Good morning and welcome to The Nation. I'm Lisa Owen. And I'm Patrick Gower. Today ` is our welfare system working? I'm eating toast for dinner so my son can have proper food. I had applied for 107 jobs. I didn't get one. When you do have to lean on welfare, you would hope that you wouldn't struggle so much. In our welfare debate we ask Anne Tolley and Carmel Sepuloni whether beneficiaries have enough to live on and how they would tackle child poverty. Then ` as more stories emerge about abuse in state care, we talk to former staff members who raised the alarm only to be ignored. The other part that really got to me is when staff who'd had major misdemeanours were then transferred to another institution, and it was covered up. This is the fox looking after the hen house still. It's nothing to do with justice for the victims. And we wrap up the week with our political panel ` Fran O'Sullivan and Sue Bradford and, of course, comedians Jeremy Corbett and Paul Ego. Copyright Able 2017 Well, great day to be a Kiwi and great to have you with us today as well. We love hearing from you, so do get in touch. And if you're on Twitter, that social media platform, follow along with our Twitter panel ` Pacific youth leader Josiah Tualamali'i and 2016 Epsom Youth MP Hannah Monigatti. Use the hashtag #NationNZ. Well, National's announced tough new sanction on beneficiaries this week, saying they'll cut payments in half for young people who refuse drug rehabilitation, training or work experience. Now, critics say it's 'beneficiary bashing', but National says sanctions work. So what is the best way to provide for those who need help? Well, joining me now are National's Social Development Spokesperson Anne Tolley and Labour's Carmel Sepuloni. Good morning to you both. Morning. Morning. I just want to start by asking why we pay benefits. Is it to give people a dignified life, or is it simply to keep hungry people off the streets? Well, I think there's two different types of people that we support. The first ` there's about 93,000 people that have a severe disability or an illness that means New Zealanders want to support them. We don't expect anything of them, and that's just part of our compassionate society. But we do have a significant number of people who are looking for work, who are capable of working, and so most of them, it's just a light touch to help them along the way. Other people have significant barriers to getting employment, and we need to be helping them. But should a benefit allow dignity and not just survival? Well, I think, because it is just a temporary thing, we want to make sure that, yes, they can live and they can support themselves and their families. The best way to do that, of course, is through employment. Okay. Carmel Sepuloni, what do you think? I think that what we've recently heard from the government is same old, same old. It's what we've had for the last nine years, and, actually, what we're seeing is that families aren't better off. In the last year, we've had 50,000 more families put applications in for hardship grants because they are really struggling. So my original question ` whether we should pay enough for a dignified existence on a benefit or we're just simply giving a backstop to get the basics, like food ` what should it be? It should be about paying enough, but it should be about investing in people as well. I think there's a lack of a focus in the welfare system on upskilling and training, and we're really going to need that, moving forward, given the nature of work is changing and we're going to see more and more people go on and off benefit. Okay. We'll talk a bit more about those things later, but what I want to know is how in touch you are with these people's situations. So I'm going to give you an example. Let's say it's a person who's on a jobseeker's benefit, they have got one child and they're living in Auckland. About how much would they get on the benefit, Anne Tolley? So, if they're a sole parent? Sole parent ` job-seeking sole parent. $329 a week plus their family tax credit and then plus whatever accommodation supplement. Carmel, is she right? She's right. Yeah, you're both right. So is that enough to have a dignified existence? In Auckland, your housing cost will obviously be significant. Well, what we want to see is` The persistent poverty is actually happening in that age group from 0 to 3, and that's why Labour's announced that we want to introduce Best Start, a universal payment from 0 to 1 of $60 a week to actually support low- to middle-income families so that they are better off. There does need to be a focus on putting a little bit more money in the pockets of low- to middle-income people and, actually ` I'm going to say this ` tax cuts, with $400 million of that going to the top 10% of income earners is not the way to do it. Anne Tolley? So, National's done two things. The first time that we got the Budget` the books back in the black, we were the first government in 43 years to lift the rate of the benefit for` 25 bucks. $25 a week. And I know the electorate that I represent, the East Coast electorate, has some of the people living in the highest deprivation in the country. And I know from talking to people on the ground, sure, they'd always like more, but it made a significant difference. Okay. Now, next year, from 1 April, a solo mum living in Gisborne with two children, not paying anywhere near the accommodation costs that an Auckland family are paying, she will get in her hand extra another $121 a week. So as well as her $329, she will get another $353 a week, which is a significant increase for her. Fair point. 70% of families are going to be better off under our Families Package, and that's because we will not implement the $1.5 billion of tax cuts where` This woman isn't getting a tax cut. This is not about tax cuts. ...almost a third of that is going to go to the top 10% of income earners. This woman living in Gisborne will not get a tax cut. This is just the family tax credit and the Accommodation` On one on hand, they want to talk about targeting, and then on the other hand, they want to give politicians an additional thousand dollars a year ` an additional thousand dollars that we do not need. Ms Sepuloni, Anne Tolley is right. That woman won't get a tax cut, so that's additional money that she will get. And Labour voted against it. But under ours, if she's got a 0- to 3-year-old, she'll get $60 additional a week. That's going to really help her out. Okay. All right, you mentioned hardship grants and hardship assistance. We've had an increase in the past year ` 34% more being given out in hardship grants; $11.5 million for food; $7 million for health visits ` you know, doctors' visits ` close to $2.5 million for electricity bills. Is that a system that`? Does that signal to you that we're routinely providing the basics for people to survive? Well, I think there's a number of things. First of all, we've made it much easier for people to apply for those, so, for instance, your hardship