiest. There were issues there with regard to the relationships and the collaboration that was happening, or not happening, in the sector, so those things need to be investigated as well.

I do want to also just touch on the fact that the Whānau Ora approach is about supporting whānau, rather than just individuals. It is about looking at the whole whānau. It has been problematic, and the report points that out, because that culture or that kaupapa is not necessarily adopted by the two main ministries that are working alongside Whānau Ora—being the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development. There are inconsistencies there that also need to be addressed. It is our responsibility as a Parliament to explore this further.

The next call is a split call. The Hon Hekia Parata—5 minutes.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to participate in this debate about Whānau Ora because there has been a lot of criticism thrown at this initiative, this new approach, because of a fundamental misunderstanding. This is a revolutionary old concept. Yes, it is new to the Public Service, and all of the challenges that are attendant upon that are outlined not only in the Auditor-General’s report but in the numerous reports that have been done since this programme first got underway. It is correct, as the Deputy Prime Minister has already indicated, that this programme has been under more scrutiny than almost any other programme from its get-go, and it has had to develop a whole range of dimensions that we do not demand of any other programme. Whānau Ora as a concept is extremely well understood.

💬 David Shearer: Rubbish! Of course we demand it.

It is not rubbish. It is not rubbish, and I would challenge that member to demonstrate to me—

💬 David Shearer: We demand that the aims and the objectives are clear.

Mehemea kei te mōhio katoa tērā mema ki tēnei kaupapa, ka mōhio a ia. [If that member knows everything about this matter, then he will understand.] So I will tell the House about the other programme that threatens the Opposition members who are happy to sit on their hands and the parlous situation we found when we came into Government in terms of Māori, of Pasifika, of families from poorer homes, which that Government prior to us was happy to sit on.

Here in this Government we have been prepared to take some risks. We have been prepared to work with our coalition partners. We have been prepared to acknowledge the success of very old and traditional concepts within the Māori cultural context. What is revolutionary about this is it proceeds from a paradigm where Māori are right, where all their beliefs, their value systems should be taken into account and imported into a social services provision where it focuses on the collective entity of the whānau, as the previous speaker indicated. But the challenge of that is that Public Service departments have not been accustomed to dealing with those kinds of entities. That has been challenging and the Office of the Auditor-General has pointed out where some of those challenges have failed. But does that mean that you toss this out, that you spend the whole time praying for failure and baying for calamity, as the Opposition consistently does?

As I said earlier in the House, when we came into Government we found that that Opposition was happy to consign Māori and Pasifika students to failure. Well, Whānau Ora is another—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: How much of our university entrance numbers dropped under that Government?

Yes, it was, and the evidence is unimpeachable, and it does not matter how loud the member shouts. The evidence is actually unequivocal: Māori had a 44 percent pass rate at National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2; Pasifika had 51 percent. Under this Government Māori had a 63 percent pass rate and Pasifika had 72 percent. Whānau Ora is another initiative that is directed at intractable problems that that Opposition when it was in Government was not prepared to tackle. It was happy to sing action songs and waiata, but was that making a material difference to the whānau? Not at all.

These navigators tackle some really difficult problems. I was in my colleague’s electorate last week, and I visited Kaiti School. That school has had significant challenges around attendance, transience, and whānau who struggle with difficulties. They have had a Whānau Ora navigator in their school for the past 2 years. The difference it has made is absolutely measurable and palpable. All of the staff whom I met—the principal, the teachers—the whānau who came, and the aiga who came attested to the quality of difference that the whānau navigator has made to their school. These are people who are struggling practically with how to make a difference for their whānau.

So, yes, there have been criticisms of Whānau Ora. It is still developing. I can say from some personal experience how hard it is to get a new and controversial, yet risky and “can make a difference” policy, off the ground. Partnership schools and kura hourua have attracted the same visceral attacks from the Opposition, as again we seek to push out the boundaries. We take risks—yes, we take risks. We are unapologetic about that. We have had some difficulties with one—with one—out of nine schools. These are with children who really do come from challenging circumstances. We cannot get them to attend mainstream schools. Those mainstream schools have said those are the failures. But here is the thing. We are getting raised achievement in all kinds of schools, whether they are mainstream ones or partnership schools. Kura kaupapa Māori, State-based, State-integrated—we are getting—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

The Hon Anne Tolley—5 minutes.

I wish the Opposition speakers who have stood in this House today and have criticised and taken the opportunity to take pot-shots at Whānau Ora had taken the same opportunity to express their concerns about the low educational results for Māori and Pasifika, the low participation in early childhood education by Māori and Pasifika, the low life expectancy for Māori and Pasifika, the high benefit dependency by Māori and Pasifika, the high imprisonment rates for Māori and Pasifika, the high rates of smoking amongst Māori and Pasifika, the high rates of diabetes and heart disease amongst Māori and Pasifika, and the high rates of children living in hardship amongst Māori and Pasifika.

The reality is that we inherited a system that, under the previous Labour Government, continued to throw buckets of money at all of those issues, without any idea of where that money was going and of what effect that money was having. In all of the questions that Opposition members have been asking today, all that they have been interested in is how much money is being spent on this programme and how many people are attending those courses. That is not what changes people’s lives. In fairness, I would have to say that, over the years, successive Governments, both National and Labour, have struggled with how they address the extremely difficult and complex issues that face too many of our Māori and Pasifika families.

Over the years, the statistics are very clear: we have changed nothing. I applaud the Māori Party, which was bold enough to come along and say: “We propose a different way of addressing these issues.” It may not be perfect. I think the Auditor-General’s report is actually a really positive report because in it she acknowledges that this is a new and innovative way of addressing these complex issues. And, yes, there have been problems, and she has—

💬 David Shearer: Read the first page.

Yes, I will read the first page. She says: “I have no doubt that some commentators will make light of the successes described in this report and make much of the criticisms.” Those three guys sitting there—middle-aged white Pākehā men who have been in this House for too long—have no idea of the courage it took the Māori Party to put up this programme and make it work. They have no idea. Phil Goff was part of two Governments that did nothing for Māori and that did nothing to advance the options and opportunities for those families. They sit there now and they carp, but the Māori Party had the courage to say: “We can do this. We need your help. We need your advice. We need some funding in our communities, and we can work to make a difference with our families.”

The Auditor-General’s report makes it clear that those families can do it. With the right support, we can make significant changes. We do need to take learnings from the Auditor-General’s report, and we will do that. But we will not resile from trying different ways of reaching out and supporting those vulnerable children, in particular, and their families. I challenge Opposition members to look past their myopic, middle-class attitudes and reach out to those families too. We could do with their support out and about in their electorates, and those families could too.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.