MANY OF US want to believe that if Jacinda Ardern watched Melanie Reid’s “Taken Generation” video, she’d be outraged. What person with a heart wouldn’t be? Reid’s exposé of Oranga Tamariki’s failings is an enormously confronting piece of journalism. It has moved Maoridom like nothing else since the Foreshore and Seabed furore of 2004-05. For that reason alone, you would think the Prime Minister might consider the 45 minutes required to watch Reid’s video, time well spent.
Not necessarily. Those advising the Prime Minister will, almost certainly, have dismissed Reid’s journalism as scandalously biased against Oranga Tamariki and its dedicated staff. She will have been reminded that the social workers featured in the video (as a result of which, the PM’s advisers will tell her, they have suffered social ostracism and death threats) were simply doing their best to execute an Order of the Family Court. Something which wasn’t just their job – but their legal duty. Isn’t it more likely that the PM’s been told that not watching the video is the best way of keeping her judgement unclouded by emotion.
Quite apart from the merits, or demerits, of Reid’s video, it is also quite probable that the PM shares the same general view of the Maori underclass as her Labour Party colleagues. This view is shaped not only by the advice of officials, but also by the testimony of Labour MPs’ working-class constituents, and their own weekly contacts with the Maori underclass and its problems. It’s a view more-or-less guaranteed to render the PM impervious to the content of Reid’s video.
It is, after all, incontrovertible that a succession of Labour Ministers of Social Welfare and Social Development point-blank refused to restore Ruth Richardson’s and Jenny Shipley’s swingeing benefit cuts. Nor were they prepared to extend the benefits of the Working For Families programme to the children of beneficiaries.
To this very day, the windows of MSD offices are covered with “Mana in Mahi” (Strength In Work) posters. This determination to place as many beneficiaries as possible in paid employment and/or job training originated in Helen Clark’s Labour-led Government, and remains the Party’s core welfare objective. Dissuading young Maori women from having one child after another is but one of the logical cororallies of Labour’s “From Welfare to Work” policy. It would seem that Oranga Tamariki and the Family Court agree.
Labour’s concerns are, almost certainly, complemented by MSD’s own work in the field of predicting familial dysfunction. Over the past five years, much research has been done on identifying the risk factors associated with domestic and family violence. It would be surprising if, in responding to Reid’s video, the PM’s advisers have not warned her that leaving babies in environments where all of the most serious risk factors remain active is asking for trouble. Better an uplifted baby, MSD and Oranga Tamariki might feel moved to argue, than a dead one.
Nor should we forget the Coalition Government’s extraordinarily limited response to the report of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG). What does it say about Labour and its coalition allies that they declined to implement any of the major and transformational reforms recommended by WEAG? Especially given the overwhelming preponderance of Maori and Pasifika in this country’s most adverse social statistics. How is it possible to arrive at any other conclusion than that this Pakeha dominated government, and welfare system that advises it, is much more concerned withcontrolling the Maori underclass than eliminating it?
Reading the reports of the big weekend hui held at the Mangere Holiday Inn, it is clear that the overwhelming determination of Pakeha institutions to remain in control of poor and marginalised tangata whenua lies at the heart of Maori grievance.
The can be no disputing the historical fact that retaining control was the over-riding objective of the colonial governments that oversaw the systematic destruction of tino rangatiratanga in the 1860s and 70s. Those Pakeha who respond with impatience to Maori leaders who ascribe the present ills of their people to the enduring influence of colonisation should, perhaps, ask themselves if they know of a word which better describes what happened – and continues to happen – to Maori.
The key demand of the weekend hui: that the welfare of their tamariki is the responsibility of Maori; and that the process must be one controlled byMaori; cannot be realised without Pakeha leaders – like Jacinda Ardern – being willing to give whanau, hapu and iwi the legal space, and the financial and physical resources, required to construct a welfare system that works for Maori.
Establishing such a radical new system for taking care of tamariki would, however, require Jacinda and her colleagues to let go of the mechanisms of power by which Maori have been controlled for more than 150 years. That would, necessarily, involve not just Oranga Tamariki and MSD, but Health, Education, the Courts, the Department of Corrections and the Police.
