The Aotearoa New Zealand History curriculum outcome

Regarding the new history curriculum, according to RNZ, "On Wednesday, Education Minister Chris Hipkins urged New Zealanders to check out the content and provide feedback before it was finalised."

It isn't the easiest website to navigate but I eventually found, from the 'draft curriculum', the 'progress outcome by end of year 10'.  This is what students - akonga - will 'know' by that stage:

"I have built my knowledge of stories iwi and hapū tell about their history in the rohe, and of stories about the people, events, and changes that have been important in my local area. For the national contexts, I know the following:

Whakapapa me te whanaungatanga

Migration and mobility

Aotearoa New Zealand has a history of selective and discriminatory practices to control migration, with little negotiation with Māori as tangata whenua. Nineteenth-century immigration schemes were designed to create a British colony and consequently shifted the balance of power from Māori to settlers. Immigration policy has been used to exclude some peoples and to restrict conditions for entry and citizenship.

Identity

Contested ideas about identity have come from youth challenging social norms, and from social actions addressing injustices and societal divisions over values. Māori have communicated their distinctiveness through cultural practices that have sometimes been appropriated and used inappropriately.

International conflicts

Our attitudes towards and reasons for participation in international wars, and the impact they have had on our society, have changed over time. The ways that we have commemorated these conflicts have reflected these changing perspectives.

Tūrangawaewae me te kaitiakitanga

Land, water, and resources

There have been contested views about developing Aotearoa New Zealand and its economic resources. This is especially evidenced by our environmental history.

Mana motuhake

New Zealand’s settler government and the Crown were determined to undermine mana Māori, especially by acquiring Māori territories. The New Zealand Wars and the legislation that followed demonstrated their willingness to do this by any means.

Tino rangatiratanga me te kāwanatanga

Te Tiriti o Waitangi

In 1840, the Treaty promised to protect tribal rangatiratanga. By 1900, it had become the means of regaining what it had promised – rangatiratanga, mana motuhake, self determination. It also underpinned iwi attempts to remedy injustice by working inside, alongside, and outside the Crown system.

The Waitangi Tribunal investigation process and subsequent settlements by the Crown have led to economic, political, social, and cultural growth for iwi. The settlements have also provided an opportunity for reconciliation.

The state and the people

When people and groups have campaigned on or asserted their human rights, it has forced the state to act. This has been evident in the actions of workers’ groups and organisations of women and of wāhine Māori. It has also been evident in law reform in relation to gender identity.

The state and the Pacific

Aotearoa New Zealand has acted in the Pacific in line with its own political, strategic, economic, and social interests. But its actions have also been an expression of whanaungatanga.

In my learning in Aotearoa New Zealand’s histories, I can:

• construct and compare narratives of cause and consequence that place historical events, people, and changes in an extended sequence with links to the present

• actively seek out historical sources with differing perspectives and contrary views (including those that challenge my own interpretation), giving deliberate attention to mātauranga Māori sources. While doing so, I identify missing voices and draw conclusions that capture the diversity of people’s experiences

• make an informed ethical judgement about people’s actions in the past, giving careful consideration to the complex predicaments they faced, the attitudes and values of the times, and my own values and attitudes."

What do you think?

I'll make one response (though I have more). 

I thought that making ethical judgements belonged to the study of philosophy. 

Will 'By Maori, for Maori' be another failed experiment in child protection?

New Zealand seems poised to implement separate child protection services based on ethnicity. Minister for Children, Kelvin Davis says he is against separatism but recommendations of the all-Maori four person panel appointed to advise on reform of OT may carry more weight. We have already seen the influence of others standing behind the appointees compel the resignation of embattled OT chief last month.

So I read the following article with great interest. Canada, specifically Manitoba, has gone down the path NZ now seems destined to follow.

There are parallels with respect to the historic removal of Indigenous children, inquiries and compensation. The responsibility for care and protection of Indigenous children now lies with the Indigenous people:

However, they continue to remove children from their homes in alarming numbers. Why?