grants, you can apply now over your phone. Yeah. So you are expecting to get a bit of an increase. $78 million. Secondly, I think the very good information that we get about what is happening to our New Zealand families led us into that $2 billion Family Incomes Package, because we know there are still low-income families that are really struggling, and all those facts tell us. So, first of all you've got to earn the money, and as the books have got back into the black and we've had some surpluses, the first thing we've done is reinvested those back into families. So your package is going to solve all of these problems? No, of course it's not, but it's going to go a long way to helping people. And we've said if the economy keeps growing and we are seeing many more jobs created and all of that, then we can do it again. But what I want to know is ` are you fine with $78 million being given out in hardship assistance? Because that might signal to some people that the system is failing. Well, actually, to those people, it means the system is working, that when they need the help, that it's there. And that's the sort of system that we want to have. $78 million ` is it working? It's not working. Are they getting the money when they need it? And I think we need to keep in mind here that some of the people accessing the hardship grants are on benefits; some are working poor that are actually struggling to survive. And so the government's entire focus has been on pushing people off benefits but with no regard for whether or not they will in fact be better off, and that's why I want to return to the fact that we need to have more of a focus on upskilling and training rather than just pushing people into the next minimum-wage job that comes along, because we want to make sure that their families are better off. But hang on. If you're a young 25-year-old, young New Zealander and you're on a benefit and we help you get into a job, you get three times as much even if it's just on the minimum wage. You get three times as much. If the job is full-time. If that job is full-time, absolutely. If it's half-time, you're going to get one and a half times more than being on the benefit. So a way for people to get out of poverty is for us to help them get into employment, and it might be just a bottom rung of the ladder, but that gives them` When you talk to employers, what are they looking for? They're wanting experience; they're wanting qualifications and they're wanting people that will turn up every day. We help with all of that. Let's give Carmel a right of reply. Just adding one more thing. I guess, one of the concerns is too that the Superu report that was released earlier this year showed that 25% of people were back on a benefit within two years, and I think that's where we see the real lack of focus on upskilling and training. Yes, but 44% were still in work. It has to be on looking to long-term prospects and making sure that they go into secure, meaningful employment. I want to talk a little about getting people off the benefit. Anne Tolley, your government has a goal of reducing the number of beneficiaries by 25%. Yeah. That means, to meet your target in 10 months' time, you've got 56,000 more beneficiaries that you need to get off the benefit, and you've only got 10 months to do it. How are you going to do it? Well, we're working very closely with employers, because, in the end, they're the ones that make the decisions. Are you going to do it? It's 10 months. Oh, I'd love to say yes, but, you know, if you don't put an aspirational target out, it means you keep on doing the same old things. So, yup, MSD` 'Aspirational' sounds like it's not going to happen. If you're honest with us today, is it realistic that you can get 56,000 people off the benefit in 10 months? Well, I've worked very hard, and there's a lot of employers out there that have been working with us, and we are making great progress. So yes or no? Whether we'll hit the target, well, you know, that remains to be seen. But what it's meant is we've had to think differently, we've had to work in different ways with employers, and we've certainly had to think about how we work with some of our more complex` So you've got no idea whether this is achievable? Well, I know we're on the right track to achieve that target, and that's what I'm focused on. Carmel Sepuloni, most research shows that children who are raised in households that are dependent on benefits have worse outcomes in life. So, surely, you would want to move people off as well. What would your target be? Absolutely, we want to move people off, but our target is about upskilling and training them so that they are better off and better able to provide for their families. Let's just remember, Lisa, that, actually,... So no number? ...40% of the kids living in poverty are living in working family households, and so that's a real concern for us. Yup. But in terms of tracking these people, to know whether you've achieved your goals, you must, presumably, have a target. So how many people would you like to move off the benefit? This is what we've said that we're going to do ` we are going to actually track what the outcomes are for beneficiaries. So, of course, we want to get people off benefit, but we want them to be able to stay off because they're in meaningful employment. The government hasn't been tracking what actually happens to people when they go off benefit. So it's a very crude target just to say 'to get people off', because then you people like I've met with and social services who are saying they're really concerned. They're seeing an increasing number of New Zealanders who aren't getting welfare and aren't getting any income from employment, and that's to be concerned about, I think. That is a fair point. Mrs Tolley, where are people going when they come off the benefit? I think the figures show about 30% are going into jobs` No, 44% of people self-identify` So, where are the rest going? Well, look the reality is` How do you know that they're going on to a better life? Look, there's a whole lot of people that don't want the state in their lives. Tracking people is awful. They go off the benefit` Not at an individual level, Lisa, can I say. They go off the benefit for a whole variety of reasons. How can you claim success, though, for that when you don't actually know if they're earning more money than they were on the benefit`? We do track if they come back on to benefit, and we do have a close look at what has happened. As I say, we do do a lot of training. We do provide a lot of opportunities for people to retrain. But you don't know what's happening to those people. You've got no idea. We have 44% who self-identify to us that they're going off into work. You know, people go overseas. They age into superannuation. There's a whole lot of reasons why. All right, so you don't know. I just want to raise with you some information that was released to the nation under the Official Information Act. It shows about 150,000 beneficiaries in low-income families are missing out on about $200 million a year in entitlements. Why? Why aren't they getting what they're entitled to? Well, you know, each individual would have a different story. We do our very best. We've got about 7000 staff in MSD. Any year, front-line staff deal with 1.7 million people. 