12. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) Link to this
to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)
Does she have confidence in Child, Youth and Family?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) Link to this
Yes I do, and further, I support the hard and difficult work that Child, Youth and Family and its social workers do. Last year Child, Youth and Family received 73,326 notifications. I think that level and type of work should be recognised and supported, not constantly undermined as that member does.
How can the Minister have such confidence, when on her watch around 20 percent of all foster children in Child, Youth and Family care, including 111 babies, were shunted from foster home to foster home more than three times last year, despite the Minister admitting there was no lack of resources nor lack of foster parents to prevent that damaging treatment of vulnerable children?
It is very frustrating to hear the constant misrepresentation of the movement of children who are in the care of foster families. That member was advised of the facts at the select committee, and despite that she continues to misrepresent the facts. Those movements include such things as a weekend in respite care. Frankly, if one has a very demanding and challenging young person or child living in one’s home, a weekend’s respite—which, to and fro, counts as two movements—is the difference between make or break for that family, rather than a disadvantage either to the child or to the foster family.
Lynne PillayI am pleased to inform the House that under this Government we have increased the funding for Child, Youth and Family from $291.8 million to $468.3 million now. That increase pays for more hard-working social workers to take care of our children and young people in need. However, that type of investment in New Zealand families would be cut by the National Party, which described the increase in the number of social workers as a “bloated bureaucracy”.
How can the Minister have such confidence, when on her watch last year Child, Youth and Family placed two young girls aged 8 and 11 in the full-time care of their father, a man with 36 convictions, including 14 for peeping, two for indecent assault, and five for assault, and who in 2003, just 3 years ago, Child, Youth and Family would not even allow to have supervised visits with those girls, yet now he is a full-time carer?
I would be very happy to give that member full information about any case, rather than to have her rely on partial information and misinformation that she picks up from the media. If the member, for example, would like to recommit herself and the party she represents to working with every other party in this House on the cross-party family violence prevention task force, she might learn more about the facts and less about troublemaking.
How can the Minister have such confidence when, on her watch, Nia Glassie’s mother had an older child removed by Child, Youth and Family after the child suffered non-accidental head injuries, but Child, Youth and Family did not monitor the mother to prevent abuse of subsequent children?
The member knows, from reports in the media and from my responses to questions, that no call for help was made by anyone in either the family or the neighbourhood, in regard to Nia Glassie. If anything could have been done by the department to prevent that tragedy, it would have been done. The fact that so much abuse occurred and so many adults knew of it, and not one single person went to either the police or the department for help, beggars belief.
Hon Phil GoffI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have listened carefully to the last three questions and the answers given. In each case, the questioner interjected continually all the way through the answer being given by the Minister. If it is good enough for a question to be asked, presumably the person asking that question should remain silent while the answer is given.
Madam SPEAKERI agree with the member on this. Throughout this question time I have asked for some tolerance. We will have the rest of the questions and answers in silence.
How can the Minister have such confidence when, on her watch, the mother of the Kāhui twins had a previous history with Child, Youth and Family, but was not monitored nor red flagged to prevent further abuse of any subsequent children, and a discussion amongst Child, Youth and Family staff regarding the twins did not even result in her file being searched for any previous history?
The member was a member of the cross-party family violence prevention task force, and at that time she received a lot of detailed information about the intervention that was offered to, and received by, the Kāhui family. It is regrettable that she has chosen to forget that information—or perhaps she does not remember it. Frankly, I share her frustration about parents who have abused children and subsequently go on to have other children and abuse them, but it is very difficult for the department or anyone else to be so interventionist as to prevent pregnancies, tempting though it might be for all of us.
How can the Minister have such confidence when, after 8 years of a Labour Government, Child, Youth and Family cannot recognise a re-notification of a child it has already dealt with; it does not monitor or red flag abusive parents who have had children removed from their care; and it is not even able to share information amongst the courts and the police; why can the Minister not admit that the Government is totally incompetent in dealing with growing child abuse?
All three of those allegations, in regard to the ability to identify re-notifications, the ability to red flag, and information sharing, are wrong. I again invite the member to rejoin the cross-party family violence prevention task force; if she had a single good idea about what more we could do in our investment to prevent child abuse, that idea would be welcomed. I have not heard one single positive contribution from the member, but I live in hope.