Abstract:
Several recent inquiries into child maltreatment in New Zealand have recommended “mandatory reporting” legislation be introduced to compel health practitioners to report suspected incidents of abuse to child protection agencies. However, as it relates to health practitioners, the “voluntariness” of the current reporting provision is deceptive. While practitioners are not required by statute to report identified or suspected child abuse, a complex regulatory framework of protocols developed in lieu of a legislative provision imposes duties on many to do so. As such, this paper argues that a mandatory reporting regime already operates within the New Zealand health sector, and accordingly, that introducing a legislative duty is unnecessary. However, the reporting regime created by these protocols has never been assessed. Thus, this paper also seeks to contribute to the mandatory reporting debate by exploring the robustness of the existing framework through analysing the nature and quality of the reporting obligations contained in a cross-section of health sector protocols. Ultimately, this paper shows that while the protocols have established a comprehensive, detailed and enforceable reporting regime, problematic gaps and inconsistencies exist. Given the risk that such variation will lead to discrepancies in the treatment of vulnerable children, the paper concludes that the framework requires rationalisation to ensure greater consistency and coherence in its application.
