The Nation: Children's Commissioner Judge Andrew Becroft
On Newshub Nation: Lisa Owen interviews Children's Commissioner Judge Andrew Becroft
Lisa Owen: When Judge Andrew Becroft
first stepped into the role of children's commissioner in
2016, he admitted he was shocked at the level of child
poverty in New Zealand. So with a couple of years under his
belt, does he see things improving? And how does he rate
this government's first budget. Judge Becroft joins me now.
Good morning.
Judge Andrew Becroft: Ata
marie. Good morning.
So, on a scale of one to
10, in terms of being child-friendly, how would you rate the
budget that has just been delivered? 10 being
stellar.
Sure, eight
plus.
Really?
Excited, yeah. I
think this is a good first step, and to have a government
who's prioritising child poverty reduction, has set targets,
has a bill before the house to oblige targets, to have a
long-term plan to halve poverty in 10 years for children. I
mean, that's massive. Fantastic news.
So,
aside from the family package and those targets, there was
no more specific funding necessarily to address child
poverty. Why does it get such a high
score?
Two reasons. It's the first
concentrated budget, I think, that's really addressed the
issue of the family’s package. There's a best start
payment for new children, doctors' visits for 14, more
commitment to social housing. But I'd rather not obsess
about analysing in detail one particular budget. That's what
we've done in the past, Lisa. I think we're now need to say,
'We need a concentrated, systematic commitment to addressing
child poverty and child well-being.' So I'm looking, really,
at this is the first step. If this was all there was, it
would be about a three or a four or less, but I'm seeing it
in the context of an ongoing commitment. We need to be more
and more of these budgets every year. We can't just say
'this has done it. This is a seven or an eight' — and I
said eight. There's got to be eight after eight after eight.
I want to see scorecards like in the diving competitions —
eight, eight, eight, eight, eight for the next 10 years.
That's what we need.
So sustained increases
and sustained commitment.
Absolutely,
yes.
Well, in saying that, you had a wish
list, and there were a couple of things on it. One was
ending sanctions, was one of the things that you wanted. And
indexing benefits to the median wage was one of the things
top of your list. You didn't get either of those. So, we've
got a $3 billion surplus. You know, that is a lot of money.
Is that good-enough not to get those
things?
What we have got is a commitment to
a review of the benefit system. So I haven't given up on
that, and if we don't get that, I think it will be a very
retrograde step. We need to have benefits for children
indexed to wages. If you look at the graph, early '80s
they're together. And then gradually wages go up and
benefits stay pretty flat. The gap is now massive. We
dropped the ball on policy for children. I think one of the
big, I guess, platforms of our office, the one thing I have
to say clearly, is we need to have a community-wide
consensus on policy for children. We haven't had that. We
could do it. Other countries leave us behind. Scandinavian
countries have parental leave for 16 months. They have free
school lunches for preschool and school children for the
whole community, free doctor and dental visits, good social
housing, free early childhood education. That's what we
need. We've never had the systemic commitment to a good
policy for children.
There's a couple things
in there. If this review happens— Well, the review is
happening. But if you don't get indexing, would you see that
as a fail?
Absolutely. E minus. It's
crucial.
Government on notice, then, Judge
Becroft?
Absolutely. That's been clear. I'm
not shrinking from that. Everybody in the sector has said
we've got to link benefits for children to wages. And we've
got to get rid of some of the huge inconsistencies. I mean,
why is that children from mothers who won't disclose their
father, who are on the DPB, why is it that those children
— and there are 13,000 mothers involved, nearly 18% of
solo mothers — why do those children lose $22 a week?
That is not a child-friendly policy. That's got to
change.
Okay, so you have regular
conversations with people in government. What's— Are you
going to get that, do you think? Are you going to get
indexing?
I genuinely hope so, you know,
because unless we do, we're going to continue these
year-by-year analysis of 'have budgets
delivered?'
Have you heard anything from them
that specifically gives you that
hope?
Nothing.
Right.
But
I remain an optimist, and I'm an
advocate.
Okay, so you— But if they don't do
it, that would be a complete fail, you
believe?
Yep, and I think that's one of the
key reasons that we've got so— the children have got so
out of kilter with the economic growth that the country's
experienced, and they've missed out on it. And look, Lisa, I
was recently in Mangere. I met a mum who lived on the back
of her father's section in a portable constructed unit with
her two kids — poorly insulated, cold, wet, mould on the
inside. The 5-year-old boy going each week to the doctor for
a chest issue. She's in tears. The children go to school
with wet clothes. She's struggling to move them around with
a beaten-up car. We cannot have that. I mean, when I got the
job, I said I was shocked at how profound some of the issues
are. I still am. In the context of 70% of our kids doing
pretty well. In fact, world-leadingly well. But we've got a
group of 20% and 10% at the core, 80,000 to 100,000, who
really do it tough, and that's got to be our
focus.
Okay, so you have applauded the
government for the targets that they do have, but I know you
think there should be more measures around children and
poverty. So what kind of things? Should they measure
educational achievement, disease —
what?
Well, we start with child poverty. I
utterly applaud that approach, because that's what's
required. You might say the tentacles of child poverty reach
out everywhere, so it's necessary to start there, but it
won't be sufficient. And you're right. The theory is that
when child poverty's addressed, all the other, like I call,
social gradients, where poor families experience worse
outcomes for children, those all start to flatten off. So,
yes, in health, we'd expect to see less abuse and neglect.
We'd expect to see less rheumatic fever, less
hospitalisation for accidental injury and illness. We'd
expect to see educational achievement improve significantly.
