The Dame Karen Poutasi-led panel report into the 5-year old’s death is the last in a long line of reports in the face of senseless deaths and other horrors which have pointed out shortcomings in our system and society and made recommendations for doing better.
The approach to repeated failings of the system have been piecemeal and there has not been consensus around what needs to be done.
The controversial Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill, pushed through by Labour earlier this year, is a case in point. Calls for it to be delayed until the Royal Commission into Abuse in Care makes its findings next year fell on deaf ears.
Most of Dame Karen’s panel recommendations have been accepted, including better monitoring of early education, a public awareness campaign, and improved education on information sharing between agencies. However, Minister for Children Kelvin Davis is attracting criticism for caution about some of the more complicated proposals including the recommendation for a mandatory reporting scheme, worried about possible unintended consequences.
The panel proposal on compulsory reporting of risk of abuse to Oranga Tamariki would involve professionals and services working in the child protection field, including healthcare, welfare, education, children’s services, residential services, and law enforcement.
It is also worth remembering this issue was extensively explored in the build-up to the 2014 Children’s Act (previously called the Vulnerable Children Act). The White Paper for Vulnerable Children did not favour it. It pointed out New Zealand already had high levels of notification – ‘‘the same or higher than some Australian states which have mandatory reporting’’. Further, ‘‘the vast majority of New Zealand children who are seriously abused are already known to government agencies’’.
The possibility of the system being swamped with notifications which could allow more children to slip through the cracks was also raised then.
Dame Karen acknowledges this fear is real, along with the risk families might not seek help from professionals because they feared they would be reported, but said these concerns were already in play to some degree and would need to be addressed regardless of whether mandatory reporting was introduced.
Part of the panel proposal would be comprehensive regular compulsory training for those in the many roles where the mandates applied, and clear guidelines on high risks that constitute red flags for child abuse as well as careful definitions of what must be reported and by whom.
As University of Otago associate professor of social work Emily Keddell says, requirements for mandatory reporting assume the problem is people knowing about abuse and not reporting it and that criminalising them would improve this.
Most situations were grey, and the clear ones people almost always reported already. If they were not reporting for some reason, mandating was unlikely to force them to. She contends people did not report because previous reporting had not been acted on, or there had been overreaction, or the reporter had no information about the report response.
The Chief Oombudsman, Peter Boshier, whose office has increased oversight of Oranga Tamariki under the law passed earlier this year, seems less than convinced OT is heading in the right direction and he has promised to be looking over the shoulder of the organisation every week next year.
Until the public can be confident OT is able to deal competently with what is on its plate now, it seems unwise to be putting mandatory reporting into the mix, given its possible impact and unclear benefits.
