Todd went down the wrong path when he disrespectfully brought Nia Glassie in to the debate. He went in to a rant abour how she was surrounded by people on benefits and therefore (in his mind) this led to her murder.
This was not only bad taste but it was offensive. Not only is the Govt trying to stigmatise beneficiaries as lazy; dole bludgers, ripping off the system BUT NOW they are adding – child abusers and even child murderers – to the stigma.
I personally take great offence to this inference.
Ianmac – you’re putting words in Lindsay’s mouth – read her words again:
The last sentence sums up her statement well; you have gone a step beyond that.
@rebecca – “Labour: you will never get my vote again until I am certain you are prepared to prioritise our children.”
Ummm – one does wonder who you will be voting for then, because as someone who has extensively worked with vulnerable communities and the kids first hand – I can tell you right now that there was more support and help and attempts to do something (not enough but an attempt at least) by Lab then Nat has done, will do or has a reputation for doing – look at their record.
It is this which makes me so ashamed of my fellow kiwis at times – they fail to see the destructive policies Nat want to implement and they don’t know about or worse, turn a blind eye to the systematic cutting down of structures and support systems that work to supporting the vulnerable. All in the hands of the Nats who claim its in NZ’s “best interest”.
Worse still is how kiwis allow the nacts to manipulate their insecurities by playing to the stereotypes and prejudices inherent inside people. Its shameful and meanwhile people are quite happy to bleat on about the shocking child abuse in our country but they DO NOTHING about it but complain and blame – and heading this are the MP’s from Act and Nat who use the public for political point scoring – its disgraceful.
In all honesty, there are so many examples of funding cuts, community groups and support structures that have been cut, slashed or simply taken away (including school closures and programmes that support kids) that I don’t even know where to start. So, feel free to bash Lab – I dont disagree with you in terms of needing – no – having to do better, but I think, and in fact I know, from the ground perspective, that the little they did is a heck of a whole lot more that Nat will do or can do.
I do agree there must be more – but it takes a whole community to stand up and be united on this one – and if we are to be quite honest, then it must be something that ALL parties come together on – and it is disgusting that when Lab recently approached Nat to work on this across parties – they turned Lab down. Now you tell me – just what message to all of us does that send! I am blowed if I can understand such petty, selfish, narrow minded and disgraceful behaviour.
@Paul – Agreed
Paul if there were an icon for applause I would have a few here.
Paul clearly we have worked with different groups then as I have the same experience and have found Labour has fallen well short of putting our children first.
Paula Bennett is the first MP in recent history to bring the issue to light so early on as a Minister. This is commendable.
Not once did I hear Annette King or Steve Maharey address the issue in such a blunt way.
As for the government tackling the issue in a real well, Labour had 9 years and it got worse with the increase in poverty doing little to help matters.
I’m happy to give National more time however, you can’t and I don’t expect the government to do everything.
It comes down to personal responsibility on the part of EVERY New Zealander. The government isn’t making the choice to beat, rape, molest or torture a child. Individuals and their families and communities who stand by and let it happen are.
The silence on this issue is deafening.
There was a programme re the Nia Glassie case last night..When was Jim Moriarty cleared of ”wrong doing” when he was on the staff at Porirua hospital?
Ianmac,
“I believe the stats of child death did not come from Cindy who you are clearly attempting to discredit.”
Are you saying Steve Braunias was lying?
What about hospital admission statistics then;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10451548
“New Zealand’s national diagnosed rate for head injuries to infants under the age of 2 caused by child abuse is 22 per 100,000 – which is comparable to the rest of the world.
However, for Maori children the figure is the highest in the world. Between 50 and 60 Maori infants per 100,000 suffer head injuries as a result of child abuse.”
Again this does not mean all Maori abuse their children. Most do not. But Maori children are more likely to be abused.
Through the decade 1991 – 2000 Maori child homicides accounted for 52 percent of the total but the trend in the 5 years to 2006 has been downward.
The Maori disproportionate representation runs all the way through social stats;
Teenage birth, single parenthood, benefit dependency, child abuse, being in state care, youth crime, youth suicide, prison population.
Benefits do not directly cause child abuse. They create the environment in which it is more likely to happen. This is not some sort of finger pointing exercise. It’s an attempt to honestly appraise the problem. As Rebecca has said, denial won’t make it go away.
Why do we remember the Maori victims? Speaking for myself, and this may seem facile, but because they have beautiful memorable faces. And I agree that the media plays a role in that.
Paul one more thing, when Helen Clark was in Opposition she said our sixth placing in worldwide child abuse statistics was “shameful” yet on her watch, things became far worse.
These are CYF stats from 2000-2005:
*Emotional abuse increased from 78 investigations in December 2000 to 479 in December 2005.
*Sexual abuse went up with increases for Maori children from 12 to 58 and Pakeha children from 15 to 50.
*Neglect almost doubled for both Maori and Pakeha children, and leapt from 1 to 50 for Pacific Island children.
Substantiated cases have increased from 6000 in 2000 to anywhere from almost 10,000 per year (as of the financial year ending June 2009), with some figures as high as 13,000 (2005) in other years.
Child abuse became more frequent and more severe and Labour did nothing.
And now we are becoming a well-known country for all the wrong reasons – take this article in today’s Herald
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/child-abuse/news/article.cfm?c_id=146&objectid=10634799&pnum=2
Paul, My experience may not be as extensive as yours but I have worked with a limited number of families that have agencies all over them in terms of early intervention. Often the biggest obstacle to change is the guarantee of a WINZ deposit in their bank accounts each week regardless. They are removed from the realities most people face; the need for discipline and structure and routine in order to earn a living.
(Again, I labour the point, I am talking a small minority of families estimates put at around 5 percent).
I was once a Labour voter but am past believing that bucket loads more state money and ‘investment’ is the answer. That’s why I try to get involved myself. In terms of success, I see more losses than gains but the gains are well, well worth it.
I agree Lindsay. While it is not PC, I think that when the Kirk Labour government changed the nature of the ’social contract’ where it was extended to everyone, regardless of whether they were deemed to be a ‘good’ citizen, they created a culture of no personal responsibility and total dependency on the State to accept and pick up the pieces of what can only been construed as bad social choices.
While the introduction of the DPB has had many benefits in terms of giving women the ability to leave a bad (especially where it is abusive) marriage, there has also been negative effects too.
It has contributed to our appalling stats in teenage pregnancy where we have the third highest teenage pregnancy rate in the OECD with the rate for Maori being nearly five times higher.
For many young people, particularly young Maori, the DPB has become a meal ticket for those without skills and education.
For many, their children are nothing but a means to get more revenue. The case of Ngatikaura Ngati who within 6 weeks of returning to his mother Maine Ngati’s care died from extensive beatings and trauma that had been carried out by his mother (I use the term loosely) and her boyfriend Teusila Fa’asisila being our most horrific example.
So yes, I think the welfare system does contribute to the issue of child abuse, that it has had a big part to play in the way our rate of child abuse jumped from 6th in the OECD to 3rd by the time Labour left office.
If our political parties are too PC to acknowledge these facts and address then in way that has real impact on the lives of our most vulnerable children then yes Paul you are right, it is almost pointless in voting for any of them.
Rebecca, I think you should be honest about your connections to Palin Paula and the Nats.
D such silliness minimalises the importance of such an insidious and horrific issue. Shame on you, have more respect please and focus on solutions for our abhorrent level of child abuse instead of making snide remarks.
My loyalty is with our children. I am not sure you can say the same.
‘So yes, I think the welfare system does contribute to the issue of child abuse,’ Rebecca. Becasue their mothers had had to leave abusive relationships, several good friends of mine were raised on the DPB for significant periods of time (though less time than Palin Paula and the PM were on welfare). My friends were well-raised and are now exemplary citizens and taxpayers.
I await the day when “PC” ceases to be used in intelligent discourse. It is insidious and serves no purpose.
