Welcome to another week.
Whilst the UK has begun to consider making reporting suspected child abuse compulsory, New Zealand is thinking about tackling the silence surrounding child abuse by paying for tip offs.
New Zealand is one of the most dangerous countries in the developed world in which to grow up, despite efforts by successive governments.
Every other day a child is admitted to hospital suffering from inflicted injuries, including burns, broken bones and head wounds.
In a bid to reduce the surge in child abuse cases across the country, the New Zealand police force has confirmed that it is looking at the possibility of offering money to people who come forward with information.
Those in favour of the initiative say it will break down the wall of silence surrounding child abuse, and ultimately save lives.
Those against the proposal are concerned that individuals with axes to grind could use the scheme as a way to exact revenge on others, that it could encourage informants to hold tips for ransom, and make leads potentially less trustworthy within a process which offers money for information.
Our question then, is just this: do you think offering money for child abuse tip offs could be an effective way to protect children from harm?
For further reading on New Zealand’s battle with child abuse, online newspaper Stuff, has produced a thought-provoking series called ‘Faces Of Innocents’, which aims to highlight the child abuse epidemic in the country.
Researching Reform 
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Offering money to ‘informants’ is not the answer. In USA they provide immunity from prosecution, anonymity and sometimes, police-protection, for those who report suspicions of child abuse. This coupled with concern for child welfare, really ought ti be enough. Money-incentives are already, causing far too much harm to children.
LikeLike
This is cheap shot politicking – grandstanding with bells and whistles – by the New Zealand Government who has denied that poverty and child abuse are related. http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/222015/bennett-slammed-over-child-poverty-claim
This same Government has also presided over a country which has one of the fastest growing gaps between poverty and wealth of all the OECD countries. I think that unless you understand the state of play in New Zealand today it may be hard to understand the complexity of the dynamic that has occurred there over generations of Government mismanagement surrounding child safety issues and the oppression of the Indigenous people (the NZ Maori who make up14% of the population) which has ultimately led to dispossession and disenfranchisement of this group. As with all indigenous people who live in invaded and colonised countries this group is vastly over represented in prisons etc.More importantly, as a result of being made second class citizens by the coloniser, today in NZ 1 in 3 Maori children live in poverty while 1 in 6 Pakeha (white European/Anglo ) children live in poverty also.
Non-New Zealanders have a skewed understanding of NZ (an understanding projected by NZ politicians and other spin doctors) – all they know about the country is they have a great rugby team and its clean and green (a myth by the way because e.g. in reality the EU has far tougher regulations to protect the environment than does NZ). What they don’t know about NZ is that it also has or had the highest per capita gang member numbers/rate in the world and is a culture where too often violence has been and is celebrated. Today New Zealand has the highest rate of domestic violence of all developed countries. http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11634543
Other than this, more New Zealanders (Kiwis) live outside of New Zealand than in New Zealand. Quite literally, most New Zealanders have left the country for countries that offer better life opportunities. What does it say about a country when most of its citizens leave?
Basically we are talking about a country that has massive social problems and massive social divisions. Until politicians start addressing these issues nothing will change.
I find it quite hilarious that the NZ Government has announced this idea/stupidity when just yesterday – the same day this was announced – the opposition uncovered massive funding gaps in child protection (a 56 million dollar shortfall) http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/faces-of-innocents/81977071/faces-of-innocents-cyf-facing-unfunded-cost-pressures-of-millions-government-admits
To top it off the NZ Government has engaged in a vicious campaign to force people off benefits which has resulted in placing the at risk at even more risk. These people (Kiwi politicians) are utter morons and need to wake up and implement proactive policy that reduces poverty. It’s not on that a country that would have the world believe is it “civilized” has 27% of their children living in poverty.
Will this policy of rewarding people who report child abuse work ? No way !!! In fact, it may even lead to more violence in the community.
LikeLike
Actually Natasha I have just added this to a story I am writing about why Helen Clark, ex NZ PM, should not be considered as a serious contender for the position of UN Secretary General found here http://newzealandchildabuse.com/helen-clark-ex-nz-pm-a-nominee-for-un-secretary-general-youd-have-to-be-kidding-right/
It may offer your readers some real insight as to the magnitude of the problem of child abuse and the lack of respect for human rights and particularly the rights of the child in NZ today — following …..
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
“A 2003 UNICEF report said New Zealand had the third-worst rate of abuse and neglect of children in the OECD group of developed countries and Helen Clark, the prime minister at the time the law was passed, called the country’s child abuse record “a stain on our international reputation”. (Original story here)
What successive New Zealand Governments, including that of Helen Clark, would claim is that New Zealand has a solid track record of respecting the rights of the child … However, let’s look at New Zealand today re child rights.
