Sad to see Tracey Martin bow to pressure and announce that an incoming Labour/Greens/NZ First government would scrap the right of Oranga Tamariki to remove babies deemed to be at risk from their mothers.
And of course Kris and Kru Kahui never happened.
Winston First stand ashamed.
Not much more needs be said.
No Minister 
Well, she won’t be the minister who makes the announcement after the election or who bears the brunt of the criticism when the first infant is murdered. Along with the rest of NZF she’ll be enjoying time with her family. But haven’t we all become immune to the violence some parents and their friends inflict on their children? I doubt there’ll be much protest over this. The Irish CEO of OT will be accused of racism, Maori politicians will talk about “our people” and every so often one less “our person” will be around to enjoy his or her life.
Maori (the vocal) want their own child protection system. Asserted on RNZ this morning. If ‘child safety’ is being used to advance the cause of Maori Sovereignty that is scary.What worries me deeply about such a racially defined system is the incentive for cover-ups to occur when it fails. Maori elders (the Dames) believe they can control the behaviour of their young but they can’t. They haven’t been able to since urbanisation. And what about the interests of the non-Maori biological parent and grandparents? Are they unsuitable placements when things go awry?
Sorry, but (as I understand it) for someone who distrusts the state to do a good job of being a replacement parent or family – and no matter what one’s political view we would like always agree it is in most cases a second class substitute – that seems a strange objection. Sure there are potential risks in moving to a more Maori-based model compared to the assimilationism if the past…but other than your radical solution of cutting welfare (which is electorally unpalatable so off the table in practical terms), what have we got to lose? Brown kids seem to die in disproportionate numbers no matter what the system, and irrespective of Don Brash-like concerns with alleged racism, ethnic sovereignty and challenges to the European Enlightenment fascination with treating people primarily as individuals, instead of people in dynamic relationships as most function in real life. But ok, devolving Maori problems you Maori to solve is a Trojan horse for Maori sovereignty…
And strangely most around here on No Minister are sanguine when the NZDF covers up and lies to its superiors over an incident where people died at the hands of NZ soldiers – some of whom may have been Maori (not that that had anything to do with any alleged misconduct I hasten to add) – but the theoretical prospect of a Maori-based institution engaging in deception when lives are lost on their watch is something to be avoided at all costs.
Not that much of a fan who see “institutional racism” of crippling proportions under every rock, but the difference in attitudes sure seems to qualify.
And if I sound a bit tough on you Lindsay, it’s due to the anomaly of one ideologue blowing the whistle on another, albeit opposing, ideologue.
Personally, like most Kiwis I prefer what “works” as the suitable criterion when it comes to state intervention on behalf of at-risk kids. With the caveat that the state intervening to act as parent is seldom a win, and there will likely always be failures, disasters and sometimes loss of life no matter what the system.
But that OT took a child at birth (likely with very good reason) without adequately signalling their intent to the mother and whanau should be a matter of great concern.
But if we adopt a Maori run child welfare system, at the first, inevitable, failure the claim will be “the racists didn’t give us the resources”. As well as being the thin end of the wedge it’d be a lose/lose. And how will Maori be defined? A separate system will not work. Following the law might – let’s try that first. This country is sliding into a bi-governed state. It is time to stop that and get on with developing systems which govern the country in the best interests of all. Start with education – if we can get all children emerging from the school system being able to read, write and count the welfare needs will diminish. Health too – it all starts at pre- school.
It is time to stop that and get on with developing systems which govern the country in the best interests of all.
All, of course, meaning the white majority like Max Ritchie. Governing for all sometimes means different rules for some. Should we let the Corporals tell the Generals what to do? Abandon women’s sport? Maybe we should insist the wealthy pay their fair share of tax. And of course, whitie always knows better what is good for darkie than darkie ever could.
“A separate system will not work”. Er, and the one-size-fits-all assimilation model has?! Don’t care what ideologues might say about lack of funding, or colonialism or apartheid or whatever. Like most Kiwis I think I prefer…what will work.
And pre-school? Maybe, although it starts with crap parents and feral sub cultures so not sure that would have much effect without a more holistic approach.
Kimbo, I believe that the threshold for removal of children changed after the White Paper on Vulnerable Children was released. 2014. If a mother has had previous children removed from her care and not returned, then further children would also be removed and become wards of the state. They aren’t removed on a whim. And don’t forget that many children officially under the ‘care of the state’ are placed with extended whanau. You didn’t address my final questions though. Can you envisage the types of problems that will arise under legislated separatism? You do know that Maori partner with non-Maori as often as other Maori don’t you?
Yes, I’m aware of the background including the reforms Anne Tolley instituted, including rightly imho making the at risk child the over-riding concern. And if you read what I wrote carefully you would see that I am in agreement with OT having to remove children. Even if they acknowledge they have done it poorly at times.
No, I didn’t address your concerns because, while they are valid and in the hands of reasonable people are capable of being addressed, I got the impression you are posing them as deal breaking objections, so in effect it was a waste of both our times to answer what were in effect rhetorical questions. A bit like wasting one’s time arguing with Don Brash that Maori seats are racist and a form of apartheid.
