2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
What factors will she take into account when making decisions about expanding funding for community programmes?
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
A number, but two factors would include giving young people a foothold into work and ensuring value for taxpayers’ money.
Does she believe taxpayers would support extending funding for Community Max, when they read of a programme that costs more than $175,000 to employ 12 people for 6 months to produce a Māori business directory that was launched in January last year and canned 5 months later, because better Māori business directories were already available online?
Yes, if a large number of those people who attended the course subsequently did not require the assistance of a benefit.
When the Acting Minister said in Parliament, in response to a question earlier in the week, that Community Max programmes were value for money, unlike “hip-hop tours going around the world for $26,000”, was he aware that the same amount of money was being spent on hip-hop training in Christchurch; if so, do the 16 people who finished the course and who are not on a benefit have a job?
The member is labouring under some misapprehensions about how those two schemes compare, so let us take a bit of time to clarify that—let us clear that up. Firstly, two people teaching hip hop in a classroom as an alternative to sport does not compare to $26,000 on a hip-hop tour for a mother and daughter who went to New York, Los Angeles, Paris, Hawaii, and Fiji. Secondly, there was no chill-out time built into this programme, as there was under that programme when the two participants stopped off in Fiji for a holiday. Finally, and most important, of the 19 participants in this programme, 18 are no longer on benefits.
If the Government is interested in value for money, when will she stop funding boot camps, a programme that was the brainchild of the Prime Minister, which, after less than 1 year in operation, has had a reoffending rate by those who completed the course of 50 percent, a rate that is estimated to reach 65 to 70 percent after 2 years, and which is costing $36,000 for every person on it?
No, funding will continue for those camps, and the reason is that once the two trials that the member referred to were completed, the one full course, which has undergone some tweaks since those trials, has seen only two people reoffend since that part of the course was completed.
Why did she allow Work and Income to enter into a funding arrangement of nearly $40,000 with a charity in Christchurch, when she was advised that the principal of that charity was an overstayer in this country, and is this not just another example of the shambles that the Government’s programmes are in, even though the Minister tries to pretend they are working?
In respect of the second part of that question, they are working. Approximately 70 percent of those who attend these courses are no longer on a benefit. In respect of the first part—
Hon Trevor Mallard—not necessarily. In respect of the first part of the question, I am sorry that I do not have that detail to hand.
Jacinda ArdernIs it correct that the 70 percent figure that she and the Prime Minister continue to use actually represents the number of graduates that Work and Income cannot account for, as stated by Peter Hughes; and that after spending more than $50 million on this scheme, she has no idea what impact it has had?
That is a very cynical slant to put on the information that has been made available to date. The fact is approximately 70 percent of the people who have completed these courses no longer receive a benefit. I think that is a good-news story, and I do not know why members on the other side want those people to be back on a benefit.
Does she acknowledge that her ministry can claim to have placed only 936 Community Max graduates into work, and that that represents just 1 percent of the young Kiwis who are not in work, education, or training?
I cannot comment on the raw number that the member uses, but I can give some percentages. As at November 2010 of those who had contacted the ministry, which they are not required to do, 28.7 percent were in work—part-time or full-time—and 10 percent were in training or education. There is a large number who have not contacted the ministry, but we do know they are not on a benefit.