AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland
Title: Child and Family Protection Bill
|
Copyright: Monica Samy
|
Description: Part one. 9 marks Choose three pieces of legislation, regulation or major policy from the New Zealand Parliament, that are newly introduced, have been changed in the past twelve months or are about to be changed. (April 2010 - April 2011) For each one, summarise what the legislation/policy is about, what the proposed changes are and what the changes will mean from a health promotion perspective. Part two. 11 marks Choose one of the three and write a submission to select committee about it. (You can identify the appropriate select committee from the parliamentary website.) This will include the parts of the proposed legislation that you agree with and those that you don't. Suggest changes for the parts that you disagree with. You can also suggest ideas that you feel have been omitted from the proposed Bill. The submission must take a health promotion perspective and include discussion of any ethical issues that are raised. This will mean incorporating health promotion values, theory, practice, consideration of determinants and an understanding of the political context, as required. Your points, for and against, must be backed up with the relevant evidence.
Warning: This paper cannot be copied and used in your own assignment; this is plagiarism. Copied sections will be identified by Turnitin and penalties will apply. Please refer to the University's Academic Integrity resource and policies on Academic Integrity and Copyright.
|
Writing features
 |
Child and Family Protection Bill
|
Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill The rationale of this current bill is to introduce ‘differing levels of minimum wages for youth and other workers’ (House of Representatives [HOR], 2010). This was introduced in hopes of addressing the increasing disparities within youth unemployment (HOR, 2010). The need for the bill was supported by the huge disparities between Maori and non-Maori youth across New Zealand, with rates as high as 38% of Maori being unemployed (HOR, 2010). The termination of youth rates in 2009 led to a huge number of employment opportunities for youth, contributing to the unemployment dilemma (HOR, 2010). The bill enacts the Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Act 2010, intending to make amendments to the Minimum Wage Act 1984 (HOR, 2010). The proposed objective of the bill is to ‘end minimum wage parity between youth between the ages 15 to 17, and other workers, by setting wage rates defined by reference to the age of workers’ (HOR, 2010). The minimum wage will be defined be the age of the workers as a monetary amount or a percentage of any other minimum rate currently prescribed (HOR, 2010). A consequential amendment will also apply to the Minimum Wage Order 2009 with the introduction of defined youth rates. From a health promotion perspective, the introduction of the Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill moves towards reducing the inequalities between minority ethnic youth groups. With the introduction of a minimum wage set against age, a greater proportion of youth can be employed. The National Health Committee [NHC] (1998) highlights employment to be a vital determinant of health. Employment has the ability to enhance social status and improves self-esteem, thus providing greater social contact and a way of participating in community life and improving individual health and well-being (NHC, 1998). The bill proposes that a greater proportion of young people may be employed leading to greater life opportunities for New Zealand youth. Maori Trustee Amendment Act 2009 The Maori Trustee Amendment Bill was first introduced into parliament in 2008 and was given the royal assent in May 2009, becoming the Maori Trustee Amendment Act 2009 (New Zealand Government [NZG], 2009). The bill was introduced as an amendment to the Maori Trustee Act 1953 principally to achieve two main objectives. The first act was to substitute the prior ‘Maori Trustee’ with ‘Māori Trustee Established’ thus building the ‘capacity, powers, and status of Māori Trustee’ (NZG, 2009). The purpose of this was to increase the ability for exercising the powers and performing functions and duties of the Māori Trustee to have: This reinstates that the Māori Trustee have the autonomy to act independently and freely from from the Crown (NZG, 2009). Under the Maori Trustee Amendment Act 2009 are clear and concise provisions relating to the appointment of Māori Trustee and employees, and delegation of duties performed by the Māori Trustee (NZG, 2009). The Act also holds transitional provisions and consequential amendments to 20 other New Zealand Acts. From a health promotion perspective, the Maori Trustee Amendment Act 2009 safeguards and protects the rights of Maori and upholds their ability to be an autonomous body within New Zealand society. The Act encompasses the Treaty of Waitangi in maintaining the three principles: partnership, active protection and participation (New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 2008). These principles contribute to the development of health policy; and, the delivery of services and programmes aimed highly at the Maori population. The Maori Trustee Amendment Act 2009 reiterates Maori authority over their affairs and protects their resource rights. This is vital to health promotion in incorporating the rights of indigenous people and providing them autonomy when undertaking activities (United Nations, 1996). The Maori Trustee Amendment Act 2009 achieves autonomy through the independence it holds from the Crown. The Māori Trustee autonomous control over the direction of their operations, and ability to make free choices is key in health promotion and increasing individual capacities.
