Speaker 1: Hilda.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
Speaker 2: daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Violence towards
Speaker 2: children is one of the most concerning issues in New Zealand.
Speaker 2: It's a debate that spans decades back when Child, Youth
Speaker 2: and Family was responsible for our most vulnerable before it
Speaker 2: was replaced by Langa Tamariki, and that government agency bears
Speaker 2: the brunt of trying to look after our children and
Speaker 2: keep them safe from harm. But recent reports have shown
Speaker 2: that not only has little changed in terms of family harm,
Speaker 2: children that do end up in care are still at
Speaker 2: risk of abuse. We'll discuss more on those issues later,
Speaker 2: but first on the Front Page ends at Herald's senior reporter,
Speaker 2: Nicholas Jones joins us to discuss one recent case he's
Speaker 2: investigated where Child Protection Services had to apologize for getting
Speaker 2: it wrong. Nicholas, can you explain a bit of the
Speaker 2: background to the story of Sarah, a woman on the
Speaker 2: autism spectrum? I believe in how she led to enduring
Speaker 2: having her newborn uplifted.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this was back in twenty fourteen and Sarah, that's
Speaker 3: not her real name. She was a young first time
Speaker 3: expectant mum. She had a diagnosis on the autism spectrum
Speaker 3: and a past diagnosis of an intellectual disability and child
Speaker 3: youth and Family as it was called back then, they
Speaker 3: became worried that she wouldn't be able to safely parent
Speaker 3: her child. That was despite the fact she had strong
Speaker 3: family support, including from her own mother. A SIF social
Speaker 3: worker staff in the maternity ward to kind of keep
Speaker 3: a really close watch on Sarah after she gave birth
Speaker 3: totally exhausted from a hard labor emergency sea section, she'd
Speaker 3: had blood loss, and she had a wound infection. But
Speaker 3: in the days after the birth, the observations sort of
Speaker 3: compiled by the hospital staff were used to justify taking
Speaker 3: her baby. Things that were noted down where she was
Speaker 3: easily distracted and on her phone too much. She became
Speaker 3: distressed and angry at her baby's crying at one point,
Speaker 3: and she struggled to settle her baby. When her son
Speaker 3: was five days old, so IF social workers called a
Speaker 3: meeting with the family, and while that was going on,
Speaker 3: they took the baby from the hospital. He was later
Speaker 3: placed into a permanent home for life, sort of a
Speaker 3: permanent adoption.
Speaker 2: She has her own experiences of being through the care
Speaker 2: system as well.
Speaker 3: Hey yeah, When she was young, like a toddler herself,
Speaker 3: her baby brother was born with a really serious condition
Speaker 3: that required and to spend a long stretchers in hospital.
Speaker 3: Her mom was a solo mum at the time, and
Speaker 3: that put immense strain on her. And when Sarah's brother
Speaker 3: died when she was still a toddler, and her mom
Speaker 3: sort of essentially suffered a break down and could no
Speaker 3: longer care for Sarah properly, and she spent time in
Speaker 3: state care and later lived with a relative. Her mom's
Speaker 3: life kind of slowly got back on track and improved
Speaker 3: greatly when she married her current partner, and when Sarah
Speaker 3: moved back in with them when she was age fifteen,
Speaker 3: her life really improved as well. After Sarah's pregnancy, her
Speaker 3: mum helped her into a flat that was just minutes
Speaker 3: walk from the family home. Sarah wanted that independence, but
Speaker 3: her mom planned on being very closely involved in raising
Speaker 3: her son and was going to stay at the flat
Speaker 3: whenever needed.
Speaker 2: So this battle to try and get her son back
Speaker 2: it took nine years. What result did they finally get
Speaker 2: from the ombe bodsmen?
Speaker 3: Yeah, the family repeatedly complained to Child Youth and Family
Speaker 3: which is now called Iruna Tamariki, and they complained to
Speaker 3: others like the hospital, but they were basically dismissed. Iran
Speaker 3: and Tamariki claimed Sarah quote was given every opportunity at
Speaker 3: the hospital to show that she could learn new parenting
Speaker 3: skills and bond with her baby. The family eventually were
Speaker 3: told by a friend about the Ombardsman office and they
Speaker 3: complained to the Chief Ombardsman, Peter Boshia, who he looked
Speaker 3: at the case and he was pretty alarmed by what
Speaker 3: had happened. He thought the claim that Sarah had been
Speaker 3: given every opportunity to parent her son in those days
Speaker 3: and the hospital was unsustainable and entirely unreasonable.