I think that if you asked the Indigenous workers why Manitoba apprehends so many Indigenous children – in fact, more than were apprehended at the height of the “60’s Scoop” – the answer an Indigenous worker would give you would be basically the same answer that the non-Indigenous worker of the last generation would have given. It would go something like this:

“We work very hard to keep children with their parents. Unfortunately, in too many situations the parents (often, just the mother) are unable or unwilling to provide a home for the child – usually due to alcohol, or substance abuse issues. Every effort is made to help the parents, but sometimes the parents are unable or unwilling to accept the help. Even then, we make every attempt to place the child with extended family, or with another Indigenous care giver in the community. Only if all of these efforts fail do we make the painful decision to remove the child. Our work is greatly complicated by the fact that many of the children, and many of the parents, suffer from Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD).”

The only significant difference between what child welfare workers from an earlier decade would have told you is that there was very little understanding of FASD until well into the 1990’s.

As a recent analysis of OT cases showed reasons for removal included:

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

The story is the same. Forget for a moment the veracity or otherwise of the systemic accusations/excuses made - until parental behaviours change, children will be at risk, often, extreme risk. 

There are no signs that substance abuse and addiction is abating. Can 'By Maori, for Maori' make a difference?

It is probably a forlorn hope.

The writer of the article, a retired Manitoba court judge and long-time observant of care and protection practice, finishes by putting this question:

"Is it not time to jettison the false notion that a child is nothing more than property belonging to a culture?"

Is that where NZ  will be in another twenty years time when the current, fashionable 'solution' has failed?

MSD makes 'gender diverse' prediction

 

This graph released on Friday is accompanied by an interesting prediction. "We expect the numbers in this category [Gender diverse] to increase over time."

Why? is my immediate responding question.

Is it because MSD prophets expect gender diverse people are more likely to be unemployed?

Or is it because they expect more unemployed people will identify as gender diverse?

(There's a subtle difference between the two)

Or simply that more of the general population will identify as gender diverse?

That might make for an interesting OIA.

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.

Sex with impunity

Sex with impunity is a jolly good idea. Apparently vasectomies spike after Xmas when Dads have spent a great deal of time around their children. I suspect the real reason is that people often enter the new year resolving to get around to things they had been putting off.

Snip Clinic has even offered vouchers for Xmas presents.

Vouchers for vasectomies... Where could we go with that without getting into deep shtuck?

What the heck. Let's go further. Reward points! Cash!! Serious cash even!!!

It's a fact that prisoners have more children than average males. Lets start there. Six months prior to likely release. The inmate could then re-enter society with a serious dollop of money instead of the paltry Steps to Freedom grant of a couple of hundred. In any case 'steps to freedom' by definition would most definitely include sex with impunity - probably the first item on his tick list of  'to-do's'.

Gosh. What a splendid suggestion.

(For the often and easily outraged I have one word - VOLUNTARY.)

Update. My 22 year-old daughter tells me this is a racist post... or, when I batted my corner, could be construed as such. Just returned from 4 years study in Dunedin some interesting household conversations are on the cards.

At face value, an odd juxtaposition

 A couple of days ago I blogged some trends from the Briefing to Incoming Minister for Corrections which included:

- a growing proportion of the prisoner population who have histories of extensive methamphetamine use – associated with significant and lasting impacts on mental and emotional function, including anger control 

-  Levels of violence in the community - the number of violence victimisations recorded by Police has increased steadily over the last five years.

The latest prisoner stats have ben released and show:

A rapidly falling prison population could be the result of a number of factors: fewer admissions, more releases, shorter sentences...whatever, the net number is dropping and it's not the result of more community sentencing which is also decreasing.

Given the widening gap between forecast and actual numbers a significant policy change must be in play.

Andrew Little promised to reduce the prison population and it was an electon year afterall. 

The blue line is odd in another way too inasmuchas I do not know whether to read it as good or bad.

 

Is a return to the bad old days of high inflation on the cards?

 Government will lift the minimum wage to $20 an hour on April 1, 2021:

“This minimum wage increase will lift the incomes of around 175,500 New Zealanders – which means $44 more each week before tax for Kiwis working 40 hours a week on the minimum wage.”

Down the track it will lift the incomes of many more now that beneficiary rates  are linked to wage inflation.

 “Signalling the minimum wage increases over three years has helped give businesses much needed certainty. Next year I will outline what changes we are intending to make in the coming years to give businesses time to plan ahead,” Wood said.

It makes life harder for businesses and there is no increased certainty about supply of labour if benefit payment rates are competing. Earlier Henry Cooke calculated, "...benefits will go up between $27 and $46 a week by April 2023 - between $10 and $17 a week higher than they would under the old formula."

