An Open Letter to Anne Tolley, the Minister for Social Development - a Ministry that is systematically broken.

Dear Mrs Tolley,

I am writing this open letter to you to inform you of how the Ministry of Social Development has failed the standard; to tell you about the poor service I received between December and March while I was in receipt of a Job Seekers Benefit which completely negated the empathy your staff was able to provide.  I am also writing to ask how you intend to fix the multiple systematic failures that I and many others encounter ona daily basis when dealing with the Ministry of Social Development.

During 2016 I began my Masters of Education.  I supplemented the Student Loan allowance I received with relief teaching when my studies allowed.  This allowance ended in early November, meaning relief teaching was my only form of income.

In December the school year finished, meaning I had no primary source of income until some time in February when schools required relief teachers to cover illness, classroom release time, professional development and other such absences of classroom teachers.

Consequently I made contact with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in mid November in order to kick start the process for the Job Seekers Benefit.  I met with a client manager at the Cambridge office on November 29th and discussed that I was a short term project with my intentions being to return to study in 2017 to complete my Master’s dissertation and relief teaching.  

I had with me some of the documents I had been asked to bring and could obtain, and discussed which documents I still needed to supply in preparation for relieving drying up by the second week of December (due to depleted school budgets for relieving).  It did take several weeks to supply my documentation, but one thing I am very certain of is that I supplied my current and correct residential/mailing address on my form applying for the Job Seekers Benefit.

I made a second and possibly a third trip into the Cambridge office during December to drop in documents, as well as emailing some that I was unable to print due to technical difficulties.  I was assured that I was accepted and the Job Seekers Benefit would start the week before Christmas.  I awaited written confirmation.  It did not arrive.

In the end I made a phone call to MSD in the week leading up to Christmas asking when I would be paid and the amount.  I was told I would be paid $212 each Thursday, including the amount to cover a regular expensive prescription I require - expensive because I don’t get the generic.

My family spent Christmas in Whitianga.  On Boxing Day I went to town to do an errand for my parents and one of the shops I visited had a job vacancy advertised on the door.  I approached the shop keeper and asked her about the job.  I emailed her my CV, she phoned me, and I secured the position which was minimum wage casual hours to relieve her more experienced casual worker over the busy summer holiday period.  I had never worked in retail before, so I was looking forward to the experience.

After the stat days ended, I contacted MSD through their 0800 number.  I explained that I had secured a position and that it was casual hours.  They explained there was an $80 gross cap and then they would deduct from the total of my weekly benefit.  I believe that this $80 gross cap has not changed in many many years despite increases to the minimum wage, rents, and general inflation and that it takes no account of the fact that the job will be secondary taxed, that my student loan repayments must be paid and that I have KiwiSaver.  

I was told that as long as I rang by the end of Friday with my hours worked for the week that my following week’s payment could be adjusted, even if I just guessed the hours I would be working on Saturday and Sunday of that weekend.  

Remember, this is the week between Christmas and New Years, and I’m ringing on the Wednesday after two stat holidays, with the full knowledge that there would be two more stat holidays the following week.

So on the last Friday of 2016, I rang MSD, with my guessed amount of hours I would be doing before the end of Sunday coming and the person who answered the phone told me I should have informed them of my hours on Wednesday just gone due to the stat holidays the following week.  Because I had earned over $80 gross, I was now in arrears with MSD and would have my benefit reduced by $10 a week in order to recover the arrears.

I asked for written confirmation of this.  They said they would mail it to me.  I asked if it could be emailed to me as I was working away from home.  They said they couldn’t do that and it would be sent by snail mail.  Please note: when I returned home for two days two weeks later, there was no mail from MSD at my home.  Not one letter in over six weeks of dealing with MSD.

I continued to work in this shop throughout January, finishing on Wednesday 1 February as I had secured a new job back in Hamilton to start on Friday 3 February and in anticipation of oodles of teachers becoming ill or needing CRT or PLD eventually.  I also needed to start sorting out my re-enrollment at University.