Hear hear Tracey. Tories like Rebecca use “PC” like Hone H sometimes uses “racism”. Shallow sloganeering instead of putting up proper argument.
D I am hardly a tory, I am a childrens advocate. Huge difference, you would do well to discern the difference and actually address the issue.
Lindsay – getting a benefit doesn’t make people violent! Oh no wait,
, if you and Rebecca are right then we’d better start locking our doors with all this unemployment! 
Beware – The benefit might make you pregnant!
“It has contributed to our appalling stats in teenage pregnancy where we have the third highest teenage pregnancy rate in the OECD with the rate for Maori being nearly five times higher.” – You mean as opposed to people who used to just disappear, like that movie with Keisha Castle Huges, or the backyard abortions, or the “after thought” that some parents had???
Also better than having a baby left in a dumpster.
“no personal responsibility and total dependency on the State.” – So how did Labour get unemployment down then? They have always made people look for work.
“While the introduction of the DPB has had many benefits in terms of giving women the ability to leave a bad (especially where it is abusive) marriage, there has also been negative effects too.” – So being stuck with some thug for the sake of the kids is better than the DPB? No wonder there were so many women of yesteryear who would abuse sedatives!
@D – I know a lady who left her wife beating husband to be a DPB mother. Always fed her kids and made sure they did their homework!
Rebecca at 2:05: These are CYF stats from 2000-2005:
*Emotional abuse increased from 78 investigations in December 2000 to 479 in December 2005.
*Sexual abuse went up with increases for Maori children from 12 to 58 and Pakeha children from 15 to 50.
*Neglect almost doubled for both Maori and Pakeha children, and leapt from 1 to 50 for Pacific Island children.
Surely those stats reinforce the idea that during Labour’s time the problem of child abuse was being addressed! It was being exposed and reported! And directed to CYF for action. It is a bit tiresome to have you and your Nat colleagues endlessly repeat the boring mantra “Labour had 9 years and they did nothing!” Rubbish! Dishonest!
Now how about the kids underneath your rhetoric? Yes! No matter what race, we have to talk about it and find solutions better than “welfare causes violence.”
Oh Ianmac for goodness sake – since when did CYFs not produce reports? Reports are not synonymous with action! Reports are just what the public service and government do – that and Royal Commissions etc.
If these statistics had shown that the abuse had declined during the Labour government’s tenure then yes, I would agree that they had been doing something. But they didn’t and they haven’t.
As for solutions: what are yours? What are Spud’s? Paul’s? D’s? Carmel’s?
Mine is to first and foremost, agree with Paula Bennetts’s reforms as I believe they will encourage those most likely to hurt their children – that is, young Maori and Pacific Islanders, to have more personal responsibility.
I also want to amalgamate all non profit groups that work with at-risk kids at their families (e.g. Parentline, Parent Help, STOP, Jigsaw Family Services, Catholic Social Services, Methodist Social Services, Presbytarian Support etc) under one umbrella – such as that of MSD’s Family and Community Services (a department that is currently toothless and achieves very little) then fully fund them.
And I want to see things like increased data sharing so that these groups can work properly with CYFs & the Police. This in turn will mean things like the abuse statistics will be properly monitored as currently they are very hard to measure.
We need to teach people the difference between discipline and a closed fist, that children are precious and need and deserve to be nurtured and loved and we need to support them and the groups that work with them. We also need to ensure the justice system as a zero tolerance approach to assaulting children. The fact that a CHCH mother only got 15 months for her second assault on her children then was audacious enough to appeal the sentence is appalling.
Once again, if you guys are content to skirt around the issue then so be it. Just remember that the abuse of these vulnerable little children is quite often the precursor for further violence. Happy, well-adjusted loved children do not grow up and do things like William Bell or Bailey Junior Kurariki. How tragic a 12 year old not only commits such a brutal crime but has now thanks to the ’support’ he received in prison, moved on to sexual assault.
@Rebecca – I’m tired so won’t post solution, except the obvious one – bring back Labour!!!!!
