Prasad Rajen: Urgent Debates — Ministry of Social Development—Job Cuts 
Prasad Rajen: Urgent Debates — Ministry of Social Development—Job Cuts 
[Volume:655;Page:4825] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to debate this particularly important issue. It has been important for a long time and is even more important today. I accept without reservation the sincere concern of the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett about child abuse and her efforts to understand the issue and do something about it. However I do not understand why the Minister is saying that for 9 long years the Labour Government did nothing about this issue. How does the Minister think that Child Youth and Family became more effective? It was an institution that for years took the brunt of criticism from up and down the country. Who gave it the resources—not once not twice but time and time again—so that it could get its act together and provide the quality of service that it is currently providing? Child Youth and Family was enabled through those resources to focus its work on specialist teams because the generic teams were not working. The resources were provided so it began to do well. Voluntary agencies were supported time and time again so they could support the work of Child Youth and Family and the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families was created. I could go on. 
It is quite instructive that the first action the Minister has taken on Child Youth and Family has resulted in it becoming the biggest net loser in the ministry’s restructuring. That is a fact. How did that happen? A decent society demands that Ministers are responsible for ministries that provide sensitive services to those who are most vulnerable and that people are fully informed about how those services will be provided. I am seriously concerned about whether this Minister has the level of analytical skill that is required to decide for herself that the kinds of recommendations that have been made ought to be accepted. 
I refer in particular to the closing of the 12 Child Youth and Family service centres and the closing down of specialist positions. I question sincerely whether the Minister understands why those units were set up in the first place. It was because of the very failure of years of generic front-line work which is the very model that this Minister now wants to take us back to aided and abetted by those who are providing advice on Child Youth and Family. This was the very model that led to New Zealand having the worst breakdown rates in foster-care placements in the Western World. I have done the research; it is certainly true. Why is it that our children were drifting into foster care year after year? They were the real people who missed out on the kinds of services that were provided. I have done the research and examined the international literature—and I have written about it as well—that addresses those kinds of issues. The international literature shows very clearly that we need to focus our skills on specialist units. The performance of Child Youth and Family has been exemplary and it has done particularly well in terms of its specialist units. Why are we now trying to disband those specialist units? We are trying to disband them because somebody wants to take this agency back to the future. We will pay for this down the track. It is an old and failed model. 
Does anyone really believe that we have turned the corner on child abuse? If so why is it that we are getting rid of the people who go up and down the country encouraging us to think about and be sensitive towards child abuse issues? As it was reported today those people would be more effective if they were put in different positions. We are told they would be more effective if they worked in front-line services. 
Finally I do not know why we live in a society where we want to cut back all our services at a time of scarce resources. Children who are vulnerable ought to be protected more than those from many other parts of our society but the Minister is not advocating that. If she was then she would put a stop to the stupid metaphor that this new model will return our social workers to the front line. Those social workers always were at the front line. Our front-line workers could not function previously because they did not have the support systems around them. It is like people being out in the field and fighting a war without anything behind them. This is stupid logic. It is a stupid metaphor and the Minister ought not to follow that even if that is the advice she has been getting. However we know what the facts are: Government members have internalised this notion of reducing the bureaucracy— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that his time has expired.