-
Source: ONE News -
Related
The Families Commission is an organisation living on borrowed time . But then it always has been. The simple political truth is that it will survive in its current form for as long as major parties want Peter Dunne in their government and not an hour longer. It's his pet project and he has made it a bottomline in negotiations with both Labour and National, so it lives and dies with the good people of Ohariu.
For that reason alone it's easily dismissed. The stewardship of its first chief commissioner also gave rise to complaint, with Dr Rajen Prasad (now a Labour MP) criticised for politicising the role. But perhaps the biggest criticism made is that it has been in existence for five years and families aren't any safer than they were. Our children keep getting beaten and killed. As the commission's own research shows, the police report that recorded family-related violent offences increased by 49% between 2000 and 2006, from 12,388 offences to 18,448.
So what the heck are they doing?
The answer can be found in the commission's mission statement. They were set up to listen to families and related organisations, to research family issues and to raise debate and awareness of family issues. Having done that, their task is to then keep the government of the day focused on family needs and to ensure that laws passed are kind to families.
Now, if you're clever you'll notice that nothing in the commission's statement of intent says it shouldn't be political or that its job is to single-handedly save us from the scourge of child abuse. Their brief goes much wider than violence to all family-related issues, which could include anything from holiday pay to nutrition. So if its mandate isn't to combat family violence, why does it cop so much flak?
Largely, I think, it's a sign of our own frustration. Most of us don't physically harm our kids. We see comparable countries with less child violence. We don't get it and we want the experts to come up with a series of solutions - bang, bang, bang. We see the 'It's not OK' ad campaign and think there must be more we can do. We see the pamphlets and community education and ask, is that all? Children are dying! We want action. We want something done. We want simple answers.
Problem is, reducing family violence will require nothing short of culture change and that's an incredibly hard ask. It involves the police, our rugby clubs, our liquor laws, unemployment benefits, schools and much more.
Given the mismatch between the public's expectations and the commission's capacity, is it worth persevering with? Probably, on balance. The $8 million it costs each year is small change in terms of the government's budget, and the current chief commissioner Dr Jan Pryor, arguably the country's most highly regarded families researcher, seems to be slowly, wisely refocusing her team on what she does best, research. Yes, it's easy to dismiss research and say 'we all know what the problem is', but it's also easy to waste time and money charging off down the wrong path, only to find that what seemed like a great way to cut child abuse makes sod all difference.
As Pryor said on Q+A this past Sunday , "I know that often enough the commission is criticised for stating the obvious, but sometimes the obvious has to be stated and restated. We also give the evidence that supports what we say, so we're not just voicing any old opinion".
Pryor is all about evidence-based solutions and independent research. Isn't it worth having that sort of expertise on the shoulder of government? Or, if the anatomical metaphor isn't too much of a stretch, isn't it good to have her and her staff kicking ministers' shins insisting our laws are more family friendly?
The commission will have to get better at explaining itself to the taxpayers who fund it, at showing outcomes and not wasting its time on submissions to the Auckland governance select committee supporting Maori seats and the like; maybe it's time the government changed its remit and told the commission to spend a couple of years focusing exclusively on family violence and maybe it should be merged with the Children's Commission. But maybe Peter Dunne was onto something and we should appreciate the value of having an advocate for families in the government's ear.