To maintain relativity employers will be pressured to raise the wages of those above the minimum wage and are likely to pass their increased costs along to customers and nobody will be any the better for it.

It's going to be difficult for the Reserve Bank to keep a lid on inflation.

Revised forecasts

 

PREFU = pre-election fiscal update

HYEFU = half year economic fiscal update

"...the number of people receiving a working-age benefit (WAB) (Working-age benefits defined here as Jobseeker Support, Sole Parent Support and Supported Living Payment) is expected to be lower than was forecast in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) 2020. This is mainly because the number of people on Jobseeker Support has been lower than expected. Since the PREFU 20, we saw fewer COVID-19 Income Relief Payment (CIRP) recipients than expected and also a smaller proportion of CIRP recipients transferred to JS than was expected, which contributes to the lower forecast number of JS recipients for HYEFU 20. We also did not see significant growth in the number of JS recipients following the end of the Wage Subsidies."

Source 

My crystal ball is no better than anybody else's. 

But so much activity is predicated on borrowed money.  

Sensationalism?

The hard copy DomPost leads front page with headline:

Abuse in state care 'astounding'

 "As many as 655,000 children went through different care institutions between 1950 and last year and up to 39 per cent of them could have been abused..."

Not included in the lead story was that 1,332 people actually came forward to the royal commission (it appears later in the paper almost as an afterthought).

What interested me was this:

Andrew Sporle, who teaches statistics and research design at Auckland University, says the report risks giving credence to numbers that are far from established.

“If you say these are the results of research they get some sort of veracity that isn’t justified by the source of the data or what is done with it,” he says.

“The problem with that is, once it comes out with somebody’s name on it, then it becomes almost fact because people won’t look at the criticisms, they won’t look at the peer review. It will come out as fact because it’s got the royal commission’s name on it.”

Sporle points out that the Australian royal commission into sexual abuse refused to produce a report on the numbers because the data wasn’t strong enough. He believes the royal commission here should have taken a similar stand.

“That should be the statement – sorry, the data is crap,” he says.

“Their methods don’t take into account the completely different age profiles between Māori and non-Māori, which means there are completely different population dynamics over the last 30 years. Which means they’re massively underestimating the impact of this on Māori society.

“If one of my stage 3 students had done that, I would have failed them. Seriously, it is that bad.”

Corrections - violence increasing

I've been browsing through the various Briefings to Incoming Ministers here and here.  All I've looked at contain redacted sections which is probably ops normal but belies the claim to being the "most transparent government ever" nevertheless.

Here are some interesting trends noted by Corrections:

- an increase in the proportion of the prisoner population who are gang affiliated (now 35%), which mirrors growth in gang membership in communities. Gang members are over-represented in acts of disorder and violence in prison

- a growing proportion of the prisoner population who are on remand, with a strong association between being on remand and incidents of disorder within prison

- a growing proportion of the prisoner population who have histories of extensive methamphetamine use – associated with significant and lasting impacts on mental and emotional function, including anger control

-  Levels of violence in the community - the number of violence victimisations recorded by Police has increased steadily over the last five years.

In addition to this, over 75 per cent of the prison population have convictions for violence in their offending histories, and more than 90 per cent have had a lifetime diagnosis of a mental health or substance abuse disorder.

I've blogged in the past about how the ratio of 'on remand' prisoners is growing rapidly. That trend also rates a mention and this table is provided:

 

Then there is a sub-heading, 'Responding to extremism' :

There has been an increase in the number of people we manage identified as potentially holding extremist views or displaying risk factors and indicators specific to radicalisation or violent extremism. Corrections has taken several steps to respond to this, including by: 

• Establishing a Prisoners of Extreme Risk Directorate – we recognise that additional measures are needed to safely manage those who present an ongoing risk of harm and the potential to influence others to engage in serious violence. 

• Making violent extremism an intelligence priority – Corrections Intelligence operates in support of the Government’s National Security and Intelligence Priority (NSIP) of Terrorism, engages in prevention and disengagement initiatives with partners (government, community and academia), and has supported the development of individualised treatment plans for people displaying extremist views.  

 But then the final paragrapgh is again redacted

Iwi working constructively with OT

The media is always looking to beat-up on Oranga Tamariki. That their Chief Executive is moving on to Internal Affairs is reported thus:

Grainne Moss has confirmed Oranga Tamariki deputy chief executive Hoani Lambert has resigned, but she herself is not stepping down.