1.7 million interviews face-to-face. Have you got too few staff to do the job properly? No. Well, we've got 120,000 now who are individually case managed. That means they meet with a case manager every 28 days. And those case managers do their very best to make sure that everyone gets what they're entitled to. Well, I know advice that came with those numbers to you talked about the fact that it was too hard to get certain entitlements. Some people had to fill out 10 forms. Appointments ran over and weren't on time, and people who had jobs had to go back. Yep. So it sounds like that the whole experience, as people are telling us, is dehumanising and too bureaucratic. Well, I'd say I agree with at times, it's too bureaucratic. And we're doing our very best, as I say, through making... 60% of applications are done online or through their phones. We provide cheap as data so it doesn't cost people anything. So we do what we can. But there are a lot of people. There are a lot of interactions. And I go up and down the country and talk to staff. They get up every day to come to work to make sure that they get the help for those people. Before we go to the break, I want to give Carmel Sepuloni a chance to answer to that. $200 million in the kitty that's unclaimed each year from people who are likely entitled to it. Why do you think that is the case? It's the culture that's developed in WINZ offices under the National government. So, withholding anything that they are entitled to. Staff don't do that. They don't do that. They are overstretched in terms of the demand that's on them. That's a terrible thing to say. So you actually think that some staff will not offer up what people are entitled to? I think that's terrible. I think that they are overstretched because there's been` Carmel, those are great staff. Oh, come on, Anne Tolley. They are! I'm actually talking about the culture that you've set as the Minister of Social Development` I've been in and out of offices. Those staff are absolutely dedicated. ...and I've seen it from so many people. We shouldn't need Auckland Action Against Poverty to run workshops to inform people about what they are entitled to. That information should be provided to people when they go to a WINZ office. Of course it's provided. We're going to talk more about this, but we'll be back after the break with more from Anne Tolley and Carmel Sepuloni. Welcome back to The Nation's welfare debate with Anne Tolley and Carmel Sepuloni. Before we went to the break, Ms Sepuloni said there is a culture problem within your ministry and that she thinks that some people aren't being offered what they're entitled to. What's your response to that? Well, I think that's a terrible thing to say. Look, I was just in the Paeroa office yesterday, and I've been in offices up and down the country, and the staff get up every day and come to work to make sure that they are giving that assistance to people who need it. And so I think it's a real indictment on the staff. Do they make mistakes from time to time? Yes. Are there people`? It's a very complicated system. Are they proactively offering people everything that they're entitled to? Yes, they do. Well, from what I've seen, yes they do, but sometimes` It is a very complicated system. All right. So if` And individual circumstances can be quite difficult and can change quite rapidly. OK. If it's so complicated, why not just simplify it? Why not do what the Greens are suggesting and raise base benefits by 20%, make it really easy? Because what we've found is that that sort of broad brush, where you have a universal service, often doesn't give the very targeted help to those who are the most vulnerable and are the least likely to take advantage. So how does $1.5 million in tax cuts make sense, then? Because that's only part of` That's a very broad brush. That's for those hardworking people who are now earning the average wage, which is lifting, has lifted under this National government as we've had a strong economy, and they are now paying close to the top tax bracket. So it's only fair that they be allowed to keep more of their own money. You're creating two classes of New Zealanders here ` the deserving and you're looking at beneficiaries as if they're undeserving and they don't want to work. The Family incomes` Let me finish. The Family Incomes Package helps people with the accommodation supplement, which hasn't been changed since the early days of your government. We've heard about that. Your government never lifted benefits numbers. We actually introduced Working for Families, minister,... Working for Families gets lifted. ...and that lifted thousands of children out of poverty, and your party voted against it at the time. All right. I just want to ask you, then ` Anne Tolley has dismissed the idea of a base raise in benefits; 20% raise in benefits is what the Greens are saying ` would you make things simpler and adopt that? We've taken on the recommendation from the Expert Advisory Group on solutions for poverty to the children's commissioner and said we're going to introduce a universal payment for children from 0 to 1 and then make it targeted,... So no raising the baseline benefits. ...lifting Working for Families, lifting accommodation supplement,... You voted against lifting the benefit. You voted against that. ...introducing a winter payment. $25 a week. 70,000 families will be better off under our families package than what they will under National's. So if you're adopting recommendations made by the children's commissioner, the children's commissioner has raised the fact that maybe benefits should be tagged to medium wage in the same way that super is. Why not do that? If you're adopting those recommendations of that office, what's wrong with that one? That's something worth looking at, but I can't say that that's in our policy going into this election. You wouldn't commit to it? At this stage, I can't say it's in our policy going into the election. Is it something you'd look at? I have already asked MSD to have a look at what effect that would have, because the information we have` So at this stage, you're not ruling that out. You're investigating more. I've always said we look at that wide range of information we have, actually what's happening in our families, and we are always looking to find ways to assist those at the very bottom. OK. I want to move on because we're running out of time. In a press statement this week, you said that` This is the one about sanctions for young people on job seeker benefits` It isn't really about sanctions. It's about looking at a very small group of young people` You have said in your press statement` I'm sorry, but in your press statement, you say one