Tariana Turia, Child Youth And Family Speech
te-pati-maori
Thu Jul 19 2007 12:00:00 GMT+1200 (New Zealand Standard Time)
Tariana Turia, Child Youth And Family Speech
Thursday, 19 July 2007, 9:58 am
Press Release: The Maori Party
2007/08 Estimates: Vote Child, Youth and Family
Tariana Turia, Co-leader of the Maori Party
Wednesday 18 July 2007
Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatou katoa.
The protection of children is the greatest goal of society.
The interests of the Child, the Youth, and the Family existed long before there was a Department of that same name; and will remain long after its latest reform into another tier of the Ministry of Social Development.
The protection of children outdates any budget cycle and must remain our greatest priority as a society.
For ultimately, it is the whanau, hapu, iwi; it is aiga; it is family, who hold the key to the successful outcomes set out in the 2007/08 Estimates.
The state has a critical role, in investing in communities to help themselves to ensure the health and well-being of their own.
Nowhere has this concept been more apparent than in the rhetoric of the last fortnight, as we have seen all Aboriginal people in all Aboriginal communities demonised for the child welfare crisis they have themselves been speaking about for decades.
Dr Chris Sarra - 2003 Australian of the Year - and Director of the Institute for Indigenous Leadership in Education and Development based at Cherbourg has been one of those speaking out, reminding the world that politically speaking, ‘there are no votes in ameliorating concerns in Aboriginal communities’ ( hence call in the army ) but that there is every reason to in terms of what is right. He said:
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
“I challenge the Prime Minister to approach an Aboriginal child on his next visit to a remote community and hold that child close so that he feels their heart beating close to his, then look into their brown eyes and say, “You and your family are my family….I can see you need help….and we are going to help your family and your community to fix things here and make it right for you”.
Mr Speaker, I take the time to share that story today because I think it illustrates a principle so central to how we should approach Vote Child, Youth and Family; how we approach the issues associated with placements for children and young people; how we approach respite care; how we approach social work, care and protection.
And when one reads the select committee report – the concerns about the number of times that children placed in CYFS care are moved, repeatedly and frequently; the question of inappropriate or undesirable placements; whether or not the differential response model will be effective in reducing the recurrence of abuse and neglect – I wonder what we are doing for our families and our communities to fix things here and make it right for them?
The cost of creating more harm is of course substantial.
And I remind the House of the context for comments we made last week urging that the political focus abroad and at home should not be on ‘Ask What We can DO to You’; but to ‘listen and learn and support what You can do for each other”.
The context of the Little Children are Sacred report was of gross, endemic child sexual abuse. A context that communities seldom have the courage and commitment to name and to talk about aloud.
We even have an estimated financial cost for such a crime – it costs the victim, the offender and the Government on average, $84,175 to respond to each case of child sexual abuse occurring here in Aotearoa.
Included in this breakdown are GP visits, mental healthcare, loss of income for victim and offender, police, prison and court costs, ACC counselling; and this is before counting the cost of a victims pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.
Excluded from this figure, however, are the economic costs that spring from the ripple effects of child sexual abuse. How do we account for the costs imposed on other people as a result of a lifetime scarred by sexual abuse? How do we measure the impact on alienated families; families torn apart by such crimes? Children forced to flee; to escape the hurt of allegations not believed.
Child victims of sexual abuse are more likely to under-achieve educationally. Between 31 and 51% of inpatients and outpatients of mental health services have been found to be sexual abuse survivors. Drug and alcohol abuse patterns are more prevalent amongst survivors and there are higher rates of substance abuse.
Primary health centres have found higher rates of health problems amongst women who have been sexually abused. And each of us will know from our constituents, that the most common pathways to crime are based on survival of abuse and poverty.
So why is it invisible? Why do we shift children from pillar to post; transfer CYFS to yet another Department and dream up another differential response model?
The answer surely lies in the problem; and how and who responds.
In the Otago Women’s Health study of 3000 women, it was found that the vast majority of the abusers were young men who were known to the victims – yet only 7.5% of all abuse was ever reported to the statutory agencies.
If the notifications aren’t happening and the abuse clearly is, what will we do to ensure our little children are indeed sacred?
Whilst the bean-counters may rejoice that this year’s appropriations for Vote Child, Youth and Family Services have plummeted by nearly nine million dollars, I have to ask will saving money save lives?
As a society, as a Parliament, we seem obsessed with punishing the manifestation of the impact of child sexual abuse.
What if we were instead to have as a vision, the challenge of closing down prisons; reducing the demand for psychiatric services; taking dramatic action to address our dramatic suicide rates?
Twenty years ago, Jane von Dadelszen released a ground-breaking study that examined the histories of sexual abuse among girls in the care of the Department of Social Welfare. The report:
• Interviewed 136 fifteen and sixteen year old girls;
• It showed that over two thirds had experienced sexual abuse;
• Half the abuse was perpetuated by family members – just under a tenth of the abusers fitted the profile of ‘stranger danger’;
• The average age of the girls when they were first abused was 10 years old; the average age of the abuser 28;
• There were no ethnic differences in the incidence of abuse, but Maori girls were more likely to show anger in response to the abuse, and Pakeha girls were more likely to report fear or confusion.
It would be fascinating, now, to interview that same group of one hundred and thirty six; 35 and 36 year old year old women – and to understand the true lifetime cost of sexual abuse.
The nature of sexual abuse has kept it hidden; has prevented victims from having a platform to bring it out into the open.
Aboriginal communities have demonstrated that some exceptional leadership capacity exists in their communities, and they have brought the prevalence and impact of childhood sexual abuse in their communities out into the public arena.
Are we brave enough in New Zealand to take a serious look at the social and economic harm, the devastation upon individuals and families that is associated with sexual abuse?
I was pleased to see in the Estimates report that Child, Youth and Family Services talked about their vision of ‘supporting families, consulting with families, and wherever possible ensuring that children and young people remain within their own family’.
I absolutely endorse this approach – and I also understand the concerns of the committee that we must ensure that children’s welfare not be compromised.
But the solution to situations of risk or danger within families does not rest in punishing the child; in extracting them from all that they know; in pulling them out from the shelter of the family home.
Quite the contrary.
If the problem lies in the whanau, then let the solution lie with the whanau and hapu. It is about having the right process for reconciliation to occur.
The key is – we do not make one wrong right, by creating a fresh wrong. The Government’s history and reputation in implementing a flawed Treaty Settlement process is a classic example of this.
The solution lies in working with families, to restore their natural responsibilities and obligations to care for and protect their own.
The costs of any other approach will lead this nation into ongoing moral and social bankruptcy.
Tena koutou.
ends
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
a.supporter:hover {background:#EC4438!important;} @media screen and (max-width: 480px) { #byline-block div.byline-block {padding-right:16px;}}
Using Scoop for work?
Scoop is free for personal use, but you’ll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features.
Join Pro Individual Find out more
Find more from The Maori Party on InfoPages.