A clear inference is made by the framing of the resignation.

Anyway I shall report some positive news about OT to redress the balance.

On December 7 they formed their seventh agreement with Iwi.

This is an agreement to work TOGETHER.

Named Developing Te Rangapū Ahi Kā Roa, the strategic partnership agreement looks to build a sustainable and effective relationship between Oranga Tamariki and Wellington region iwi. It was signed by Helmut Modlik, Chief Executive Officer Te Rūnanga O Toa Rangatira, Wirangi Luke, Chief Executive Officer Te Rūnanganui o Te Āti Awa and Oranga Tamariki Chief Executive Gráinne Moss at Parliament on Thursday...“We want to ensure that tamariki are thriving in the protection of their whānau, hapū and iwi and our strategic partnerships are helping us to continue the downward trend of tamariki Māori coming into state care.”

 

It would appear that some Maori - the radical separatists - want the resignation of Grainne Moss while others do not.

The nasty new collectivism

My parent's generation harboured bigots. People who put all Women, all Maori, all Teenagers, all Poms (to name a few of the flawed) into each of their collective boxes. They lazily stereotyped to their heart's content. 

My generation wrote TV series that highlighted the Alf Garnetts and Archie Bunkers - bigotted collectivists on steroids. Some viewers laughed with them. Others laughed at them. But they weren't muzzled. The players or the audience.

The response came by way of a rejection of nationalism (war), rejection of racism (civil rights) and embrace of feminism (women's rights). Like the welfare state these -isms have well-intentioned roots but get unwieldy, distorted and become a bigger problem than that which they formed to alleviate.

But there was also an underlying move towards individualism. A greater diversity of thought. Enabled by the improving economic conditions.

Individualism describes those who don't conform or subscribe to ANY collective. Individualists refuse to hold allegiance or obligation by sheer dint of type or class which are mere accidents of birth. Their identities, loyalties and reciprocal dependencies are chosen. Not imposed.

This freedom to choose lies at the heart of a truly free society.

I thought we were ever-so-slowly getting somewhere (along with the self-destructive over-indulgences along the way that have caused considerable havoc.)

But right now we seem to have come full circle, and collectivism is fashionable like never before. People hanker to be part of a group - especially those groups perceived as victimised. Grievance is earnestly sought and if the seekers can't legitimately be part of the aggrieved group, they protest vigorously in the group's name. Brand new groups are created and labelled, with the non-member creators then patting themselves on the back for embracing them! Unwittingly people are forced into groups of believers and deniers, enemies or allies. It's almost comical. Almost...

Except the new collectivism is best characterised by its propensity to rapidly lash out at, denigrate and silence any party that questions. Despite their largely collective facelessness, through mass communication they are far more powerful and influential than any individual bigot. This monstrous movement changes the meaning of words and disregards facts. So detractors are left impotent.

Though its economic 'solutions' to inequality and climate change are largely state-driven, its enormous power now displays in controlling the private sector by naming and shaming businesses and manipulating corporate cultures.

None of it is sustainable but they don't care. Because they think the world is ending anyway. 

I took a break to look at today's 'news' and found this from Alison Mau:

“[David] Seymour’s attempt to skewer Mallard for wasting taxpayer money in litigation is misdirected, shallow and self-serving. Why is he not more seriously concerned about addressing, if not his women colleagues’ victimisation by his male co-workers, then the current epidemic of sexual crime experienced by the female population of New Zealand, as evidenced by the 6-month waiting list for help reported by all relevant agencies?

“In short, there is no help. There is just lots and lots of rape and serious sexual assault, everywhere.

“This is the serious concern Seymour should be raising in the media. This is where the serious cost is, both in taxpayer dollars and wasted female potential, most of it young. Perhaps he could initiate a cost deficit analysis to the country about this. He won’t, because nobody cares, least of all Parliament.”

This is the perfect example of everything wrong with the new religion that Mau is part of (kudos that she at least is not faceless).

First the chosen adoption of a severely contorted word - 'rape' - landed Mallard in hot water but devastated an innocent man. Mau approves of going after people first and finding out if they are innocent second.

So then she attacks Seymour for not behaving how she wants him to. Which is to collectively share the guilt of male harrassers because he happens to be a man. Idiocy.

I feel no shame or guilt for being the same sex as Mau.