Sadly, I do not see a woman who cannot find 45 minutes to observe what her state was willing to do to a young Maori mother, finding any time at all for that.
This opinion piece swings one way, and then the exact opposite. I’ve heard a lot of people swing the latter way, so particularly appreciated the first half of the column as it provided a different perspective.
Definitely agree with this: “Isn’t it more likely that the PM’s been told that not watching the video is the best way of keeping her judgement unclouded by emotion.”
Sounds good
She should be locked in Arkham Asylum, she’s a charismatic psychopath
and what are your qualifications for such a diagnosis?
the article should say ‘It is time to throw out the colonial furniture’
Our leaders need to be mature enough to discern what to take out of such a programme without their emotions taking over from their judgement. If the people in control have to be protected from some of the evidence they are not up to the job.
D J S
Ah yes, but Māori can’t fix up its own economy because that’s reverse racism, apartheid and race based policy, don’t Y’know.
Likely an accurate assessment of events….however I would suggest that ‘control’ by the Gov is not exclusive to Maori, it is the raison d’etre of all elites and that control is slipping away at an alarming rate.
Control is the basis not only of our society but connectedly our economies and the same loss of control is evident there as well.
There is an excellent BBC lecture series currently available on RNZ that covers the issues of legitimacy exceedingly clearly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005f05
The bottom line is Maori have suffered generations upon generations of attacks, theft, discrimination and abuse. It’s up to the government to ensure the resources for good parenthood are available – not steal babies. But the latter measure, which continues the demonization of the powerless, costs much less money and political capital, of course.
As usual, only solidarity from the wider New Zealand population could improve matters – and as that population is enthralled by grown men’s ability to throw and hit red balls right now, I don’t see much hope for Maori’s’ real needs to be heard, respected or met.
And there it is – the broken record. Conservitives will say well why does the taxpayer have to pay people not to work. Y’know there’s a trick to solving this rubrics cube. You say well stuff you then (Y’know I wouldn’t have phrased it so nicely in real life) you say well stuff you I’m going to get machines to pay for it, and you can shove your protosent work ethic right up your arse all the way to the back.
No but seriously what do we do with the next generation of the work force. Y’know I think that they know themselves, Y’know I think they hold great misgivings that they wouldn’t ordinarily share with anyone about the system. So I do think they are ready for change, susceptible to new ideas like a UBI or tax reform or a jobs guarantee or this and that utilitarian ideas social democracies and generating more output than the effort currently being out into the system.
we (Maori ) are tax payers some of us are rate payers and land owners and business people we don’t want hand outs we just want to be treated fair and that has not happened in this country. We are not and will never be one people and foreigners coming here aren’t being assimilated, and they aren’t dumping their ethnicity to appease others. To say we are one people when this country has been controlled and ruled under outdated english common law that favours the colonisers is wrong. We have white flight in the Hutt Valley now is this an action of we are one people nah !
It’s a problem that can’t be fixed, a bit like gun violence in the US.
If the government tries to intervene, they will be called racists. If they do nothing, they will be pilloried for their inaction.
By all means give over responsibility and funding to Māori agencies, who will then discover for themselves that the problems can’t be fixed.
“Reid’s exposé of Oranga Tamariki’s failings is an enormously confronting piece of journalism….”
Like many people here, I’ve watched that video. It’s distressing, especially for anyone who’s held their own – or a relative’s – newborn. We all know the extent to which we’d resist the taking of our child, by anyone. How dare anyone do that! we’d think. And say, of course.
In my view, given the circumstances – the families’, Melanie Reid’s and the cameras’ presence – I’d have expected the OT social workers to back off, at least in the interim. However. My impression was that they were blindsided by the situation. They were acting according to the law, but they didn’t know what to do in response to what they found in that room, because their modus operandi didn’t anticipate it.
But I’ve read the White Paper which underpins OT’s establishment. The motivation is harm prevention: better to take newborns before they can be harmed, than to wait until the damage is done. At that stage, OT must deal with damaged children at best, bodies at worst. We all know this; we’ve seen the sad trail of cases come up before the courts over many years now.
