Bennett grabs victory from jaws of sterilisation defeat

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:46p.m.

Paula Bennett (photo: Victoria Evans)

By Political Reporter Patrick Gower

Paula Bennett has just fronted a media pack hungry to know if she was looking at state-ordered sterilisation for child abusers.

She's essentially performed a "Westie side-step", bashing straight up the guts of the issue by saying no-way to sterilisation - but yes to permanent removal of children.

It followed some seemingly loose comments during a interview about "state-ordered sanctions" with RadioLIVE host Michael Laws, where Bennett said she was looking at a step that was "right out there" (It is near the end of the interview at 5.37).

Listen to the interview (the comments are at the 5:37 mark)

She told Laws her Cabinet colleagues were "fed up with these children continuously being born to completely unfit parents".

It looked like she could have been talking about sterilisation - a total no-no for so many reasons.

Bennett's enemies had already started circling, namely her arch-nemesis the Greens co-leader Metiria Turei who called "talk of forced sterilisation very extreme".

But was she really talking about forced sterilisation? Bennett says no way.

Instead, Bennett has revealed the sanctions she's looking at is removal of children from parents of abusers.

Its hardline - but nothing like sterilisation.

Essentially, Bennett is looking at an order, say from a judge at sentencing, that tells an offender in black and white language: "If you have any more kids, we will come and take them off you – permanently."

There are plenty of New Zealanders who will agree with that. The same people who sit in front of their TV's at night and say, "how are these people allowed to have more children?"

It's still ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff. But the reality is sterilisation is just a step too far for the majority of society and far too controversial.

A permanent removal order is much easier to sell.

Whether you agree with Bennett on this issue or not, this is a good example of political management by her.

Confronted with a thorny issue that looked like it had her cornered, she's fronted up, and put a realistic and populist alternative out there - one that will create plenty of debate.

My boss Duncan Garner has just blogged today on how Hekia Parata created a "stuff up of epic proportions" by performing poorly as a Minister.

Read Duncan Garner's blog

Well, by that standard, Bennett has performed a comeback of epic proportions by turning a potentially damaging issue into a potential vote-winner.

Here's the transcript of the Laws interview:

LAWS: "Can't we just stop these people having children by saying if you've committed child abuse and it's been proven to be a history of neglect here, you don't get to have any more children and there's a state ordered sanction to stop that?"

BENNETT: "My colleagues and I… are discussing that kind of measure around the white paper that I'm in the middle of writing and I can tell you that they are completely fed up with these children continuously being born to completely unfit parents... that is a step that's right out there, and I can tell you that there is certainly discussion going on around it."

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide

Name

(Won't be published)

Your comment

Comments

10/10/2012 2:11:35 p.m.

Greg wrote:

sterilisation is the wrong proceedure, dont most abusers have small weiners anyway so making them enuchs wont make a difference. Beside the abuse is about power.Something better would be to get the snip fdor the multiple male breeders on benefits, they seem to have no end off opportunities to breed. Just keep the abusers locked up until they no longer have the desire.

9/08/2012 2:03:06 a.m.

jan.. wrote:

Its the Blunket Nurses job to monitor on the new born infant and the mother for up to 24 months and its up to the health department to seek the best for the unfit mother or mother's want to adopt..
What happened to the school sex education how to prevent from fallen pregnant, but taken the infant before birth or letting the family know is a bad choice..
Its the infant future you must face to how they would react when growing up looking for their real parents and that often turned into a disaster..
Easy for someone like Bennet go ahead with her master piece without learning what behind the closed doors..

12/06/2012 2:01:58 p.m.

kirihitiana wrote:

I think that it is a very sensitive subject and i am against abuse or anybody that abuses their children. Sterilisation is taking it abit too far, possibly adoption could be a substitute giving it to a parent outthere that truly wants to be one especially those that cannot have children. Or otherwise if the mother goes on contraceptives that may seem to be a better method, people change and others dont in respective it isnt our right to take away theirs in the future if they change their ways and become a better parent in the future. The thing is when things happen we dont know their situations in their home, and it should be monitored so that abuse does not happen again.

7/06/2012 12:30:54 p.m.

Tom Gould wrote:

It must be just the nature of it, but she has you wrapped around her little finger, Patrick. Not sure if you count research as one of the elements of good reportage any more, but it seems that courts currently issue orders on application to remove babies from their mothers at birth. Bennett's eureka moment was to allow the court on application to issue such an order in repect of a baby yet born, or even conceived. Most unlikely to actually prevent such pregnancies, but what the hell. It has certainly got you 'reef fish' in a whirl, and delivered the desired outcome, no more talk of bigger classes and fewer teachers. Job done. You have played a blinder.

7/06/2012 10:57:40 a.m.

mary wrote:

@fiona. you soulnd like a bitter solo mum. where hve you been hiding lady. these kids arent just killed or hurt they are bashed burnt internal organs split brain damaged and sexually abused, and thats the stuff we know. if mothers hurt or allow there kids to be hurt the should be NO second chances, just like the poor wee mites they hurt.

7/06/2012 10:51:17 a.m.

Diana wrote:

would have to agree that its a good politicla stance in tackling the issue of child abuse that has placed NZ in high stat category. the nation needs to look at better strengthening the social services that work in the area of family violence, and not take the rights of parents to parent. the question is does the nation believe that people can change? or is the government wasting time on social services like parenting programmes and family violence programmes. the other thing that they have forgotten is its not just parents, but when childen are uplifted and placed who also get abused, this has not been addressed and maybe the system for screening should be checked who have been placed are these recorded. food for thought

7/06/2012 10:29:11 a.m.

christine wrote:

I heard the original interview between Paula Bennett and Micheal Laws on radio and I couldn't agree more with both of them.Laws, whom I usually can't stand, went further to insist that proven child abusers/killers/drink and drug takers during pregnancy should be sterilized. I agree. People who don't, I ask, would you like to be born to parent(s) who abuse and neglect you, bash you with objects like toilet brushes and pieces of wood etc, and destroy you either slowly or quickly? Not the same as the nazi's and the jews, the jews weren't doing anything wrong. Lets hope the National Government does actually have the bravery to make a stand.

7/06/2012 9:29:55 a.m.

Fiona wrote:

Maybe we should take all children off solo mothers too Paula, as they are a drain on the state in your opinion. I wonder where would that have left you though?

6/06/2012 7:48:53 p.m.

lisa wrote:

what we need is a judge with some gumpsion who will throw the book at these people. If they have anymore children and abuse them also then yes they should not be allowed to have any more there are too many being injured mentally and physically and also killed we need to get tougher so if that means stopping them from having more then so be it. lets go back to the old days and have stocks in the middle of town so we can throw rotten food at them or stamp them with a label so everyone knows who they are and what they have done name and shame!!! There are so many people out there who for some reason or another can not have children and yet you have mongrels reproducing and abusing. it doesnt seem fair

6/06/2012 6:41:54 p.m.

kelvyn wrote:

Looks to me like the Nats have fallen into the same trap that caught Labour. They are trying to create a nice cosy little world, a world as they would like it to be, by legislating for or against everything that irks them. Don't like women on the DPB, easy we will legislate to make them jump through hoops. That will make us all feel better. And of course, by imposing penalties on behaviour you dont like it tends to reinforce the belief that such behaviour is indeed bad and therefor you are doing good by criminalising it. Children can now, under current law be removed from abusive parents, it just needs some people with a bit of backbone to enforce the law. Many child welfare services (read CYF) are just there to pander to people who want to be caring and sharing and outraged by wrong doing but dont have the spine to get out and apply the law.