And from what I read she is struggling in Waitakere too.
For those without broadband, the Hansard is below:
2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the statement by Sir Peter Gluckman, Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister, in relation to the formation of policy in her portfolio delegation for family violence that, “policy formed without consideration of the most relevant knowledge available is far less likely to serve the nation well”; if not, why not?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment: Yes.
Hon Annette King: Does she agree with Sir Peter’s statement that ongoing evaluation of policy decisions is needed, to gauge whether such policies and initiatives should be sustained or revised?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, in some respects; in some respects that is what this Government has been doing for the last 2½—nearly 3—years. We have been looking at the services that work and comparing that against them. I also agree with Sir Peter Gluckman where he states in the same document: “One suspects that there are many Government-funded programmes now in place that when properly assessed would not meet objective tests of effectiveness;”. Effectively, I am saying that change is also needed.
Hon Annette King: Did she know that the Te Rito family violence fund and programme, which she has just scrapped, had been evaluated and was found to be fully embedded at a community level, to be synonymous with family violence prevention, to be invested in families’ strengths and capabilities, to have identified and supported families with needs, and to have increased the whole-of-family/wh?nau focus; if she did know, why did she scrap it, considering that it met the so-called goals and had been evaluated as working?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. The review of Te Rito phase two was actually done in 2005. When we looked at it in 2011 we felt that it needed to be reviewed and that we needed to look at where that funding was going, and whether it was going most effectively to the front line. Those Te Rito providers can and have applied for that extra funding. More funding is going into family violence initiatives from this Government, and that is indeed a positive thing.
Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the review of the Te Rito phase two collaborative community family violence prevention fund 2009—not 2005—which is the most up-to-date one.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Annette King: Is the Minister aware that the loss of Te Rito is more than the loss of funding; it is the loss of the networks, the name recognition, the investment in resources, and the community support that was built up? As one person put it: “The network could not get a lot done without Te Rito funding. We just didn’t have the time. The community networks’ buy-in now is huge.”
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Looking at the Te Rito funding, all of those applications have been accepted. They are going through a process. There is more money; in fact, the Minister for Social Development and Employment put an extra $2.8 million into these family violence initiatives that are coming out. So they may actually be enhanced and they may look better. I understand the scaremongering from the other side of the House, but that is all it is.
Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception—
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. A point of order has been called and it will be heard in silence.
Hon Annette King: I take exception to the comment “scaremongering”. I have used documents provided to me—
Mr SPEAKER: It is OK for the member to object but I do not want her to carry on and debate the issue. I think the question asked was a reasonable question and did not deserve to have that kind of comment. I ask the Minister to refrain from that when the question is a reasonable question.
Hon Annette King: Why is Te Rito funding being transferred to the Family-centred Services Fund to foster family and wh?nau well-being, but many agencies that now provide family violence programmes under Te Rito have been told they do not fit the criteria to get the money? They will not be providing the services, so who will be, and when will these new services start?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because family violence does not happen in isolation; it happens within a family, it happens to more than one person, and the results need to come from within. Are we moving more funding to front-line services? Is this Government looking very carefully at what is and is not working, and moving funding in there? Yes, we are and I am extremely proud of it. More money is going into family violence services under this Government.
Hon Annette King: How does cutting over $300,000 from women’s refuges remove funding from the back line or the front line? What it does is just remove funding for a service to women and children in New Zealand.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Overall funding to refuges, both those part of, and those separate from, the collective, has increased by 43 percent over the last 4 years. In addition, refuges other than the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges have received more than $600,000 and more than $1 million from the Community Response Fund. On top of that, the collective has received more than $3 million from the fund
Annette = more uncontrolled spending, debt, economic hardship and family violence
Bennett = spending more in control, better economic conditions for families, less violence for women
Address the cause not the symptom
Um darrenw, domestic violence is up. AND funding for womens refuges has been cut.
Out in West Auckland Paula’s next public meeting is about, wait for it, what it means to be a westie! If she changed the name of the meeting to what it means to be incompetent it would be more accurate.
When the same happened on Labour’s watch it was rationalised as better reporting of a problem which, because of the ‘initiatives’, was in fact declining.
Funny how that’s no longer the explanation once you’re in opposition…
George I am pointing out that the statistics do not back darrenw up. His comment about “better economic conditions for families” was also a doozie. People are hurting big time and there is no relief in sight.
M/S – you know what they say – lies, damned lies and statistics…
In November the result of the election will be an indication of whether people are hurting big time or not.
darrenw , is that ‘uncontrolled spending ‘ you refer to like the out of control spending on the DPS ?
or is it ‘nice to haves’ like the $43 mill loan for TV3
King Annette represents old people not eating fido.
Baron Bennett respresents the sick bennies being blackmailed to seek work in a baren job market!
GRRRRRR
I tweeked this comment, thanks editing button.
Total hypocrisy from Bennett after she spouts about the need for innovative responses to violence and child abuse. In this respect she’s right – the problems are so complex the answers are far from easy. But then when a programme emerges that surprises everyone because it works, it gets the chop. New and innovative are called for, but then it’s almost as if it gets the chop because it’s new and innovative – can’t have that.
Maybe also though, Annette and Paula could face off on the benefit system. Only trouble is they’d be agreeing with each other. We’ve seen absolutely no evidence that this wouldn’t be the case since Labour’s 2007 amendment Act so we have to assume that things are still the same. Going by what that amendment did a Paula/Annette face-off would be a competition to see who could come up with the most ways of cutting benefits. Very sad indeed.