(As an aside Brooke van Velden has taken mental health as her porfolio and is proposing remedies for waiting lists.)

But what can we do about this stifling atmosphere of convoluted and controlled thinking?

Resist. Communicate with your younger ones. Encourage them to think. Oddly, encourage them to rebel. That's the prerogative of youth. Some of their world view has justified roots, and we should listen. But many of us do have something they don't. A lifetime's experience of the world and its many earlier bouts of madness and mayhem.

Benefit numbers back to GFC levels

Percentage of working age people (18-64) on a benefit just hit 12% or one in eight (377,096).

Last time it was that high was 2010/11 during the GFC.

 

(It should be noted that benefits do usually spike slightly during December/January as students move onto a Jobseeker Support Student Hardship.)

Mallard makes more in a year than was paid to the slandered individual

Mallard makes $296,007 a year. Almost double what was paid to the individual he slandered.

That's what stuns me most about this revelation.

$158,000 seems a paltry pay-out for what the ex-parliamenatry employee endured.

Mallard has no mana going forward. He has no choice but to resign.

36 years is long enough. Bow out gracefully.

Update: There is talk on NewstalkZB that the falsely accused staffer recieved nothing. So was the $158,000 just court costs? Clearly I am not savvy about these procedures.

Update 2: The Taxpayer's Union has launched a petition calling for Mallard to pay the taxpayer back

Cure worse than the disease

The New York Post reports:

Japan is struggling with a mental health crisis as the coronavirus pandemic rages on, with more people dying in one month from suicide than from COVID-19 all year long.

The National Police Agency said suicides surged to 2,153 in October alone, with more than 17,000 people taking their own lives this year to date, CBS reported.

By comparison, fewer than 2,000 people in the country have died from COVID-19 in 2020.

Experts say the pandemic has exacerbated mental health issues due to prolonged lockdowns, isolation from family members, unemployment and other financial concerns, and a lack of school structure.

Expect more examples of  'the cure is worse than the disease' (albeit Japan already has one of the higher developed world suicide rates.)

Those who impose the lock-downs don't have to deal with the god-awful reality of them. They are running around making adrenalin-flowing, power-tripping, momentous decisions, commanding a national, even international stage for perhaps the first and only time in their lives.

The rest of us can eat cake.

PM complains about sluggish child poverty data

 Stuff's Luke Malpass talks to the PM about her future priorities:

Ardern ... nominated housing, child poverty, and climate change as key areas she would continue to focus on in 2021.

In particular, the Prime Minister expressed frustration at how long it takes to measure child poverty data – 18 to 30 months.

The Child Poverty data is collected from the Household Economic Survey. The PM upped the number of respondents from 5,500 to 20,000. Was that likely to increase the turn-around time for collection and publication of data?

However there is data she could get her hands on WEEKLY. 

Children on  benefits are considered to be among those in poverty. That's why the Children's Commissioner wants benefit rates increased. Remember, "One of the best ways to reduce the number of tamariki in poverty is to raise whānau incomes by increasing benefits."

So an early robust measure of child poverty would be the number of children on benefits.

Currently the number of benefits in place is published every friday and lags by JUST ONE WEEK.

Data relating to benefit type, gender, age, ethnicity, duration of stay and broad age of sole parent dependent children are all available. But not the number of dependent children attached to primary recipients.

From my own Official Information requests I know the number has risen. Hardly surprising. But it had risen substantially BEFORE Covid.

So why doesn't the PM use 'children on benefits' as an indicator?

Because she has chosen household income as her primary measure. That's a lever she can pull. Household income can be lifted by increasing benefit income, which she has done in a number of ways.

But there's trade-off. The only conclusion one can draw is that she would rather see children on benefits than see children in poor working households.

Big mistake.

Challenging Stuff's 'Truth Project'

 

Children's Commissioner draws a picture of what he wants

I'd have substituted pigs for buzzy bees.

Source

Stuff's tortured apology

Yesterday Stuff declared to the world that it had been racist in the past but now, in their "brave new era" they will tell the truth!!

So they kick off today with a confession that THEY made Maori the face of child abuse.

To an extent this is true. The media in general focuses on Maori child abuse deaths more than non-Maori, sometimes because the behaviour of whanau keeps the case alive and dragging out over months and years. Cases where the offender pleads guilty and is processed through the system garner less attention.

