Turia Tariana: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Turia Tariana: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10498] 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Chairperson. Tenatatou 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 the same name and will remain long after the department’s 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 and iwi; it is ainga; and it is family that 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 them 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 Aboriginal communities demonised for the child welfare crisis that they have themselves been speaking about for decades. Dr Chris Sarra the 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 and reminding the world that politically speaking there are no votes in ameliorating concerns in Aboriginal communities—hence it is a case of calling in the army—but there is every reason to do so in terms of what is right. He said: “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.’ ” 
I took 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 Services; how we approach the issues associated with placements for children and young people; how we approach respite care; and how we approach social work care and protection. When I read the report of the Social Services Committee—with its concerns about the number of times children placed in Child Youth and Family’s care are moved repeatedly and frequently; the question of inappropriate or undesirable placements; and whether 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. 
I remind the Committee of the context for comments we made last week urging that the political focus abroad and at home should not be a case of “Ask what we can do to you.” but rather “Listen and learn and support what you can do for each other.” The context of the  
Little Children Are Sacred 
 report was one of gross endemic child sexual abuse. It is a context that communities seldom have the courage and the 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 $84175 to respond to each case of child sexual abuse occurring here in Aotearoa. Included in this breakdown are the general practitioner visits; mental health care; loss of income for victim and offender; police prison and court costs; accident compensation counselling; and the victim’s pain suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. 
Excluded from that figure however are the economic costs that spring from the ripple effects of child abuse and 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 on families torn apart by such crimes and on children forced to flea to escape the hurt of allegations that are not believed? 
Child victims of sexual abuse are more likely to underachieve educationally. Between 31 and 51 percent 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 Child Youth and Family to yet another department and dream up another differential response model? The answer surely lies in the problem and how and who responds to it. 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 percent of all abuse was ever reported to the statutory agencies. If the notifications are not happening and the abuse clearly is what will we do to ensure our little children are indeed sacred? Although the bean counters may rejoice that this year’s appropriations for Vote Child Youth and Family Services have plummeted by a mere $9 million I have to ask whether saving money will save lives? 
As a society and as a Parliament we seem to be 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 and 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. In the report 136 15 and 16-year-old girls were interviewed. Over two-thirds had experienced sexual abuse. Half the abuse was perpetrated by family members. Just under one-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 and the average age of the abuser was 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 and confusion. It would be fascinating now to interview that same group of 136 35 and 36-year-old women and to understand the true lifetime cost of sexual abuse. The nature of sexual abuse has kept this hidden and 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 the 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 and at the devastation upon individuals and families associated with sexual abuse? 
I was pleased to see in the estimates report that Child Youth and Family talked about its vision of supporting families consulting with families and wherever possible ensuring that children and young people remained within their own family. I absolutely endorse this approach. I also understand the concerns of the Social Services Committee that we must ensure that children’s welfare must not be compromised. But the solution to situations of risk or danger within families does not rest in punishing the child and extracting such children from all that they know and in pulling them out from the shelter of their family home—quite the contrary. If the problem lies in the whanau we should let the hapu or iwi be the solution. It is about using the right process for reconciliation to occur. The key is that 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.