Q+A: Greg Boyed interviews Paula Bennett
Q+A: Greg Boyed interviews Paula
Bennett
Minister says it’s not about the
money: “an extra 50 bucks a week” into the homes of
child abusers wouldn’t save lives and more than the extra
$20 million budgeted to fight child abuse would not get
abuse rates down.
“I don’t think it needs more
money… What it takes is a concerted
plan…”
Extra $20m will be spent on new
child-protect line, two pilot children’s teams, the 30,000
child database and “risk-predator tool”, which will all
be up and running by July next year.
Hints at more
staff for CYFs, but says her priority is “better training,
better supervision…” and focusing CYFs on worst cases.
Says “other people” could intervene
earlier.
Acknowledges a link between poverty and
child abuse, but says poverty was worse after World War II,
yet family violence wasn’t as common, so “too
simplistic” to blame poverty.
“…we have an
underlying current of violence towards our children that is,
quite frankly, unfathomable”. Lists causes such as lack of
self-esteem and [mothers in relationships with] “non-blood
men”.
“I do see the children of some fairly
wealthy people that are sadistic and actually treat their
children appallingly.”
The 30,000 children
targeted by National’s Action Plan “are at risk of
death, to put it quite bluntly”.
Minister
promises “significantly more” money for skills training
and connecting people to work in next Budget.
Government
“will pick up” some of the recommendations made by the
Children Commissioner’s expert group.
It will be
10 to 15 years before we will know if these reforms have
succeeded or failed.
“There is no quick
solution,” but, “I won’t be scared to say what
doesn’t work and change it.”
“Sick to
death” of finger-pointing after the death of a child –
“I think you will see clearer lines of
accountability”.
Says she specifically rejected a
universal child database – “I could easily have gone and
scattered more money around and hoped that I actually got it
to the children that needed it most. I am point-blankedly
targeting.”
Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on
TV ONE and one hour later on TV ONE plus
1.
Thanks to the support from NZ
ON Air.
Q+A is on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/NZQandA#!/NZQandA
and on Twitter, http://twitter.com/#!/NZQandA
Q
+ A
GREG BOYED INTERVIEWS PAULA
BENNETT
PAUL
And so on to our special look at children this
morning. We all know the rates of child abuse in New
Zealand are a national disgrace. Listen to these
numbers. To the end of June this year, more than 150,000
cases went to Child, Youth and Family. Of these, nearly
5000 cases of neglect were found, over 3000 cases of
physical abuse. They found – this is a 12-month period
– 1400 cases of sexual abuse. Up to 10 children are
killed in this country each year, and every time they’re
killed by the ones who are supposed to love them the most.
And so when it all happens, we say never again and the
carnage continues. However, the Social Development
Minister, Paula Bennett, has come up with a new plan, her
White Paper on vulnerable children. Greg Boyed spoke earlier
to Paula Bennett and began by asking why she’s targeted
this particular 30,000 at-risk children and how she defines
‘at risk’.
PAULA BENNETT – Social
Development
Minister
Well, we have defined at-risk. It is those that are
currently being maltreated, so we know are being abused or
seriously neglected, and then those who we predict will
be. And we can do a number of factors that means that we
know which children we need to focus on. But it’s pretty
horrific when you’ve got Auckland University researchers
turning around and saying they think 5% of our children’s
population are at risk of serious maltreatment. We have to
do something.
GREG
UNICEF, Barnardos and a number of other groups have
said the number’s too small. 30,000 is too small; it needs
to be a universal number – all kids under a certain age as
is in the Netherlands. Why have you not gone down that
road?
PAULA Well,
we do a lot of work for all children, as we should. So we
have a whole lot of universal initiatives, programmes that
are going in. I find it horrific we’ve got 30,000
children that are potentially living lives of hell. We
have to focus on them. It’s unpalatable. We all like
to think it’s not happening; it is. They are at risk of
death, to put it quite bluntly. We have to do something
for those that really need it.
GREG Okay, it’s
30,000. This is going to sound facetious and it’s not
not meant to be – what about 30,001, 30,002, 30,010?