“….it is also quite probable that the PM shares the same general view of the Maori underclass as her Labour Party colleagues.”
I give you the benefit of the doubt here, that you aren’t suggesting that the underclass in NZ is exclusively Maori. Because it isn’t. And others besides me have pointed that out.
“….a succession of Labour Ministers of Social Welfare and Social Development point-blank refused to restore Ruth Richardson’s and Jenny Shipley’s swingeing benefit cuts. Nor were they prepared to extend the benefits of the Working For Families programme to the children of beneficiaries.”
I couldn’t agree more. I’ve said this elsewhere. It is to the lasting shame of the Clark govt that they lacked the courage to roll back both the Richardson and Shipley benefit cuts, and the most pernicious aspects of Rogernomics. To a great extent, we have the contemporary issues, especially with the underclass, because of both the benefit cuts and Rogernomics. Even the political climate of the time – similar to now, when National supporters were gloomy about a Labour government coming in and messing up the economy – wasn’t sufficient excuse for Labour’s pusillanimity. Many of us will never forgive them.
“Dissuading young Maori women from having one child after another….”
For the life of me, I can’t see that as a bad thing. Nor is it restricted to Maori women, I’d point out. Such children are overrepresented in the poverty and harm statistics; anyone who’s worked in poor communities will have seen this for themselves. However, from what I’ve seen, this has been implemented by encouraging women to use long-term contraception, not by taking newborns.
“Over the past five years, much research has been done on identifying the risk factors associated with domestic and family violence.”
Yup. Prevention of harm. On balance, better than having to deal with damaged children. Or the tragedy of the deaths.
“How is it possible to arrive at any other conclusion than that this Pakeha dominated government, and welfare system that advises it, is much more concerned withcontrolling the Maori underclass than eliminating it?”
Given that the underclass isn’t exclusively Maori, this cannot be right. More plausible is that neoliberalist ideology still has much of the government and its advisors in a stranglehold. In addition, since the arrival of neoliberalism, the plague of drugs has also arrived, and has laid waste to much of that part of society. There may well be a significant group in the government which believes that devoting extra resources to the poorest will be good money after bad.
“The can be no disputing the historical fact that retaining control was the over-riding objective of the colonial governments that oversaw the systematic destruction of tino rangatiratanga in the 1860s and 70s.”
That was then, this is now. Nobody now alive is responsible for what happened back then. If you’re adducing what happened then as directly causing the woes of the poorest Maori now, what are your proposed solutions?
“….ask themselves if they know of a word which better describes what happened – and continues to happen – to Maori.”
What happened in the 19th century: colonialism. What’s happening now: neoliberalism and the plague of drugs. It has also severely affected many who aren’t Maori; such people can attest to that.
“The key demand of the weekend hui: that the welfare of their tamariki is the responsibility of Maori; and that the process must be one controlled byMaori; cannot be realised without Pakeha leaders – like Jacinda Ardern – being willing to give whanau, hapu and iwi the legal space, and the financial and physical resources, required to construct a welfare system that works for Maori.”
Giving whanau, hapu and iwi the financial and physical resources to design a welfare system for Maori? Hmm…that might take a bit of persuasion to get pakeha and other ethnic communities to accept it.
There’s a word for by-Maori, for-Maori services: segregation. We’ve not before had segregated services in NZ, as far as I can recall. Certainly not in my longish life. I guess that this is recognition that integration doesn’t work in the long term, despite my generation’s fight for civil rights and integration in the US. This is what’s happening in US universities at present:
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/461097-segregation-tolerance-graduation-ceremonies-vtech/amp/
So: NZ may be next, at least in the arena of child protection services.
A thoughtful review D’ESTERRE.
I keep reflecting that throughout my young life it seemed like there were no racial issues in New Zealand. Not among my school mates or among people who worked around where we lived. There probably were problems I didn’t see but I feel that the problems discussed here do not arise from the ancient history of the colonial era but from the changes in our society’s structure that emanated from the structural changes of the 80’s .
Before that I think our race relations were on a path of continuous improvement. There was a place for everyone.