in five beneficiaries tell us that drug use is a barrier to get a job. How many did you ask? Oh, we did a snapshot. OK, how many people did you ask? I don't know. They went across four offices. But` Did you ask the people themselves? It's not a scientific study. Yes, we did. Yes. You asked the people themselves? So, when you go into a WINZ office` How do you know one in five if you don't even know what your sample size is? Well, we did a snapshot. But what they do is when an employer lists a job` Mrs Tolley, this is really important. Why`? It is. Let me finish. When an employer puts a job ad in with WINZ, they have a whole list of criteria, and one of them is that they have to pass a drug and alcohol test. And young people self-identify whether they will or not. So you don't know how many people you asked. You don't know how many offices it was across. I don't know. Yes, it was across four offices. Right, but you have no idea how many people you asked. It was just a snapshot,... You don't even know the sample size. ...because what employers are telling us` Yet you were saying this about this group of people. No, no, no. The policy is actually about a very targeted group of young people between 18 and` OK. This is important. 18 and 25, who are on a benefit for more than six months, and there's about 16,000 of them. This is about getting them individual case management... So you didn't actually have evidence for that statement. ...so we look at the impediments` So you didn't actually have evidence for that statement, Mrs Tolley. Yes, we do. Yes, we do have` We have good evidence. No, you had a snapshot, you said. We have good evidence from about 60% of jobs that require a drug and alcohol` Can I add something to this, Lisa? No, let` Can I get the policy out? Because you are misrepresenting the policy. No, I'm discussing what you said about drug users in your statement. It's about identifying the barriers to young people getting into employment. Sometimes it's work experience. Sometimes it's qualifications. OK. We need to move on, sorry, Mrs Tolley; we're running out of time. Sometimes recreational drug use. But that's what the policy is about. But can I add`? Would you ditch sanctions? Would Labour ditch all sanctions? I know you want to ditch the sanction where a beneficiary is docked for not naming the other parent of a child. But what about all the other sanctions? Are you going to get rid of those too? The first step is actually rewriting the Social Security Act principles, and one of those that we're going to put in there, which will have a big impact on the rest of the act, actually, is inserting a principle that requires a child impact lens be put over everything that's in there. And so if we assess that sanctions are having a negative impact on children, if that assessment is made once we put that principle in the act, then of course that's something we're gonna have to consider doing. I think that's fair and reasonable to think about that. What about sanctions on beneficiaries who don't have children? Well, let's just` Can we go back to what she said earlier? No, I just want an answer to this. You've been very vocal ` Labour's been very vocal ` about sanctions. So are you going to ditch sanctions? I think we need to revisit them because, actually, the vast majority of people who have been sanctioned have been sanctioned because they missed an appointment. So you don't have a policy on it? We need to revisit them. That's the policy. OK, revisiting. Yeah, revisiting them. Consultation. A committee. Consult and look at them and actually see whether or not they have been working. 95% of people actually comply, so you can never` If you've got children, you can never lose more than 50% of your benefit. But 95% of people re-comply within four weeks. So it doesn't have a huge effect, but what it does do is put some obligations on people. They are being supported by the taxpayer. And, for instance, our sole parents, we ask them to have their children registered in ECE, to get immunised and to keep up with their Well Child checks. I mean, really, that is` So often it's because someone's missed an appointment or there's been a breakdown in communication between WINZ offices and... And just a phone call or a text, and they're back on. ...the person concerned. Simple. But losing a benefit for a couple of days can really harm a family that are already living in poverty. That happens only when they haven't made a phone call or a text. I do need to just go back to the drug issue. We're out of time, but I just want to ask Ms Tolley one more unrelated question before we leave. An inquiry into the abuse in state care. Now, you've said in the past that there's no need for an inquiry of that nature. I just want to know, if evidence comes to light that staff within those institutions reported sexual abuse of children and then the offenders, the alleged offenders, were simply moved in the system rather than sacked, would you think that was sufficient to warrant an inquiry? Well, I certainly think that it's sufficient to do some investigation into, but does it warrant a full public commission of inquiry? What do you mean by investigation? Well, I'd like to know the details of how that happened. The difficulty is` So you give a commitment that you, as minister, would look into it more closely if it came up,... Oh, absolutely. That would be` ...if there was evidence that staff had been shifted around? Absolutely. That would be horrendous to know that that happened ` that the ministry was aware of abuse happening and looked to cover it up. All right. Thank you both for joining me this morning. Thank you. We'll talk about welfare a little later with our panel, Sue Bradford and Fran O'Sullivan. But right now, Jeremy and Paul test out some new perfume. The big question this week ` they're winning in the polls, but where's Labour's tax detail? Who's gonna be affected by their capital gains tax, for instance? Is that a new fragrance? Yeah. You like that? What's that called? Oh, it's called Stardust. Smells very alluring. It's lovely. So tax is fine. Where was I? Yeah. No. Hang on a minute. Has Jacinda sold her own generation down the river by saying she'll resign before raising the age of superannuation? Oh, look, superannuation just needs some sort of government contribution, Jeremy. (INHALES) Yeah, suppose you're right. Yeah. Hang on. No, but` Wait. OK, water. What about the water charge? Who pays? Who doesn't? The farmers are in limbo. Where's the detail, Paul? If someone's profiting from our fresh water, Jeremy, should the taxpayer not be remunerated? (INHALES DEEPLY) Get that. Get that. Yes, I guess they should, yeah. There's no $11.7B hole, is there? No, mate. No. No wafting for that one? No amount of perfume's gonna cover up that stink. Joyce is on his own with that one. Is he? I mean, nobody agreed with Galileo either, did they? Well, the earth doesn't revolve around Steven Joyce, though, does it? Although I think he's finally found someone who agrees with