Is the removal of Maori babies "racism and bias"?

According to RNZ:

"Māori babies were five times more likely to end up in state care than non-Māori last year and their rate of urgent entries into state care has doubled since 2010, official figures show.

In that same period, 61 Māori babies were ordered into state care before they were born, compared to just 21 non-Māori.

Children's Commissioner Judge Andrew Becroft released the statistics this morning as part of a widescale inquiry into the removal of Māori babies, aged up to three months old, by the state.

That age group had been selected because that was where the statistics showed there were problems, and because it was a crucial bonding time for mother and child.

Judge Becroft said the figures raised clear questions about racism and bias within the state care sector.

"I've said previously that it's impossible to factor out the enduring legacy of colonisation... or modern day systemic bias," he said.

"Now that, to some extent, will obviously be at play here as it is across all decision-making and all government departments."

The inequities for Māori had grown over time and continued to worsen, Judge Becroft said."

 Is it not also possible that the high degree of risk-aversion rife through the public service is playing a role? After all the  rate of child abuse and neglect deaths has also been much higher among Maori children.

Previously I have posted the official stats as published by the Family Violence Death Review Committee. The most recent:

If the risk is greater based on factual evidence, and authorities act on that known risk, is that "racism and bias"?

But I also have sympathy for those who are decrying the high rate of removal. Personally nothing riles me more than laws, regulations and processes designed to tackle a small minority of offenders being over-zealously or even universally applied.