Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Advocating for and with children

By Daniel Donahoo - posted Friday, 9 March 2007

In 2003, children were a key focus of Larry Anthony’s ministerial portfolio: childhood advocate Dr Fiona Stanley as Australian of the year and children were receiving extra funding and attention at all levels of government. The heady days of early childhood advocacy may have past, but there is still work to do.

Australia hasn’t turned its back on children. I think the ongoing development of government programs and continued debates over childcare and parenting indicate we are all interested in supporting children as best we can. But we do seem to have lost sight of why children matter.

It is not fair to say that we don’t care about children: we clearly do. However, what we are losing in our rapidly changing world is the ability to nurture very core parts of our humanity. In the ever-quickening pace and anxiety-driven nature of our society, we are at a loss to foster that in our children.


We have not lost sight of the importance of childhood and youth. But we have distorted what is really important. We have evolved into a market-driven society where work and income are dominant, and this has hamstrung our ability to cater to the needs, that we are told we need to meet, of children.

There is a significant problem faced by those advocating the best interests of children: the message that childhood advocates deliver is often drowned out by their justifications for improving the lives of children. Author Anne Manne refers to this as “groupthink”.

She details an experience in a workshop she attended, held by the federal government, called “Closed Workshop on Non Parental Childcare”. In a two-day discussion, despite some participants questioning the complex nature of supporting early childhood development, the “mob mentality” of intellectuals drowned out any detailed debate about what was really in the best interests of children.

“One early childhood professor went ballistic even at the suggestion of paid parental leave - since it implied that not all childcare was ideal. Others were outraged at the admission of negative evidence because ‘it made parents feel guilty’,” she writes.

Advocacy organisations like Australian Childhood Foundation present an image of representing the best interests of children. And while they do have strong opinions and ideas that we should regard highly, they also come from a strong welfare and child protection advocacy model.

Their primary interest is child abuse and neglect, and supporting changes to the most vulnerable children in our society. This means they also have the capacity to perpetuate our fears about the dangers to children, and reinforce old images of childhood innocence and vulnerability.


They create a clear power structure where they are advocating for, but not with, children. Their work is clearly dominated by the idea that children are threatened by a predatory adult world, and it is their role to protect them.

Another aspect of the problem is that services and funding for children’s services are driven by this fear. Parental fear, but also political fear. Government departments responsible for children and their ministers are forced, through media representations of children who have been kidnapped, abused or murdered, to defer most funding to a risk management approach.

There is value in this for children at risk, but it means that the broader, positive family support and community building activities are not adequately supported financially, and for all the rhetoric are not being given the chance to succeed.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This is an edited extract of Daniel Donahoo’s new book Idolising Children due to be released on March 10, 2007.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

18 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Journalist and columist with The Age, Sushi Das says he is ‘one of today’s young rebels’. Author and ethicist Leslie Cannold has referred to him as one of her ‘gorgeous men’.

Daniel Donahoo is fellow with OzProspect, a non-partisan, public policy think tank. He writes regularly for Australia's daily papers and consults on child and family issues. A father to two boys. Daniel's first book is called Idolising Children and explores our society’s obsession with childhood and youth. Updates on Daniel's work can be found at

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Daniel Donahoo

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Daniel Donahoo
Article Tools
Comment 18 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy