Party claims of wrong-doing over work schemes fall flat

Press, 4 February 1987, Page 3

Party claims of wrong-doing over work schemes fall flat

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington Allegations by the National Party in Parliament yesterday of Government wrong-doing over the project work schemes and gang funding fell rather flat. A series of questions and a two-hour debate in Parliament fleshed out accusations of maladministration. However, the debate descended into gangbashing, the Government being accused of wasting

public money by funding gang activities. The Opposition believed some Cabinet Ministers had colluded to cover up impropriety. The Minister of Police, Mrs Hercus, said, “To repeat lies in the House does not make them the truth.” The basis of National’s claims of impropriety lay in section 18:11 of a police report by Sergeant Mark Penn about the National Marae in Christchurch. This was read out to Parliament by the Leader

of the Opposition, Mr Bolger: "By far the most serious aspect of this so far is the confidential allegation that Mr Holland (District Superintendent of Labour) told Mr Brennan (secretary of the trust board running the marae) that workers on the marae would not be paid unless they turned up for work. “Mr Brennan reportedly was very upset at this and flew to Wellington soon after to see the Minister of Maori Affairs, Mr Wetere. Mr Holland subsequently received a direction from the Minister of Employment, Mr Burke, to' keep the payments going.” The Prime Minister, Mr Lange, captured the initiative on this, by saying on Monday- that Sergeant Penn’s section 18:11 was “absolutely incorrect.” When asked how he knew that, he said he had been told it was incorrect by Mr Burke, the Commissioner of Police, and the departmental officer, concerned. Mrs Hercus was then asked as Minister of Social Welfare if benefits of about $BOO,OOO had been paid to gang members in Christchurch who were already involved in Government sponsored work schemes. Mrs Hercus told Parliament this was not correct. These figures, which were also contained in the Penn report, had been only an estimate.

The Social Welfare Department had conducted an exhaustive inquiry to see if gang members receiving benefits were also being funded through work schemes.

Of the 6700 people in Christchurch identified by the department as being involved in work schemes, nine “may possibly” have been receiving benefits as well, she said. Nine out of 6700 was only a fraction.

Further, there was no evidence that any of these

nine had received Government funds from both sources, and no evidence that any of the nine were members of gangs — only that they might. Mrs Hercus said that nine out of 6700 possibles, when placed in a national context, showed less benefit abuse in Christchurch than the national average. At that, the debate lost most of its point, although bo'th sides continued to shout at each other. Mr Philip Burdon (Nat., Fendalton) tried to ask Mrs Hercus how reliable her department’s quality control mechanism was that produced , these figures, but was not allowed to by the Speaker. Later, Mrs Hercus said the Social Welfare Department did not keep details that could identify gang members as being beneficiaries.', ... Her department had cooperated fully with the police to try to crosscheck, and that had revealed that about $2OOO of the $BOO,OOO spent in Christchurch had been paid to gang members. Any inference in the Penn report that the Social Welfare Department had not co-operated with the police was unfounded. They had turned up no hard evidence of beriefit abuse, and both considered this exercise a waste of their time and resources in the result. . Mrs Hercus gave an assurance that the department had not released private, individual and confidential information to anyone — including Sergeant Penn. It had been a simple exercise for him to add up the figures on a computer, but that did not mean access had been given to information about individuals. Mr Bolger said the Government had been floundering round for months wondering how to get out of the mess its funding of gangs had got it into. There had been gross

mismanagement of public funds and widespread allegations of intimidation of those trying to correct the situation — including a threat to burn the house of an officer. The Government had known for months of the abuses of the scheme, the amazing over-payments for individual jobs, and public alarm before being forced to act, he said. The Minister of Employment, Mr Burke, said the schemes had been going since 1981 and their management had been the subject of adverse comment by the AuditorGeneral in his ‘ 1984 annual report. There had been no supervision of payments and the schemes had been “riddled with sloppiness” ..which he had been trying >to .correct. -< • Thfe Labour Depiartment' had never had proper guidelines and these deficiencies were taking years to repair. Finally, the Government had had to declare a moratorium on new schemes, before terminating schemes altogether and looking for new ways to fund projects.