10. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
How many policy staff are employed by the Ministry of Social Development, and how does this compare with 2002?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
The Ministry of Social Policy and the Department of Work and Income merged in 2002 and had 202 policy staff. In 2004 the Ministry of Youth Affairs joined the ministry. New functions were established, including the Office for Disability Issues, the Office of the Community and Voluntary Sector, and a new regional policy group. Then in 2006 the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services merged with the ministry. As of April this year, the ministry had a total policy staff of 351.
Can the Minister justify the staggering 80 percent increase in the number of policy staff—from 202 in the year 2000, to 369 today—and can she explain in plain English why we have had this increase in the number of bureaucrats when we have actually had a reduction in the number of beneficiaries and when we have the Prime Minister on record as saying that she does not get many of her ideas from the Public Service in New Zealand; why is that?
On this side of the House we actually support high-quality public services and robust policy analysis. It is not surprising that the member does not do so, though, because at a recent forum I was at with her associate member Anne Tolley, Anne Tolley said: “National does not have any social development policy. I will throw a few ideas out to the audience and see what sort of reaction I get.” One would not need policy staff, with that sort of approach.
Lynne PillayThe Ministry of Social Development has built policy capability to develop policies such as Working for Families, Working New Zealand, Pathways to Partnership, and the very popular—and this is supported across the House—family violence prevention policy.
How productive is all that policy; for example, how many of the extra 170 policy staff employed since 2000 are demoralised because they have been wasting their time working on the single core benefit, which is the policy that we recall was announced in 2002, 2005, and also, I think, in 1999 as well, and that I understand is about to be introduced again?
The understanding I have is that the only demoralised staff in the Ministry of Social Development are the ones who listen to that member’s questions.
Does the Minister really expect New Zealanders to believe that all those policy staff are essential, when a New Zealand Institute of Economic Research quality assurance review from 2006 noted: “A number of papers failed to establish either the existence, nature, or scope of the problem.”?
The policies that I outlined earlier—the Working for Families package, Working New Zealand, Pathways to Partnership, and family violence prevention—all make a real difference to the lives of real New Zealanders. So the answer to the question is yes. New Zealanders are much more likely to support having those staff than the 36 that the Leader of the Opposition employs.
Well, is it not true that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research also noted: “Nearly 50 percent of MSD’s policy papers were of average quality or below.”, and a later review stated: “Concerns remain over the inconsistent quality of policy papers.”; and if an 80 percent increase in the number of policy staff is not enough to produce high-quality policy, then how many more staff does the Minister think she needs?
The percentage the member quoted is a much higher pass mark than her deputy leader gave her in emails to his colleagues.
—and we have a very good deputy leader, too. Does the Minister really think that an 80 percent increase in the number of policy staff in just 5 years is the most effective use of taxpayer dollars; and, given the findings of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and others, can she advise when, if ever, she will start to monitor whether her department has achieved value for money—or does she agree with the Prime Minister?