Anyway they start by slapping themselves over reported likelihood risks. They looked at stories from 2000 about Lillybing and James Whakaruru:

Both stories claimed Māori children were “five times more likely” to be abused than Pākehā children.

The statistic was not correct. At the time, around 25 per cent of children were Māori, and 75 per cent Pākehā: Three times higher, not five.

The figure lowered even further when comparing Māori to non-Māori as a whole. An analysis by the Ministry for Social Development later showed Māori children were around 2.5 times more likely to be abused than non-Māori. A review of literature predominantly published in the early 2000s showed the rate of maltreatment among Māori was consistently double that of non-Māori. 

A rate two or three times higher than other groups is still significant, and the essence of the claim – Māori are overrepresented in child abuse figures – was accurate.

But the inaccurate “five times more” figure was not corrected, and served as a springboard for fevered coverage in the months afterwards, seemingly used as permission to cover Lillybing’s death in a racialised way.

Well let me tighten this with the most recent, and more relevant, Child Abuse and Neglect Deaths (CAN)  official data from 2009 to 2015:

 Māori children were three times more likely to die from CAN than non-Māori children. Similarly, offenders of Māori ethnicity were six times more likely to be responsible for CAN deaths than those of non-Māori ethnicity. When stratified by age, the rate of CAN deceased was highest among children aged 0–4 years and, for Māori, the rate of the children killed by CAN aged 0–4 years was four times higher than the non-Māori rate

Then in an attempt at revisionist impartiality Stuff goes on to bring up names of non-Maori children who were killed in filicide/parental suicide events and under-reported.

There isn't a lot to be said about open and shut cases of this nature. They are mental crisis events which often come out of the blue. The children are seemingly well-cared for, even over-loved. The media can't hammer CYF failure, or police inaction or follow a court hearing.

The reason the two aforementioned Maori child cases garnered so much attention was the revelations of the ongoing abuse and gross neglect leading up to the deaths. To compare them to cases where the parent took their own life is a mistake. In the former we had adults trying to absolve themselves or cover up for someone, ongoing police investigations and a court case; in the latter, parents who no longer wanted to live and decided to take their children with them.

The inclusion of these types of child deaths (9) in the CAN stats probably lowers the Maori likelihoods cited above but the report does not separate the types of CAN deaths by race. However, clues relating to quintile deprivation suggest the filacide/parental suicide cases are non-Maori - though the unusual and very sad recent case up on the East Coast will change the next lot of stats: 

"... among the offenders whose socioeconomic status was known, deprivation differed for the different types of CAN death events. A deprivation gradient was noticeable for fatal physical abuse/grossly negligent treatment death events – two-thirds (67 percent) of the offenders who killed children by fatal physical abuse/grossly negligent treatment were from the most deprived neighbourhoods (deprivation quintile 5) and no offenders were from the least deprived neighbourhoods(deprivation quintile 1). By contrast, the neonaticide and filicide with parental suicide CAN death events involved offenders from neighbourhoods that spanned the range of deprivation quintiles...The distributions of Māori deceased and offenders were skewed towards the most deprived quintile, whereas for non-Māori the deceased and offenders were more evenly distributed across the range of deprivation quintiles. No Māori offenders responsible for CAN deaths lived in the least deprived neighbourhood. "

In conclusion yes Stuff probably did disproportionately report on Maori child deaths BUT there are reasons for this that go beyond race. They relate to the circumstances surrounding the death.

This cleansing exercise Stuff has embarked upon is so bizarre that I wonder if they are trying to pre-empt any future prosecutions for past behaviour? Sounds preposterous but you couldn't rule it out in today's crazy world. 

More likely they don't want to be victims of the senseless cancel-culture.

The inverted world of blameless individuals

The Child Poverty Action Group has issued a stocktake on government's unsatisfactory implementation of the WEAG's recommendations. A WEAG panel member said on radio, one in seven children are on a welfare benefit and that they "can't wait." From the report:

 A background paper to Whakamana Tāngata, entitled The income support system, noted that 168,275 dependent children were living in families receiving main benefits in March 2018...Children cannot wait for more resources, as their minds, emotions, bodies are constantly developing and are often permanently adversely affected by toxic stress and lack of essentials. Our inadequate and ineffective welfare system continues to entrench poverty for children. 

The number had risen to over 217,000 by July 2020.

But wait. In 2019 over 6,000 babies were added to an existing benefit.