Where do you draw the line?
PAULA
I hear you, you know, and that’s
what we’ve debated up and down this country through the
Green Paper process and also, you know, amongst ourselves as
we were writing it – where do you draw that line? Look,
it doesn’t mean that if you’re 30,001 you’re not going
to get services, because there’s a whole lot of other
pieces of work that are going on across other children.
But I am—
GREG
But it goes back to the universal thing, doesn’t
it, just spreading the net wider than saying
30,000?
PAULA I
could easily have gone and scattered more money around and
hoped that I actually got it to the children that needed it
most. I am point-blankedly targeting, and these are the
children that I’m targeting. And we can debate where
that line should be, and that’s fair enough. I’ve
drawn one. Those 30,000 children need it
most.
GREG
Okay, the money we’re talking about is $20
million.
PAULA To
start with, but that’s just new money that goes in so I
can set things up, but there’s other programmes that’ll
be integrated into it. There’ll be other money coming in
through future budgets. It’s not just me either.
I’ve got Health on board. I’ve got Education. I’ve
got the New Zealand Police. I’ve got the top ministers
all sitting round and saying, ‘We will prioritise these
children,’ and I think that’s pretty
outstanding.
GREG $20 million
when you look at the size of the problem and even 30,001 or
30,010 or 40,000 – it doesn’t sound a lot of
money.
PAULA
Because a lot of money’s already going in. Actually,
Labour threw a lot more money at
it.
GREG
Okay—
PAULA
It just didn’t make a
difference.
GREG
But it’s clearly not
working,…
PAULA
Exactly.
GREG …so what
difference is 20 million going to make, and when’s there
going to be more?
PAULA
So— Well, I don’t think it needs more
money. If throwing more money at the problem was the
solution, then, quite frankly, we would have seen fewer
children being abused and neglected by the end of Labour’s
term. We didn’t. We saw more. What it takes is a
concerted plan that puts the right identification across
these children and then an individualised plan that sees to
them having better outcomes, and that’s what this plan
does.
GREG
Are you saying, though, that a family in South
Auckland who’s really struggling now, the 30, 40, 50 bucks
a week isn’t going to make a difference? Because a lot
of people would say that would – that would make quite a
difference.
PAULA
We’re talking about two different things, so at
one stage I thought you were talking about more money for
those organisations that are working with
them.
GREG
We are. We’re talking about where the money’s
going to go.
PAULA
Now you’ve switched to individual money. Of
course not, you know, and, quite frankly, the best thing we
know we can do for them is get them off welfare and into
work. We have seen too much evidence that tells us,
actually, that two families on the same income – one’s
on a benefit, one’s a working family – it is that
working family that will have completely different and
better outcomes for their children across all of the kind of
dimensions, whether that be education or health-wise and
everything else. So our focus is connecting those people
better into work, making sure they have the skills,
putting— We put in $287 million new money into them at the
last Budget, and you’ll see significantly more going in at
the next one.
GREG Okay, $20
million – exactly what’s it going to be spent on, and
when can we see that money making a difference and those
numbers falling?
PAULA
Yeah, so we’re going to spend that 20
million on setting up the new child-protect line. That
will make a significant difference. So that’s where
calls go in to and how they’re triaged. We’re going to
set up two pilot children’s teams. I’ve announced one
in Rotorua. We have the setting up of the information
system and that database and then the risk-predictor tool.
So that money goes pretty quickly, to be honest, because
that’s how it does, but you will see us setting them up as
of, quite frankly, they’re working on it today. And that
will be set up – we’ve got timelines through the
Children’s Action Plan. But by July next year, you will
see people on the ground with the right sort of information
and systems, and it’ll be thanks to that
money.
GREG
Those are the systems. When do you hope to
realistically see a change in the stats – see a drop in
those numbers?
PAULA
Well, the good news is we already are, so what we
have been doing is working some more. We just need to up
that momentum to another whole level, so in Rotorua, for
example, yesterday— in 2010 they had 879 substantiated
cases of abuse and neglect. This year they’ve had 529.