During January, my Job Seekers Benefit was never the same week to week.  The hours I worked in the shop were never the same and lessened towards the end of January as the holiday makers drifted back to their homes and schools.  I never received each week from either the casual job or the benefit combined the amount I was meant to receive for the Job Seekers Benefit, $212.  

Consequently, what I did earn covered my petrol and food.  I didn’t do anything exciting or excessive during that time, but I was in no position to pay my cell phone account, meet the minimum payments on my credit cards, pay the cost of the service and WOF of my car in January, pay my HP or pay the cost of the storage unit where 99.9% of everything I own (including teaching resources) is stored in.  Several times, after my automatic payments for insurances went out, I was left sub-zero, and once I had to ask the shopkeeper I was working for to urgently pay me early so I could survive the weekend.

I was quite stressed out with the amount of arrears I was building up and certain health conditions were exacerbated, and I still haven’t combatted them now.

So let’s just recap on some important points here:

• In November in my initial application I supplied my current residential/mailing address.
• I had received no written documentation by mail from MSD at any point since 29th of November and it is now February.
• I was not given the correct information about when to ring MSD to provide my hours of work during the first week of my temporary casual position when there were stat days changing the normal pattern of how it is done.
• I am now in arrears with MSD and my benefit is accordingly reduced by $10 per week to recoup the arrears.
• There was barely a week in January I received the $212 I was supposed to get if I had of just sat on my arse receiving a benefit instead of working as casual position.

These points above are very important, because over the next five weeks, the calamity of systematic disasters that is MSD just pile on.

I began my new position on Friday 3 February.  It is ten hours a week, flexible days to work in with the work I am required to do as well as my study and relief teaching.  Best of all I was being paid about $10 more an hour than the casual retail position I had over January.

On Tuesday 7 February (Monday being a public holiday called Waitangi Day), I rang MSD to inform them I had finished working in the shop in Whitianga and was now working in a new position for ten hours a week in Hamilton.  I informed MSD that I did not know when I would start being paid by my new job (turns out that it wasn’t until March due to numerous technical issues) and that I was currently in the red to the tune of $72 and that the next Job Seekers payment would not get me back into the black as it was about $69.

The person I spoke to was excited about my new job.  She looked into my situation and was able to make the next payment bigger so that I was $70 in the black rather than the red the next day, and informed me I would need to see a client manager as soon as possible, but that she could not make an appointment that day as the MSD booking system had ‘fallen over’.

After speaking with MSD, I began to ring everyone I was in arrears with to bargain with them over paying what I owed.

The following Tuesday I rang MSD again to book an appointment with a client manager.  I explained again that I had started a new job in Hamilton.  I was told I had an appointment the following Tuesday at 2:30pm.

On Tuesday 21 February I arrived at the Cambridge MSD office for my 2:30pm appointment.  By this time, MSD had the security people acting as quasi-receptionists.  They checked my ID and were confused about me having an appointment.  I went in and sat down.  I was approached by an MSD staff member who informed me they had no record of my appointment.  I insisted I had an appointment.  The staff member went away.  The staff member came back and said my appointment was for the Te Awamutu office.  I replied that at no stage during the call on the previous Tuesday did the call centre staff member say “Te Awamutu” and I expected my appointment to be Cambridge because all my previous dealings were with Cambridge.

By this stage I’m pretty pissed off, emotional and extremely thirsty.  I tell the staff member I have had to leave my place of work to come to this appointment and I am not leaving without seeing the appointment through.  She responds that they do not have any gaps in their appointments and I will have to take my chances.  I ask for a cup of water (there are no water stands available or cups for MSD clients) and begrudgingly the staff member brings me a plastic cup of water from their staff room while I ring the MSD 0800 number to make a complaint.

So I spend my time waiting in the Cambridge office on the phone making a verbal complaint to the call centre, who assures me that they will send me a written outcome of my complaint and informs me that I would not be able to get a new appointment in the Cambridge office until Monday 6 March!  