New Zealand has the highest rate of domestic violence in the developed world
Between the years of 2007 – 2010 data showed that 1 in 6 Pakeha children (white European), 1 in 4 Pacific Island children and 1in 3 Māori children were living in poverty (figures show that children in homes below the poverty line increased from 22 per cent in 2007 to 28 per cent in 2010, and had dropped back only slightly to 27 per cent by 2012). By 2015 child poverty rates were back to 2007 – 2010 highs.
A 2003 UNICEF report demonstrated that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child death from maltreatment (physical abuse and neglect) among rich OECD countries. NZ ranked 25th on a league table of 27 countries with 1.2 deaths per 100,000 children
Over one in four NZ adults has experienced childhood trauma or abuse, family violence and/or sexual assault.
NZ Police respond to one ‘family violence’ call every seven minutes. Police say that in 60% of domestic violence cases children are also being abused.
An international survey found that one in four New Zealand girls is sexually abused before the age of 15, the highest rate of any country examined.
Research shows the police only hear about 20% of all family violence incidents and 10% of sexual violence offences.
Rates of child abuse in New Zealand have risen by 32% in the last five years, with instances happening to children who are already in the care of the state.
New Zealand’s suicide rate for 15-19 year olds is one of the highest in the OECD and double that of neighbouring Australia.
New Zealand was called to task by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in June, 2015 for failing to adequately protect children.The UN report heavily criticised aspects of law and government programmes which failed to address high child mortality rates, unequal access to services for Maori children and a lack of data around child abuse.
In 2013-14 there were 117 children in the custody of Child, Youth and Family (CYF) reported to be abused; 88 were in the care of a CYF caregiver, 25 were formally placed with their parents but still officially in CYF custody, and five were abused while living with an unapproved caregiver or in an unapproved placement.A 2015 report by the Children’s Commissioner slammed the government’s handling of children in State care. Principal Judge Andrew Becroft said the report was a vital piece of work. He said the Youth Court dealt with the most damaged, dysfunctional and disordered young people in New Zealand, and the overwhelming majority of them had a care and protection background. Judge Becroft said it sounded simplistic, but what the report highlighted was the need to do the care and protection work better. “So that we’re not left, for instance, with, as I understand it, 83 percent of prison inmates under 20 have a care and protection record with Child, Youth and Family.”
Again Helen Clark can’t be held accountable for the entirety of this situation. And to be fair, her government’s track-record re the respect of child rights is somewhat better than the record of John Key’s National Party which toppled the Clark led Labour Government in 2008 and leads the country today. However, this is like saying that Helen Clark was the top of the remedial class while John Key is at the bottom.
New Zealand ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1993, the 131st country to do so.
However, New Zealand has entered a reservation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which reads: “Nothing in this Convention shall affect the right of the Government of New Zealand to continue to distinguish as it considers appropriate in its law and practice between persons according to the nature of their authority to be in New Zealand including but not limited to their entitlement to benefits and other protections described in the Convention, and the Government of New Zealand reserves the right to interpret and apply the Convention accordingly.”
Reservations to human rights treaties create technical difficulties that do not arise for treaties on other topics because the intended beneficiaries of obligations in human rights treaties are the people in each state, rather than the other state parties to a treaty. It is therefore more problematic to allow states to enter reservations to a human rights treaty, which allows states to modify the extent of their obligations then it would be for an ordinary treaty that has been entered into between states on a reciprocal basis. In short, when a state enters a reservation to a human rights treaty the reservation acts to diminish the rights of the people/citizens of that state.
Of particular concern are widely formulated reservations, such as that which NZ has entered to the Rights of the Child, which essentially render ineffective all Covenant rights which would require any change in national law to ensure compliance with Covenant obligations. No real international rights or obligations have thus been accepted. And when there is an absence of provisions to ensure the Covenant rights may be sued on in domestic courts, and, further, a failure to allow individual complaints to be brought to the Committee under the first Optional Protocol all the essential elements of the Covenant guarantees have been removed.
In simple terms, while New Zealand is a signatory party to the UNCRC its ratification of the Convention is little more than window dressing because New Zealand has effectively entered a clause/reservation which negates its responsibility to respect the rights of the child according international human rights norms.
Helen Clark’s government can’t be blamed for penning in this reservation; however, neither can it take credit for removing it when called upon to do so by the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child in 2000 with:
[Quote]
“The Committee is concerned about the broad nature of the reservations made to the Convention by the State party, which raise questions as to their compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention. Moreover, the Committee regrets that the State party has not extended the Convention with respect to the territory of Tokelau, which is not at present a sovereign State and remains a non-self-governing territory in important respects.”
Committee’s recommendation
“In the spirit of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in June 1993 which urged States to withdraw reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Committee wishes to encourage the State party to take steps to withdraw its reservations to the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee encourages New Zealand to extend the application of the Convention with respect to the territory of Tokelau.”
[End Quote]
LikeLike