Speaker 1: Chief Ombardsman today released a comprehensive report after his office
Speaker 1: poured through more than two thousand complaints about the troubled agency.
Speaker 1: Some of the experiences he looked into were extremely distressing,
Speaker 1: including arangata he kept in an institution against their wishes
Speaker 1: for years, a young disabled mother whose baby was uplifted
Speaker 1: at birth never to be returned, as well as incorrect
Speaker 1: and biased information being provided to the family court.
Speaker 3: He was also concerned that there was really little attempt
Speaker 3: by Sif and the social workers to properly understand Sarah's
Speaker 3: disability and her autism, or even really look into what
Speaker 3: support could be available to help her be a parent.
Speaker 3: He recommended Orang a tamariki apologize and make a payment
Speaker 3: to the family, which it did so, and Ot sent
Speaker 3: the family a letter that said, quote, we should always
Speaker 3: be mindful that a disability does not negatively impact a
Speaker 3: person's parenting capabilities. We hope that your experience is not repeated.
Speaker 2: Does she have any contact with her son today?
Speaker 3: By the time the Ahmudsman and sort of looked into
Speaker 3: the case and made his recommendations, Sarah's son was aged six.
Speaker 3: He is now ten and he remains living with his
Speaker 3: adopted parents. Currently, he doesn't have contact with his birth
Speaker 3: mum or her family. Sarah has a long term partner
Speaker 3: and she wants to start a family, but she's too
Speaker 3: scared to do so. While living in New.
Speaker 2: Zealand, we often hear ordering a tamariki. There are some
Speaker 2: issues with it. Right, this happened when it was child,
Speaker 2: youth and family. Are you confident that anything's changed this case?
Speaker 3: And the Ombudsman's sort of findings or criticisms was a
Speaker 3: factor in a recent kind of review or overhaul of
Speaker 3: Oranga Tamariki's disability policy. Basically their policy that kind of
Speaker 3: guides how they interact with disabled parents or children. They
Speaker 3: say they've made other changes like higher staff who are
Speaker 3: more sort of specialized in the disability areas. Peter Boshia,
Speaker 3: the chief armersman, that question and he said he can't,
Speaker 3: of course, sort of guarantee that things won't reoccur or
Speaker 3: problems come back. He is happy with a lot of
Speaker 3: the changes made, but he does say Orang Tamriki have
Speaker 3: a lot of work still to do.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us, Nicholas, and you can find a
Speaker 2: link to Sarah's story in our show notes. While Sarah's
Speaker 2: son was taken from her by Child Youth and Family,
Speaker 2: that organization was replaced by Urranga Tamariki in twenty seventeen
Speaker 2: and has faced many of those same concerns since then.
Speaker 2: A recent report by the Independent Children's Monitor, released two
Speaker 2: and a half years after the death of Malachai Subats,
Speaker 2: has found that system wide change is still needed.
Speaker 1: Malachai Subeks was an invisible child within the system.
Speaker 4: That is then the state and conclusion of an investigation
Speaker 4: into the death of the five year old murdered by
Speaker 4: his caregiver.
Speaker 2: But more on this. We're joined now by Aaron Jones
Speaker 2: from the Independent Children's Monitor. Aaron, can you remind us
Speaker 2: of how the tragedy of Malachi led to this report?
Speaker 5: So following his death, government agencies looked at their role,
Speaker 5: what they knew, what they could have done differently that
Speaker 5: might have produced a different outcome. And then one of
Speaker 5: the things they also asked was for Dame Curen Patasi
Speaker 5: to come in and complete an independent review, which she did.
Speaker 5: She made fourteen recommendations. She saw gaps in the child
Speaker 5: protection system, and she's made fourteen recommendations on how that
Speaker 5: can be improved. One of those recommendations was for us
Speaker 5: to come back and report on progress to close those gaps,
Speaker 5: which is what we've done and that's what our report
Speaker 5: talks to.