Yes Rebecca. Sure you have a clear idea on an action plan. But it does sound a bit paternal. We will teach those people how to be good parents. (Wish that was possible but decide what how who.) We will fully fund. Great. Will Paula’s plan do that? Anyway you do sound passionate and that’s great. But it unfortunately sounds like an apology for the Bennet stuff. Take that stuff out and you and Lindsay (sounds like same person) would have a discussion. Cheers.
@Lyndsay – “I was once a Labour voter but am past believing that bucket loads more state money and ‘investment’ is the answer. That’s why I try to get involved myself. In terms of success, I see more losses than gains but the gains are well, well worth it”
I tend to agree with you re the loads of money – what I would like to see happen is that the money that is currently in the system be targeted correctly. We live in a silly little 3 year political cycle where both main players do not put the long term commitment into getting it right – it MUST start at birth – and the various agencies MUST start working together – education, justice, health etc – there are VERY good examples of how interagency works and our govt (I dont care which one) must start to look outside the 3 year square. They need to agree on what they will both support and keep the long term picture in there – it fails in our country because govt can not see long term and intervention – early intervention -is the key. And as I keep bleating on – Nat has already said no to this approach with Lab – in recent months – and that is just plain stupid.
Have you not considered that albeit that the sentiments expressed by Todd McClay may seem repellent the fact remains that what he inferred was true. Institutionalized welfare dependency is, in part, responsible for cases like Nia Glassie and you will loose political support if you don’t come up with a viable means of addressing this issue.
Paul: Are you suggesting that you move in on kids at birth? And show them the “right” way? If that is what govts reject then it is not too hard to see why.
Education, support, integration, are all valuable but that is so hard to action. We spend heaps to split agencies the heaps more to centralise them as each case is “proved” and in the meantime the cracks widen.
Keep up the good work.
Ianmac – the who and what are the non profit groups that work tirelessly with these at-risk children day in and day out. The how comes from amalgamating and fully funding these groups which would then lead to more resources, more training, more support for the kids and their families and a lowered rate.
Who’s to say National wouldn’t be open to this? Labour wasn’t and didn’t for 9 years so it makes sense to test the NACTs and see what they think.
Anyway no point in picking holes in what I and others suggest if you fail to come up with alternatives. This, like Labour’s continued so-called opposition to everything National say and do, lacks credibility.
Virgil: I agree. Labour have lost political support for this very reason and so far, have failed to regain any of it.
REbecca: It is faintly possible that every Opposition opposes the Goverment of the day. But it is a pity that on important issues like law and order there is not bi-partisan designs.
I have no problem with fully funding of agencies. A lad in our town Fabian,who was failing at College, was taken in hand by the Salvation Army as one of 12 being funded, gained Level 1 and 2 in 8 months and is now in permanent employment. This year the Army has its funding cut to 7 pupils.
So you see we can nit pick about which Govt does better but the major societal problems are still there. The solutions are as you have said, complex and need a concerted integrated program.
I do think that there are and have been successful initatives for positive change but they get cut and changed at the whim of politicians who hope to score points. I could find them and tell you but quail at the size of the task. Instead I hope you/they make a positive change to my grandchildren’s world- and yours.
Paul I went back and reread your post at 1;22
Well said that man. Thankyou.
Ianmac I agree. I was particularly disappointed with the cutting of the youth program set up by Phil Goff in Hamilton – why NACT would choose things like boot camps over this I don’t know. That was something I was particularly unhappy with.
There are so many wonderful programs out there that work with littlies and also youth and over the last few years as we have seen an increase in young people committing horrific crimes I have become so increasingly disillusioned with how undervalued and undervalued these programs are.
That is why I want them all to be amalgamated under one umbrella – not so the government takes over, but just so the ‘right’ hand can know for sure what the ‘left’ hand is doing.
I recently spoke to a senior staff member at CYFs and he had no idea that Jigsaw Family Services was still running in Wellington – given how much work they do I was not only surprised, but mortified. We have to stop having reviews, commissions & investigations and re-inventing the wheel. We need to better utilise, support and co-ordinate what is already in place.