GUEST POST: Oranga Tamariki - Perceptions of Blame

I parted ways with my social work Master’s with the last re-write of CYF/OT legislation. Whanau placement children have demonstrably worse outcomes than general placement children because there is a problem with inter-generational dysfunction (what is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly). So, if recent developments are REALLY about what is best for the children, and not a massive power trip the likes of Turia and Raukawa-Tait are embarking on, then it should be as Henare O'Keefe says, that "...it doesn't matter if foster parents are black, brown, white, purple or green, they need to have the love for children and a passion in their future".

No one alive today has been colonised or has colonised anyone. Every single person has a choice. Both Maori and Pakeha choose to become addicts, or abuse/neglect their kids. (Remember Maori campaigned to be allowed access to booze in 1947 - now there's some campaigning to prevent Maori access to booze, South Auckland Maori Warden David Ratu and a women in Hawkes Bay). But drug and alcohol addiction are still apparently Pakeha's fault.

I am told constantly that “Māori were never asked about Pākeha intervention, it was decided by Pākeha that they would intervene anyway." As if it’s ok with them that standards for Maori children should be lower than other children. No. All children deserve love, care and a decent standard of living (with no abuse) and if families aren’t providing that there needs to be intervention.

Maori have been part of government decisions for a very long time. To pretend decisions made by  CYF, and now OT, excluded them is disingenuous. It's similar to the claim that Pakeha unilaterally banned the speaking of Maori in early schools when a 1866/67 petition to parliament of 337 Maori elders asked that "... there should not be a word of Maori allowed to be spoken in the school."

I am also told child abuse didn’t exist before Pakeha arrival; that Maori children were stolen to be slaves, and this is where abuse was learnt. Such a one-eyed view. Shall we discuss the Chatham Island Moriori and inter-tribal slavery and brutality? No, because that is in the past and as far as I am concerned has no bearing on how anyone chooses to raise their family today. 

In any case, if this claim is the reason why Maori are so high in OT's stats, how come most Maori can and do look after their kids beautifully?

Guest Post by 'The Slippery Slope'

Non-Maori need not apply

This is disappointing.

For many years I've created and exhibited portraits of 'tupuna'. I've also painted many Maori and their children as gifts and given tupuna portraits to Maori people who felt or had a connection to them.

One of the co-organisers of this new competition, the inaugural Kiingi Tuheitia Portraiture Award is the National Portrait gallery whose exhibitions I've previously participated in.

It's disappointing to be barred from entry to this event because I don't have whakapapa links to any tupuna. 

Emerging Māori artists, with whakapapa connections to the depicted tūpuna, can submit either an artwork created in the past two years or an entirely new piece of work.

I might also be challenged on the grounds of 'emerging' but that's a very subjective term in the art world. It may mean emerging in a new medium. But I could live with being banned on those grounds.

However there are hundreds of emerging non-Maori artists who would relish the opportunity to showcase their work but will be shut out  despite the claim that,

"This award is not just for Māori but for New Zealanders, after a turbulent 2020, now more than ever we are looking at ourselves and realise the importance of generating our own projects from home."

It's not for "New Zealanders" to partipate in. And it promotes a sense that only Maori with whakapapa links should be painting Maori. Good job Goldie and Lindauer didn't get that message.

Oh well. It's a free world (hah) and organisers can choose to give a platform to who they want to.

But seen as this is my blog here's a personal offering from my 'cloak series':

 

On John Banks and censorship

I listen to John Banks but wasn't tuned in yesterday when he made comments in response to a caller which were being recorded by an outraged and offended listener using TicTok. The caller described Maori as a stone-age people who are genetically predisposed to crime, alcohol and educational under-achievement. Banks made a typical Banksie response for theatrical effect. It came across as agreement. 

I don't know if Banks is racist. He says he is not.

In an attempt to ascertain how Banks might have responded (much easier in hindsight than heat of the moment) I've put myself in his shoes. I'd have interrupted the caller. I'd have a couple of questions. Why does the condition of a race 2-300 years ago have relevance today? The Pakeha whalers and sealers were a reprehensible bunch sexually abusing Maori children. Getting perpetually drunk and nasty when they came off their sea stints. An uncivilized race of people living in New Zealand at that time. 