After that I spend my time on Twitter bitching about how broken the system at MSD is.

Eventually I am approached by the deputy manager of the Cambridge and Te Awamutu MSD offices.  She takes me down to a desk at the back of the office and apologises for the stuff up by the call centre.  She talks through my situation with me and I explained for the third time I have changed my job in February, that I was a short term project for them, that it was a matter of weeks before relief teaching really kicked in and my ten hour a week job would pay me.  

She makes adjustments to my Job Seekers Benefit for the week to accommodate the fact that I am yet to be paid by my new job (due to technical difficulties).  We then discuss the accounts I have in arrears and the ones I would like help with to pay, acknowledging that any help I receive for these would need to be repaid.  

As much as she would have liked to help, the way MSD is set up now would much rather see an individual drown in debt and never get out of the poverty cycle.  Rather than get a hand up to ensure that I continued to have a good credit rating and didn’t garner further debt, MSD refuses to help.

I left MSD that afternoon feeling rather despondent and weighed down with sadness at how our social welfare system condemns people to a cycle of poverty and benefit dependency.  It is a full time job dealing with their systems, and if I listen to the 0800 number tell me while I am on hold one more time that I can do stuff online I will scream!!!  If a real staff member can not help me, how the bloody hell is a website going to ensure I get my entitlements and understand the situation and how it should be sorted out - and I am an educated person!!

But what left me most astonished was to find out that MSD has a sinking lid on staff - when a staff member leaves, they are not replaced,  Consequently, they are understaffed.  Some not very bright management person further up the food chain in the Ministry of Social Development thinks that the internet and the kiosks at MSD offices are the answer to everything.  I’m under the impression from another person I know that the kiosks in Te Awamutu usually are crashed and that no staff member at the Te Awamutu office actually knows how the kiosks even work!

So let’s recap where I am at the 21st of February 2017:

• In November in my initial application I supplied my current residential/mailing address.
• I had received no written documentation by mail from MSD at any point since 29th of November and it is now nearly the end of February.
• I was not given the correct information about when to ring MSD to provide my hours of work during the first week of my temporary casual position when there were stat days changing the normal pattern of how it is done.
• I am now in arrears with MSD and my benefit is accordingly reduced by $10 per week to recoup the arrears.
• There was barely a week in January I received the $212 I was supposed to get if I had of just sat on my arse receiving a benefit instead of working as casual position.
• I couldn’t make an appointment on the 7th of February as the MSD booking system had ‘fallen over’.
• I’ve had to explain three times in February that I started a new job in February.
• I’ve turned up to an appointment to find I’ve been booked into an office I’ve never attended and was not verbally told or received a letter as to what office my appointment was for.
• I am left to wallow in debt.

But wait, there is more.

Finally on 1 March, my ten hour a week job is able to pay me what I am owed, out of cycle, as I am facing financial hardship.  During this week I received enough bookings for relief teaching in March to meet my minimum financial needs.  So on Friday 3 March I ring up and ask for my Job Seekers Benefit to be finished.

Oh.  My.  God!  It is almost as hard to get off the bloody benefit as it is to get on the damn thing!

Once again I have to explain that in addition to the relieving (which I will get almost $200 in the hand a day after tax, student loan, NZEI fees, KiwiSaver and Teacher Retirement Scheme are taken out) that I also have the ten hour a week job before the call centre guy believes that I will be financially ok!  This is so ironic after MSD systems tell me they can not help me out of the arrears with my phone (essential for schools to be able to contact me on and for me to contact them) and storage fees!  He had been wanting me to supply pay slips and the blood of a virgin to get out of being on a benefit.  I just wanted the benefit to stop before they piled on more arrears (which were totalling about $400 at that stage).

So after I get an almost agreement to end my benefit, I ask about the complaint I made about the call centre getting my appointment wrong.  He assured me a letter had been sent out.  I said I hadn’t received it.  In fact, I said to him, I have received absolutely NO written correspondence form MSD since my initial contact in November, and I thought that was most unusual since they would not email me.

