Kirsten Hanna: Kids first in policy making

Would you elect a party whose policies would plunge many thousands of children into poverty-induced misery? No, of course you wouldn't - at least not knowingly.

But in the past we have elected well-intentioned politicians who did just that. How else to explain our high rates of child poverty and epidemics of poverty-related diseases?

Policy decisions can have unforeseen, adverse effects on children. And while children continue to be a low priority in political processes, we can expect more such failures.

There are plenty of justifications for prioritising children. There is the sustainability argument: New Zealand's future citizens, workers and parents are children today, so we should ensure they enjoy the sort of childhoods that lead to productive, decent adults - after all, they will fund your pension and mine.

There is the social justice argument: in a fair and just society, citizens want to see all children cared for and protected, able to fulfil their potential.

There is the human rights argument: children have a right to a healthy, happy and safe childhood.

Yet even in an election year, children are barely visible as parties set out their political agendas.

To date, we have heard about tax cuts, health spending, increasing women's participation in the workforce. And we will hear a lot more. But you will have to listen hard to hear any statement on how these policies will affect New Zealand's children.

We certainly don't want to repeat mistakes of the past. Remember the benefit cuts of 1991? With high unemployment, the cuts made a significant contribution to an escalation in child misery as child poverty rates soared above 30 per cent.

The cost of this in human suffering, health costs and lost potential is more than we can afford. So how do we avoid these mistakes?

The key is knowing in advance the effects of policy on children. For example, it would be unthinkable for a government to implement policy without figuring out how much it will cost Treasury.

It would be unthinkable to build a dam without considering its impact on the environment. It should be equally unthinkable to develop and implement public policy without considering its effect on children.

Child-impact reporting is a process by which policy is formally analysed to establish its potential impact on children before that policy is implemented, to ensure that their present and future well-being is not harmed.

According to this process, all policy that affects children (and few policy areas do not) is assessed against the principle of "the best interests of the child" and the anticipated impacts reported on.

Policy is then adjusted to mitigate or remove any negative impacts and, where possible, to maximise benefits. In essence, it is about forward thinking, transparency and accountability.

Governments in Belgium, England, Scotland and Sweden are starting to incorporate child-impact reporting in public policy decision-making.

Perhaps the most advanced country in this respect is Sweden. What is clear from the experience there is that making child-impact reporting an integral part of public policy-making is a long-term process.

The first step is to gain the support of policy-makers through an initial phase of education, discussion and debate; to this end, high-level support, say, from the Prime Minister or other high ranking post, is critical.

The New Zealand Government gave a nod to the idea when it endorsed the Agenda for Children, which lists child-impact reporting as one of a number of possible future developments and directions.

Meanwhile, the Public Health Advisory Committee has developed tools to allow policy-makers in all sectors to conduct health impact assessments. The precedents and models are already in place.

Although the process sounds simple, the devil is always in the detail: who will make the assessments - government officials, NGOs or academics? Will the Government be obliged to take notice? Will the reports be made publicly available? Who decides what is in the best interests of children?

These are valid questions. Another is whether child-impact reporting is just another paper-shuffling exercise that increases bureaucracy and wastes money.

The only measured response to this is, "It depends."

Most importantly, it depends on whether the Government is genuinely committed to making New Zealand a great place to raise kids. If the commitment is there, then child-impact assessments will work.

* Kirsten Hanna works at the Institute of Public Policy at AUT and is a member of Every Child Counts.