So we are seeing a drop. I just want that to be better.
529 is too many in my
book.
GREG
Let’s talk about cause. What do you say is the
major cause of child abuse?
PAULA
I think it’s incredibly
complex. I think it’s intergenerational. I think we
have an underlying current of violence towards our children
that is, quite frankly, unfathomable. I think that poverty
does— is one of the causes. I think it’s a
relationship. I think it’s a lack of self-esteem,
particularly with some of our young women and the partners
that they’re choosing, because we see it as non-blood men
that actually hurt these children more often than not. I
can give you a list of a hundred different factors. It is
complex is what I would say to
you.
GREG Poverty –
let’s talk about that. Much has been made of that. You
said on Thursday if I can quote you here, “Poverty
doesn’t cause child abuse”, yet there’s a report here
from your own department. I’ve got it right here.
It’s saying that one of the main risk factors for child
abuse is “poor housing”, “financial deprivation” and
“unemployment”. It is a key part of it. Why is that
not being addressed a lot harder in this
report?
PAULA
Because we’re addressing it through a whole lot of other
means, and why would I duplicate the work that’s going on
with the Children’s Commissioner and his experts group?
Why would I duplicate the work that’s going on with the
ministers’ committee on poverty? This is a separate
piece of work that doesn’t undermine what is going on with
those, and we’ll take them into consideration, but we are
focusing on those 30,000 children that are most— most
definitely need us. I don’t deny poverty as being a part
of or having some part to play, but, quite frankly, I know a
whole lot of poor people that do not abuse and neglect their
kids, and I really get angry when it’s used as an
excuse.
GREG
Okay, let’s talk about some specific examples,
some of these terrible stories, and we know these names so
well, the James Whakarurus, the Hinewaoriki
Karaitiana-Matiahas in the past. Had they been the kids of
affluent or at least comfortable families, would those cases
have happened? Would there have been abuse? Would there
have been deaths?
PAULA
Well, I don’t know. I don’t have a crystal
ball. I can’t go back in time and make
that—
GREG
Well, the answer is probably no, isn’t
it?
PAULA Well,
unfortunately, I do see the children of some fairly wealthy
people that are sadistic and actually treat their children
appallingly, so I’m not saying— But would you really
turn around and say if they had an extra 50 bucks a week,
those kids wouldn’t be dead? I think that’s a bit too
simplistic as well.
GREG A lot of
people would say that,
though.
PAULA
Wow, would they?
GREG
Yeah, they would, and they have been this
week.
PAULA
Wow.
GREG
You’ve heard the figures about 270,000 kids in
poverty, and these kids are, in your critics’ opinion,
being ignored. Not all of those can be changed with 50
bucks a week, obviously.
PAULA
But then you turn around, Greg,
and reading the paper today, and it says, ‘Here’s the
child that didn’t have breakfast that morning,’ and then
they interviewed them at the dairy and they’re spending 20
bucks on Coke and pies. So really was it that they
didn’t have the $20, or did someone just not make their
breakfast for them that morning? So, I mean, it is just
such a simplistic argument to what is an incredibly complex
problem, and I think this paper deals with those
complexities. And to turn around and say that it is just
an argument of poverty, says, what, those that are post-war
that, crikey, had real— I’d show you poverty, they
didn’t go around beating their kids like we do
today.
GREG So do you
acknowledge there is a link, but it’s not the
link?
PAULA Yeah,
I do acknowledge there is a link, without a doubt, and I say
that in the paper. And I really am looking forward to the
recommendations that are going to come from the Children’s
Commissioner and his expert work— his expert group, and we
will pick up some of that work. I have absolutely no
doubt. Look, I want kids thriving, achieving, growing in
this country. I will do whatever I can. But right now I
lose sleep over those kids that are being, quite frankly,
beaten, and one dies every five weeks in this country at the
hands of someone that’s supposed to love them. I’ve
got to intervene
more.
