[ Return ]

Perspective article, by Dr Annabel Taylor,
Published in The Press, 27 August 2009

So, the referendum on section 59 of the Crimes Act ran its predictable course, with a majority of the slightly over half of us who responded voting to oppose a possibly ambiguous statement that senior parliamentarians on both sides had made clear they intended to ignore.

With the result now announced, both sides in the so-called 'anti-smacking' debate will claim their own version of victory, but neither can be truly satisfied with the outcome.

What was achieved was re-ignition of the polarisation we saw when the legislation was initially thrashed out in the previous term of government. Polarisation, in fact, was the only real victor in this referendum.

There is no polarisation, however, on preventing intractable, unarguable child abuse: the victims of which have no vote and no choice. Both sides in the referendum seem to agree on putting an end to child abuse.

While we voted, or didn't vote, examples of New Zealand's greatest shame just kept rolling on: yet more instances of preventable catastrophic family violence against helpless infants.

In the first three weeks of August, two young children died of non-accidental injuries, prompting police to instigate homicide inquiries in Kaitaia and Palmerston North, and two other children lie critically ill in Starship Hospital after being admitted in similar circumstances.

Even more shocking in some respects, the Independent Police Conduct Authority announced a review of numerous files following criticism by a District Court judge about the poor response of Wellington police to reported child abuse in Wairarapa.

And the good news? New Zealand took a step in the right direction on the world child abuse league ladder. OECD rankings measuring the rate of child deaths from maltreatment or abuse saw New Zealand rise from third lowest to fourth lowest of 27 countries. Though we still rate 1.2 deaths per 100,000 children per annum and seem well on track for our annual average tally of ten children killed at the hands of a close family member, so that 'good news' comes heavily qualified.

New Zealand taxpayers spent just short of $9 million on a referendum that could never be more than symbolic: a token action against equally helpless symbolism, since the 2007 Crimes Act amendment was never more than that, either.

Gestures like these are surreal next to the horrific toll that continues in the homes of our most vulnerable children.

When a far more substantive response is already addressing the causes of child abuse, albeit to a limited extent due to lack of resources, such expensive gestures are nothing short of obscene. Independently proven early intervention programmes already exist and are working to turn around the lives of those of our most socially deprived families - just not enough of them.

Some may find this unpalatable, but none of the mothers, fathers, whanau, step families or other care-givers of the children killed or injured over the past few weeks set out to neglect or maltreat or beat them. Rather, they lacked the skills for the vital job of caring for these vulnerable infants. With the right kind of help all could have been shown how to become better parents, and save their children from the fates they have met.

Unfortunately, effective programmes, proven to work with the most intractable families, those most prone to abuse their infants, are seriously under-resourced. That $9 million, spent on working intensively to turn around severely dysfunctional families might have saved the lives that were damaged or lost during the referendum, and substantially assisted hundreds more to turn around similarly blighted lives.

Families most likely to kill their children are typically beset by poverty, crime, fragile mental health, unemployment, lack of education, poor housing, drug abuse, and histories of violence and victimisation.

However, with diligent, systematic, professional care, provided by experts and focused on the needs of the child, deprivation that spawns child abuse spanning many generations can be addressed, creating a safe environment for children like those who died or were critically injured during the past few horrific weeks.

A specialist service, focussed on prevention and targeted at the highest risk group, is able to take action to help these families learn the parenting skills they lack, and therefore break the cycle of child maltreatment and abuse.

With the referendum over, perhaps we can put polarisation and gestures behind us. Perhaps we can focus instead on adequately resourcing programmes that prevent child abuse. The outcome such programmes provide seems to be something we all want, whether we ticked 'yes', 'no' or were so fed up that we did not vote in the referendum.

That would be a positive way to channel the otherwise generally negative emotion that has characterised this debate and now seems to have nowhere else to go.

[Dr Annabel Taylor teaches social policy and social work practice at the University of Canterbury School of Social Work and Human Services. She is also chair of the Family Help Trust, a Christchurch-based charity that works to prevent child abuse in families suffering the greatest social dysfunction and deprivation.]

Further information:
Dr Annabel Taylor
Senior Lecturer
School of Social Work and Human Services
University of Canterbury
Tel wk: 0064 3 3642444
Home: 0064 3 3299 526
Mobile: 027 4477183