Amended bill on children has areas of conflict

Press, 10 November 1983, Page 12

Amended bill on children has areas of conflict

Parliamentary reporter

Major legislation changing the circumstances under which children may be removed from their home or other place where they are living is now passing through Parliament. More than 30 submissions, many of them conflicting, have been heard on the Children and Young Persons Amendment Bill by Parliament’s Statutes Revision Committee. There are two main conflicts about what should or should not be in the bill. The first conflict deals with Clause 6 of the bill, which amends section 29A of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1974. This clause tightens the provisions for the case where a complaint that a child or young person is in need of care, protection, or control is made on the grounds that: • Development is being avoidably prevented or neglected.

• Physical or mental health, or emotional state, is being avoidably impaired or neglected; or • Being or likely to be neglected or ill-treated. Clause 6 is designed to afford protection to children who have been found to be

abused. The protection of the child is seen as paramount. The intention of clause 6 drew widespread support, but there was criticism of the way it had been drafted. This came even from the National Advisory Committee on the Prevention of Child Abuse, whose report did most to prompt the Government to introduce the amendment bill. The alleged complaint had to be proved, said Dr D. C. Geddis, the advisory committee’s chairman. The onus was on the complainant and not on the parent, and that was as it should be, he said. But once it had been found that the child had indeed suffered abuse, then logically the onus should shift to those who had care of the child to show that this abuse would neither continue nor be repeated. Child abuse cut across all professional boundaries, Dr Geddis said. This was necessary to see past, for example, any concerns that might be raised by those who viewed the phrases within the legislation solely within a legal framework.

The Psychological Society agreed, and said considerable evidence would be needed to support the claim

that harm suffered by the child would not continue or recur. Also, the Society said some statement was needed within the legislation to monitor that the harm did not continue or recur. The courts might need to make supervision orders. The National Youth Council criticised Clause 6 for not going far enough. It was not sufficient for the person against whom the charge of abuse had been made merely to satisfy the court that it would not continue or recur. Without guidelines in the legislation, judges might be satisfied too easily. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists said that on past experience clause 6 could save the lives of at least two children every year “and save the caretakers (mostly parents) from the devastating experience of being responsible for the death of their own child.”

But the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties, while agreeing, with clause 6 in principle, said it did not define “kinds of harm” and so would be difficult for the parent to defend. The New Zealand Law Society recommended

clause 6 not go ahead in its present form. Instead, the Law Society wanted a direct insertion into the 1974 act defining “harm.”

The second conflict deals with clause 3, which inserts three new subsections into the 1974 act modifying removing some of the restrictions imposed on the courts in placing the child’s welfare as paramount. While these changes were welcomed in principle, some felt they went too far and others felt they did not go far enough. Most felt the shortcomings of clause 3 could be overcome by redrafting.

Whether the amendment bill was itself the appropriate way to change the law also divided those making submissions.

The Law Society said it would prefer the amendments proposed in the bill be deferred in favour of a complete revision of the 1974 act, which was “among the most significant social legislation on the Statute Book.”

But the New Zealand Medical Association endorsed the Government’s intention to press ahead with the amending legislation.