LINDSAY MITCHELL: Why the vacuum around the new Children's Commissioner?

For those of us who take an interest in child welfare and listen to various media outlets, Jane Searle is a familiar voice. As head of the organisation Child Matters, she was often the go-to person when child abuse deaths occur. As an ex detective who worked in a child abuse team, Jane wasn't afraid to talk about contributing factors such as drug addiction. My first response to her appointment was that she would have to be better than the wet Claire Achmad.

So naturally I am keen to hear what she has to say in her new capacity as Children's Commissioner but can find very little. Here's why:

"Children's Commissioner Jane Searle will be available for media interviews from Monday 17 August."

So she has two weeks grace to get her feet under the table and familiarise herself. Is that unusual? Perhaps the news of her appointment (from August 1) was prematurely leaked? Perhaps because the outgoing Commissioner was going reluctantly?

The single media report I can find is at Waatea News:

"For Māori communities, the appointment comes amid continuing concerns about the disproportionate number of tamariki Māori involved in the state care system and ongoing calls for culturally responsive approaches that strengthen whānau, whakapapa and community connections."

Here we are presented with the Maori worldview (or te ao perspective) which I am not sure Searle is particularly onboard with due to previous comments about the politicisation of Oranga Tamariki and staff inability to just get on with the basics.

But before Searle is available for interviews she was available to the local marae.

Louise Upston wrote on Instagram yesterday:

"This week I joined in welcoming new Children’s Commissioner Jane Searle at Waiwhetū Marae. I know Jane will be a fierce and independent advocate for children. She stands in good stead for the role, with more than 15 years’ combined experience in different parts of the children’s sector, including child protection. Thanks to outgoing Children’s Commissioner Dr Claire Achmad for her passion and advocacy for young people. Go well."

Some people are getting to hear from the new Commissioner.

So in a vacuum I'll have to do my own research and draw my own conclusions.

In a media announcement about her appointment Searle said:

“There are approximately 1.2 million children in New Zealand. Of those, 170,000 live in material hardship. What’s more, tragically last year alone eight children were killed at the hands of someone else, while thousands more live with severe abuse and neglect.

“These are the children who deserve our priority attention. Too often, they are unknown, uncounted, and unseen by the system. They deserve to be supported, and they deserve a safe, successful future.”

My personal view is that the best advocate for the vast majority of children is their own parents. While I agree with her prioritisation of children living with severe abuse and neglect, straight away it is implied that material hardship and severe abuse are linked.

In 2024 Searle did an interview with Mike Hosking:

Child poverty continues to increase, coming as no surprise to frontline organisations

The latest Stats NZ figures show a two percent rise to 12.5% of all children are living in households that can't afford the basics.

Child Matters chief executive Jane Searle says the numbers of two-income families needing the help of community initiatives has risen substantially.

She told Mike Hosking that the "working poor" is now something they're seeing all the time."

Ironically this is the exact same line the outgoing Commissioner was pushing to Jack Tame at the weekend. It indicates an excessive focus on child poverty as a cause for child maltreatment.

Sean Plunket challenged Searle on this association in an interview in 2022 about the death of Ruthless Empire. He said he was not going to let people get away with killing a child because, " 'I couldn't pay the grocery bills and I was unemployed.' You cannot use the economic circumstance to justify barbarism." Searle agreed saying that New Zealand has high levels of methamphetamine use. Specifically, "Methamphetamine's had a huge impact on child abuse." She added that drug addiction, housing and untreated mental health issues all increased risk for children.

The following year she spoke with Michael Laws (who will probably be an MP later this year), again on the issue of child abuse after another high profile case. Laws asked, Why is it that it nearly always transpires that OT knew about the child concerned yet did nothing or not enough? Searle said Oranga Tamariki was not fit for purpose. That there are huge issues with the culture, workload, training, leadership and there has been for thirty years. Of course that criticism was laid while Labour was still the government.

But in April last year she told Ryan Bridge that OT was " ...a very big ship to turn around and it is going to take years. We always knew that. But this shows that the capacity is still not what it should be. If wait lists are still growing it's going to increase risk. There's no way around that."

She constantly calls for more resourcing to tackle child abuse. But what sector isn't calling for greater resource?

Early intervention is also one of her 'solutions'. Few would disagree but what does that mean in practical terms? Uplifting babies? We have seen the massive opposition from Maori over that particular state power. As Children's Commissioner she will have to take a stand on a number of contentious issues. Where will she land?

Her time and experience in police child abuse teams led to her promoting mandatory reporting - timely, given National MP Andrew Bayley's bill to criminalise non-reporting - though that position could change.

I am concerned that she will concentrate on child protection (the bottom of the cliff) rather than looking at what creates the circumstances which lead to maltreatment. Will she advocate for actually using the predictive risk modelling AUT pioneered but Anne Tolley rejected? Data behind the modelling showed:

“Of all children having a finding of maltreatment by age 5, 83% are seen on a benefit before age 2, translating into a very high “capture” rate.”

To this best of my knowledge I am unaware of Searle ever talking about the connection between welfare and child abuse.

I hope that she does remain a "fierce and independent" voice for children as promised by the Minister, and isn't captured by the Wellington wokery or Maori separatists. Advocacy is a waste of time if it doesn't translate into action.