Information released to me under the OIA shows that 6,190 caregivers had added one or more 'subsequent children' aged less than 12 months to their benefit during 2019. That represents one in ten of all babies born last year.  For Maori the ratio doubles to one in five.

If their existing children are indeed experiencing "toxic stress" why are the parents having more?Perhaps their existing children are not experiencing "toxic stress"? Perhaps parents don't recognise that their existing children are experiencing "toxic stress"?

Whatever. It isn't the welfare system that "continues to entrench poverty". It's parents who continue to produce babies in the full knowledge a benefit is their only source of income for the forseeable future. 

It's an inarguable fact and yet we are constantly bombarded with bullshit messages to the contrary.

In the same vein a Stuff article has a Maori advocate saying that health services are failing mothers who continue to drink during pregnancy!

OT fights it corner

Oranga Tamariki has taken the unusual step of letting a journalist work alongside a social worker for the duration of an uplift case. It's well covered, not overly sentimental and succeeds in providing an impartial insight into a case of severe physical abuse. It's told through the eyes of a fairly young social worker, Alex McKintosh.

What made me wince (beyond the injury descriptions) was this line:

“It’s not just the public that hate Oranga Tamariki,” she says when she ends the call, “all the other agencies do as well”.

This to explain why she has to push to have a reluctant paediatrician re-examine the child in question.

That makes her work doubly difficult.

I have always viewed OT/CYF/CYPS as being unavoidably stuck between a rock and a hard place, damned for not 'being there' and damned by many for being there.

But they only exist due to parental or other caregiver failure, or criminality.

Without a doubt it is an organisation like any other. Some members will be better at their jobs; better intentioned, better motivated and more effective.

This particular employee expresses a belief in parental redemption but persisted to first and foremost secure the child's safety.

If she is a fair representation of other OT social workers I am reassured.

(Reflecting on this case being a Pacific family, I am unaware of calls from that sector about racism and the need for Pasifika to take charge of Pasifika child protection. I stand to be corrected.)

Highly unusual graph

The graph below shows child entry into state care by ethnicity from March to June 2020.

Can you spot what is unusual about it? Certainly I have never seen a graph representing NZ ethnicities like this one before. Ever.

Source

A debate coming our way

Whether or not to criminalise 'coercive control' - a precursor to family violence.

According to the Melbourne Age:

Coercive control - which can include isolating a partner from their friends and family, restricting their movement, monitoring their phone and controlling their finances - is the most common factor leading up to an intimate partner homicide.

A couple of Australian states have - or are in the process of doing so. 

What is striking about the linked article is how balanced it is with reasoned views from differing perspectives. In NZ a mainly one-sided argument would be presented featuring various anti-male campaigners and favoured by left-wing blogs like The Spin-off, and MSM like Stuff and RNZ in particular. 

I'd suggest criminalising coercive control in NZ is a foregone conclusion once the idea gains traction.

When group dissension becomes THE issue

Because of collectivism and identity politics, and RNZ's obsession with such, when one Maori disagrees with another THAT becomes the story.

Minister for Whanau Ora, Peeni Henare told Maori News that the head of Oranga Tamariki looked about to resign. Minister for Children, Kelvin Davis reprimanded him for stepping outside of his portfolio. Minister of Maori Development, Willie Jackson waded in and said the Maori caucus has a view on the head of OT.

So the story gets headlined that main players are "at odds".

It must be very frustrating for Maori who want to get beyond being Maori first and foremost.

In the same way that a female MP might be thoroughly frustrated if her every word and action was framed and critiqued from a feminist perspective with the actual content and intent overlooked.

The inexorable move to separatism

Maori and non-Maori partner at very high rates. StatsNZ: "In the 1996 census, 66 percent of partnerships involving people of Maori ethnicity were partnerships between a Maori and non-Maori partner."

After reading the statements by various government and state agency players speaking to the Waitangi Tribunal yesrday there is no doubt in my mind that a move to separate child protection systems is developing. For instance:

Assistant Māori Commissioner for Children Glenis Philip-Barbara said the government must determine whether iwi and hapū could take on a transfer of power from Oranga Tamariki.

"What we're asking for is for the government to recognise mana Māori by handing over the power to define, determine and decide what 'good' looks like for tamariki Māori to Māori.