Child and Family Protection Bill The Child and Family Protection Bill was created and proposed to parliament as a response to the urgent need for reform in providing a ‘comprehensive set of laws to protect children and families from violence and abuse’ (NZG, 2009a). The bill strives to protect the welfare and best interests of children and their families, with amendments to three major laws of current Acts by allowing the state/government to have greater influence and involvement within current legislation (NZG, 2009a). The need for modification and restructuring of these acts has been supported by the continual high rates of domestic violence across New Zealand and the restrictions posed on the state (NZG, 2009a). Children who have experienced violence suffer greater psychological and emotional abuse leading to impaired social development (NZG, 2009a). In response to the supporting evidence and statistics, the Child and Family Protection Bill identified the following the three acts as areas in need of revision:
The bill encourages and enforces self-autonomy, advocacy and control for the youth of New Zealand. Health promotions goal of ‘enabling people’ is exemplified through the proposed clauses of all three acts (Health Promotion Forum of New Zealand [HPFNZ], 2008). The bill allows children and families to increase their state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and greater involvement in achieving their potential, making decisions and maximising choices (HPFNZ, 2008). The bill focuses on social networks and support for children and their families by building upon current policies, thus strengthening the capabilities of the state to intervene and protect the welfare of children and their families and what is in their best interests.
SUBMISSION To the Justice and Electoral Committee On the Child and Family Protection Bill EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS This submission is from Monica Samy, a Bachelor of Health Science student representing the University of Auckland. This submission has not been consulted with any other people or organisation. I wish to appear before the committee to speak to my submission. I can be contacted at: [address line 1] Phone: (09) 8XX XXXX The objective of this submission is to comment on the proposed government bill, Child and Family Protection Bill in reference to the proposed amendments and clauses to the Domestic Violence Act 1995, Care of Children Act 2004 and Adoption Act 1955, currently in existing law. In addition to my standpoint on the proposed bill, I offer my view with a health promotion perspective. This refers to a health promotion approach represented through mediating strategies between people and their environments, personal choice and social responsibility in health to create a healthier future (Health Promotion Forum of New Zealand [HPFNZ], 2008). I will also offer some contribution to my perspective with specific reflection of the Ottawa Charter, the international health promotion guide, and its five key action strategies (HPFNZ, 2008 & World Health Organization [WHO], 1986). I support the overall intent of this bill and the proposed changes to the three existing laws. I believe that in addition to the evidence of family violence outlined in the bill, there is substantial supporting evidence from other agencies who have reported on the extremities of family violence and its effect on children. The Ministry of Health (2002), and many other agencies, organisation and research also states that child abuse has detrimental effects on children’s ‘physical, cognitive, emotional, behavioural and social development’. It is for these reasons I support the Child and Family Protection Bill. I endorse the need for the government to have greater participation within current legislation in hopes to act in the best interests of children and their families. I support the following clauses which have been proposed upon the three existing laws and also offer key recommendations on the Child and Family Protection Bill:
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSAL Extended Protection I strongly support clause one of the Domestic Violence Act 1995. Violence has been identified as an emerging determinant of health in many countries, accompanied by a range of other determinants also contributing to violence in New Zealand (Cram, 2009). Domestic violence is built upon a ‘range of multi-level risk factors’ within a broader societal context (Cram, 2009). As highlighted in the bill, concerns raised on the need to strengthen the protection and reduction of domestic violence with effective legal protection is also supported by the Ministry of Health’s (2000), New Zealand Health Strategy. The health strategy points out the need for ‘reduced violence in interpersonal relationships, families, schools and communities’, as a key health objective for New Zealand (Ministry of Health [MOH], 2000). Providing better protection for child victims of domestic violence strives towards enhancing the autonomous rights of young people to advocate protection rights for themselves, inturn allowing greater self-control over their circumstances and life choices. Strengthening legal devices and political roles in providing the allocation of regulations, promotes healthy public policies thus putting health on the agenda of a number of political realms, and maintaining obligations for the state to protect and serve the people (HPFNZ, 2008). Recommendation: Under the Domestic Violence Act 1995, I strongly support the need for providing better protection for child victims of domestic violence through extending protection and enabling the Court to provide continual protection interim orders subsequent to a child reaching the age of 17. Preventing the Removal of a Child I strongly support lowering the threshold for obtaining an order preventing the removal of a child from New Zealand and greater flexibility in the terms of those orders. In my opinion, the removal of children from their environment unjustly or abruptly should be avoided in all situations and circumstance. Uprooting children from their ‘normal’ environment has detrimental effects to the psychological, emotional and behavioural health. Leo (2007), of the Connection Parenting organisation affirms that ‘children thrive in environments where their physical, emotional and spiritual needs are recognised, and met by their family and their community’. Children also learn from their exterior environment which moulds their interior environment (Leo, 2007). Removing children from their environment abruptly disconnects this learning and vital developmental