Speaker 2: Your report's quite detailed, hey, but can you give us
Speaker 2: kind of the main points found by the Independent Children's Monitor.
Speaker 5: The key thing is of those recommendations that she made,
Speaker 5: none of them have been implemented apart from one. The
Speaker 5: only one that was was for us to come back
Speaker 5: and review progress. So that's pretty sobering. And these recommendations
Speaker 5: went across a number of agencies, so we're not just
Speaker 5: talking about all doing a tamariki here, it's other government agencies.
Speaker 5: They have a role in the system, whether that's education, health, corrections, police,
Speaker 5: they all have a role in keeping children safe. And
Speaker 5: so while work had been done at a discussion and
Speaker 5: planning level, decisions haven't been made to either implement those
Speaker 5: recommendations or not or actually make or pack steps to implement.
Speaker 5: So that's a concern.
Speaker 2: How wide spread is the risk for harm towards children
Speaker 2: and their families in their own homes.
Speaker 5: The most recent data that we have and that we
Speaker 5: refer to in that report is from Child Matters, which
Speaker 5: talks about one child being killed every five weeks in
Speaker 5: New Zealand, and we know that that's high in comparison
Speaker 5: to other countries around the world. So we have a problem.
Speaker 5: As everyone would say, you know, any child is killed
Speaker 5: is one too many. But when you hear about one
Speaker 5: child every five weeks, that's of concern. So what you
Speaker 5: see is you have actually a lot of children and
Speaker 5: young people being reported to wardung A tamariki as being
Speaker 5: at risk of harm, and so over a lifetime. It's
Speaker 5: quite staggering. Almost a quarterable children in New Zealand are
Speaker 5: known to ardung a tamariki at some point. So you
Speaker 5: have around fifty eight thousand kids or reports a concern
Speaker 5: being made about kids in New Zealand every year and
Speaker 5: so that's five percent of our children and our young
Speaker 5: people in New Zealand, so quite high, I think. The
Speaker 5: thing to remember though, although reports the concern are made,
Speaker 5: they will be varied in terms of the extent of
Speaker 5: the harm that people are seeing. So it could be
Speaker 5: for example, a child not having had breakfast right up
Speaker 5: to the most serious end, you know, such as a
Speaker 5: Malachi's case, where people knew that abuse was occurring or
Speaker 5: likely to be occurring, and letting what aung a tamariki know.
Speaker 2: So what are the current options for getting children out
Speaker 2: of harm's way? Is unga tamariki bearing the burden largely
Speaker 2: here We.
Speaker 5: Did talk about that in a report. There's certainly a
Speaker 5: sense that this becomes the issue for udung a tamariki
Speaker 5: to solve, or the issue for that sometimes the police
Speaker 5: it kind of gets dropped with them and certainly order
Speaker 5: a tamariki. They've got a statutory obligation, but actually we
Speaker 5: also need to think more broadly in terms of everyone's
Speaker 5: role from community, you know, from neighbors, from friends, from Farno,
Speaker 5: right through the government agencies to make sure that we're
Speaker 5: keeping kids safe and doing the right things. But once
Speaker 5: a report of concern comes through to ordering a tamariki,
Speaker 5: then something needs to be done rome So we had
Speaker 5: to look at that in our report to see how
Speaker 5: that operates, and what we saw was certainly what happens
Speaker 5: is a call comes into ordering a tamariki and they
Speaker 5: make an assessment about the response. And like I said,
Speaker 5: some of these calls will be at a low end
Speaker 5: in terms of concern right up for serious end, so
Speaker 5: they make a consideration around what the response is. For
Speaker 5: a number this will be that no further action is taken.
