[ Return ]

Perspective article, by Dr Annabel Taylor
The Press, 19 July 2009
(Original version, before slight sub-editing)

On 9 July Chief Justice Sian Elias gave a speech that ignited national debate on New Zealand's criminal justice system. Perhaps the speech and the subsequent debate will stimulate some new thinking to guide policy on our responses to criminality.

Some of Dame Sian's comments have been widely reported. It is worth seeking out her whole speech to understand the context of the observations on prisoner numbers and victims' rights, which upset some commentators, including the Minister of Justice.

The speech is in fact an entreaty to reassess how we as a nation manage the risk that crime imposes on us.

Apart from asking whether it is in our best interests to continue to grow the prison muster, Dame Sian outlined a series of other strategies to reduce the cost of crime.

Effective intervention to address the causes of criminality is central to Dame Sian's argument. This is a strategy the government professes also to favour.

The Chief Justice called her speech 'Blameless Babes', a reference to the fact that all criminals start out that way before being turned into 'the stuff of nightmares,' inhabitants of the 'monster factory,' which is how Dame Sian describes prison.

For generations, as she points out, research into the causes of crime has identified personal background and social conditions as key factors bearing on criminal behaviour.

Offenders, says Dame Sian, are typically male, of low intelligence, addicted to drugs or alcohol, from families characterised by parental conflict and evidence of emotional, physical or sexual abuse, with a background of poverty, poor housing, instability, association with delinquent peers and unemployment.

For those of us with an interest in preventing child abuse, such analysis matches the profile of the families at greatest risk of maltreating their infants. It is ironic that Dame Sian's speech, asking how the 'blameless babes' become 'the stuff of nightmares,' was given at the same time as the $9 million referendum that aims to repeal legislation introduced to protect children from abuse.

In the past month, during parliamentary debates on that referendum, the Prime Minister has twice told parliament about his aspiration to do something about what has been widely described as 'New Zealand's greatest shame': child abuse.

Mr Key's government, he says, is "going to do something about abused kids, because not enough happened under the previous Labour Government."

Dame Sian's speech recognises Mr Key's willingness to engage more broadly on the drivers of crime.

For 'early intervention to prevent a life of crime', read 'early intervention to save the lives of abused and maltreated children.' They are one and the same.

Children at the most extreme risk of being abused, the ones Mr Key wants to 'do something about', are the very same as the Chief Justice's 'blameless babes.'

We know the names of some of the children we ought to have done something about in the past: Jayrhis Ian Te Koha Lock-Tata, aged five weeks; Nia Glassie, aged three years; Ngatikaura Ngata, aged three years; Chris and Cru Kahui, aged four months; Tangaroa Matiu, aged three years; Coral-Ellen Burrows, aged six years to name just the most recent examples of 'blameless babes' whose lives were extinguished at the feet, fists, clothes lines and jug cords of family members before they had the chance to go on to populate the 'monster factory.'

After the election last year the new government emitted positive signals on the issue of child abuse prevention. It is an issue on which the Minister of Social Development is said to be particularly passionate. However, little detail and absolutely no substance has emerged in the succeeding eight months.

The Prime Minister's recent comments that his government is going to take action are therefore encouraging. Clearly he has the support of the Chief Justice. Exactly what he has in mind, however, remains to be seen.

It would be ideal if Mr Key can find sustainable funding to support services to provide effective early intervention to prevent child abuse. In the longer term, it would also help thwart crime, as Dame Sian recommends.

While funding social service providers would be a brave decision at present, there is a strong argument that tough economic times are even more reason for government to look after those who face the greatest difficulty. Assistance for the agencies that work with families in the most extreme social deprivation is the way to put that into effect.

Everyone has an interest in improving the lot of the youngest, most vulnerable and most socially deprived New Zealanders, Dame Sian's 'blameless babes,' born into families that suffer multiple problems, to parents who lack basic coping skills and are prone to expressing themselves through violence.

Dame Sian's speech makes the benefits of focusing on her 'blameless babes' clear. Denying these links by not intervening at the earliest possible opportunity imposes a heavy burden on us all.

Within the first three years of life, children who live in homes where violence and maltreatment are commonplace are at particularly high risk of becoming traumatised to such an extent that their brain development is impaired. When this occurs it creates life-long difficulties for the individual and profound impact on society. Estimates relating to New Zealand suggest that child abuse and neglect generates a long-term cost that is equivalent to around $2 billion, or over one per cent of GDP, per annum.

That is the cost of policing, imprisonment, mental health, healthcare, drug addiction and the other negative consequences and lost opportunities that eventuate from young people and adults who have spent the early years of their lives subject to violence, neglect, maltreatment and abuse, and lead blighted adult lives as a consequence, frequently featuring time in the 'monster factory' to which Dame Sian refers.

This issue. However, it is not insurmountable.

Recent research has demonstrated that a specialist service, focussed on prevention and targeted at the highest risk group, is able to take action to help otherwise dysfunctional families to learn the parenting skills they lack, and therefore break the cycle of child maltreatment, abuse, and a subsequent life likely to be characterised by crime.

As the Prime Minister and his advisors work out how best to 'do something about abused kids,' they will be aware that some early intervention programmes, aimed at families of children in the first years of life, have proven effective.

We know that carefully targeted investment in programmes to help socially deprived families can generate a substantial payback.

A two year outcome study published recently by the Family Help Trust linked effective early intervention to substantial decreases in factors associated with family violence such as helping mothers of vulnerable infants to end abusive relationships; come off drugs; stop hitting their children and begin to turn their own and their children's lives around.

Despite the Minister of Justice's reaction to Dame Sian's speech, it seems the Chief Justice and the Prime Minister agree that effective early intervention is a worthwhile investment to prevent, in her case a life of crime, and in his case, the maltreatment of the 'blameless babes' who are our most vulnerable infants.

It is a point the rest of us can agree on as well, so let's see that investment, please, Mr Key.

Dr Annabel Taylor teaches social policy and social work practice at the University of Canterbury School of Social Work and Human Services. She is also chair of the Family Help Trust, a Christchurch-based charity that works to prevent child abuse in families suffering the greatest social dysfunction and deprivation.

Further information:
Dr Annabel Taylor
Senior Lecturer
School of Social Work and Human Services
University of Canterbury