process, leading to confusion and loss of belonging in within their new surroundings in removed from New Zealand. Children have a greater potential to flourish in a nurturing environment in which they feel a strong sense of security and safety. Preventing the removal of children from New Zealand maintains key strengths of the Ottawa Charter in creating a supportive environment in which children may develop their personal skills (HPFNZ, 2008). Increasing the options for children to stay in New Zealand allows children to ‘prepare themselves for all stages of life’ facilitated by their surroundings and community setting they are most adapt to (WHO, 1986). Recommendation: Under the Care of Children Act 2004, I support lowering the threshold for obtaining an order preventing the removal of a child from New Zealand and greater flexibility in the terms of those orders. Protection Against Neglect I recommend the incorporation of ‘neglect’ in addition to psychological abuse to the Care of Children Act 2004. Neglect of a child has been linked to a number of causes including a lack of parenting skills, family stresses in the home and children who are victims of violence or sexual abuse (WHO, 1997). Ample evidence has highlighted neglecting a child leading to physical consequences such as impaired brain development, psychological difficulties and the uptake of high-risk behaviours (National Information Clearinghouse [NIC], 2004). Child neglect has been associated to a range of short and long-term affects including physical aggression and antisocial behaviour, violent offending, social incompetence, suicide, and mental health problems characterized by a loss of attachment, reduced self-esteem and fewer interpersonal relationships (WHO, 1997). Like psychological abuse, neglect also has issues of reliable and valid definitions and measures. In my opinion, lack of reliability and consequences of neglect gives greater reason for neglect to be incorporated and not omitted in the Care of Children Act 2004. With the negative aspects attributed to the neglect of children, referring back to the Ottawa Charter, many of the key action strands are in need of being applied when approaching neglect prevention. Enhancing protection against neglect and incorporating it into the Child and Family Protection Bill has the ability to strengthen another key area of violence and supporting the welfare and best interests of children and their families. Providing children a supportive environments that enables them to seek help and protection against neglect, should be part if legislation in hopes to building health public policies and responsibility of the state, legislation and health promoters. Recommendation: Under the Care of Children Act 2004, in addition to the incorporation of enhancing protection against psychological abuse, protection against ‘neglect’ should be incorporated in providing protection to the welfare of children and the families. Improper Adoption Imprisonment Although the bill proposes increasing the term of imprisonment for improperly inducing consent for the adoption of a child to 7 years, I believe this should be raised to a maximum of 20 years. My main argument for this is that the current longest maximum finite term of imprisonment in New Zealand is of 20 years for sexual violation (Ministry of Justice, 2009). In my opinion, improper inducing for adoption of a child should be given equal weighting as sexual violation therefore should also be classified as a ‘serious offence’. In addition to this argument, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’ and that ‘everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person’(United Nations, 1948). Children have the right not to be sold or adopted under wrongful pretences, thus the violation of these laws and regulations deserve the upmost protection and punishment in its offences. Modification to the Adoption Act 1955 is long overdue in protecting the best interests of children. From a health promotion perspective, it is imperative for human rights to be upheld by the state and supported by legislative acts. Health promotion practice calls for advocating for the rights of those who may not speak on their behalf, therefore protecting children is of high priority to legal devices and those organisations working towards the protection of children and unlawful against them (HPFNZ, 2008). Recommendation: Under the Adoption Act 1955, in addition to the improper inducing consent for adoption of a child, the liable conviction on indictment to imprisonment should be raised to a term of 20 years maximum.
References Cram, F. (2009). Maori and Violence: What’s the Problem? Wellington, New Zealand: Katoa Ltd. Health Promotion Forum of New Zealand. (2008). What is Health Promotion. Auckland, New Zealand: Health Promotion Forum of New Zealand. House of Representatives. (2010). Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill. Wellington, New Zealand: House of Representatives. Leo, P. (2007). Creating Nurturing Environments for Children. Auckland, New Zealand: Connection Parenting. Ministry of Health. (2000). The New Zealand Health Strategy. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health. Ministry of Health. (2002). Family Violence intervention Guidelines: Child and Partner Abuse. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health. Ministry of Justice. (2009). Legislative Framework for the Use of Imprisonment. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice. National Health Committee. (1998). The Social, Cultural and Economic Determinants of Health in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: National Health Committee. National Information Clearinghouse. (2004). Long-Term Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect. Wellington, New Zealand: National Information Clearinghouse. New Zealand Government. (2009). Maori Trustee Amendment Act 2009. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Government. New Zealand Government. (2009a). Child and Family Protection Bill. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Government. New Zealand Ministry of Culture and Heritage. (2008). All About the Treaty. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Culture and Heritage. World Health Organisation. (1986). Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation. World Health Organisation. (1997). Fact sheet No 150: Child Abuse and Neglect. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation. United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. United Nations. (1996). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. |
|
