Closing gaps without being noticed

By AUDREY YOUNG

When the Government lowered the flag on its Closing the Gaps programme, the policies did not disappear.

But they scattered away from the spotlight, and from a level of scrutiny that a policy programme headed by the Prime Minister might have expected.

The Government's broad policy direction has not changed.

Any minister will say its aim is still to close socio-economic gaps, reduce inequalities, address social inequities or whatever the current lingo is.

But it is more careful about how it presents such policies.

Michael Cullen's fourth Budget will contain nothing that could be construed or labelled as giving Maori an advantage.

The less the policies are grouped and identified, the less able Opposition parties are able to exploit them as racially divisive - which is what forced the Government to retreat on the gaps policy.

Programmes that could easily have fitted under a Closing the Gaps umbrella continue to operate, and new ones continue to be announced.

For example, in a Budget measure two weeks ago, Associate Education Minister and Maori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia said money would be given for the equivalent of 155 full-time teachers in Maori immersion schools.

But aiming spending at Maori or Pacific Islanders alone is rare.

In this case, it was part of a wider announcement by Education Minister Trevor Mallard that 774 extra teachers over and above roll growth increases would be provided in a plan worth $167 million over four years.

Six months ago, Mr Mallard said money would be given to create more than 1300 extra places for children in early childhood centres.

Proportionately more would be for Maori and Pacific Island toddlers because their participation rates were lower.

As a result, 407 places were allocated to Maori children, 240 to Pacific Island children and 696 to other children.

Mr Mallard is regarded as one of the ministers doing more than most to address Maori disadvantage.

That is exactly what Maori want, says the latest Marae DigiPoll survey of 1000 Maori, which rated education as their most pressing issue.

Ironically, the most dramatic gaps movement, in unemployment, has been the result of broader economic factors rather than targeted spending.

And one of the most clearly and easily measured policies - $18.6 million over four years for Maori smoking cessation programmes - appears to have failed.

Trying to reconstruct Closing the Gaps with the help of key ministers and ministries is a little like to trying to complete an upside-down jig-saw in the dark.

A disparate group of policies was cobbled together in Dr Cullen's 2000 Budget, and given the umbrella title.



Because it had been declared the Government's top theme, departments fell over themselves trying to include anything that might remotely come under a "gaps" programme, regardless of whether they had done the necessary preparation.

After the flagship status was removed, there was an incentive for departments to back away at speed from "gaps" strategies.

That muddled start led to a confusion over what the policies ever were, what they cost, and how they should be measured.

The value of the so-called programme varied from $114 million over four years, to $258 million to $362 million depending on which programmes were included.

For example, the $55 million benefit to Maori state tenants in the first year in the income-related rents policy was sometimes included, sometimes not.

Some in the Government believed the momentum for the gaps programme within state departments would not be lost just because it was no longer in favour and that it would simply continue "underground".

But that has not occurred.

The momentum for swift results diminished when Prime Minister Helen Clark disbanded the special Closing the Gaps Cabinet committee she chaired.

Oversight of the gaps policies has passed to Social Services Minister Steve Maharey, as chairman of the Cabinet social development committee. He does not cut quite the same picture with a whip in his hand.

Government departments were given $245 million of the $362 million budgeted for Gaps over four years.

But their chief executives no longer have to give Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet officials weekly briefings about what they have done to earn the money.

They also blocked a move to give the Ministry of Maori Development, Te Puni Kokiri, powers of audit over them.

National's Murray McCully has frequently accused them of soaking up Gaps money with little reporting on whether it has been well spent or wasted - a suspicion shared by many Maori.

Dr Cullen yesterday defended the spending: "Overall we are getting reasonable bang for our bucks. Social spending and investment is like any other. You're always going to have some failures in it."



But perhaps the most politically risky arm of Gaps funding is the so-called capacity building fund.

For this, Te Puni Kokiri distributes thousands of grants, totalling about $17 million a year, to Maori families, individuals, tribes and organisations.

Called "slush-funds" by their critics, they are intended to help Maori organisations, whanau, hapu and iwi become stronger entities to manage their own development.

Many have been given money to hold hui to set up legal organisations so they receive more money.

The results are less clear. The benefits could be years away; the pitfalls are just around the corner.

The Government wants to encourage Maori to better self-manage. But its critics point to the irony of it fostering a hand-out process to get there.

Helen Clark expressed her concerns after a Cabinet meeting this year in relation to problems with a Government-financed iwi housing scheme.

"The pitfalls ... are that there is a capacity problem and an accountability problem," she said.

"You have to be very careful, and even being very careful does not guarantee results."

Helen Clark's swift backdown on Closing the Gaps has exposed a political vulnerability to Maori voters.

But her decision to hold regular regional hui around New Zealand with an array of ministers cleverly addressed that risk and kept her connected with a crucial support group that might otherwise have felt disowned by her.

Tomorrow The Government's growth and innovation strategy