Reforming Ministry of Social Development

Ministry of Social Development (or as I sometimes call it, Ministry of Social Destruction) is responsible for the implementation of social services and advising the Government on social policy. As it has evolved so have the attitudes of those relying on its services and those who view those services as wastage.

I struggle to think of a Ministry with a more thankless task. It is hated by the right for supporting people who conservative commentators believe need to be shown hard love. As a matter of fact, many of them have jobs. Then one or more of any combination of things happened. It could be that they lost their job, or had an emergency. The Ministry of Social Development is equally disliked by the left for the pedanticism of its staff and practices.

The plan?

So, I am proposing a reform of the entire M.S.D. and the legislative umbrella that it operates under. It stems from my personal experience having to deal with M.S.D. off and on for 13 years between 2000-2007. This was whilst as a student, 2011-2013 following the Christchurch earthquake. During those two periods I observed a lot in their offices. I observed staff entering information I had told them on previous visits. There was paperwork going missing or not being filed properly. I had staff telling me on at least one occasion that they point blank didn’t believe me. The staff members said they were only providing the support because they had a letter in front of them from my G.P. (or other authorized person stating what was happening).

My proposal is to automate as much M.S.D. administration as possible. Too many stories of people being denied care and support that they are entitled to because someone was pedantic, or a system flaw requiring them to show evidence every year that their medical condition, or other issue still exists. I completely fail to see why someone with high needs autism for example who cannot safely work, cannot just receive a singular letter stating that the condition is lifelong. I completely fail to see why people have to spend unnecessary time filling out forms for matters that should already be recorded on the system.

Opportunity Party plan

The Opportunity Party is also proposing such an overhaul as part of its much bigger tax system reset (p. 11). I propose slightly differently, with an overhaul of the Social Welfare Act, and the legislative framework that it is a part of. Is this framework still fit for purpose? What works well and what does not? These questions and a number of others would all be considered.

No other party has shown interest on overhauling the Social Welfare Act. Nor are Parliamentary parties interested in making sure that the rest of the framework is fit for purpose. T.O.P. propose redistributing 2,000 workers after a decade long implementation process for their tax reset. Improved processes will make them surplus to requirements.

As good as the T.O.P. policy is, there are parts of it that I think can be done separately. This is one of them. The big system change looks great, but some of the changes that need to happen might be just as easily obtained through singular more piecemeal actions. These include reforming a ministry, or tweaking individual pieces of legislation.

The future?

This depends very much on how New Zealand votes in November. If Opportunity Party enter Parliament – which current polls suggest will happen – Party leader Qiulae Wong wants a seat at the table. Opportunity are pragmatic about the need to bring Labour and National alongside. In M.M.P. politics no party ever gets to implement their full agenda and concessions have to be made.

But if New Zealand votes for the status quo, you know what to expect.