Emma Davies: Children suffering in a climate of neglect

COMMENT

Last week, Unicef issued a table of child maltreatment deaths in rich nations. Of the 27 nations listed, the ones with the lowest child death rate (averaged over five years) are Spain, Greece, Italy and Ireland where the rate appears extremely low (fewer than 0.2 maltreatment deaths for every 100,000 children).

Towards the bottom of the table are Hungary and New Zealand, where deaths from maltreatment are about six times higher than this.

And at the bottom are Mexico and the United States where the rate of child deaths from maltreatment is more than ten times higher. In the second revised table, which includes deaths where it is uncertain whether injury was intentional or unintentional, New Zealand ranks 23rd.

The authors convincingly argue that this revised table overcomes some of the differences in classification systems between countries and gives a more realistic overview of the extent of child death by maltreatment.

Our revised child maltreatment death rate has not decreased in the last 20 years.
Internationally, four out of five child murderers are parents, roughly half men and half women. Babies who have not yet reached their first birthday are at highest risk. The high percentage of male perpetrators is perhaps surprising given the relatively little time men spend with children compared to women.

The Unicef league table should indicate the need for action in New Zealand. Differences between countries over time indicate that the extent of child maltreatment is neither inevitable nor unchangeable.

Are these cold-hearted statistics somehow related to the less tangible variables involved in each country's general attitude towards children? Do they illustrate something about the way children are valued in most Southern Mediterranean and Nordic countries? What does this say about attitudes to children in New Zealand and the United States in comparison?

Nordic countries have led the world in promoting a culture of non-violence through campaigns against violence on television, war toys, and violence in parenting.

Sweden was the first country to outlaw hitting children. Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Austria and Germany have followed suit. Italy has removed the legal defence for the use of violence when disciplining children.

Yet the New Zealand Government seems reluctant to act, and thus the exemption in the law (Section 59 of the Crimes Act) allowing parents to use reasonable force remains. No one manifestation of a culture of violence is the cause of physical abuse. But a society that normalises violence, particularly in the home, establishes an environment in which physical abuse and serious neglect flourish.

European, and especially Nordic, countries have promoted well-
established home-visiting programmes linked to comprehensive health and social service systems that reach out to the vast majority of pregnant women and families with new-born babies.

This is identified as one of the reasons the US rate of child maltreatment deaths is higher than its European counterparts.

Although we have a range of support services for families with young children in New Zealand, including intensive home visiting services, their availability and quality is patchy.

This explains in part why New Zealand ranks near the bottom of the league table, not much better than the USA.

Even Britain has made a greater effort to address child abuse and neglect. Since 1997, its Government has increased its commitment to disadvantaged young children through a range of initiatives such as Sure Start.

This offers comprehensive outreach and home-visiting programmes, quality early child-care, learning and play facilities, community health-care including information about child health and development and support for children with special needs. Sure Start will soon be expanded to include a network of Children's Centres in these disadvantaged areas, says a UK Treasury report, Every Child Matters, issued this month.

The report is a response to a child death review. By comparison, our Government's care and protection blueprint, and Agenda for Children, look like the emperor's new clothes.

The Government is yet to act on evidence suggesting that investment in human capabilities at the early stages in life could turn out to be one of our best investments in long-term social and economic development.

There is little doubt that our shameful record in addressing child poverty over the past 20 years has contributed to our high child mortality rates. Poverty is clearly associated with severe physical abuse and neglect, as it is with a range of serious childhood illnesses.

Again, our record is poor.

In a recent comparative study of child benefit packages in 22 OECD nations, New Zealand was ranked in the worst of four groups of countries. A commitment to ending child poverty is an important part of any programme aimed at reducing physical abuse and neglect. British families had reason to celebrate their Government's commitment to halve child poverty 2010 and end it by 2020. New Zealand's Agenda for Children has a goal to end child poverty. It has no budget, no action plan and no time line.

If we consider economic inequalities in the US and the comparative lack of state health and welfare services alongside the apparent fascination with guns and violence, it is no surprise that the country performs so badly in its duty to its children.

There are some similarities in terms of underlying conditions and outcomes in New Zealand. If we have learnt anything from the policy mix of the past 20 years, two factors stand out as being particularly significant.

First, the self-interested individual advocated by the Treasury in the 1980s as the basis for social policy inevitably produces a playing field in which the biggest losers are children.

And second, Government platitudes as a substitute for action inevitably reinforce the survival of those who are the major beneficiaries of the market economy. The losers are children.

For economists, social inequalities are termed negative externalities, that is, unintended and negative consequences of the market.

It is time for some intended and positive consequences from our policies and actions.

We need to see our Government taking a decisive lead.

Decisive Government action along the lines of Sure Start accompanied by clear plans to reduce child poverty and nurture a culture of non-violence (including repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act), are important steps to making New Zealand a safe and nurturing environment for all our children.

* Dr Emma Davies is programme leader, children and families, at the Auckland University of Technology's Institute of Public Policy.