Lindsay Mitchell: Hollow Gesture Replaces Real Action

Do you ever wonder what the Office of the Children's Commissioner - with an annual budget of $11.5 million and 36 full time staff (83 percent female with three quarters earning in excess of $100,000) - does?

Well, wonder no more.

Two days ago they launched an advocacy campaign titled "Dear Children" which lays out New Zealand's internationally elevated rates of child neglect, abuse and murder, and asks adult members of the public to demonstrate their care and concern by signing a letter to all children affirming "you have the right to be safe."

Claire Achmad, Children's Commissioner says,

“My request of all adults in our country is to sign this letter alongside me. Together, let’s send children a crystal clear message: they are precious to us and we will do better by them, so they are all growing up safe. Join me in creating a ripple effect of real change. Please visit dearchildren.co.nz to sign the letter alongside me, share it with your community and reflect on the things, small and large, that you can do to play your part in keeping our nation’s children safe, well and thriving. Let’s show New Zealand’s children we won’t accept any of them being harmed anymore.”

So feel free to visit the page and add your signature.

I won't. Because doing so is utterly meaningless. It is no more than virtue signalling.

Clearly I am not alone in being unmoved by this piece of theater. Two days in, after the media-hyped launch, there are only 1,300 signatures (at 4pm, December 10), mostly females going by the first names that scroll across the page.

It's kind of comical and it's kind of tragic.

Because there are real actions that governments could adopt if they were deadly serious about protection of children. A prime example was blocked by Minister Anne Tolley in 2015.

Auckland University of Technology had created a predictive risk model. They needed to conduct a study to test the data with an eventual aim of putting the model to practical use. But it all became politically fraught and ground to a halt. The pioneer of this work has gone on to the United States. According to Eric Crampton of the NZ Initiative, who recently interviewed Professor Rhema Vaithianathan:

"In the US, this approach worked to substantially reduce child hospitalisation. It could be done in New Zealand as well. In fact, the work started here. But New Zealand’s politics and public service has a very difficult time with new approaches. American localism means that one innovative county can try it out, and demonstrate the benefits to others."

I recently wrote about the work Treasury has also done in identifying children at risk by known factors. We mere mortals can picture the adult histories and households that bring newborns into precarious environments BUT officials have the confirming data. Is it acted on? No.

Here's an archaic idea. Back when children born to unmarried mothers were quite rare, child welfare officers would keep an eye on them. Specifically, "The Child Welfare Act 1925 requires that all ex-nuptial births be notified to a social worker so that inquiries can be made concerning the circumstances of each mother and child for the purposes of offering advice and assistance." This practice continued until the late 1960s.

Today such intrusion would be snorted at. But the same people who snort will probably sign the silly letter.

Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced