and reach thousands of daily visitors
Listen to thisNEW ZEALAND
Under proposed new laws, government agencies dealing with a vulnerable
child in danger will be able to share information without needing the
family's permission.
It's about time.
The final report of a
panel tasked with overhauling Child, Youth and Family (CYF) was released
this week. It delivered on a promise to propose radical change.
While initial coverage focused on the biggest of announcements found in the
200-page report – such as raising the age of care and changing the way CYF
operates – the technical detail holds the key as to whether or not this will
work.
A major problem for CYF is that when a vulnerable child is handed to them by another agency (such as health or justice), the child often becomes CYF's responsibility alone. Not always, but far too often, other agencies will notify CYF if they see an issue and then think: "great, child referred, job done". Worse, they won't notify CYF due to privacy concerns.
Two key paragraphs buried within a mountain of text signal a major shift toward the presumption of information-sharing when children are at risk. "If information is to be shared without consent, this should only occur where the practitioner believes that the benefits of information exchange to a child or young person outweighs any potential negative impacts..."
Under this proposal, anyone acting in good faith would be protected from civil, criminal or any professional disciplinary action. That includes doctors, priests, psychiatrists, social workers, lawyers and all those other professions where client confidentiality is ingrained and sometimes legislated for. But where those people are dealing with children, and particularly children in danger, they will not only be given the ability to share relevant information without permission, they will be expected to.
Social Development Minister Anne Tolley, in a Cabinet paper to her ministerial colleagues, said she supported the approach. She appears to have significant backing from Cabinet, so there's a high chance this measure will proceed. Children's Commissioner Russell Wills, a paediatrician, says it's an important shift that lowers the threshold for information exchange.
Politically, of course, work needs to be done to define exceptions. For example, police investigating a young person suspected of committing a serious crime can't be expected to share everything.
But there will be little public backlash to the move. It's the lesser of two evils. The safety of a child should always trump the privacy of a family that doesn't always have the best interests of that child at heart.
Stacey Kirk
10 April 2016