him. Really? Well, I saw him in the green room just before standing in front of a mirror. He was having a good chat to somebody. Welcome back. Now, for years, the country has been coming to terms with the abuse that state wards suffered in state care. It is not known how many children were abused, but there are now claims that some abusers could have been stopped. Staff who witnessed abuse and reported it to their bosses and police say they were ignored. They spoke to Aaron Smale and Mike Wesley-Smith. And a warning ` you may find some of the content in their story disturbing. (LOW PIANO MUSIC) (CRICKETS CHIRP) It often happened in the night. Perhaps that's why it wasn't seen. Why do you think he was transferred? To cover it up. Perhaps that's why some misdeeds never saw the light of day... Here's a guy who's actually harmed a kid, and we go and put him somewhere else, where he's still working with kids. ...and why some violations still remain cloaked in darkness,... It left me with nothing but a... (SIGHS) a broken soul, really. ...because when no one is looking, innocence is left defenceless. You know, why didn't I just fight or scream out or whatever? But who was gonna help me? Many survivors will tell you they tried to run ` run from the institutions, run from the abuse. Every time he'd come in to wake me up, he'd either be sucking on my penis or just masturbating me. But did anyone ever stop to ask the kids who or what they were running from? And the first (BLEEP)ing night I was there, I was sexually abused. Did they take the children in their arms and protect them from predators? I'd be laying in bed, and one of the headmasters would come down and fondle me and... Well, that is a question without a simple answer. (HAUNTING MUSIC) Wherever Keith Wiffin walks, the memories of what happened to him in state care shadow his every step. They were paedophiles who preyed on the most vulnerable ` me being one of them. His descent into social welfare residences in the 1970s was triggered by the unexpected death of his father. And I ended up a ward of the state and found myself in the notorious institution known as Epuni Boys' Home. Epuni was one of a network of homes used by social welfare to house the growing number of kids in their care. Even before Keith arrived in 1971, Epuni had already experienced problems with staff sexually abusing boys. This was a letter written by the district child welfare officer to head office. Head office replied, saying the police should be contacted ` not to lay a complaint but simply to tell them about the dismissed worker. This former head office official knew the man who wrote these letters. He asked that his identity be withheld. I don't think I did read this before. Did I? He had no prior knowledge of the incident described before we showed him. Some would see that as a cover-up, and when you read it, I can understand that some would see that as a cover-up. Awareness of sexual abuse back then was nothing like it is today. As a former social worker told child welfare historian Bronwyn Dalley, they weren't trained in addressing sexual abuse. Crossing the line like that is just unacceptable, whether it was back in the '70s or whether it's today. Ken Cutforth worked residential care during the 1970s. He was there to help kids whose lives hadn't been touched by much kindness. They had come from some fairly tough backgrounds. But in his time with the department, Ken grew concerned with how head office managed sexual and violence complaints made against staff. When staff who'd had major misdemeanours were then transferred to another institution... and it was covered up. There was one who was a principal of a girls' home who apparently spent four hours in a girl's room with the light out. He'd obviously had an affair with this girl. She was demonised and was railroaded down to Kingslea Girls' Home. In the meantime, the principal involved was transferred. I think they did put those children in jeopardy. So in 1982, Ken sat down and wrote a rather remarkable letter ` a letter addressed to a very senior social welfare officer, raising concerns about five separate staff members who were the subject of sexual and violence complaints. READS: 'What concerns me in these situations is the method whereby the department, 'particularly head office personnel, appear to cover up some situations 'by transferring the accused staff member to another position. 'Trusting that these matters will be given your serious consideration. Yours faithfully, Ken Cutforth.' So, I thought it was a valid letter. Rob worked with one of the men Ken complained about for violence against children. Rob was principal at a social welfare residence called Beck House. He discovered the residential worker in question had seriously assaulted a 10-year-old boy. And then I reported that back to head office. They moved him from Beck House. They moved him down to Epuni Boys' Home, which is where he had been before. He was someone who shouldn't be working with kids. So what happened to Ken's complaints? And I can't remember what the response was. We spoke to the senior social welfare manager the letter was addressed to. Given the passage of time, he says he couldn't recall what happened to Ken's concerns. Now, to be clear, some staff were disciplined and, indeed, prosecuted for misconduct. Information released in 1982 shows some workers were dismissed for offending, including sexual impropriety and violence. However, it has since come to light that some offenders did sexually assault victims at more than one residence. One example is the man who sexually abused Keith Wiffin. I've basically still got this 11-year-old kid that I carry around with me who won't rest, who,... (SNIFFLES) um,... (VOICE BREAKS) still wakes me up... in the middle of the night. Keith's abuser would not be convicted for this offending until 2011 and not before he had been tracked down by 60 Minutes. You deny that you abused him? During the 2011 court case, it was revealed that Keith's abuser had received five convictions for offending in 1972 against boys at Epuni while Keith was living there. At a restorative justice meeting, Keith came face to face with his abuser and asked him this question ` Did they ` any senior staff members ` make further investigations around the scale of your offending? And he said, 'No, they didn't.' So he was allowed, essentially, just to quietly slip off. Keith would wait decades for compensation and an apology from the state for his abuse. But he was never told by the state that its investigators had later found out that Keith's abuser had sexually offended against another victim before he even met Keith. I'm extremely angry about it, and I'm upset, because what that means is he's been allowed to quietly slip away... and create a whole lots more victims, of which I was one,... under the same employer. And I definitely would not have settled my claim with them had I known that. It puts his offending in a whole new category, because the ministry is actually complicit in that