The attitude of maori was typified by the earlier songs of Howard Morrison. An engaging and distinctive sense of humour from a happy-go-lucky section of our workforce who were mostly content to take home a living wage and relax with the extended family ; and not obsess about making a fortune .
The niche these people occupied has been exported to China and Bangladesh under globalism and neoliberalism. They have been disenfranchised much more recently than the colonial era; what they gained in the colonial tradeoff was taken in the neoliberal . The harking back to the colonial takeover is easier to recognise as before they had all New Zealand and after they had little of it. But the day to day lives of the rank and file people improved in that transition. In the neoliberal transition it distinctly deteriorated.
We have to start managing the country for the benefit of the population. Instead of for a few international companies.
D J S
I may be a bit simplistic David, but when I was young, Maori were not seen as an economic threat. They lived largely out of sight – certainly in the South Island- until they started moving to towns and cities in about the 1950’s.
That prior to the setting up of the Waitangi Tribunal, there were no “race” issues, per se, was largely due to the patience and good nature of the Maori people themselves.
I had the original of a petition to Queen Victoria, given to me by a Maori friend, signed by a large number of chiefs. It was humble, and very moving. My friend, who was Nga Puhi, later asked for it back, as her bro, quite a high profile chappie, wanted it. I had it professionally copied and bound, and then a couple of years ago I gave that copy to a builder, also Nga Puhi, who was big on his history and quite keen to have it.
Race relations, ironically have gone a bit nutty, since the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal.
My friend’s son complained bitterly to me that he and two Samoan girls in his class at Wgtn Teachers’ College, were constantly being asked by a lecturer, or lecturers, whether certain activities were “culturally sensitive.” The three of them just wanted the lecturer(s) to shut up, and stop singling them out.It obviously embarrassed them – in the way the young can get embarrassed. This boy went through Wellington College no different from the other guys, and then suddenly he had “difference” thrust upon him, publicly.
A bit of this sort of stuff goes on to an absurd extent in some work places – and it seems to come mainly from dopey politically correct Pakeha.
The Treaty settlements have made some Pakeha apoplectic, as does the knowledge that some iwi have built up successful business, and are rich.
Anyone would think that people’s money boxes were being robbed, but the sums involved aren’t huge in terms of our national economy, and the fact that urban Maori without iwi connections may be missing out isn’t a good enough reason to object to compensation being paid to those who have received it thus far.
I have no problem with any groups in NZ being able to establish themselves on a sound financial footing. It makes sense, but also,here, it is the right thing to be doing.
Pakeha who object should just shut up too – they’re not being hard done by – and they are very tiresome. Maybe they’re reacting to finding that some Maori see us all as baddies now – and I think there are some Maori leaders should shut up too, in everybody’s interests.
The Tribunal was no doubt conceived as an attempt to redress the clearly identifiable wrongs that occurred during the acquisition period of Maori land. Not the ones that followed a due process at the time albeit they may not have been very fair or democratic either , but an establish process was undertaken. Even quietly paying rates on a parcel of land for years knowing that no rightful part owner was in a position to do so and that there was no iwi organisation in operation to deal collectively with the Council. But this was (still is I ‘m pretty sure ) a legitimate path to alienating land. The Tribunal was set up to redress real theft. But so long later real redress was out of financial reach.
If your car is stolen, and later found, it’s still your car unless you have collected the insurance. “Redress” would have to be the same. Returning the goods to the owner from whom it was stolen. Compensation would have had to be paid at current valuation to the present incumbent. Not to the dispossessed at its monetary value 100 years ago. But this was always going to be out of reach both politically and financially , so all it could ever achieve was renewed resentment on both sides of the deal.
D J S
(as an incumbent of such land)
I can’t speak for Maori David, but I accept that full redress and compensation for land wrongfully taken, and, perhaps more importantly, Maori being marginalised, is not feasible or or possible.
Maori know this, and have contributed and contribute to the legal dialogue – as have Pakeha, and it is one reason I think that the Treaty, and some of the case law would be better studied in schools than Te Reo, because history helps to show us who and what we are.
