Mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse has been rejected by nursing organisations responding to the government’s Green Paper for Vulnerable Children.
Both the New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO) and College of Nurses Aotearoa NZ are also concerned that proposed services narrowly targeting vulnerable children could come at the cost of existing child health services.
Submissions to the wide-ranging 40-page green paper closed at the end of February with both organisations consulting their membership widely before making their submissions.
While the green paper fell short of recommending mandatory reporting of child abuse by health professionals, there is widespread public and political support for mandatory reporting, which many nurses fear could put parents off seeking health care for their children.
Both NZNO and the College rejected mandatory reporting but both submissions were supportive of mandatory information sharing between agencies in cases of suspected abuse or maltreatment.
The NZNO also make a call for a full-time government-funded nurse in every early childhood centre and every school in the country in their submission.
Jill Clendon, an NZNO policy advisor, said evidence clearly demonstrated that health outcomes and access for children improved with the provision of school-based nursing services.
She also said if the government wanted to make children a priority then no funding should be removed from existing tamariki ora/well child programmes to fund targeted programmes.
The College submission calls for a national child protection policy, legislative changes emphasising child welfare above adults and free provision of mandatory child protection training for all professionals working with children and families.
It also says the only targeting of “vulnerable” children it would support would be a national register of vulnerable children to enable professionals to easily track children and families that are transient.
Both submissions disagreed with focusing on vulnerable children arguing that this was too narrow and argued in favour of evidence-based early intervention programmes and continuing support of existing child health programmes.
They also both argue for the need to address broader social issues affecting children’s safety and wellbeing like housing and low incomes.