So this is when the next clanger happened.

He read out the address they were sending my mail to.

It was an address I have NOT lived at since May 2013, almost four years ago.  

What really annoys me is that I know who lives there now and I certainly do not want that old sticky beak getting my personal mail from MSD!

This was about when I got pretty shitty again.  This is when I explained that I had written the correct current residential/mailing address on the forms in November.  This is when I asked to make yet another complaint about the conduct and the systems of MSD and how this had been inconveniencing me.

Later that day I received an apologetic call from the deputy manager of the Cambridge and Te Awamutu MSD offices.  She sincerely apologised for the mistake with not updating my address in November, and ensured that my benefit would be paid one last time the following Thursday.

So let’s recap again on the calamity that is the system at MSD:

• In November in my initial application I supplied my current residential/mailing address.
• I had received no written documentation by mail from MSD at any point since 29th of November and it is now March.
• I was not given the correct information about when to ring MSD to provide my hours of work during the first week of my temporary casual position when there were stat days changing the normal pattern of how it is done.
• I am now in arrears with MSD and my benefit is accordingly reduced by $10 per week to recoup the arrears.
• There was barely a week in January I received the $212 I was supposed to get if I had of just sat on my arse receiving a benefit instead of working as casual position.
• I couldn’t make an appointment on the 7th of February as the MSD booking system had ‘fallen over’.
• I’ve had to explain three times in February that I started a new job in February.
• I’ve turned up to an appointment to find I’ve been booked into an office I’ve never attended and was not verbally told or received a letter as to what office my appointment was for.
• I am left to wallow in debt.
• I have received no written response to the complaint regarding my appointment being made at the wrong office.
• I practically have to fight to end my benefit.
• I discover that all the mail I should have received since November from MSD has gone to an address I haven’t lived at since May 2013 because my address details were not inputted correctly, if at all, in November when I applied for the Job Seekers Benefit.

But wait, there is more.

I get a letter from MSD informing me formally of the arrears I owe and asking me to contact them.  It does generously allow me to use my Community Services card until it expires.

What Community Services Card?

They sent me one in December and a new one in February - to the address I have not lived at in nearly four years.

So I ring up asking for a new card.  They can’t send me one because I am no longer on a benefit.  So instead they send me forms to make an application for a new one.

Can I make another complaint?

So let’s just recap again the systematic disaster that MSD is:

• In November in my initial application I supplied my current residential/mailing address.
• I had received no written documentation by mail from MSD at any point since 29th of November until the end of the second week of March.
• I was not given the correct information about when to ring MSD to provide my hours of work during the first week of my temporary casual position when there were stat days changing the normal pattern of how it is done.
• I am now in arrears with MSD and my benefit is accordingly reduced by $10 per week to recoup the arrears.
• There was barely a week in January I received the $212 I was supposed to get if I had of just sat on my arse receiving a benefit instead of working as casual position.
• I couldn’t make an appointment on the 7th of February as the MSD booking system had ‘fallen over’.
• I’ve had to explain three times in February that I started a new job in February.
• I’ve turned up to an appointment to find I’ve been booked into an office I’ve never attended and was not verbally told or received a letter as to what office my appointment was for.
• I am left to wallow in debt.
• I have received no written response to the complaint regarding my appointment being made at the wrong office.
• I practically have to fight to end my benefit.
• I discover that all the mail I should have received since November from MSD has gone to an address I haven’t lived at since May 2013 because my address details were not inputted correctly, if at all, in November when I applied for the Job Seekers Benefit.
• My Community Services card is sent to the wrong address twice and they will not supply me with a replacement despite it being their mistake that I did not receive it.

So what do I think needs to change to ensure that the staff of MSD, who are empathetic and try hard to help but are hampered by a broken system, can actually help beneficiaries break the cycle of poverty and benefit dependency?

