Editorial: Choose name fit for purpose

Child, Youth and Family service announced a makeover in April and since then there has been no shortage of scepticism about what might evolve.

Ever since the initial plans for a Child, Youth and Family service makeover were announced in April there's been no shortage of scepticism about what might evolve.

Scepticism turns to derision with the notion that a replacement entity may be known as the Ministry of Vulnerable Children, especially when it is so hard to pin down from where such a name emerged.

"Cripplingly disappointing," said new Children's Commissioner Andrew Becroft. He might have added "blindingly stupid".

It has all the hallmarks of a Yes Minister leak, a divergence or a distraction designed to mask what really is going on.

Even if that is not to be the name, but we get something that means the same thing, the motive for suspicion remains the same.

As time marches on, and we learn that there will be fiscal limitations on whatever it is that materialises, we seem to be getting further away from the "single point of accountability" concept that was said to be the model needed to "break the cycle".

Given that a significant factor in resolving issues of severe child abuse and care and protection of young people is said to be an incapability to communicate effectively between government departments and agencies, why would we want to have any more, especially one - if such a name is to be any guide - that is only looking at the children who are already on a dodgy path.

Let's just say we merged CYF (horrible acronym), the IRD's Child Support, Housing, Work and Income and maybe even Health under one umbrella - in the hope they have similar objectives. A Ministry for Home and Family maybe?

Singapore has a Ministry of Social and Family Development, a bit long-winded, but at least closer to the mark. It is currently calling for public feedback on a draft bill for Vulnerable Adults.