Speaker 5: And what we saw is that when reports a concern
Speaker 5: or followed through to the site, they're making an assessment
Speaker 5: about whether to act or not undulian influenced by the
Speaker 5: resources that they have. So fifty percent of these cases
Speaker 5: are classified as no further action, and it's quite varied
Speaker 5: around the country, so you've got a bit of a
Speaker 5: post code lottery happening here. So for example, if you're
Speaker 5: in christ Church, a reporter concern is less likely to
Speaker 5: be acted upon than it would be in Auckland, so
Speaker 5: you've got a variability in the threshold. There's also concern
Speaker 5: about though, even if ordering atomidiki aren't acting in their
Speaker 5: statutree capacity, you know at the very serious end of
Speaker 5: stepping in. Nevertheless, there's something going on in the life
Speaker 5: of that child, and so how can we make sure
Speaker 5: that there are services that are available to that family,
Speaker 5: to that child to assess their need, whether it's a
Speaker 5: need such as not having shoes to come to school
Speaker 5: to which could actually be an indicator of further concerns
Speaker 5: of neglect. So the question is do we have a
Speaker 5: system that, yes, at one point ordering an tamidiqui we
Speaker 5: need to make sure they are acting when they're needed,
Speaker 5: but also making sure that we've got services in place
Speaker 5: to get through the door, to visit with the family,
Speaker 5: to see the child most important, understand what the needs
Speaker 5: are and then make sure that those needs are met.
Speaker 5: And if those needs are at that serious end, then
Speaker 5: making sure it comes back to ordering a tamariki and
Speaker 5: making sure that they act to keep that child safe.
Speaker 5: It's not always going to be about taking a child
Speaker 5: out of a home. It will be when that's necessary,
Speaker 5: but it could be about just putting supports and services
Speaker 5: in place for that family so that they can actually
Speaker 5: parent them the right way and that child can be
Speaker 5: cared for. Now. The other part that we call out
Speaker 5: in that report is of concern is that when you're
Speaker 5: seeing professionals NGOs eemilori providers who are getting through the
Speaker 5: front door, visiting with family then making a reporter concern,
Speaker 5: only fifty percent of those of them being acted upon
Speaker 5: by warding a tamariki. And what they tell us is
Speaker 5: that they've exhausted every option within their own toolbox to
Speaker 5: support this family. But now it's the harmers at a
Speaker 5: point or the needs are so great that they need
Speaker 5: the statutory intervention. And what our report is saying is
Speaker 5: that the response is variable and therefore we have gaps
Speaker 5: in the child protection system.
Speaker 6: The Royal Commission sees to invasive abuse that's uncovered must
Speaker 6: lead to a new care safe agency.
Speaker 5: Our system is just a total mess, is designed to
Speaker 5: just some power and destroy Parlo.
Speaker 6: The Rural Commission found there is no future for audoing
Speaker 6: a tamaiki. It recommended the state handover power, funding and
Speaker 6: control to care services at a local level.
Speaker 2: Variations of this agency or tamariki have been around for decades. Right,
Speaker 2: why are we still talking about these issues today? Why
Speaker 2: can't we seem to get an agency that works?
Speaker 5: I think what you have is from our perspective and
Speaker 5: what we hear. So throughout monitoring, we spend considerable time
Speaker 5: in communities listening to tominique and angatahi and caregivers and
Speaker 5: faro or a tamiki staff, education health staff to understand
Speaker 5: how the system is operating, understand when it's working well,
Speaker 5: and what needs to change to make it better. When
Speaker 5: we look at ordering a tamaniki based on what we
Speaker 5: hear and what we see is you've got an organization
Speaker 5: that is under pressure. Like I said at the start
Speaker 5: of this conversation, often agencies are seeing it as a
Speaker 5: problem for what ang a tamariki to solve and they're
Speaker 5: not able to deliver to the standard that they would want.
Speaker 5: So talk about it in two parts. One is this
Speaker 5: discussion we're having about reports a concern and actually being
Speaker 5: able to get out and see that child to make
Speaker 5: sure that they are safe. And this goes directly to
Speaker 5: the story of Malachi, so nobody actually went out and
Speaker 5: saw him at home with his keygiver. Had they done that,
Speaker 5: we may have had a different outcome for him. So
Speaker 5: that's one thing. The second part is when we actually
Speaker 5: look at the tamariki that come into state care. There
Speaker 5: are key standards that ding a tamariki are required to
Speaker 5: meet and these are minimum standards and we report on
Speaker 5: these each year, and they're not meeting those standards for
Speaker 5: every child that's in their care. Got to remember, taking
Speaker 5: a child out of a home is incredibly traumatic. When
Speaker 5: we do that, and the state effectively becomes the parent,
Speaker 5: You've got to make damn well sure you do a
Speaker 5: really good job, and that's what these standards are there for,
Speaker 5: and ordering a tamique aren't able to meet them. And
Speaker 5: so I point to a couple that are key. One
Speaker 5: is social work is visiting tamique and being there for them.
