Issues_in_Child_Protection

For the purposes of this essay I will be discussing Child Protection in the context of the quote “One of the fundamental purposes of a civilised society is to protect its members from acts of violence committed by others” Family Violence Prevention Taskforce 1994, p. iii. Child protection in Australia in the context of “one of the fundamental purposes of a civilised society is to protect its members from acts of violence committed by others”, although obviously a concept all civilised societies would aim for, has not occurred in Australia historically (Hatty et al, 2000, p.1). In fact, Australia has had to come to terms with some of the actions of the past in terms of large scale maltreatment of children. , following historical events largely contributed and shaped the way child abuse is managed today and formed the foundations for which our currnet legislatons are based. This abuse evidently was the result of earlier governmental social policies and the manner in which they were enacted, by means of institutionalisation. (Hatty et al, 2000, p.9). In the late 1940’s Australia and other countries with ties to Britain participated in a program to bring children from institutions in Britain to Australia, the aim of this being to give disadvantaged children the opportunity to resettle and help boost the population. These individuals were seen to be young, healthy and cheap migrants. Hatty et al (2000) highlight however that these children were often deceived in Britain, being told their families did not want them or that they were orphans when this wasn’t the case. Australia failed to protect these individuals from violence committed by others. Families were separated, siblings sent to differing institutions and these children were used for slave labour and physically, emotionally and sexually abused (Hatty et al, 2000 p.9). These institutions were mainly run by church organisations and only recently have they requited and grudgingly become involved in considering compensatory measures for their past actions. (Hatty et al, 2000 p.10). Further to these measures, a committee has been established in Britain with a view to addressing what can be done to compensate the victims of these past policies. When again considering the fundamental purpose of a civilised society being to protect its members from acts of violence, fresh in every Australians mind is the appalling treatment our indigenous Aboriginal people suffered at the hands of the commonwealth and state governments. (Suzanne E Hatty, 2000). The action was a result of what was called “forced assimilation” whereby Aboriginal children and in particular those who had a mixed parentage were separated from their families and placed into institutions either run by church groups or government run arrangements. (Suzanne E Hatty, 2000). Owing to the widespread nature of this disaster this group of individuals became known as “The Stolen Generation”. (Freedman, 1991). Boys and girls were subjected to physical and sexual abuse and denied knowledge of their heritage. There have been many campaigns and attempts to at least acknowledge some of the distress this caused including forms of compensation for victims and families and the public apology by the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Kevin Rudd. Of course owing to the highly distressing nature of these events all these endeavours have only been partially successful and current legislation written to ensure such a catastrophe would never happen again in this country (Suzanne E Hatty, 2000). Further historical events which served to shape Australia’s current legislation only came to light as recently as 2000 such as Victorian orphaned babies in various institutions were used to test vaccines and/or antigens, some of which were toxic. (Suzanne E Hatty, 2000). This continued for several decades, justified by orphanage staff and medical researchers as being for a good cause. A further event which shaped our current legislation was in New South Wales where girls thought to be “sexually irresponsible” were sterilised without parental consent being obtained. (Suzanne E Hatty, 2000). Social policy in Australia and likewise other Western countries has instilled social controls to ensure abuse of the nature experienced in the past is not repeated. (Suzanne E Hatty, 2000). Evidently, in earlier times, “one of the fundamental purposes of a civilised society is to protect its members from acts of violence committed by others” could hardly be applied as an accurate reflection of earlier behaviours. However, if at the time, the persons or governments responsible thought they were doing good things needs to be distinguished from situations where direct, deliberative abusive violence has occurred and unfortunately, this did occur. Regardless, Australia now has a legislative framework in place that supports the quote, or certainly endeavours to achieve protection from violence of the members of its society and in this instance, particularly children. (Suzanne E Hatty, 2000). Thus, Australia moved forward and through its tiered government system came up with safe guards to instil child protection in each state. Local government does not have a role in child protection other than to monitor its child care facilities and ensure state government legislation is complied with. (Suzanne E Hatty, 2000). The commonwealth also has limited jurisdiction over child protection matters, being namely limited to matters of custody or child support arrangements following a separation. Therefore, all responsibility for child protection matters rests with the state governments in each state and the two territories that make up the commonwealth of Australia. Although the titles of the state acts differ, they all have the same broad aim, namely prevention of child abuse and intervention when abuse occurs or could occur. We could at this stage broadly state that we agree and comply with the statement that “the fundamental purpose of a western society is to protect its members from acts of violence committed by others” however, children still do get hurt and abused. (Smith, 1992). Current child protection legislation is based on the assumption that the best protection for children is within the family. The legislation however does recognise and acknowledge that intervention is required where violence has occurred or is likely to occur. (Suzanne E Hatty, 2000). All states in Australia have acts in place to cover the following behaviours: abandonment and neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse and sexual abuse. All suspected cases of such must be reported to the relevant state child protection agency who will make further assessment. Established cases can be addressed in several ways, including support and counselling, removing the child or punishment of the perpetrator. (Suzanne E Hatty, 2000). In support of the notion that “one of the fundamental purposes of a civilised society is to protect its members from violent acts committed by others” is supported when we review the actions taken to establish state legislation to review child deaths. Namely, The NSW Child Death Review Team and the Victorian Child Death Review Committee. The recommendations of these committees aim to expose failures within child welfare and other agencies involved with children. (Suzanne E Hatty, 2000). There are of course, FREEDMAN, L. A. D., T (1991) The Stolen Generation, A Personal Account. Children Australia, 16, 19-22. SMITH, G. (1992) Rights and Advocacy: A framework for Child Protection. Hale and Ironmonger Pty Ltd. SUZANNE E HATTY, J. H. (Ed.) (2000) Child Abuse: A Global View, Connecticut, Greenwood Publishing Group.