The new Ministry of Vulnerable Children

Bees have become a subject of some controversy in Whanganui's Springvale suburb.

Hearing both Paul Nixon (Oranga Tamariki) and Judge Andrew Becroft (Children's Commissioner) speak about the value of effective care and protection for children was a welcome contrast to the way statutory social workers are often cast as the voodoo dolls that always get stuck with the vicious pins of criticism.

Some readers may recall the cartoon that appeared years ago following the death of a child at the hands of a family member showing the various community levels of engagement.

It illustrates perfectly the way blame so often lands at the feet of police, education, health and social workers, completely overlooking the wider influence of neighbourhoods and families.

While there are concerns that the new Ministry of Vulnerable Children is a politically-driven rearrangement of the deckchairs on a governmental Titanic, it is important to recognise that the task faced by those working directly with families is fraught and difficult.

Statutory social work is stressful. It involves decision-making around immediate risk to children that will have long term effects on the child and family.

Whatever is decided, there will be fierce criticism. They should have removed the kids or they were wrong to remove the kids - either way they will be judged.

Perhaps the new government agency would be more adequately described as the Ministry for Vulnerable Social Workers and Children as both have been compromised by a sequence of inadequate policies.

While there is close scrutiny of outcomes, there appears to be no shift in what Treasury or government has to say about the value of statutory social work. This is most evident in the pay rates for the social workers who carry the burden of care and protection - pay rates that in no way reflect the level of decision-making and responsibility they are expected to manage.

When this is set beside the million-dollar salaries being pocketed by the chief executives of businesses enterprises, it should cause pause for thought. Is the value of a chief executive greater than a skilled professional social worker charged with protecting our smallest citizens, whose caseload is often impossibly high and who is hobbled by a lack of adequate resources.

Despite all the hand-wringing, children continue to be abused by those who should be caring for them while social workers do what they can within a system that struggles to keep up.

If we do the sums, it is clear that protecting children from abuse is an economic no-brainer. Recent figures from Infometrics puts the annual cost to the New Zealand economy of child abuse and neglect at $2 billion.

If we apply the business model used to justify corporate remuneration - that is, pay the chief executive a million because supposedly their skills will boost returns - then we should be paying statutory social workers (and police officers) really well, recognising the value of their work to the economy.

Effectively resourced social work intervention could reduce the cost of child abuse by a billion dollars a year.

The argument has been presented that social workers, you know, do this work because it is a "calling" and it should not be about the money. The counter to that is why is remuneration considered so important to get the best in the business world but somehow irrelevant in resourcing frontline child protection workers?

*Terry Sarten (aka Tel) is a writer, musician and health social worker - feedback: tgs@inspire.net.nz