But why does that matter now?

Maori and Pakeha in 2021 are generations removed. We are all human first. We are each individuals. The caller's blanket statement is illogical - never mind insulting and hurtful (especially to those who want to be insulted and hurt.)

BUT I am really worried where this new level of censorship is taking us.

By 1/ Magic Talk removing the host and 2/ advertisers pulling sponsorship and 3/ Cricket NZ suspending association and 4/ a non-listener describing Magic as "endless stream of racism, ignorance and general bigotry" (which I will personally attest is untrue), people with ideas like the caller will only get disaffected and driven underground in search of similarly disaffected types.

It is far preferable that they say their piece and hear the challenges. That they get ridiculed or lambasted by listeners who disagree. Which apparently did happen after the call.

Reminding ourselves why Oranga Tamariki removes babies

 According to analysis of actual cases Oranga Tamariki reports:

Typically, there were multiple factors associated with a decision toseek interim custody of a newborn baby. The most common reasons were:

• Substance abuse, particularly synthetic cannabis, methamphetamine or alcohol addiction, often coupled with mental health issues associated with that addiction,including psychosis and suicidal behaviour.

• Partner substance abuse and family violence. This can entail unpredictable acts of violence associated with substance abuse and a history of previous protection orders against the partner. Babies are particularly at risk in this context as they are often close by when the partner becomes violent, have no independent means of escaping the violent situation, and are highly vulnerable to serious physical harm from any assault.

Other factors included:

• Medical neglect, including severe lack of preparation for, and engagement with, the newborn baby.

• Parental difficulties in being able to recognise and respond to the needs of a newborn, including signs of distress.

To prevaricate over whether interventions should or should not occur based on political considerations is an act of abuse in and of itself.

Now there is a clear push for two different systems. Lady Moxon, instrumental to the resignation of Grainne Moss, says:

"The end goal is that we have our own Mokopuna Authority - I'm talking about Māori for Māori by Māori - whereby we're looking after our own children, wherever they are."

All Maori children have mixed ethnicity. But before they are Maori/Pakeha/Pacific/Asian/other they are tiny human beings. 

Tiny human beings whose best interest the grown-ups should be able to agree upon free from political agendas.

"A beacon of kindness"

This is a bit over the top don't you think?

Ex Labour Minister Steve Maharey writes today:

"Ardern has gone on to become a world figure – a beacon of kindness in an otherwise very nasty world."

Does he mean all other world leaders are cruel? Only New Zealand has a kind leader?

What does he actually mean by a "very nasty world"? It's probably as peaceful as it has ever been. It's certainly more prosperous than it's ever been. 

Hell it's not perfect but in general most countries are seeing generational improvement in living standards; longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, better sanitation, and better infrastructure.

I don't know where this "otherwise very nasty world" is.

ACT response to Grainne Moss resignation

 ACT's response to the resignation of Oranga Tamariki CE Graine Moss is spot on. Karen Chhour is part-Maori and grew up in fostercare so has firsthand experience of CYF intervention:

“Oranga Tamariki (OT) will remain ungovernable and continue to fail children unless it’s allowed to focus on the one thing it was established to do, ensure the wellbeing of children,” says ACT’s Social Development and Children spokesperson Karen Chhour.

“Until OT’s mandate and rules are tidied up it is unlikely anybody of high quality will put themselves forward to run the organisation.

“Well intentioned as it might have been, making the chief executive of the agency focus on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi when responding to the needs of Maori children does not always result in the right outcomes for those children.

“Oranga Tamariki’s governing principles and its Act should be colour-blind, utterly child-centric and open to whatever solution will ensure a child’s wellbeing.

“Looking at decisions through the lens of s7AA imposes unworkably competing duties on the chief executive.

“Ethnicity and culture should not be a determining factor in deciding what is in the best interests of our children.

“Shortly ACT will be proposing a Member’s Bill that addresses these issues.

“The Government should drop the politically correct façade that’s holding the agency back and address s7AA itself.”