Well said, Kimbo. LM and her ilk cling to the caste system that keeps Maori down.
What worries me deeply about such a racially defined system is the incentive for cover-ups to occur when it fails. Maori elders (the Dames) believe they can control the behaviour of their young but they can’t.
Many white parents think that they can control the behaviour of their young. But they can’t. So where are the calls for white people to “step up” and take collective responsibility for individual behaviours?
Imagine this. You are standing at a bus stop. You hear a shop window being broken, you look up and see two youths in hoodies. One white. One not white. You don’t know if one, the other, or neither broke the window, but being a good citizen, you call the police. When the police arrive, which one do you think they will approach first? Nikau? Lyndsay?
…an incoming Labour/Greens/NZ First government would scrap the right of Oranga Tamariki to remove babies deemed to be at risk from their mothers.
Well, that’s simply untrue, isn’t it? Why not actually quote what they’ve said and argue against it, rather than just posting a misleading assertion about the proposal? What you’ve posted here is cheap political propaganda, nothing more.
OK Milt …. you tell us what’s really being proposed. Oh, I know, the Whanau will take responsibility …. just as they did in the case of Kris and Kru Kahui. What I’m seeing is political correctness clothed in a Maori separateness jumper, trumping the wellbeing of the child.
Yeah, nah. What occurred with the “whanau” of the Kahui twins is not what is being proposed. Still churning out straw man arguments, I see
A few seconds on Google got me Tracey Martin’s press release.
What’s actually proposed seems to be that OT will no longer automatically try to remove a new-born baby from its mother if someone complains the mother previously had a child taken into care. Doesn’t sound wildly unreasonable to me. Further info from the release:
Minister Martin said the Government will remove the provisions covering cases where a parent had a previous child permanently taken into care but will retain those for subsequent children where a parent has a conviction for the murder, manslaughter or infanticide of a child in their care.
“For people convicted of these terrible crimes against children, the provisions are an important safeguard,” Mrs Martin said. “But for the other group, there has been concern the law doesn’t work as intended.”
A review of the provisions this year found that they are not always effective, and can have a negative impact on children, parents and whānau. This is because:
They are complex and confusing. The High Court has noted the highly technical language of the provisions and that they are easily misunderstood.
They often involve a lengthy and drawn out Court process which is unsettling for older siblings in permanent care and sets up a hostile dynamic with parents and whānau in relation to their new child. This may increase the risk of parents avoiding engagement with services for fear of having a child removed.
They pre-determine risk. This can encourage social workers to make decisions based on historical circumstances which do not recognise the change and progress parents make.
The provisions shift the onus of proof to parents and can be an added burden for parents who may be vulnerable themselves. It can be traumatic and bring up memories of their older child being removed, at a time when they are trying to demonstrate the positive progress they have made.
“The review showed that change to the law is needed,” the Minister said. “We shouldn’t be disrupting the existing care of children, and parents who make changes and want to care for their children should have a path back.
“Importantly, the changes don’t reduce the Ministry’s ability to keep children safe, using existing care and protection processes.”
What is your disagreement with the proposal?
Kyle Skerton murdered Riley Justin Osborne. Did you demand Skerton’s family take responsibility?
Sean James Donnelly killed Kash Meshetti McKinnon. Did you demand Donnelly’s family take responsibility?
I could go on, but what’s the point? All you see is one more chance to bash Maori and demand collective responsibility for them, but not for you.
PM, I wasn’t disagreeing with that proposal. It’s vital to monitor and react to the effects of legislation. Too often we don’t. I was taking issue with the separatism some Maori are calling for as a response to the report, among them the chair of the National Urban Maori Authority who wants Tracey Martin to resign.
Fair enough – I certainly don’t have a dog in that fight!
PM … so you confirm the precautionary principle is being abandoned then only to be exercised where the parent has a conviction for murder, manslaughter or infanticide of a child in their care. Regular bashing, neglect or sexual abuse don’t figure in the equation. Give me feekin strength.
GF … take your blinkers off . I’m looking a MSD data which has it that the rate of substantiated abuse per 1,000 children under the age of 17 was 11.9 for Māori compared to 5.9 for non-Māori. Of course there’s child abuse right across society but the stats as they relate to Māori child abuse are chilling especially when combined with the refusal by Whanau to cooperate with the authorities investigating allegations of such instances.
Regular bashing, neglect or sexual abuse don’t figure in the equation.
Again, that’s simply untrue. The change removes the provision for pre-emptively ripping a newborn from its mother’s breast on the assumption that it might conceivably be harmed at some future point. There’s nothing in the press release to suggest that neglect, physical or sexual abuse of a child won’t result in a child being removed, so what do you base this claim on?
Engaging with Frink is futile, Veteran, but he should note that the Maori members of my direct family agree with me. Which is not to say that Maori working with Maori is undesirable. Our position is that any response should be tailored to the need. That will include a Maori dimension when appropriate. A separate Maori department is undesirable. Just as separate seats in Parliament for Maori is.
Max … thank you for that. Ditto re my own Maori whanau.
… especially when combined with the refusal by Whanau to cooperate with the authorities investigating allegations of such instances.