Speaker 5: They're not able to meet that at the standard that
Speaker 5: they set for themselves, and it hasn't changed over four years.
Speaker 5: So something is not occurring despite them saying they're prioritizing it.
Speaker 5: That's enabling to get ahead of this. And if you
Speaker 5: go back and think about child safety again, if you're
Speaker 5: not there in the household for that young person. You're
Speaker 5: not going to see things, You're not going to be
Speaker 5: able address their needs and put services in place to
Speaker 5: help them, and it leaves them in harm's way. And
Speaker 5: so it's an agency that's under pressure and struggling to
Speaker 5: be able to meet these standards. You're right, it's been
Speaker 5: an issue for a long time. These are difficult problems
Speaker 5: to deal with, but they need to find a way
Speaker 5: to achieve these standards. But also they need the help
Speaker 5: of others, And so here I'm talking about making sure
Speaker 5: that other government agencies are prioritizing these kids in the
Speaker 5: same way and making sure that their services are prioritized
Speaker 5: around these cares so that they can be kept safe,
Speaker 5: they get the services they need, and they can then thrive.
Speaker 2: Are there some issues with their priorities here? If you
Speaker 2: look at the case of Sophie we spoke about earlier,
Speaker 2: a neurodivergent woman who wasn't given a chance to try
Speaker 2: and raise her child, had him taken away from her.
Speaker 2: Yet many parents are abusing their children without anyone seeming
Speaker 2: to notice. Where do the priorities lie between that uplift process?
Speaker 5: I guess I think what we've probably seen an observation
Speaker 5: is sometimes the pendulum swings, and so we've seen a
Speaker 5: bit around here in terms of the pendulum swinging, probably
Speaker 5: in the past in terms of actually very risk averse
Speaker 5: and bringing tamariki into kre and so you've seen high
Speaker 5: rates of children in state care. I think we've seen
Speaker 5: cases of current and obviously this case is slightly different,
Speaker 5: but cases that have been reported in the media where
Speaker 5: talmuliki you've probably been uplifted unnecessarily or removed from a
Speaker 5: home unnecessarily, and so the pendulum can sometimes swing back
Speaker 5: the other way. We know it's really important for kids
Speaker 5: to avoid the former of being removed from a household,
Speaker 5: so pendulum can sometimes swing towards actually trying to keep
Speaker 5: them in the home. Now, what's important is actually not
Speaker 5: letting the pendulum swing, but sticking to very good practice,
Speaker 5: consistent practice. And it can be challenging because there are
Speaker 5: subjective decisions to be made based on the informations available,
Speaker 5: but that consistent practice isn't necessarily there, and this is
Speaker 5: why you see variations. You see cases where kids have
Speaker 5: been removed when perhaps they shouldn't have and maybe services
Speaker 5: could have been put in place to keep them in
Speaker 5: the home and keep them safe, or cases where children
Speaker 5: aren't removed when perhaps they should have been for their
Speaker 5: own protection.
Speaker 2: It's difficult to make that decision, though, isn't it, Because
Speaker 2: if there are concerns about a parent abusing a child,
Speaker 2: the parent isn't going to say, yes, I hit my child.
Speaker 5: Actually, Chelsea, you're hitting on one of the recommendations that
Speaker 5: Dame Karen with point into, and this is around people
Speaker 5: working together. So what you see in cases of serious
Speaker 5: harm over decades now, the story is always there that
Speaker 5: someone knew something, someone else knew something else. The pieces
Speaker 5: of the jigs will never get put together. Had you
Speaker 5: put them together, you would have run to their child.
Speaker 7: The review found ordering attumbandy Kei failed to investigate concerns
Speaker 7: raised by members of Malakay's FANO, His interactions with the
Speaker 7: healthstem were disjointed. His childcare center failed to report Malokei's injuries.
Speaker 7: All safety nets and not a single one caught him.
Speaker 4: There were those who tried to act but were not
Speaker 4: listened to. There were those who were uncertain and did
Speaker 4: not act. There were those who knew and chose not
Speaker 4: to act. This is not acceptable. And we cannot look away.
Speaker 5: And so what Dame Karen has recommended is that these
Speaker 5: sort of what they call multidisciplinary teams that involve community providers.