 

You can read more about OT's responsibilities under Section 7AA here. 

Statistic of the Day

 Statistics New Zealand released latest migration data yesterday. This fact is incredibly sobering:

From April 2020 to November 2020 there were 77,600 arrivals and 133,000 departures, compared to 4.44 million arrivals and 4.43 million departures in the same period in 2019.

There are lots of interesting graphs as well.

I often muse that if a historian was looking back from the future and saw just the graphs (these and the very many others displaying economic activity,etc) they'd be totally non-plussed at what could have caused such a catastrophic and rapid impact. I'd have guessed at a massive war ... but that would leave more questions than answers.

Appreciating our essential services

 A courier driver gets caught short and pees out of sight of the road on a plant.

The property owner is disgusted and in her fury releases the footage to the media.

Now that's what I call appreciation for our essential services.

John Bishop: "Smiles all very well but we need a bold vision"

That's the title used in a column by John Bishop (father of National MP Chris Bishop) published in today's DomPost.

I used to think the PM so loved her position and the cheers of the adoring crowd that she would not do anything that risked losing or lessening her position at the pinnacle of admiration.

I have now moved away from that to the much less charitable view that she doesn’t know what to do. She has no real vision of what she wants New Zealand to be like, beyond the usual clichés.

I shared the second view when she was an opposition MP with the social development portfolio and have never had reason to change it. 

First Jobseeker data of the year

MSD's first jobseeker data for the year shows that on New Years Day there were 212,441 people receiving a Jobseeker benefit. Just a week later that had risen to 213,755 - a net difference of  1,314. That's a heck of a jump in just a week.

BUT benefit numbers always spike over summer.

So to make a meaningful comparison I've charted the difference in Sept and Dec quarter Jobseeker numbers for the last 5 years:

Clearly, and not surprisingly, this summer is different.

(The 31/12/20 number is not available yet so I used 1/1/21).

"Clear consequences" aka sanctions

Below is an extract from a Government policy statement:

Given today's Labour varietal you may be surprised to know that statement came from PM Helen Clark and Social Developemnt Minister Maharey in 2001, from Pathways to Opportunity.

Subsequently reliance on the unemployment benefit did decrease markedly:

HOWEVER reliance on invalid and sickness benefits increased (with a good part of the growth in mental health incapacity)...

...and DPB dependence reduced only slightly:

Anyway, back to the "clear consequences" aka sanctions.

The Labour government elected in 2017 was an entirely different kettle of fish.

Here is Simon Bridges in 2018 basically singing from the old Labour hymn sheet:

On TVNZ1's Breakfast yesterday, Mr Bridges said sanctions on benefit payments gave expectations and incentivised people to work, and the loosening of the rules was "unfair".  

"It's unfair on taxpayers who work hard and expect to see their money well spent. But it's also not fair to the beneficiaries frankly."

....When asked if she agreed with Mr Bridges about using sanctions to incentivise people to get off the benefit, Ms Sepuloni said there was "a lot of evidence to show that actually in many cases they don't work".

The application of sanctions reduced substantially. So what hppened next?

To be fair to Sepuloni I've only extracted data to pre-covid:

On the evidence presented here I believe Clark and Maharey were correct; Simon Bridges was correct and Carmel Sepuloni is whistling dixie.

Pharmac under the gun

Stuff 's editorial stance now is to inspect every institution from a grievance angle.

In the process their journalists are actually practising racism.

Pharmac has only 3 staff who identify as Maori. This is apparently "absolutely appalling" for a "...drug-buying agency vowing to prioritise Māori leadership and uphold the Treaty of Waitangi as a way to ensure better health outcomes for Māori."

The inequitable access by Maori to medicines is implicitly, at least partly,  the fault of Pharmac decisions. Therefore the existing Pharmac workforce doesn't care about Maori. That's racist thinking right there.

Pharmac is an agency tasked with making impartial and objective decisions about medicine funding as their very core task.

The 'representation argument' taken further would require that Pharmac address why only 32% of their staff are male. And less than 4 percent are Asian. But nobody is jumping up and down about those realities. (I note that one in five staff does not disclose their ethnicity which leads me to suspect they don't see the relevance. There may be Maori among them.)