"I don't think we've had a better time in our history as a nation to realise this dream. I'm hopeful that government will step back and understand how important it is to share power as a Treaty partner."

Putting aside the politics, what will this mean for real people?

If a child has any Maori blood, his or her interests will be decided solely by Maori?

Envisage a Maori whanau versus a non-Maori family vying for custody of their mokopuna/grandchild. It isn't difficult to imagine the heartaches that will be involved if the non-Maori family's rights are dismissed because whakapapa links are the most important consideration.

The principle is already given a great deal of weight under current legislation but it can't dominate to the cost of all else.

Stability and security must be paramount when deciding the best interests of children. It's a colourblind requisite. 

"In New Zealand today"

 Karl du Fresne has written the second of what I hope is a series of posts, "In New Zealand today" which highlights various media items that typify the way the country is immersing itself in identity politics. 

New Zealand has to decide what type of place it wants to be: a diverse, harmonious, tolerant, multicultural country with a common interest in prosperity and freedom, or a splintered one in which multiple groups jostle for special treatment on the basis of real or imagined differences of ethnicity, sexual preference, culture, religion, gender or any one of the many other divisive “identities”. I think I know which society most New Zealanders would opt for.

Karl's has to be one of the most important voices 'In New Zealand Today'. 

Pronoun ommission an offence?

The Public Service Commissioner is recommending employees include a pronoun in email signatures. This to signal their commitment to diversity and inclusion.

Get this:

Having pronouns in an email signature signals you as an LGBTQIA+ ally.

So, if you don't want to add 'she/her' or  'he/him' to your signature you are an LGBTQIA+ enemy?

This is exactly like the compulsion to actively support 'black lives matter' or be told your 'silence is violence'.

The use of coercion to make people think and behave in ways the state sees fit is reprehensible.

If a transgender or gender diverse person wants to adopt the practice, fine.

Surely we don't all have to be the same. Isn't that the point about diversity?

More upheaval coming at Oranga Tamariki?

 Back in July I questioned how long the stand off between the head of Oranga Tamariki and Maori advocates calling for her resignation would go on for.

Newshub/NZ Herald is now intimating Grainne Moss' resignation is imminent. With Tracey Martin out of parliament - who stood by Moss as Children's Minister - and her replacement, Kelvin Davis (as well as the PM) refusing to publicly express support for her, it's hardly surprising.

What a poisoned, politicised chalice that position is.

1999 - 2003 Jackie Pivac quit 10 months before contract end after a bad review of CYF

2003 Paula Tyler quit late 2005 just 14 months into a three year contract

2006 -2010 Public service veteran Ray Smith appointed

2010 Bernadine McKenzie appointed and quits in 2015 ahead of Rebstock report into CYF

2016 Grainne Moss appointed from the private sector and ....

Update: Grainne Moss says, "I'm not set to resign, I can confirm I'm staying in my role... I'm absolutely committed to the kaupapa, we've made lots of progress, but there's lots more to do and it's a privilege to be able to have an opportunity to improve the outcomes for tamariki, rangatahi and their whānau".

More tax...more love...more kindness

 

Source

Labour govt gradually increasing % of your income they spend

StatsNZ released household accounts data on Friday.

Important to note they apply to before the lockdown.

Of interest, spending on health, education and housing is increasing as a % of disposable income per capita:

And,

Income tax payable by households increased 7.2 percent to $41.5 billion.

The major point made in the StatsNZ release:

New Zealanders are spending almost everything they earn, with only about $700 million in household saving in the March 2020 year, slightly less than in 2019, Stats NZ said today.“That’s the equivalent of each occupied household, numbering 1.79 million in New Zealand, earning about $412 more a year than they spend,” national accounts senior manager Paul Pascoe said.

NZ's child protection agency is informed by...

 ... a recent Oranga Tamariki paper titled:

UNDERSTANDING MĀORI PERSPECTIVES:Tamariki and rangatahi who are victims of sexual violence or display harmful sexual behaviour

Excerpts:

"Sexual violence and harmful sexual behaviours were considered uncommon before the arrival of settlers."

 

"The idea that men have a right to dominate women or children was not a feature of Māori society and stories about interpersonal violence towards women and children in the past are not common nor was rape widely understood or embedded in Māori language." 

 

Has anybody told the Mob?

Could Oranga Tamariki researchers please approach them with this revelation?

They are bound to see the error of their ways once pointed out by accredited academics.