• Actually have enough staff to do the job - even a simple job like inputting an address.  
• Cut down the waiting time for an appointment.  No one should have to wait two weeks for an appointment when they are on the bones of their arse.  No one should have to wait more than 24 hours in a working week to be seen.
• Have a computer system that makes sense that anyone can use.
• Clearly display entitlements so that people know what they are entitled to and how to access them.
• If MSD gives the wrong advice that means the client ends up owing arrears, don’t ping the client for the wrong advice - especially when it comes to statutory holidays.
• Up the $80 cap for income outside of the benefit to recognise the fact that the minimum wage has increased and so has inflation.  The $80 cap should not include pinging you for Student Loan repayments or KiwiSaver either.
• When a person is a short term project with good earning potential, help them out to keep their credit rating so they stay afloat.  There are ways and means to ensure it does get paid back.
• Stop insisting on people begging their family for financial assistance.  The whole point of a social welfare system is for the social welfare system to support an independent adult - not to make them dependent on extended family members who are trying to hold their own financial commitments together.

While I was not treated as harshly as I was in 2010 when last needed the Unemployment Benefit to pretend I was surviving, it was still a very stressful experience.  Last time the people were incredibly harsh, but that just may be the Thames office experience.  This time I found the staff to be empathic and understanding - but they were hamstrung by a system that is unresponsive and broken.

Once again I am left feeling that our social welfare system is condemning so many to a life of poverty and dependency.  I heard former Prime Minister John Key say in one of his final interviews as and MP this week that he believes that people don’t want to be dependent on the state and do not want the state interfering in their lives.  I think John Key fails to remember what the state did for him during his childhood and that the original purpose of the welfare system was to ensure that everyone could participate as a full citizen in society.  

In 1972, the Royal Commission on Social Security had reinforced the role of welfare as “to ensure, within limitations which may be imposed by physical or other disabilities, that everyone is able to enjoy a standard of living much like that of the rest of the community, and thus is able to feel a sense of participation in and belonging to the community” (Kelsey, 1995, p.271).  Since the National government decimated this social contract in 1991, poverty and dependency on social welfare has been exacerbated and nothing the current National government under John Key or Bill English has improved outcomes for these people.

As an educated person, who has the power to earn five times plus more than the benefit pays a week (if school is in), the benefit is not the place I want to be.  But this experience made it clear how some people are trapped into the cycle because they are penalised so harshly for trying to earn extra cash during the peak summer period or a crop harvesting time to try and get ahead and get out of the benefit cycle.  Employers are also disadvantaged by the system as some people will limit what they will work so as not to be in danger of losing their benefit.  And that is why I think that the $80 cap on earning extra needs to be increased.


So to end this open letter to you Mrs Tolley, I'd like to tell you that the Ministry of Social Development fails the standard (and you know all about standards and failing to meet those when you were the Minister of Education); the systems at the Ministry of Social Development are broken and fail to help people break the poverty and dependency cycle; and I think it is time we did something to #ChangeTheGovt to fix the Ministry of Social Development.


But what are you going to do to fix it Mrs Tolley?


And I mean fix it, not f**k it up any more than the system already is.


Bibliography:
Kelsey, J. (1995). The New Zealand experiment: A world model for structural adjustment? (1997 ed.). Auckland, N.Z.: Auckland University Press.

New Zealand's "Rape Culture" is alive and well

Today the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) released its report into the Roast Busters controversy.  I wrote about this and New Zealand's rape culture last year when the police announced no charges would be laid due to a lack of evidence in the post Musings on New Zealand's Rape Culture, Domestic Violence and Apologies.

It was quite handy when Stuff automatically told my phone about the release of this report by the IPCA with their breaking news feature on their app.  It meant I didn't have to wait until 6 o'clock to be fully enraged with the rest of the country.  It meant I could reflect on rape culture again; a culture which continues to be mocked as non-existent, when if you are female you know it is not.