offending. We have uncovered details of other former staff members who were moved between residences despite being subject to serious sexual misconduct allegations. As described to us, different reasons are cited for the dismissal of complaints, such as... But survivors like Keith believe there were other influences acting on the departments' approach to complaints ` factors seen in similar institutional abuse overseas. My expertise is in the area of misconduct in organisations. Professor Donald Palmer is a leading authority on institutional abuse and has given evidence to inquiries around the world. To understand how organisational culture might facilitate the perpetration of abuse in organisations and impede the detection and response to abuse when it occurs. He says organisational culture can cause staff to employ what are called techniques of neutralisation ` cultures that allow people to deny responsibility to others and to themselves for inappropriate conduct. A staff member of a juvenile detention facility might know that it's wrong to abuse children, but in a juvenile detention facility, the children might be viewed as less than human, especially if members of the children come from groups that are low status. He says research shows that institutional leaders can feel the need to protect their organisations when complaints come in. 'How do we handle this in a way that does not jeopardise the welfare of the organisation which I'm leading?' Social workers we spoke to say it was not common practice in the 1960s and '70s to report abuse complaints to police. They have to deal with the consequences of, maybe, a court appearance and things like that. And publicity. And publicity, yeah. Publicity is huge. The thing around publicity is massive. There were too many instances to, sort of, say that, 'Oh, that guy was given the benefit of the doubt.' They should never have been given the benefit of the doubt. When organisations determine that a staff member has abused a child, often they fire them and then send them back out to the world for them to be hired again. And that's referred to in the child-abuse literature as 'passing the trash'. Former residential workers have indeed gone on to reoffend in the community, and there is one in particular that we have been made aware of. What type of abuse did these victims allege? DISTORTED VOICE: Oh, you don't wanna go there, mate, I tell ya. The man whose voice you just heard first met victims of this perpetrator while working as a counsellor in the 1990s. He is so concerned with his safety, we have withheld his identity and used an actor to portray him. DISTORTED VOICE: Since she rang me I hadn't slept hardly a wink. This was rotten. So many victims came seeking help, this man approached the offender, who we cannot name for legal reasons. I asked him for a list of the people that he had offended. And I thought I would get probably a list of 20 ` 20 names at the most. He soon discovered this man had sexually abused multiple victims at a particular social welfare residence at Hokio Beach in the early 1970s. I went to Levin Police on the 13th of December 1996. I said I had evidence that a man that had been working at Kohitere and now was at (BLEEP) had been an offender, an abuser of young people and I wanted to make an official complaint. And I was virtually told to go away. Several years later, this man ran into a very senior police officer he knew personally who was based at Police Headquarters. He told him about the offender. He got back to me a few days later and said they would deal with it and I should get away from it. The senior officer this man spoke to says he has no recollection of the conversation described and if he had been made aware of allegations, he would've acted on them. Police have also told us their records do not show any mention of a complaint being made as described in 1996. I understand he's in Australia. I understand he's free. Yeah, I'd like to bring him to justice. Police detectives have now arranged to speak to this man after The Nation contacted them. At the start of this story, we talked about the children running from their abuse. But they run no more. As adults, they are standing in defiance. This is the fox looking after the henhouse still. They in that process look after their own agenda and their own people. It's nothing to do with justice for the victims. Keith wants an independent inquiry, but the government believes its own processes are adequate. We've also taken steps to resolve claims directly and quickly in a way that is personal in each case. To hold an inquiry, as we're seeing around the world, which is an extremely difficult thing to do ` what do we gain from that? But then it was Minister Tolley who said of the Australian inquiry into its own institutions that it was... Even good people can fail to do... the right thing. Survivors like Keith believe the state is yet to be brought to justice. And it's created many, many needless victims. And the ministry and the state is totally responsible for that, and they should be held to account for that. Well, we put the issues raised in that story to the Ministry of Social Development. It says that during the period in question, some allegations were properly investigated, some were reported to police and some staff were dismissed. But this is the important bit ` the ministry accepts ` accepts ` that some disclosures of abuse were not acted upon. Its claims team is looking into whether staff took appropriate action when allegations were first made. Police have also said anyone who believes they have been a victim of sexual abuse should contact them. After the break, our panel Sue Bradford, Fran O'Sullivan and our own Paddy Gower. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` former Green MP Sue Bradford, head of business at NZME Fran O'Sullivan and, of course, Paddy Gower. Good morning to you all. We heard the two welfare spokespeople there from National and Labour. Are you clear on Labour's welfare policy after that, Paddy? No, I'm not. And taking into account the fact that Carmel Sepuloni could be minister of social development in two weeks' time, doesn't really sound like they've got one. I actually think that's quite deliberate, although it might be surprising that the Labour Party doesn't have a big welfare policy. I think what we saw with Metiria Turei is that if you're looking for the kind of votes that can win this election, you don't want to be talking about welfare, and I think Labour doesn't really have a plan and it's quite deliberately so. But it is surprising that a left-wing government hasn't really been thinking about welfare. Fran, she couldn't say whether they would get rid of all sanctions ` only one sanction in particular ` couldn't say whether they'd tag benefits to the medium wage, said they'd get a committee, which seems to be the answer to a lot of things,... (LAUGHS) and also referred to that go-to statement that Labour seems to be using a lot, which is 'We're not campaigning on that.' Yeah. And