12. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
Is she satisfied that all commercial contracts awarded by the Ministry of Social Development provide good value for money?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
Yes, I am satisfied that the Ministry of Social Development has policies in place for awarding contracts that are consistent with the Government’s rule and best-practice guidelines. This includes meeting the Government and public expectation of accountability, transparency, and value for money.
Why does the Ministry of Social Development still outsource so much communications, public relations, and media management work, when it has more than doubled its in-house communications, public relations, and media staff from 23 in 2001 to, now, a whopping 54?
It seems to me that there are two parts to that question. The first is on the numbers of staff, and the second is on the outsourcing. In relation to the first part, it has been a very clear focus of our Government to ensure that people are aware of their entitlements, and a large part of that is involved with communication of those entitlements. In regard to the outsourcing, I do not have any difficulty with that work being outsourced, where there are short or fixed-term contracts required in specialist areas or in other areas of expertise that are not core functions of the ministry. That is unlike the Government in 1999, which spent $50,000 outsourcing a contractor to write the briefing to the incoming Minister. That, I would have thought, was core departmental business.
Sue MoroneyWhat are the principles for contracting social services, as set out in the guidelines for social services contracting?
The guidelines that are set out are to ensure that there is a limit on the amount where our open tender process is not required. There are exemptions, including the procurement of public health education and welfare services, and, as I said in answer to the primary question, the Government and public expectation of accountability, transparency, and value for money must be ensured.
Why is the Ministry of Social Development still spending so much on consultants for communications, public relations, and media, when it spent $4 million on its own in-house spin doctors last year, just 6 years after Helen Clark said: “One is tempted to suggest that if some spent as much on core analysis as they do on public relations, the public interest might be better served.”; is Helen Clark not right, in that case?
I am satisfied that a large amount of time, expertise, and funding ensures that the majority of New Zealanders are now aware of the entitlements they are able to receive, and the support they can receive, from a social security agency.
How can the Minister be sure that taxpayers are getting value for money with these contracts, when the Ministry of Social Development paid, for example, $99,226 to one consultant for a mere 6 months’ worth of communications advice, especially when there is no competitive process for awarding these contracts?
In the same way that the Audit Office is satisfied with the level of accountability. Given that that member is a member of the select committee where the financial reviews and estimates are considered, I would have thought she could have relied on the Audit Office process, as well.
How can the Minister be sure that taxpayers are getting value for money when another consultant received almost $50,000 for 3 months’ worth of communications advice, and yet another received $50,000 for something called “strategic communications advice”—why is her ministry spending so much taxpayer money on spinning the Government’s message?
This is not about spinning a message, although if the member would like to ensure that the majority of New Zealanders—the 510,000 people, for example, who are getting an increase in their superannuation—are aware of the fact, I am enthusiastic about that, as well. People on benefits know that this year, as on 1 April every year, their benefit was adjusted to reflect the cost of living price increase. We did not need that communication in the 1990s, because the level of superannuation did not increase and the level of benefits did not increase.