I'd like to think that youth suicide, which really perplexes
our country, starts to come down. So I'd hope to see a huge
comprehensive suite of measurements that tells us — is the
theory actually coming right in practice. Actually, we'd
like to see reduced prison. It's going to flow on throughout
the whole economy.
So how many measures?
You're talking, what, 10, 20, 30 additional measures in
there?
Absolutely. We had a first crack at
this on Thursday, where we had a national discussion with
about 100 experts in the field, and those who experienced
poverty, the Prime Minister chaired a session on exactly
what her well-being strategy looks like. And you know, you
start off by saying, 'We need to measure children who are
without, abuse and neglect, bad housing and the like, then
we look more aspirationally,' but if you ask children, they
talk a lot about values. They want a loving, safe home with
good play facilities, good friends, secure in their own
identity and connections to culture. We're not good at
measuring those, so when you ask me for my wish list of what
could be measured, we've got to find a way of measuring
those important values for children as well, and we've got
no system for that at the moment.
So, given
that you want a continuation of emphasis on this, should
those measures be entrenched in legislation as
targets?
No, I think the obligation to set
measures for child poverty, and then what's not known is the
children poverty reduction bill includes the obligation to
set a child well-being strategy. Now, that's potentially
game changing. That obliges the government not only to set a
strategy, but say where it will be focusing on and what are
the measures that will show improvement, so I don't want to
get bogged down with a legislative number enshrined forever.
I want government of the day to own an obligation to set
their own targets and make progress.
The— I
want to talk about the justice system. So youth court, the
age is now— You can go to the youth court up to the age of
18.
We've done the right thing,
yes.
Have we gone far
enough?
You know, I was really, I guess,
perplexed and distressed during my time as principal youth
court judge that we didn't include 17-year-olds. I couldn't
say that publically. I now can. I'm an advocate. And one of
the big things that our office campaigned for was to include
17-year-olds. So many people did. We've done the right
thing. But you know, Lisa, I think I've probably lacked
courage. I think we should now have the ability to move some
18- and 19-year-olds who are facing developmental issues or
other neurodevelopmental difficulties, foetal alcohol
spectrum disorder, learning difficulties. There should be a
discretion in the adult courts to move 18- and 19-year-olds
into the youth court. They'll get a much better wrap-around
youth-focused service. Just as, in fact, we have the ability
now to move some 14-, 15- and 16-year olds out of the youth
court and into the adult court. We've got a very arbitrary
age cut-off. We need flexibility each way, so that's
something that we'll be advocating for.
So
you'd want it in law that judges have
discretion?
Absolutely, and the adult courts
to consider moving 18- and 19-year-olds in to the youth
court. Perhaps I'm even then lacking vision. Perhaps I
should be going further, but I think bit by bit, we can
establish that what we do works and is the right thing,
we'll make progress.
So, when you look at
youth court stats, the latest ones show us that appearances
have dropped about 12% for the general population, but Maori
youth appearances are up 23%. We know there is a problem
with disparity, so why does the gap
persist?
Yeah, you ask a good question. I'm
not principal youth court judge any more. We've got a good
new principal youth court judge. I don't want to tread on
his toes, but we can say a few things. Numbers are coming
down for Maori, but not as quickly as for Europeans, so the
over-representation continues. Secondly, it's quite a small
group numerically, and it's troubling if we label all Maori
being a Maori problem. Most Maori children thrive and do
well. I guess the main thing to say, Lisa, it's not a
youth-justice issue; it's an issue in every system of
government, health or education. We see that
over-representation, and you know, I think we have to own
this. Is there any country in the world where the
colonisation process has been other than bad for children? I
mean, that's the reality.
So
no—
Bad for indigenous children. So, and
there's a combination now of systemic discrimination,
unconscious bias. I mean, they are the big issues, and the
stats you quote are replicated in all other areas. The
challenge for our country is to look at it system wide. How
can we do better for our indigenous
children?
In saying that, seeing as it's your
job to advocate for children, and these children have worse
outcomes. Do we need to bring back targeted funding for
Maori?
Well, we certainly need to begin with
child poverty, and we also need to reflect the legislative
intent, which is in the bill before the house, which is to
look at children with particular need and from particular
groups. And the bill also provides an obligation to consult
with Maori and to consult with children. So in the
well-being strategy, there's a crystal-clear obligation to
set targets, which will include targets for Maori in Oranga
Tamariki Act. The new chief executive has got a whole suite
of new and quite powerful obligations to set targets for how
Maori over-representation is going to be brought down. So in
fact, what you are asking for is there in the legislation,
and I think it's exciting. It could be a game
changer.
Before we go, because we're almost
out of time — police chases, these have been in the news
media quite a bit lately. Three teenagers have been killed
in the last 10 months during fleeing driver incidents, and I
know a report in 2009 showed that 40% of people who were
chased by the police were under 20, so they're part of your
domain as the children's commissioner. Do you think the
police should pursue?
Actually, under 18 –
my domain.
Yeah, exactly.
But
first of all, it is a tragedy whenever a child in New
Zealand is lost in these circumstances. I'm glad that there
is a review that is being carried out by our very trusted
independent Police Conduct Authority. It's required, because
I don't think we've got the settings right, and from my
point of view as Children's Commissioner, I hope we bear in
mind that the cohort we're talking about with the frontal
lobe of the brain that's still developing, is that group
that can make the most reckless and irresponsible and
foolhardy decisions under pressure, and I think that's got
to be factored into any review, but I'm not going to
prejudge that, but we'll certainly be, I hope, involved from
the perspective of children in New Zealand, because that's
got to be a front-and-centre consideration, and we can't
afford to lose children in this way any
more.
Always interesting to talk to you, Judge
Becroft.
Thank you.
Thanks for
joining us this morning.
Transcript
provided by Able. www.able.co.nz