what was very interesting in sort of trying to use the opportunity about the fact that they're gonna cancel National tax cuts and other things, and that will give` You know, that was all that. But I think she missed an opportunity, really, to actually have something to put out there and say really concretely what Labour would do in this area, and I would expect that. Sue, are they left enough on welfare? No. No way. That's why the Greens absolutely have to get back in. It's really` I'm so disappointed, because I thought this was going to be the big opportunity for Labour to announce something interesting, substantive, even remotely substantive, and there's nothing there. Just bland talk about upscaling and trading. Great. That's super. But what's that got to do with our totally broken and punitive welfare system? I mean, even Anne Tolley, in her own way, was more critical of the system than Carmel was. She's talked about changing the principles of the act to go through the lens of children, but it was Labour themselves who changed the act in the 2000s to say that it was about work and not about welfare. She's not even resigning from that, much less doing what they should be doing, which is saying Labour will overturn all of National's welfare reforms. They're not going anywhere near that. Fran, National has this goal, and they put it in in 2012, which was to reduce the number of beneficiaries by 25%. Well, based on that, there's about 60,000 beneficiaries that they need to get off the benefit in 10 months. Anne Tolley started talking about that as an 'aspirational goal' during that conversation. Yes. That's when you don't feel you're going to necessarily pocket the target. So I think, yes, it's` But they should still stay aspirational about that. They shouldn't resile from it. And it is actually quite difficult. And I think what they're up against now is a point Carmel made as well ` you've got the absolute change to the world of work. You know, it is more difficult; people will have to have considerably more skills in the future to stay in work, let alone get into work. So I think it is difficult. And the point made about that, you know, if you've been a beneficiary, a large number are back being beneficiary within two years. I think this is gonna get worse, and I think this is a problem that people in work are going to have to face up to. There's constantly` To stay abreast and training yourself and skilling yourself for the change. The thing I find interesting about it, Sue, is she doesn't necessarily know where all these people end up. Is it important? She talked about, 'We can't track people; people don't want us in their lives.' They're tracking like crazy on social investment, yet the minister can't tell me where the people who haven't gone to a job are, whether their life is better or not. No. And so many people aren't even in anything, you know, in work. They're nowhere. Many people don't even go near Work and Income cos it's so awful, the whole experience of it. But you talk about social investment. I mean, National's still very committed to it. Clearly it's underpinning not only welfare but many other parts of their strategy. It's so damaging, and people don't realise that it's turning people just into fiscal units, and nothing about what actually happens to them in practice. And what I'd hoped to see from Carmel was a rejection by Labour of the government and Bill English's whole social investment ideology. But there wasn't a shred of that. I'm very nervous... Yeah. Is` ...that Labour will get back in and continue with National's really dangerous strategy. Isn't it fascinating that there's this big idea behind National on welfare; where's the big idea from a new-wave, energised Labour Party coming into a new era to deal with the future of work, with big problems? And also something I find about it ` child poverty seems to be 'cool', but whereas talking about real poverty doesn't seem to be as cool, and just no big idea from the Labour Party there. Carmel came out quite strongly in terms of MSD culture, and she actually inferred that some staff are obstructive. Anne Tolley reacted quite strongly to that. Fran, what did you make of that claim? I mean, we do have figures released to us that say $200 million per annum's in a pot that's not getting collected. Yeah. And, I mean, from a taxpayer's perspective, that might be a good thing. Pretty much also what lies on the table with IRD as well. People don't necessarily know what their rights are and go out for them. This is the reality. And to some degree, people also have to take a little bit of responsibility for themselves. One would have to assume that even if people are in hardship and grants are there that aren't being taken up, that somehow they're getting by or surely, in their own interests and their family's interests, they would be knocking the door down at WINZ. Do you agree that there's a toxic culture, Sue? Absolutely. And groups like Auckland Action Against Poverty and others are dealing with it every day, helping people trying to get what they're fully entitled to. And it's still happening. I mean, it's a myth that anything's changed. It's actually getting worse. Paddy? I mean, I think there's a real bigger picture here. And this is why I think we were crying out to hear more from Carmel Sepuloni. The truth is people don't trust government any more. Everything we see around the world and here in New Zealand is that people don't wanna go to the MSD offices or whatever. And where was the discussion there about other ways of reaching these people? That's right. Where was that in there? You know, why not? All right. We'll leave it there for the moment. But stick around. After the break, we'll look at what could be making the news next week. Welcome back. You're with The Nation and our panel. Well, the minor parties ` or should we call them multi parties? I don't know ` they've had a chance to strut their stuff this week. Are they all jostling to get on the lifeboat, do you think, Fran? Well, it's a bit insane, isn't it? I watched the latest minor parties debate, and it was so surreal having someone there from United Future banging on but not having Gareth Morgan, for heaven's sake, who actually is rating in the polls and should have been there. Or Hone Harawira. Or Hone Harawira. Yeah. Yeah. What a ridiculous debate. Or Winston. Or Winston Peters. Yeah. What a ridiculous debate. Do you think, Sue, that all of that array of characters should get an opportunity in that debate, or do you have to set a benchmark in terms of having someone in parliament or reaching 5%? Yeah, I can understand the need for the benchmark because there are a number of other candidates and parties beyond the ones you've talked about. But I agree, it would have been good to see Hone there. It would have been good to see Gareth Morgan there. They're part of the democracy. So it's how you draw those lines. I think they're drawn slightly in the wrong place. It would have made it a lot more interesting. There