@MickySavage – If you’re concerned and driven by statistics what about those recently released that show unemployment down and crime down under the current Government? I know that good news like this is met with derision when it doesn’t meet your spin and I guess you can choose to ignore those ones as it doesn’t support your spurious argument. Read the answer the Minister gave again “……has increased by 43 percent over the last 4 years. “
Darrenw what cloud are you living on. Reporting on family
violence up, prosecutions for family violence up. Numbers have been climbing for the past 20years but particulary since family violence has been taken seriously by the police and the community. What has helped it? Funding for programmes like ‘its not ok’, family violence programmes like TeRito, funding for womens refuges etc. Not uncontrolled spending but real investment into children and families. It’s called frontline services.Paula Bennett has cut the funding.How short sighted is that!
Anton where do you get the idea I’m into cutting benefits? Read my speech to NZLP Conference 2010. (on LP website) I get pissed off at people attributing policies to Labour that are incorrect or just plain mischievous.
I too am at a loss as to how Womens refuge is not frontline. I am also interested that Bennett referred to funding for refuge’s to have increased over four years. That means she is counting some of labour’s funding. Just wondering if maybe that means it hasnt increased much if at all under National.
darrnw – how wildly novel you are to think that if we cut funding to womens refuge, family violence (which costs the nation hundreds of millions in other ways, criminal justice, health, etc) will reduce. I wonder why it hasnt been tried?
So what is Labour’s plan to bring the $15b deficit back under control again?
Trev I find it a little rich that you comment about Bennett struggling with support in her electorate, when you party is struggling with the polls everywhere.
Ooh ooh oooh I know!
Their plan is to win the election so that they can undo the tory damage
My comments are about a broad policy platform rather than one off policies. This is what impacts on families. Surely this is not too hard to grasp???
And your answer Spud demonstrates about the extent of the Labour Plan. I am surprised your plan did not include attack John Key. Specifics please?
I will enjoy asking Grant and other Labour MPs every time I see them in the lead up to the 2011 election.
Matbe it is Labour who are spinning
@Spud the question is how? not inane cheerleading – how? I realise that this request is an extension of your abilities but surely such a died in the wool supporter like yourself will know specifically what Labour intend to do to pay down debt, reduce spending, reduce taxes for middle income earners, attain growth, encourage innovation and ambition and make all our lives better. Just like Monty I challenge you to come up with something more than childish sloganeering and smiley faces. I await the enlightenment that will, hopefully come. If you can’t then you really are wasting everyones time.
Tracey increasing funding to Womens refuge will not reduce family violence, nor will reducing it increase family violence. Its the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, it is not a preventative measure and was never intended to be so. It is a bit like saying more surf life savers on duty will increase the publics ability to swim. What is needed is severe consequences for violent acts against spouses or children.
Bennet is nothing more than a hippocrite she receives a training incentive allowance gets into govt then cuts it for others shes a social development minister who contradicts herself
Paula Bennet would not be where she is today without labour
I would like to see her succeed If she was still a benificiery living under her own policies
Severe consequences after the violence act has been committed is also an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, you contradict yourself, again. Most domestic violence is impulse driven so no one is standing there summing up the punishment if they get caught. The reliance on deterrent is unproven to reduce family violence.
Women’s refuge is both the ambulance at the bottom and the fence at the top because many women who would otherwise return to a violent home, without the support offered, stay away and begin to rebuild their lives. They also have an education component. I have seen them literally save lives of clients I once had.
Monty, how are you going compiling the list of election promised policy from National versus implemented policy since the election?
I work with agencies that have lost Te Rito funding; this govt. came to power on the premise that they would reduce public spending and increase front line services.
There is an expression that is often used ‘evidence based practice’ – for those that don’t get that, it means you do something and then you do a bit of research and evaluation to see if it actually does good.
It is true that family violence stats did go up under Labour – why? Public awareness following the likes of the Niah Glassie case and the work of agencies involved in Te Rito. Both changed public opinions and made family violence unacceptable, rather than the attitude of ‘it happens, but it isn’t my responsibility to act’.
Here we have a scenario where the evidence tells us it works; I have not read the report, but I would suggest it does make suggestions for improvement, but I doubt it says ‘scrap it’.
If this is not the removal of a front line service then what is?
RE national increased spending on youth jobs
Wow have to give it to the nats spin doctors take with one hand give back with the other?
what a con cancel funding for social infrastructure to pay for farcical social development I wonder if they would have got away with it if the media was more objective
Unbeleivable
I’ve noticed that NAct report figures showing say 2001, leave out all the other years between then and 2009 then leap in with a positive result for 2009, deliberately making people think the result was gained by National, never mind the steady positive increases by Labour. Kunning Key.
Also, Dave says:May 6, 2011 at 2:39 pm ‘statistics what about those recently released that show unemployment down and crime down under the current Government?’
The crime stats went down because slippery little Collins changed the reporting which meant 30 charges e.g. on one person was changed to 1 main charge and the other 29 as an attachment, and oh gee, she forgot to tell us.
As for the unemployment figures going down; this slimy govt has been using the same figure of 170,000 new jobs expected for the last three years – definite spin. Nothing they say is credible. Guyon pulled English up on it on Q and A. Talk about NAct’s Lies, damned lies and statistics, George.