Glossy take on social spending

It fills 80 pages, took a year to write and its production involved 34 government departments.

When the glossy "Opportunity for All New Zealanders" was released a week before Christmas it barely made a ripple - not one news story ran in the media.

Yet Social Development Minister Steve Maharey says its contents will see New Zealand regain its position as a world leader in the social policy debate.

Last week when the Herald spoke to various academics and interests groups working in areas directly affected by its policy, only one person had read it. Most had not heard of it.

National Party social services spokeswoman Katherine Rich and Green MP Sue Bradford said it was a Labour Party election campaign document to pat themselves on the back, disguised as a key policy report.

"To what extent is it just another form of spin?" Sue Bradford asked. "To what extent is it part of the Government's election campaign? Because other political parties can't afford election documents like this."

Mrs Rich said the report was "an absolute load of politically correct nonsense" and was full of "weasel words" - smokescreens to repel people sniffing out the truth.

"When you start to look at the language used it was just a classic Ministry of Social Development, Steve Maharey report. A lot of words that say very little. It was far too long for most members of the public to digest. Fine if you have insomnia."

Since 2001 the Government has published a social report which measures how the country is doing in social development compared with other OECD countries.

"Opportunity for All New Zealanders" essentially sets out what the Government is doing in response to the social report findings and outlines what it plans to do to improve social development.

The report says the Government's social expenditure for 2005/2005 will be about $37.4 billion, 78 per cent of core Crown expenses, therefore it is essential that social sector agencies work together and communicate so work is not doubled up.

Mr Maharey said the purpose of the report was to make Government departments work together and to make social issues more transparent and accountable.

He said that when Labour came into power in 1999, two of the main complaints were that social agencies, such as the Ministries of Health and Education, worked completely independently of each other and that there was no accountability for progress, or lack of it, in social issues.

"Opportunity for All New Zealanders" has forced Government departments to work together. "And it tells you, if you are concerned about a social issue, what the Government is doing about it."

The report identifies the main issues New Zealanders face. Five of these are labelled "critical social issues" and given priority for action over the next three years.

Where the report attracts criticism is in the lack of new information about these issues or new solutions.

Social scientist David Robinson, from Victoria University's Institute of Policy Studies, said he thought the report was a good idea but was essentially a public relations exercise for the Government.

"It could have been called opportunities for the Government rather than opportunities for all New Zealanders. It does seem to be an election-year manifesto for what the Government is going to do."

Mr Robinson said the report made the Government's social policy more transparent, which was commendable, and it encouraged Government departments to work together.

"But I think it misses something out. The key thing we desperately need at the moment is dialogue and deliberation over bigger issues, whether it be the seabed and foreshore or welfare reform.

"What we don't need is more Government reports. We need more community involvement. The missing opportunity is the opportunity to participate in the discussion of where New Zealand is going."

The chairman of the Quality Public Education Coalition, John Minto, said the report said nothing new and did not offer any solutions.

"I think there is a serious dislocation between the Government identifying the problems and implementing solutions. Too many publications like this come out and it doesn't seem to take us one step forward.

"They are identifying the problems really well, but they are specifically avoiding putting steps in place to solve them. I can't see it making a big difference in education."

Women's Refuge policy research adviser Sheryl Hann agreed the report offered nothing new.

"The projects [to stop family violence] are great, but it has been all talk and no action at the moment."

Sue Bradford commended the Government for taking action and responding to the Social Report, "but it is incredible it cost so much and had so comparably little in it".

Mrs Rich said the report would make no difference to those in real need. "It doesn't actually present anything new that is going to solve some of the social problems we know are there."

Mr Maharey said the report did offer answers.

In the past the Government had been criticised for producing a strategy a week and there was now a rich base of information. The race was to implement it as fast as possible.

The Government was constrained by what could be afforded and that was frustrating for people.

"I think we have tonnes of policy. The question is how fast we can practically implement it."

He admitted the report would be hard work for the average New Zealander, but said the eight-page fold-out that accompanied it was written in straightforward language and that was what most people would read.

The way the report was written could be improved.

"I think we have a way to go. I would like to think it will get increasingly friendly, because we want these to be used by people."

The report is "high risk territory" for the Government because by outlining what it is doing, it opens itself to criticism, he said.

But he thinks it is worth it. "This is defining social policy in the world. We are beginning to see New Zealand re-emerge as one of the leaders in the social policy debate."

WHY THE TIMING

Social Development Minister Steve Maharey is adamant he did not set out to bury a major social report - which his opponents label a doorstop - by releasing it in the pre-Christmas rush.

Mr Maharey says the reason Opportunity for All New Zealanders was released on December 16 was that the much-delayed report was finally finished and the Government wanted it out.

But he concedes that the Government will try to promote it this year - which his opponents note just happens to be election year.

Green MP Sue Bradford said the late timing might have been because the Government was embarrassed by the lack of content and lack of clear answers to the problems it identified.

But National MP Katherine Rich said that at that time social service agencies who might have read it, such as the Women's Refuge, were at their busiest. "You'd be lucky if many people have read it and it will already be on their shelves gathering dust."

Five critical social issues

1. Improving educational achievement among low socio-economic groups. Nearly one-third of children are affected by low household incomes.

2. Increasing sustainable work opportunities: 22.6 per cent of the population live in families with income below 60 per cent of the median.

3. Promoting healthy eating and activity. Seventeen per cent of people aged 15 and over are obese; 10 per cent of children are. Obesity costs the health sector about $300 million a year.

4. Cutting tobacco use and drug abuse. In 2002. One in four adults smoked, one in six had heavy drinking habits and one in seven used marijuana.

5. Minimising family violence and child abuse. About 10 children are killed in NZ each year. In 2000, 52 per cent of murders were related to family violence.