5. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
Does his ministry comply with the Prime Minister’s statement that “The government expectation is that departments will build capacity, so are not routinely hiring contractors for their core functions.”; if not, why not?
Hon RUTH DYSONHow can it be in accordance with the Prime Minister’s statement for his ministry to indulge in a $40 million spend-up on private contractors and consultants in only 3 years, plus another $15 million on marketing Labour’s Working for Families policy, while at the same time increasing the number of in-house spin doctors by 134 percent?
The member uses new maths in both her supplementary question and her press release of 17 July. The press release says that the ministry spent $17.2 million in 2005-06; actually, that figure was $13.5 million—$2.6 million was budgeted to be spent the following year. Further, Ms Collins counted parts of a contract with Saatchi and Saatchi for the yearly StudyLink campaign, to ensure that students knew that they could approach StudyLink online and thus reduce their waiting time, up to four times. She counted the same contract four times, because it was in the estimates information provided to the select committee four times. Rather than working out that each mention applied to exactly the same contract, she just added them up. The question has about as much credibility as her maths.
Steve ChadwickIs the Minister aware of any instances where ministries or departments have been unable to meet their core functions and responsibilities without using external consultants or contractors?
I am aware of the incident that led the Prime Minister to make the statement that the member used in her primary question. It was when Labour was elected to lead the Government in 1999, and the Public Service had been so badly run down by the previous 9 years of a National Government that the Department of Work and Income had to hire external consultants to write the briefing to the incoming Government. The Labour-led Government has focused on rebuilding core capability within the Public Service, unlike the National Party, which wants to slash public spending for tax cuts.
Does the Minister agree that speech writing, literature reviews, and communication plans are core functions for in-house public relations staff; if he does, why has the Ministry of Social Development’s expenditure on private consultants to do this sort of work soared to record highs while at the same time his in-house public relations staff have increased from 23 people in 2001 to 54 today—
As the member knows, there are some instances where it does make sense to use consultants and contractors—for example, where there are temporary increases in demand, where there are short-term—
Madam SPEAKERPlease be seated. Because members are sitting near the Chair, their constant interjections during the answer are probably louder and more troublesome than normal. I would ask those members please to wait for the Minister to answer the question; then they can have another supplementary question.
There are some instances where it does make sense to use consultants and contractors—for example, where there are temporary increases in demand, where there are short-term difficulties recruiting staff for permanent roles, or where specialist knowledge is required. It is also important to remember that in some areas—for example, the planning and execution of public awareness campaigns—most of the available expertise can actually only be sourced on a contractual basis. Our Government believes in the public of New Zealand knowing, understanding, and being able to receive their entitlement.
Does the Minister stand by his statement when in Opposition that “Work and Income is a gravy train for consultants, and the public sector relies too much on contracted staff.”; if he does, why has he allowed his ministry’s spending on contractors to soar from $5 million in 2004 to $17 million last year; and if the department was a gravy train for consultants then, would it be fair to describe his ministry as a runaway gravy train for consultants now?
The member conveniently overlooks the fact that the former Department of Work and Income is not comparable with the current Ministry of Social Development. The Ministry of Social Development was, in the bad old days of her party leading the Government, part of a separate operation; it is no longer—in the same way as the former Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is now part of that ministry, and in the same way as the Ministry of Youth Affairs is now part of that ministry. She cannot get away with being so lazy as to compare apples with oranges. The fact is that in the days prior to 1999 the core functions of the Department of Work and Income, such as writing the briefing to the incoming new Government, had to be consulted out because of the rundown of the public service.
Why, after all the staff increases and the $200,000 salaries, is the Minister’s ministry still employing contractors for advice, when 8 years ago the Prime Minister, in talking about the Department of Work and Income, said: “What can be more fundamental than advising a Government?” and “You have to get consultants to do it? What is going on at WINZ?”
I think the member should learn a lesson from Keith Locke and say “This is a friendly question.” The Department of Work and Income under the Government of that member’s party had to hire out to PricewaterhouseCoopers provision of the briefing to the incoming Government. There is nothing more core or fundamental, from a departmental view, than providing a briefing to an incoming Government. The member also conveniently overlooks the fact that the Ministry of Social Policy is no longer. We now have within the Ministry of Social Development Work and Income, which was previously separated; Child, Youth and Family, which was previously separated; the Ministry of Youth Development, which was previously separated; as well as two other new offices. If the member wants to ever gain an ounce of credibility, and restore the faith that her co-leader Bill English has never had in her, she should try presenting some facts in a question.
Does the Minister agree with Helen Clark, who in 1999 said of the Department of Work and Income hiring consultants for core tasks: “You might expect it of a small agency which doesn’t have many staff, but for heaven’s sake this one would be the largest Government department.”; if so, why is it necessary for his ministry, which is the largest Government department, to hire record numbers of public relations consultants at the very same time that his in-house public relations staff team has ballooned to 54 people—a 134 percent increase in just 6 years?
The member can continue to compare two completely different scenarios, but it does nothing at all for her credibility. She cannot assume that advertising campaigns and the promotion of new entitlements should automatically be done within the baseline; that is not always the case. The funding for the advertising campaign for Working for Families was new, additional funding; it was allowed for in the new Budget item. It is not part of the contracting and consultancy fee, as it was made out to be in that member’s press statement; it is separate.
I seek leave to table a table of staff numbers at the Ministry of Social Development showing the massive—