was one clear winner last night, and that was Corin Dann. (LAUGHTER) Great moderator. Stepped up late in the piece. Oh, you moderators. Ran it with energy. Well, is Winston Peters a winner in this? He did a no-show. No. Do you think that will hurt him? Should he have turned up? What do you reckon? He absolutely should have. It just shows his ancient arrogance that he's still got going on. He's so full of himself that he thinks he can get away with not engaging with others. And this is not good when this is one of your main opportunities to get your message out to the voter. Well, I suppose his point is that he's not a minor, Fran. And so in an MMP environment, is he kind of right or not? Well, he's increasingly becoming more of a minor, so we don't know whether he's gonna be the kingmaker or the queenmaker at all. I mean, the perception that I've had over the last week or two is that both National and Labour are really driving hard to get as much as they can back to themselves. They're not worrying about the minors too much. I mean, they want to be in a position where they can call the shots. And it'd be interesting to see how the public responds. People might feel their vote counts quite differently this election. I think Winston Peters was antidemocratic and arrogant, but at the same time, I blame the major parties as well, because they don't want to have a mid-point debate where Winston Peters and the Greens could be in the room with them. Yeah, that's the other option. So the major parties are actually antidemocratic and arrogant as well. They leave him with no other option. It's a good point, cos to get them over the line, you have to get those parties to agree, and we have invited them, but they don't want a bar of it, do they? That's true, yeah. I'm just interested that people are starting to kind of shift their allegiances, aren't they, Paddy? You saw Marama Fox there saying that there's a mood for change in Ikaroa-Rawhiti after previously talking very long and hard about Labour throwing Maori under the bus. There seems to be a shuffle to 'Ooh, I'm keen to work with the Greens, and I could work for Labour.' And same with Seymour, who said categorically, 'No Winston Peters.' David Seymour gets my award for the biggest plonker of the week,... (LAUGHTER) ...talking last night about wanting to work with Winston Peters. And I'll tell you what. 'The Chihuahua.' He just calls him a Chihuahua. David Seymour ` nice guy, nice Chihuahua, but he's a sort of walking headline, like he's trying to be a talkback host and get the lines to ring, and he'll just say whatever it is to bring the callers up on the thing. David Seymour ` I hope that the people of ACT now look and say, 'Hey, he's a nice guy, but we don't need him, and we've actually gotta get rid of this third wheel.' Oh, I actually think ACT do like him, and I think he has actually been relatively effective. Epsom like him. Yes, Epsom do. And that's cool. If they want him as a fun electorate MP, they can have him. But at the end of the day, that deal is absolutely worthless now. There's no point in having that deal. He should try and win it on his own. National should compete against him. All right. They lose a seat. A fiscal hole, allegedly` No, they don't lose a seat on ACT's current polling. There is no point in doing that deal. They do not gain anything. If he's gone, they'll stay with the exact same thing. Paddy's drawing the battle lines there. No! I want Epsom to get rid of David Seymour. Simple. Get rid of him. Get rid of the deal. And we can have a deal-free election. Fight it out on an open path. Yeah, yeah, yeah. About time. Just anybody remotely on the left has gotta think seriously about their vote too, because if we lost the Greens and Labour ended up being the most 'left', theoretically, party in the parliament, we lose it. There's a huge gap in representing the social and ecological justice issues. So in your view, minor parties, they need to be there for balance to remain. Yeah, they need Gareth Morgan or someone. OK. We saw last night what Marama Fox adds, and she might miss out as well. Yeah, she admitted that herself. They might not even be at a tactile position to get there. David Seymour, even though I've been giving him a hard time, I think he adds to the vibrancy as well. Hone Harawira, who came to your debate, what he adds. And it will be a shame if this... Oh, I agree. ...drag race ` I hate using that term, by the way, this drag race ` leads to, actually, smaller parties being boxed out and we lose the voices that MMP gives us. OK. Well, is National assuming the brace position? Is that why we saw Steven Joyce come out this week claiming that there's this $11 billion hole? Anyone you know, Fran, cos this is the world you move in ` business, could anyone else identify that $11 billion hole, or was it a fiction? Oh, I don't think anyone in business is actually trying to care, to be honest. They're just getting on with business. Business would be saying why are they resorting to that at this stage of the race? And you also have to say, you know, things about National's campaign ` there's clunky advertising campaign up against a very smart positioning by Labour, very agile. Compare that. Go back to losing Northland, that sort of thing. I would have said, you know, he has to work out is he campaign manager or is he a credible National finance spokesman? I think the two got mixed up, and they shouldn't have been. Paddy? Was it a mistake? Yeah, I think the exact same thing. I think Steven Joyce looked desperate. And clunky is a great word. We saw it with these benefit sanctions as well. They do that every election. It's like they're sticking to a playbook. They come out with these benefit sanctions. A couple years later, people figure out that they didn't work or make any difference. There is` They're on remote control. But there is also a great story that they don't tell. They don't talk about the modernisation... Yup. ...of New Zealand business, you know, the vibrancy that New Zealand has at a whole, you know, the fact that we are growing more technical and IT companies and it's not just a primary industry. The fact that people want to stay here. They're resorting to the headlines. They don't talk about that. All right. I think the most interesting thing about that from my end is that business and the economists are actually not backing Steven Joyce. I think there's a real` On the fiscal hole? Yup. All right. Yeah, on the fiscal hole. There's a real shift. Good place to leave it. Time now for a look at some of what could be making the news next week. The Greens announce their climate change policy this afternoon, and the election is about to be all on because early voting starts tomorrow. That's all from us for now. We will catch you again next weekend. Thanks for joining us. Captions by Imogen Staines, Chelsea Thoresen and Madison Batten. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2017 This programme was made with the assistance of the New Zealand On Air Platinum Fund.