That brings us back to the comfortable middles class of all ilk, who are often not greatly concerned about anything that doesn’t impact upon their own
narrowly defined interests, and don’t have the wit to think in societal terms, or the breadth of vision to embrace the needs of the future – as also exemplified by our negligence of climate change issues.
People comment on plastic bags thinking bans will save the earth – it won’t, and it’s not the earth that’s at stake here, it’s the humans it is shrugging off – because we’re not good enough for it, or for each other.
David Stone: “I keep reflecting that throughout my young life it seemed like there were no racial issues in New Zealand.”
I suspect that there was unrest, mostly below the surface, until the late 1960s – early 1970s.
I was working in the health services by then, and involved in the union movement; that’s when I remember it coming out into the open. It coincided with a time when young Maori were moving into the universities, and becoming more vocal: the days of Nga Tamatoa.
At that time, there was talk of “when the revolution comes”; the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975 helped to ease some of the tensions, though.
“…I feel that the problems discussed here do not arise from the ancient history of the colonial era but from the changes in our society’s structure that emanated from the structural changes of the 80’s.”
I agree with you. Not that society was perfect beforehand, but those changes had a catastrophic effect, in particular on the working classes, large numbers of whom were Maori.
“The niche these people occupied has been exported to China and Bangladesh under globalism and neoliberalism. They have been disenfranchised much more recently than the colonial era; what they gained in the colonial tradeoff was taken in the neoliberal.”
Neatly put. That’s exactly what happened. Maori were disproportionately – even if not exclusively – disenfranchised. It infuriated me at the time; it still does.
Jacinda can get all emotional watching a cricket match – boo! She could have used that time to watch the Oranga Tamariki outrage. Not good enough Jacindarella
one simple to the problem is for you not too worry andrew as it causes you to write poor english saying we should get married next you will be saying we should all go back to church
Michelle: “one simple to the problem is for you not too worry andrew as it causes you to write poor english saying we should get married next you will be saying we should all go back to church”
Best not to criticise others’ use of English. Instead, engage with Andrew’s argument. If you disagree with the points he makes, say so, and why. Propose alternatives: that’s how debate works.
you sound like you are simple andrew is your middle name simon
Michelle: “you sound like you are simple andrew is your middle name simon”
So: still no argument, just ad-hom from you.
Maybe that’s because Andrew is right? And you can’t think of a riposte. Yeah…that’d be it, I’m sure.
Andrew says: “2. Maori husbands to act like real men and stay with their wives.”
To which I’d add: “and refrain from beating up their wives and children.”
I agree, but also i would like to suggest that people educate themselves on a thing called THE DOCUMENT OF DISCOVERY and the papal bulls – this will go a long way in understanding why we are seeing this and why Maori will always be behind the 8 ball of the old colonial powers that today still have the mentality that this doctrine espoused
don’t think i can put a link to it here but will try
https://upstanderproject.org/firstlight/doctrine
Maori should never have signed up to the colonialist’s lying agenda and the so called Te Tiriti, a piece of lying and disowning document.
Te Tiriti a Document of Lies and Deceit.
Marc: “Te Tiriti a Document of Lies and Deceit.”
In fairness all round, I don’t think that was the British government’s intention.
I’ve done a fair bit of reading about the Treaty and what motivated it. To be sure, that reading was a lot of years ago, and I’ve forgotten much of the minutiae of it.
My recollection is that initially, Britain wasn’t particularly interested in having yet another colony, especially one so far from anywhere. But, given the increasing numbers of European settlers from late 18C and growing lawlessness, it acceded to requests from missionaries and some chiefs to intervene. Also, France was sniffing round, and Britain wasn’t keen to let les Froggies get a foothold here.
I remember reading that the church missionary society had considerable influence over the British government at the time, hence the concept of a treaty. The missionaries wanted the natives treated better than had been the case elsewhere. Especially in Australia.
In the first 20 or so years after the signing, relations were reasonably amicable. But increasing settler demand for land caused friction, and….well, we all know the history. It was impossible for the British government to control from a distance settler government greediness, along with the actions of the NZ Company.
Comments are closed.