Winston calls Whanau Ora a grubby and cynical deal

Northland MP Winston Peters has labelled Whanau Ora a "grubby and cynical deal between National and the Maori Party," following a scathing report from the Auditor-General and revelations that much of the money had been spent in Maori Ministers' home territories.

That was a matter of serious concern, Mr Peters said, given the Prime Minister's rejection of that fact, which had been contained in the Auditor-General's report.

Mr Key claimed in Parliament last week that there had been "quite a lot of tightening up" of the scheme, but the Auditor-General had found "absolutely no evidence" that good value had been gained from the $140 million spent so far.

"The simple truth is, Whanau Ora is a politically motivated scheme that is squandering public money," Mr Peters said.

"Mr Key unsuccessfully defended the preferential treatment of his Cabinet Ministers by suggesting a start had to made in some place. This was an undignified sidestep around questions over a scheme that has not stood up to scrutiny.

"The Auditor-General's report shows that a third of all Whanau Ora payments went to just two of 10 regions, both the home areas of two former Maori Party Ministers. Nearly a quarter of all individuals getting funding through the WIIE fund between 2010 and 2012 were in Minister of Whanau Ora Tariana Turia's home territory.

"Whanau Ora has been allowed to evade the usual standards of open and accountable public administration because Mr Key has been focused on shoring up the Maori Party as a support partner. It is a grubby and cynical deal between National and the Maori Party."

In the history of public expenditure in New Zealand it would be hard to find any other programme that had so little in the way of justification, or evidence to warrant its continued existence, he said, while to describe the objectives of Whanau Ora as vague, amorphous, woolly and unmeasurable was an under-statement.

"At a time of fiscal restraint, widespread cost-cutting and hardship for many families, this so-called programme is deeply offensive to New Zealanders " to the many Maori who struggle to find work and pay bills, and the many families facing serious stress and who could make good use of extra financial support," he concluded.

Te Tai Tokerau MP Kelvin Davis was also highly critical of the fact that approximately one-third of Whanau Ora funding had been spent on administration.

He was at some pains last week to explain that he believed the concept was a good one, and that he was certainly not opposed to or unsupportive of any programme that would assist whanau, but he was not prepared to accept a process that failed to deliver to the people who needed it, or that could not quantify the benefits it had delivered.

"If you criticise Whanau Ora you tend to be labelled anti-whanau, but I'm not," he said.

"I'm anti spending a lot of money that doesn't deliver results and doesn't help the people it is supposed to help. Do we have one less person with a gambling problem because of Whanau Ora? Is there one less person with a drinking problem, a drug problem or a violence problem? For all the millions of dollars that have been spent, we don't know, and that's unacceptable."