And there is plenty in this report to be angry about.  While the report said that all the young women/girls making complaints were treated with compassion and courtesy, I was appalled to read through the article to find the following:

• some of the young men/boys involved were never approached or spoken to by the police.
• the parents of the young men/boys were not approached and informed of the allegations so they could have "that talk" with their sons.
• the police failed to follow lines of inquiry in a timely fashion and sometimes not at all.
• record keeping was poor.
• each complaint was treated separately and not considered as a pattern of incidents.

Naturally the Police have been very apologetic with public "We are Sorries" from the Police Commissioner and the Waitemata Area Commander.  Anne Tolley, as the former Minister of Police responsible when the story broke and when the decision came through not to press charges, expressed concerns and as the current Minister of Social Development says that Child Youth and Family (CYF) would be next under the microscope.  The current Minister for Police, Michael Woodhouse, has said that it was failures by individual officers.

No police officer has lost their job, but they have been moved on to other roles and sectors in the police.  Greg O'Connor, of the Police Association, would have liked the report to look into what else was happening in the Waitemata area at the time, claiming that there had been a large number of cases that had priority at the time and not enough manpower to do it all justice.  Jacinda Ardern said that a lack of resourcing had affected the case.

You can read these documents from the IPCA: the media statement, the IPCA Public Report, and the speech notes by Judge Sir David Carruthers.  You can read more on Stuff (Roast Busters case subject of another review) and at the New Zealand Herald (Roast Busters case: Apology 'just the beginning').

This stood out from the speech made by Judge Sir David Carruthers at the release of the report today:

 

The first aspect, which the Authority publicly reported on in May 2014, considered the information provided by Police to the media about the Police investigations.

The second, which is outlined in today’s report, considered the adequacy of the initial Police criminal investigations and the handling of any complaints or reports received by Police from members of the public between 2011 and October 2013. The findings in the report are the result of a very thorough and detailed investigation.

The report is confined to those Police investigations up until these matters came to media attention in October 2013. It does not cover the subsequent Police reinvestigation, dubbed ‘Operation Clover’. The Police have publicly reported on the results of that reinvestigation, which did not result in the prosecution of any of the young men concerned.

So does that mean we now need another report into the subsequent police reinvestigation called Operation Clover?

Ellis is able to capture the essence of an issue with brilliance.

An urgent debate was called in Parliament this afternoon.  A number of Members of Parliament from both sides of the house rose to speak about this report today. 

Jacinda Ardern, Labour's spokesperson for Justice, listed a number of actions that demonstrated poor policing practice.  Jacinda then went on to outline the history of the case prior to today.  Jacinda Ardern specifically highlighted the lack of co-ordination in dealing with this case.  This was highlighted from the first paragraph in the report.  At the start of the IPCA the police told them about four separate incidents and then found out about three further separate incidents with the same group of young men.  But no one would join the dots between each of the seven cases to see there was a systemic problem with the same group of young men over and over again.

 And Jacinda also questioned, as did the IPCA, the practice of the police in investigating this case, and that the IPCA believes that investigation should have continued as per the policies of the police because the victims involved were children.  Jacinda Ardern questioned that while the police did not have the evidence to lay charges, some old fashioned policing should have happened; the police should have knocked on the doors of the families of these young men and had conversations with their parents.  And Jacinda knows this is an appropriate course of action as her father is a policeman.

Then Jacinda Ardern brought up this piece of legislation:

Section 134 of the Act outlines the penalties for those who have sexual conduct with a young person under 16 years as:
"(1) Every one who has sexual connection with a young person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

(2) Every one who attempts to have sexual connection with a young person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

(3) Every one who does an indecent act on a young person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.

(4) No person can be convicted of a charge under this section if he or she was married to the young person concerned at the time of the sexual connection or indecent act concerned.

(5) The young person in respect of whom an offence against this section was committed cannot be charged as a party to the offence if the person who committed the offence was of or over the age of 16 years when the offence was committed.