Speaker 5: You might have police at the table, health at the table,
Speaker 5: education and warding a tamariki working together to put those
Speaker 5: pieces together and collectively decide what is needed for this family,
Speaker 5: what is needed for this child. That is your best
Speaker 5: option of making the very best decision. We always make
Speaker 5: better decisions when we have more information. And so what
Speaker 5: is concerning at the moment, and you've got pockets of
Speaker 5: this practice around the country, but it needs to become
Speaker 5: core business. And so one of the things we're seeing
Speaker 5: at the moment is agencies, due to a range of pressures,
Speaker 5: are pulling back to what they consider to be core business.
Speaker 5: You hear about arding a tamareki in terms of some
Speaker 5: of the changes they're making with providers at the moment,
Speaker 5: they're pulling back to what they call is core business,
Speaker 5: which is caring for kids that are in statutory care.
Speaker 5: But it's at the expense of some of this work,
Speaker 5: this collaborative work that is so important because it's not
Speaker 5: necessarily seen as core business. And when it's not it's
Speaker 5: always at the mercy of being lost, and so our
Speaker 5: worry is actually, rather than progressing this kind of way
Speaker 5: of working, we might start to see it being removed.
Speaker 5: Our role is to go back out into communities and
Speaker 5: see whether that is the case, and if it is,
Speaker 5: will report on it. Because again, this is the thing
Speaker 5: that's always been talked about through all of these reports
Speaker 5: into the death or serious how of kids is where
Speaker 5: we're agencies working together. We talked about barriers of sharing information.
Speaker 5: We need to get past this and find a way
Speaker 5: that we can collectively work so the right response goes
Speaker 5: out to those kids.
Speaker 2: Why do you think child abuse or child neglect or
Speaker 2: kids dying? Why do you think it's so endemic to
Speaker 2: New Zealand? And I just anincdotally. I remember when I
Speaker 2: first moved to New Zealand ten years ago. Now, I
Speaker 2: reported on two child deaths where a stepfather allegedly killed
Speaker 2: their child within the space of like three months, and
Speaker 2: that blew my mind. And then it kept happening again
Speaker 2: and again and over my career. Over the last decade,
Speaker 2: I've probably done five or six. Do you think that
Speaker 2: it is endemic of New Zealand?
Speaker 5: It's a really difficult question, and I'm not necessarily qualified
Speaker 5: to answer that one. I think there's probably researched out
Speaker 5: there that might indicate some of the reasons why we
Speaker 5: do the harm that we do. I think what we've
Speaker 5: been focusing on, certainly in terms of that Dame Karen
Speaker 5: Report and then our report following up, is knowing that
Speaker 5: this is occurring, what can we as a country do
Speaker 5: about it. These things have been known for a long time,
Speaker 5: and I guess one of the frustrations around agency responses
Speaker 5: to Dame Karen's report, the fact that the thinking is
Speaker 5: still being done or the planning, is actually, these things
Speaker 5: have been known for decades. The thinking has been done,
Speaker 5: it's the implementation. And you know, if and Dame Karen said, look,
Speaker 5: if it was easy, it would have been done. But equally,
Speaker 5: I think we just have to get on and prioritize this.
Speaker 5: You know, our report we talk about you know, this
Speaker 5: country we can do amazing stuff, and we put our
Speaker 5: minds to it. You know, you just got to look
Speaker 5: at the response to COVID and I know, you know
Speaker 5: there are issues with that as well, but as a country,
Speaker 5: we were very quickly able to focus on an issue
Speaker 5: and address it, and we haven't managed to give that
Speaker 5: same priority to the way that our children are harmed.
Speaker 5: And there's certainly more that we can do. Dame Carrott
Speaker 5: has pointed to some of those things. We see those
Speaker 5: things in our regular reporting. The answers are there, we
Speaker 5: just got to have a commitment to doing it.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us, Aaron. That's it for this episode
Speaker 2: of The Front Page. You can read more about today's
Speaker 2: stories and extensive news coverage at enzeherld dot co dot z.
Speaker 2: The Front Page is produced by Ethan Seles with sound
Speaker 2: engineer Patti Fox. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to The Front
Speaker 2: Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and
Speaker 2: tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.