11. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) Link to this
to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)
Does she stand by her statement in the House on 8 May 2007 that “I have confidence in Child, Youth and Family’s approval process and selection procedure for the caregivers of young people who are in the youth justice system,”; if so, why?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) Link to this
Yes. I also have confidence in the procedure for caregivers and other support workers for young people who are not in the youth justice system. That includes the young man incorrectly described by both the Dominion Post and Anne Tolley as being under 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week supervision ordered by the court. Those allegations, which are liable to cause distress in the community, are untrue.
How is it possible that yet another teenage sexual predator on 24-hour-a-day supervision from Child, Youth and Family is escaping from his minders and playing with neighbourhood children, and the authorities say they are powerless to control him?
For the record and for that member’s benefit, although the information may have been more useful to her prior to her putting out her incorrect press statement, I say he is not in the youth justice system, he is not in the adult justice system, he is not in the custody of Child, Youth and Family, he has no court-imposed supervision order or any other supervision order, he is not required to be under supervision by anyone, and there are no conditions imposed by anyone, a court or otherwise, on any of his movements. Therefore, by definition, he cannot escape or get out. He is not required to be under supervision. He is not required to live anywhere. He is a free person.
Can the Minister confirm the reports received by my office and communicated to Child, Youth and Family and to the Minister that a Child, Youth and Family worker introduced this teenage sex offender to other local children in the department’s care?
That is not the allegation that the member made to me. I just repeat that this man is not under any supervision. He is completely free, as every member in this House is, and he is entitled to meet anyone he likes. There is no supervision requirement at all on this man—not a single requirement.
How can the Minister stand in this House day after day, wringing her hands and saying that this sort of thing is unacceptable; and how many failures of the Child, Youth and Family system and cases of young offenders being out on the loose will it take before the Minister will admit there is a systemic failure in youth justice at Child, Youth and Family?
I would like to make two points in response to the member’s question. The first is that people in the youth justice system are generally not those who have recently graduated as dux from their local secondary school. They are not generally young people who come from a strong, supportive, functional family. They are, more often than not, young people who have lived in violent, abusive, dysfunctional families for their entire lives, which contributes to the likelihood of their being in the youth justice system, and they are, frankly, not easy to contain. In my view, on the occasions that they are at large, we should look at two things. First of all, was the supervision correct? If it was not, then I say to this House that that is unacceptable. Second, where it was correct, then I think that the caregivers should be supported. The member mentioned I had said that things were unacceptable. What I find unacceptable and morally reprehensible is that member misleading the public by saying incorrect things that are likely to cause distress to, and a vigilante response from, people in the Porirua community. That is unacceptable.