(6) In this section,—
  (a) young person means a person under the age of 16 years; and

 (b) doing an indecent act on a young person includes indecently assaulting the young person.  
Why is this piece of legislation so important?  The victims who made complaints to the police were all aged under 16 in six of the seven cases and each young man involved in the assaults that took place knew that they were aged under 16.  The fact that these children were under the age of consent consequently means that the evidence for a violation of the law was there because there is no consent when a person is younger than 16 because sexual connection is unlawful below that age.  Therefore the investigation should still be actively open and work should be continuing to secure the necessary evidence.  See more in this video of Jacinda Ardern during the debate.

Michael Woodhouse, the current Minister of Police spoke next.  He began while saying he agreed with almost everything Jacinda Ardern had said, and also said that there was nothing to candy coat the finding of the IPCA.  He then went on to defend Anne Tolley's role in the controversy, saying that she did not have the information available to her because the police had not collected that information, and that this was clear from the IPCA report.  Mr Woodhouse then went on to glorify what had happened to crime statistics under Mrs Tolley's reign as Minister of Police. 

But he kept referring to statistics on adult sexual assault - which I found concerning as you can not call a girl under 16 an adult when she can not consent to sex legally, and particularly as this issue is all about sexual assault.  Michael Woodhouse also spanked Jacinda Ardern and Greg O'Connor on the hand for their criticism about a lack of resources hampering the investigation.  Quite frankly, a lack of resources for the police stands out like dog balls when you look at this case.  Yes, a lot of money was spent on investigating this case, but I believe that the case was dropped because it would continue to cost more money and was not going to be resolved quickly.  You can hear more from Michael Woodhouse below.

I was appalled to hear Catherine Delahunty of the Greens point out yet another failing in the case, that the officers who took the complaints did not even get the name of the boys involved correct when they took down their initial details.  Catherine called for an independent taskforce into how sexual assault is dealt with.  You can hear more of what Catherine Delahunty has to say in this video below, but she is correct when she states that girls and women of today's modern society will continue to fail to have any faith in the police believing them if the police do not investigate their complaints properly.  And this is after Louise Nicholas has been working with the police to change their culture and response to sexual assault complaints!

Tracey Martin, deputy leader of New Zealand First, acknowledged that while many police officers are fathers and mothers, we have major failings in the New Zealand Police and spoke of another case with a young girl facing a similar situation.  It resulted in a "he said/she said" impasse.  She claimed this was not a one party problem and needed cross party support in parliament to make changes to ensure that women (or men) can go to the police and make a complaint with the confidence that they will be believed and the complaint investigated.  Tracey called for the conversation to happen in parliament, for this report not to be forgotten and gather dust.  You can hear what Tracey Martin has to say in this video below.

Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, talked about making changes, even when it is difficult, and called for the support of the House to make changes.  Amy Adams is in the process of establishing the role of a Chief Victims Advisor to all ministers across portfolios so that there would be independent advice available.  Admirable, but this government has a poor record on utilising true, independent advice.  Amy always criticised the perpetrators for their victimising the girls with social media and promoted the bill that she thinks will prevent this or take action against them for using social media.  We have a domestic violence notification every six minutes and half of homicides are related to domestic abuse, and while the Roast Busters case is not domestic abuse related, it is indicative of some of society's attitudes that must change.

Anne Tolley, who was the Minister of Police at the time of the Roast Busters case becoming known and when the police decided not to lay charges, also spoke.  She trumpeted that she was the first Minister of Police to make a complaint to the IPCA and that this report was a result of her complaint - but I'm pretty sure there were complaints made by opposition parties to the IPCA as well.  She was pleased that the girls (aka victims) now know what actually happened.  She emphasised that it was not a systemic breakdown, but failures by individuals. 

Anne Tolley also said that CYF had to take some responsibility too.  And the report makes mention of the knowledge CYF had and how co-operation and information sharing between CYF and the police needs improvement.  The police clearly did not give the right information to CYF, but neither did CYF clarify with the police it seems.  Hear more from Anne Tolley below.