GREG
How do you do that from your point of view, from
where you are in the system? I mean, I’ve no doubt at
all – you’ve said right at the beginning this is your
main cause for getting into the gig.
PAULA
Yeah.
GREG
How do you say, ‘Well, it’s worked, or I’ve
failed’?
PAULA
Yeah, probably not for about 10, 15 years, and I
won’t be a minister then.
GREG 10, 15
years, though, is going to be, you know, at the numbers
we’re looking at is far too long for a lot of those
kids—
PAULA
But that’s when I will
know—
GREG
They’re not going to exist in 10, 15
years.
PAULA
Let’s be honest. But that’s
when we will know, because they will be young adults that
are having families of their own, have got successful
careers and are moving ahead. I will know in the next few
years because we will be really evaluating and looking at
the work. I won’t be scared to say what doesn’t work
and change it, so that’s how I will know. But, I don’t
know, when I think about this, I think it will be in
years’ time when I see those children that are thriving
and are having a successful life as adults that we’ll
really know. This is not a quick answer. You know, there
is no quick solution. It shouldn’t be in my
parliamentary term. It won’t be three years that works
it. It has to— I hope other parties get on board and see
the merits of this very big concerted piece of
work.
GREG We hear
these things with a kid, ‘Oh, there was warning signs, and
this person heard and this person.’ No one’s held
accountable at the end. If everyone else in a job kept
making mistakes that resulted in— whatever mistake, let
alone the death of a child, someone would be held
accountable. Not sharing information, things like that.
When is somebody going to say, ‘Well, you didn’t do your
job. Out the door’?
PAULA
Oh, I’m sick to death of it.
I’m sick to death of, you know, the face of some beautiful
child turning up that’s dead, and then we turn around and
say all of these people intervened and everyone sits there
and points fingers at each other.
GREG So when’s
that going to happen? When is that going to
happen?
PAULA You
will see a far— We will know whether they’ve put the
information into the system, whether or not they’ve been
part of the solution or part of the problem, and I think you
will see far clearer lines of accountability. We will also
have a lead professional that is responsible for the
outcomes for that young child. And that will be a huge
difference.
GREG
A lot of front-line staff, though, are saying
it’s not information; they know this stuff. They
haven’t got the staff to go and do anything about it.
They need more people on the ground. When are we going to
see that?
PAULA
Well, they haven’t put all the pieces together.
You know, that’s the reality of it. You know, the social
worker here holds a bit, the teacher there holds a little,
the GP holds a bit there, you know, the others – community
groups working. So once we put it all together, we have
one plan for that child, we have a team of lead
professionals and one person responsible for following it
through, then we will see different outcomes. And I think
what we’ve got is a whole lot of very very good people
spreading themselves too thin and not having a clear
individualised plan. This will have accountability and
also be easier for
them.
GREG
So, but you would agree that there needs to be more
people on the ground who get the information, they know the
kids that are at risk and can get out there and can do
something? There’s going to be more of
that?
PAULA I
think it’s the people that are there need better training,
better supervision and better help, but,
yes—
GREG So no more
staff?
PAULA I do
see more moving into that area. Well, I’ve already put
96 more social workers into Child, Youth and Family. I’m
not saying there won’t be more, but we will just look
carefully at who we’ve got, what we need and how we move
forward.
GREG
20,000 kids a year since National’s been in power
abused – 96 seems a drop in the ocean in that
scenario.
PAULA
Yeah, but we have got— What we’ve got is I
think Child, Youth and Family are being spread too thin, so
they’re working with too many children, and that’s part
of this plan of the White Paper is that we get them better
concentrated on those children that need a statutory
response. It’s a big thing having Child, Youth and
Family in your home, you know, and in your lives, so they
should be dealing with those kids that are really at the
serious end. And then that’s what this is about is that
underneath that there is a really big piece of work that
needs to go on and community responses and other
professionals being involved in these children’s lives.
So in some respects we could lighten the workload of Child,
Youth and Family social workers and have other people
intervening earlier so they don’t need that big
response.
ENDS