BUT like the many arms of the public service, Pharmac are succumbing:

Pharmac was also focused on developing cultural competency across the organisation and ridding itself of “unconscious bias” recognising “systemic racism” was a key determinant of Māori health, Simpson said.

Simpson is the Pharmac's inaugural chief Māori advisor.

So not insubstantial sums from Pharmac's budget are already being spent for training when they should be used for medicines.

For Maori and anybody else who needs them.

 

Only one in five victims attends a FGC

From Oranga Tamariki: 

Youth justice family group conferences (FGCs) give the child or young person – with their whānau, victims and professionals – a chance to help find solutions when they have offended.

But victim participation rate in Family Group Conferences - the holy grail of youth justice - is very low. Hence, I imagine, the reason OT commissioned Behavioural Insights to study why.

Only about one in five victims physically attends.

The reasons given by interviewed non-attendees are not being able to take time from work and non-compenastion for travel,childcare costs incurred etc. Fear of retribution rates a mention. Also victims were unhappy with reparations or lack of for stolen, damaged or destroyed property. This makes perfect sense.

Another obstruction uncovered was that non-Maori co-ordinators had trouble "understanding te ao Maori, engaging effectively and providing culturally appropriate support to young people, whanau and victims." The implication seems to be a failure on the part of non-Maori (also referred to in the presentation as 'white') a pattern of blame becoming increasingly familiar.

Moving along, the  immediate concern must be the diminished usefulness of FGCs with no participating victim, and the message that non-participation sends to the offender.

According to Andrew Becroft (ex principal Youth Court Judge, now Children's Commissioner):

Most importantly, the FGC provides the opportunity for a face to face encounter with a

victim, which can be very emotional and raw. This is the restorative power of the FGC.

But in eighty percent of cases that potential cannot be realised.

The economics of unskilled work versus benefit

 Straight from the horse's mouth. Harry Tam long-time Mongrel Mob member on why more young people are joining gangs:

“Their parents and grandparents have never worked, they've been on the benefit because they're either unskilled or low-skilled. The economics doesn't make it worth their time,” he said.

This situation has only been aggragvated by our stupid Labour government which has linked benefit rates to wages. 

MSD 2014:

Nine out of every ten gang members have received main benefits.

Ninety-two per cent (3,627) of the total 3,960 known gang members received main benefits from MSD at some stage between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 2014.

The 3,627 gang members spent on average 8.9 years on a main benefit (not necessarily continuously). Over half the time was receiving job seeker-related benefits and nearly a quarter of the time was receiving health or disability-related benefits.

Eighteen per cent of all gang members had received a main benefit for a total of over 15 years, whereas 13 per cent received main benefits for two years or less, and eight per cent had not received main benefits at all.

Add to this that benefits have disrupted family life by fuelling a sole parent industry. Young men joining gangs are either following in  their father's footsteps or don't have one.

Gang expert, Jarrod Gilbert:

“These young people are often raised without the presence of their fathers or other positive male role models."

 The state has actively created and cultivated conditions whereby gangs will grow in numbers.

Kiro made Dame Companion - And didn't she deserve it!

A prophetic post I wrote just under 12 years ago. 

(The petition referred to would have been that opposing the criminalisation of smacking).

Where America goes...

 The saying used to be "Where Britain goes..." but with identity politics paramount NZ is just as likely to follow American thinking and practice. Here's an article from the New York Post. Doesn't take much imagination to draw the parallels with this country and recent political developments in the child protection arena:

"Child-welfare agencies’ rush to go woke is terrible for the kids"

How do we prevent child abuse? First, we have to stop racism. That message has lately invaded the child-welfare system. The triumph of today’s fashionable ideological nonsense in this particular field carries exceptionally high costs — and abused kids will pay them.

More 

Holiday quiz

Here's a holiday quiz for you.

Read the following article to identify what is 

1/ Factually wrong with the headline and;

2/ What is the missing statistic?

