Citation only. No copy held in the Information Collection. This item is only available from Massey Unviersity Library

Thesis (PhD - Social Work) - Massey University, 2005. This study asks why the Northern Territory of Australia adopted mandatory reporting of child abuse in 1982 and why New Zealand rejected that option in 1994. It attempts to answer this question by comparing the history of mandatory reporting policy in the jurisdictions of both these locations. By examining events leading up to the mandatory reporting debates in each jurisdiction, the policy advice provided to each government beforehand, and the parliamentary fate of the respective proposals, an understanding of what shaped the policy outcome in each is obtained. The study is qualitative in nature, drawing upon the two social science traditions of archival (or documentary) method and the comparative approach. The limitations of these methods are discussed. Particular attention is given to processes of policy formation and the use made of research in developing the advice tendered to each government. The study asks what advice policy-makers sought and how far they were guided by that advice. The range of standard arguments for and against mandatory reporting is assembled, to determine which, if any, were decisive in the final outcomes. It is concluded that in each jurisdiction, the niceties of policy analysis gave way at the parliamentary level to more determinative political considerations. However, in the case of New Zealand, research-based policy advice was more influential, possibly because of the existence of stronger consultative processes, greater awareness on the part of legislators of alternatives to mandatory reporting, a more critical approach to the assumptions of mandatory reporting, and a determination on the part of the Government that the issue be openly debated.--AUTHOR'S ABSTRACT

nz