Kerre Woodham: There needs to be some measure to keep people safe

There's been much political play made around outside organisations having the potential to use violence on at risk kids. And really, it's entirely the fault of inexperienced politicians in the Coalition Government that Labour and Te Pati Māori have got any traction on this at all. The PMs ‘I know nothing, I know nothing’, when he was questioned about this yesterday on the Mike Hosking Breakfast, the refusal to answer questions on a leaked document, it just makes a vacuum which the opposition can fill with accusations of ‘violence’.  

In the leaked document, Children's Minister Karen Chhour warns the use of force and detention powers by Oranga Tamariki and third-party staff may be viewed as increasing the potential risk of abuse in custody, particularly in light of historic abuse experienced by children and young people in similar programs reported in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care report. You bet your bippy it was viewed as increasing the potential risk of abuse. Labour and Te Pati Māori were in their boots and all.  

However, this morning the Minister for Children clarified on the Mike Hosking Breakfast that restraints are standard operating procedure in any institution, and organisations needed to have those powers outside of the institutions, hence the need to amend the legislation.  

“Force can be used but only under very strict conditions, and we have regulations to protect that. I would be saying we would use restraints if a child was going to abscond or was going to hurt themselves or hurt somebody else. That already currently happens within certain facilities. The fact of the matter is, if we are going to give these kids a shot, if we are going to give these young people a chance, we have to have the ability to actually put a little bit of trust in them and be able to do things outside of the residence, but we also have to keep ourselves safe while doing that.” 

Right. So the explanation, as it was finally given, is that the legislation has to be amended because at the moment, and this happened under Labour as well, it happened under any administration, you are able to use restraints for the good of the individual to prevent harm happening to them, and for good of the staff and anybody else that might be in their way. So, if you're going to protect people from the young offender, protect the young offender from themselves, you can use restraint.  

That has been abused in the past, absolutely, but these children, these at-risk youth would not be there if they didn't already know exactly what violence looked like from a very early age. They have come from horribly dysfunctional homes. They've learnt that violence is the answer, that if there's a question, violence is the answer.  Not all of them, but many of them. Even with the use of restraints by staff, I would venture to suggest they're still safer there than some of their homes. Where restraint is not a word, they could either spell or act on.  

So if you are going to trust the young people to be able to go out into the community, to try and show them that there is another way of living and being, there has to be a safety net around them and around the people they encounter. To do that you need to amend legislation. I do not know what's so hard about that. What's so hard about explaining that? 

The coalition government got themselves in a complete tangle allowing Labour and Te Pati Māori headlines, allowed them to make political capital because of their own fumbling communications. I think most of us, we understand that if you want to be able to bring at-risk kids out into the community to work or to participate in community activities, there needs to be some measure by which they can be kept safe in the community can too. 

The use of restraints will be measured and monitored, and if it is abused then all hell breaks loose. Hopefully, the days that saw so many children's lives effectively destroyed under state care are gone because the light has been shone into the dark corners. It doesn't mean there will never ever need to be a use of restraint ever again, but it has to be monitored, it has to be seen. And I think that's what we've got here.  All that's going to happen is that the kids will be kept safe, the community will be kept safe within the institutions and outside of them. And if anybody oversteps the mark, by crikey, they will be barbecued, spit-roasted and that's the way it will be. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the carrywood of morning's podcast from News Talk,
said b There's.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Been much political play made around outside organizations having the
potential to use violence on at risk kids, and really
it's entirely the fault of inexperienced politicians in the coalition
government that Labor and Tapatimori have got any traction on
this at all. The pms I know nothing. I know nothing.

(00:35):
When he was questioned about this yesterday on the mic
Costing Breakfast. The refusal to answer questions on a leaked document,
it just makes a vacuum which the opposition can fill
with accusations of violence and the leaked document. Children's Minister
Karen Shua warns the use of force and detention powers

(00:57):
by ordering a Tamadikian third party staff may be viewed
as increasing the potential risk of abuse and custody, particularly
in light of historic abuse experienced by children and young
people in similar programs reported in the Royal Commission of
Inquiry into Abuse and Care report You bet your Bippi.
It was viewed as increasing the potential risk of abuse.

(01:20):
Labor and he Party Maori were in their boots and all. However,
this morning the Minister for children. Clarified on the My
Costing Breakfast that restraints are standard operating procedure in any institution,
and organizations needed to have those powers outside of the institutions.
Hence the need to amend the legislation.

Speaker 3 (01:42):
Forts can be used, but only under various strict conditions,
and we have regulations to protect that. I would be
saying we would use restraints if a child would be
was going to abscond or was going to hurt themselves
with somebody else. That already currently happens with certain facilities.

(02:05):
The see of the here is if we are going
to give these kids a shot, if we are going
to give these young people a chance, we have to
have the ability to actually put a little bit of
trust in them and be able to do things outside
of the residents. But we also have to keep ourselves
safe while doing that.

Speaker 2 (02:24):
Right. So the explanation, as it was finally given, is
that their legislation has to be amended because at the moment,
and this happened under labor as well, it happened under
any administration, you are able to use restraints for the
good of the individual, to prevent harm happening to them,
and for good of the staff, and anybody else that

(02:45):
might be in their way. So, if you're going to
protect people from the young offender, protect the young offender
from themselves, you can use restraint that has been abused
in the past, absolutely, But these children, these at risk youth,
would not be there if they didn't already know exactly
what violence looked like from a very early age. They

(03:08):
have come from horribly dysfunctional homes. They've learned that violence
is the answer, that if there's a question, violence is
the answer. Not all of them, but many of them.
Even with the use of restraints by staff. I would
venture to suggest they're still safer there than some of

(03:30):
their homes, where restraint is not a word they could
either spell.

Speaker 1 (03:37):
Or act on.

Speaker 2 (03:39):
So, if you are going to trust the young people
to be able to go out into the community to
try and show them that there is another way of
living and being, there has to be a safety net
around them and around the people they encounter. At the moment.
You can use restraint in side institutions that has been

(04:00):
abused in the past, absolutely, but you are going to
take the kids out into the community, you need that
safety net that's in the institutions and it needs to
come out into the outside world. To do that, you
need to amend legislation. I do not know what's so
hard about that. What's so hard about explaining that the

(04:21):
coalition government got themselves in a complete tangle allowing labor
to PARTI Maori headlines allowed them to make political capital
because of their own fumbling communications. I think most of
us don't. We understand that if you want to be

(04:43):
able to bring at risk kids out into the community
to work or to participate in community activities, there needs
to be some measure by which they can be kept
safe and the community can too. The use of restraints
will be measured and monitored, and if it is a

(05:06):
then all hell breaks loose. Hopefully the days that saw
so many children's lives effectively destroyed under state care are
gone because the light has been shone into the dark corners.
It doesn't mean there will never ever need to be
a use of restraint ever again, but it has to

(05:28):
be monitored, it has to be seen, and I think
that's what we've got here. Karen Shaw, once they finally
got their act together and was like, oh, what violence
Departimli said that we're going to be violent to the
kids and oh my god, labour's in there.

Speaker 1 (05:44):
Man.

Speaker 2 (05:44):
We said this would happen. No, all that's going to
happen is that the kids will be kept safe, the
community will be kept safe within the institutions and outside
of them, and if anybody oversteps the mark, oh by cracky,
they will be barbecued, spit roasted, and that's the word

(06:07):
it'll be.

Speaker 1 (06:07):
For more from Kerrywood and Mornings, listen live to News
Talks at B from nine am weekdays, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.