Another taxpayer-funded talking head

 If I have a New Year's resolution it is to stop using the word 'we'. I was about to start this post with the sentence, "We appear to employ some very woolly thinkers in highly paid roles." But I am not part of the 'we'. I disagree with the existence of the role and I have nothing to do with selecting the incumbent.

But I was reacting probably to her use of 'we' constantly. 'We' seems to mean NZ as a country. Today it is the Equality Commissioner who has made statements that don't stand up to scrutiny. 

“The aftermath of the Covid-19 lockdown had been a chance to improve society in terms of equality, she said, and the country blew it.

“We all talked about the recovery being the recovery for everyone. Well, that’s not happening now and unless there’s some significant intervention, we’re moving into a more unequal New Zealand, and that’s not the New Zealand we want. 

We made that decision during Covid to pay people who had lost their jobs a different rate to those people who were already on the benefit. It’s kind of like we had this moment in time, we went back to who’s worthy and who isn’t worthy.

“We’ve got to somehow get rid of that, we’ve got to somehow move on from that past thinking to considering every person to be equally worthy of life and of dignity.”

A higher payment rate was based on the outgoings of those who became unemployed during Covid. It was also temporary in nature. So if the Commissioner's framing was sound, people were more worthy for 12 weeks and less worthy thereafter.

Secondly the welfare system moved on from the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' under-pinning decades ago after the Royal Commission on Social Policy of 1972 that embraced everybody's right to participate in society in a meaningful way. New Zealand then started financially supporting people whatever the cause of their inability to support themselves. Those who rendered themselves unemployable would be carried indefinitely. Those who made themselves unmarried, unemployed mothers would be carried indefinitely.

That has not changed.

New Zealand is a country that prides itself on this fact: everybody who cannot support themselves will be supported by the collective by law.

The 'deserving' and 'undeserving' premise under which the welfare state was initially designed (hence dependents stayed low for many decades) was long ago abandoned.

The Equality Commissioner is wrong in her belief that it's alive and kicking. I accept she could provide some sketchy examples eg different rates for different ages, but these distinctions are largely pragmatic. The benefit system is a no fault - and no blame - security system (which continues to cause controversy and political division.)

What she is actually calling for is the philosophical status quo with much higher payment rates. No need to dress it up in sentimental sermonising.

Silly street names

 It is Xmas day and if you didn't laugh..... 

According to the Adam Smith Institute newsletter, "... Birmingham unveiled new street names such as ‘Diversity Grove’ and ‘Equality Road’, though there was no mention of ‘Hard Work Hill’ or ‘Courage Crescent’ or ’Self-Help Square’ or any other virtues that might help us out of this mess."

 It's true.

And not far away, in West Yorkshire, Anarkiwi reports about police defining hate incidents (which are BTW "non-crimes".) From their website:

Examples include:

Verbal or online abuse, insults or harassment, such as taunting, offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures, dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and bullying at school or in the workplace.

Jeepers. It is entirely possible that a 'Hard Work Hill' sign falls under the category of  "offensive poster" by some nutter's standards.

Don't choke on your Christmas pud. There'll be a lot more of this coming our way in 2021!

Happy Days.

Admission and redaction

 Yesterday the build up of prisoners on remand made headlines on Stuff:

The chief ombudsman has raised the alarm over the growth of people waiting in prison that have yet to be convicted of a crime, which are set to be more numerous than those who have already been sentenced by 2029.

In his annual report, published this month, chief ombudsman Peter Boshier​ said the remand population, people in custody awaiting their case being heard in court, already made up more than four out of every ten prisoners in New Zealand.

 I 've blogged about this previously.

So I thought I'd have a look for any relevant commentary contained in the Briefing to the Incoming Justice Minister:

An admission that delays are causing "stress and physical and mental harm." But then frustratingly a redaction. Ironic when the prior sentence refers to improving the public's confidence in, amongst other things, a "transparent" court system.

This situation represents yet another failure of government to deliver the services we are taxed for. It's repeated in housing and mental health, which are both associated with criminal offending. Significant problems escalated under the last govt and I can't see the current one doing much but playing catch-up in the forseeable.