Sue Moroney from Labour also stood to speak and to point out that the Speaker had allowed this debate because of Ministerial responsibility over the Roast Busters issue, and Sue pointed out that no Ministers were taking responsibility for this issue and the culture that exists to allow this issue to continue.  Sue Moroney stood up and spoke for New Zealand women to say we have had enough.  Sue pointed out that the police do not need a complaint to be laid to investigate an incident of sexual assault.  This is written into New Zealand law and is part of the policy of the police.  Sue pointed out that Michael Woodhouse and Anne Tolley were wrong on this point when they said the police couldn't prosecute because there had been no formal complaint.  See more about what Sue Moroney said below.

Louise Upston, Minister for Women, reiterated that the Roast Busters boys need to take responsibility for their actions and have to shoulder the blame.  Louise also echoed Anne Tolley in saying that it was her who referred the complaint against the police to the IPCA, and Michael Woodhouse in regards to the good statistics from the police over recent years.  She also listed a number of programmes and funding under this government.  (I think that Louise Upston may have neglected to mention the fact that her government denied the Christchurch centre that assisted rape victims funding before the 2014 election and they had to shut up shop as a result).  See more of Louise Upston's speech below.

Poto Williams also stood to speak on this matter, asking what victims of sexual abuse need.  They need timeliness, compassion, to feel they have been heard, not to be re-victimised, and that once they have told their stories to the police that the police will take action on their behalf.  Poto Williams believes that these needs have not been fully fulfilled.  85% of victims of family violence are also sexual violence victims.  Poto Williams stood to defend Jacinda Ardern's assertion that a lack of resources for the police hampered the investigation.  She said "Jacinda was being generous, because if not for a lack of resource, then it is about attitude and culture.  An attitude that sexual predation is ok and an attitude that the police do not care.  And a culture of indifference.  And I for one will not stand for that."  That is a fantastic statement, and you can view more of what Poto Williams has to say below.

I note that only one man stood to speak on this issue, the Minister of Police, Michael Woodhouse.  Are all the other men in parliament too scared that they may be tarred with the "apology" brush like when David Cunliffe stood up and apologised for the fact that men are the assailants in the majority of domestic abuse cases at the Women's Refuge conference last year?

A lot of what has been said on the Roast Busters case boils down to consent.  Sex without consent is rape, no two ways about it.  Sex with a person under 16 does not boil down to whether or not all parties are consenting to it because under our law in New Zealand it is classed as Unlawful Sexual Connection and can therefore be prosecuted against.

So the parents of the Roast Busters boys, in fact the parents of any teenager or young adult, should read this blog Consent: Not actually  that complicated by Rockstar Dinosaur Pirate Princess and share it with their kids and use it as a base for discussion about sex and consent.  This blog uses a cup of tea as an analogy for sex.  I shared this blog on Facebook and one of my friends commented that along with getting consent for a cup of tea/sex, you should also check how the recipient likes their cup of tea/sex.

Sharon Murdoch is also an amazing cartoonist who hits the nail on the head.

The whole process of this Roast Busters case has brought up the issue of teenage sex and alcohol consumption, consent and the rape culture that permeates our society.

It also brings up the concept of  "old fashioned" community policing.  My great uncle was a policeman.  At his funeral, his son, my mum's cousin, told how parents would knock on Uncle Bill's door and asked him to "give their boy a kid up the bum" or "scare some sense into the little bugger".  This little community service stopped a lot of idiocy by the neighbourhood boys getting out of control and ruining their future prospects. 

Where has this gone from policing today?  How many girls would not have fallen victim to these Roast Buster boys if the police officers involved had have visited their family homes and informed the parents of these boys as to what they were doing at these parties so the parents of these boys could knock some sense into them?

Again, as a society, we fail these girls if this report is allowed to languish on a dusty shelf in parliament's library.  As a society we have to demand action from our law makers and law enforcement to ensure that victims are supported and protected and further harm is not inflicted.

To not do so would be to fail the standard, and we can't have the police fail their own standards again and let them get away with it.