The recent events surrounding the controversial and unquestionably distasteful organisation of teen parties, without mentioning the attendant published imagery, has once again raised a number of thorny issues surrounding children’s rights and obligations. Somewhat typical of our Maltese frame of mind was the endless pointing of fingers in search of an adequate scapegoat to take the blame for the whole situation.
Absurdly, it appears that none other than the Commissioner for Children would eventually appear to be taking the rap for the organisation of the teen parties. Quite rightly, the Commissioner was quick to react to these unfair accusations and explain her role in the whole affair. It was clear that the Commissioner had done her best to ensure that these parties were being held legally. Although held within the limits of the law, it seemed evident that the Commissioner’s hands were tied and very little could effectively be done so that these events were better regulated and monitored, if not cancelled outright.
Only a few weeks ago, a seminar focusing on children’s rights organised by a Labour Party think-tank further lambasted the Children’s Commissioner, accusing her of being “toothless”, apparently absent and disappointing. Although admitting to the office’s limited resources, the speakers unceremoniously piled all sorts of grievances relating to children upon the Commissioner. Yet when one studies the Commissioner’s remit and her limited powers, one can safely conclude that these accusations are abundantly unfair. In a way it is a classic example of “shooting the messenger”.
The Office of the Commissioner for Children was set up under the terms of the Commissioner for Children Act of 2003. The principal aim of the office is to promote the welfare of children and its main focus is to see that Malta complies with the UN Convention on the Rights of Children that was ratified by our country in January 1990. In essence, the Commissioner is obliged to investigate matters relating to children’s rights and needs at a national and individual level. Acting as a focal point, the Office is to “promote children’s rights by being informed directly of the experiences of children themselves”. Furthermore, the Office is to coordinate and promote the various sectors that are directly related to the formulation of legislation and family-friendly policies.
A closer look at the Act clearly outlines the functions of the Commissioner. In essence the functions relate to three primary tasks. Promote, foster and advocate. The Commissioner is to promote the rights and interests of children. The Office is to advocate adequate support for parents whilst promoting the highest standards of health, education and social services for children whilst seeing that the latter are protected from physical or mental harm and neglect and seeking remedy where this occurs. It is evident that beyond this the Office has very limited executive powers.
Notwithstanding its limitations, the Office has made a significant impact on the awareness front and probably less so legislatively. Since its inception, it has been led by three very strong-willed women. Each one of them – in her own personal style – has done her best to move the issue of children’s rights further up the national agenda through campaigns and media exposure. The issues surrounding children’s rights are meshed in a complex social welfare fabric that requires very careful threading. Although it has had limited successes, the Office has for years raised a number of controversial concerns relating to children.
Among these concerns was the need for a comprehensive national policy for children. While there are myriad services, there seems to be a growing need for further integration on this issue.
This envisages a department for children that would incorporate the various strands that constitute the Department for Social Welfare standards. This would include a comprehensive directory for the resources aimed at children’s welfare. This national strategy would confront issues such as poverty and exclusion among children, fostering and residential care, a sex offenders’ register and a sexual health policy.
Probably the most pressing issue is the need for the enactment of a Children’s Act that has been postponed for too long. Successive Commissioners have raised this issue at one time or another and whilst one can clearly understand the need for time to come up with the relative and effective legislation, many feel it is high time that the Act is fleshed out. Clearly, there is too much piecemeal legislation that hinders the effective access of the relevant laws and regulations that govern children’s welfare.
In this context it would be more effective if, rather than continuous finger-pointing, the many stake holders (be they government agencies, NGOs, parents or the Church) come together in an effort to integrate all the different rules and regulations into a practical and comprehensive national policy that would most effectively safeguard children’s rights and obligations.
[email protected]