Waatea News Column: Oranga Tamariki review: Deplorable, despicable and unacceptable !

34
331

The Whānau Ora report into Oranga Tamariki is out, and it is a deplorable, despicable and unacceptable read!

  • 14 armed police officers were used to remove a five-month-old Māori baby.
  • Forced post mortem.
  • Māori babies five times more likely to end up in state care.

What the hell has happened to this country whereby the State can kick in the door & steal babies with zero oversight or checks and balances?

How dare mourning parents be forced straight to a post mortem despite being told by the Drs that a brain tumour was the cause of death.

How can we pretend to be honouring the Treaty if Māori are having another generation stolen off them and babies being hawked off to a private company for adoptions?

What is most appalling here is that this entire obscenity of a social policy is right wing experiment!

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The end goal here is to save the State money via early intervention, it has NOTHING to do with the welfare of the child or the families these children are being stolen from.

The State uses big data to find mothers guilty of future crimes they haven’t committed yet, parents aren’t allowed legal aid to fight the State, the 0800 number is streamlined to allow gossip to be used as evidence, the Government passed law watering down the legal rights of parents and there is no check or balance to these extraordinary powers!

NZers died and bled on foreign beaches to stop the State from having this level of fascist power!

The power of the State to kick in your door and take your child with zero legal protections is a monstrosity and is the most coercive power the State can use against the individual so why on earth is a Labour Government prepared to die in a ditch for a right wing experiment in social welfare?

It is disgusting that the Prime Minister and the Minister have still not viewed the uplift footage.

First published on Waatea News.

34 COMMENTS

  1. It is disgusting that the Prime Minister and the Minister have still not viewed the uplift footage.

    Yes, that is really slack. For shame.

  2. 14 armed police officers were used to remove a five-month-old Māori baby.

    Also, “The Family Court had approved the uplift order with no prior notification to the whānau. The report says the mother remains traumatised by the uplift, which also included the presence of police dogs.” [my emph.] From Oranga-Tamariki-review-details-inhumane-agency

  3. This from Stuff, // RNZ:
    In one incident, the report said, 14 armed police officers were used to remove a five-month-old Māori baby from a mother. The mother said police and Oranga Tamariki staff converged on her home to carry out an uplift order that had been approved by the Family Court without the whānau receiving any notification.

    The mother thought she was heading to a family group conference at Oranga Tamariki, but instead was met at her door by heavily armed police with police dogs.

    Dame Naida Glavish, who chaired the governance group overseeing the review, said the report confirmed systemic failure and discrimination.

    “The Crown is not honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. There’s been unprecedented breaches of human rights and the treatment of Māori women has been inhumane.

    “We can clearly see from the volume of evidence and the heavy handed approach inflicted on this whānau that something is so systemically wrong. This entrenched behaviour is plain unjust,” Dame Naida said.

    “We are deeply grateful to whānau who had the courage to stand up and speak their truth.” Link here

    The report said the overwhelming conclusion from the inquiry was that state care of tamariki and pepi Māori, and in particular the uplift practices, were never appropriate for the long-term well-being of Māori.

    It suggests with new increased government spending still resulting in poor outcomes for whānau, there is a strong economic case to make revolutionary change to the current system.

  4. Kheala to many of the people that work in this field/industry its a business and it is business as usual. Also they have been allowed to get away this bullshit for too long. Now I see one of our Maori women leaders Naida Glavich has come and said ‘ enough is enough’

    • Yes, Naida is a ‘real person’, not someone just doing their job. She’s not intimidated by all the b.s. and red tape and uniforms and stuff that’s around. I’m thankful that she’s there.

      • Che and Kapua are not Toku Morgan and neither was Morgan anything as competent as Naida. They just suck at collecting donations. They suck at donations and they’ve got no ground game. Yknow TOP got 60,000 party votes and The Māori Party only got 30,000 out of a possible 200,000. We couldn’t even lead to water because they just won’t drink from it.

  5. So much nonsense spouted here. These uplifts are the result of one thing – the state getting serious about doing something about child abuse. When the government gets tough, you are always going to hear the moaning from those who don’t like it. Well, tough shit to them. In particular, changes were made to legislation which means that if a previous history of child is present, the state no longer has to again go through the long and involved process required to do an uplift, as if the first case of abuse happened somewhere else and in another time.

    First, the uplift occurs at the end of a long process, not the beginning. You can bet your last dollar that none of the whanau and their activist spokespeople renting their clothes and gnashing their teeth in the media are in terested in taking the at risk child, because they would have all been asked and assessed for risk. Second the fact that the mother is to stupid to grasp what was about to occur – given she almost certainly has a prior history of child abuse – is more a reflection on her than the state. Third, pause and consider the sort of domestic arrangements that would have the police consider it necessary to arrive with fourteen armed officers and dogs to do an uplift. Probably a gang house, certainly a place where violence, drugs and abuse are commonplace.

    This issue has two sides.On one you have emotive claptrap from people who only hear half the story and who have agendas and chips on their shoulders or who are abusers whose previous behaviour is protected by privacy laws. On the other side you have every clinical expert in the field and a dedicated workforce of field staff determined to all they can to break a cycle of abuse and violence.

    There is a reason the government has refused to intervene in this and that reason is the experts all agree, and government has run out of patience with child abuse and child abusers and now it is acting. New Zealanders are not used to seeing the state exercising it’s power in this way but every time someone complains about the uplifts, I just see another child saved from the epidemic of child abuse.

    • Sanctuary: “These uplifts are the result of one thing – the state getting serious about doing something about child abuse. When the government gets tough, you are always going to hear the moaning from those who don’t like it.”

      Absolutely nailed it here, Sanctuary. I agree with this and with your entire comment.

      Many well-intentioned people clearly aren’t aware of the sordid realities in the lives of the families who have their children uplifted. And it appears that such people also fail to make the connection between what OT must do, and the appalling levels of family violence in this country.

      Maori in general need to be a great deal more clear-eyed about the awful things happening in that part of Maori society which differentially has its babies uplifted. It isn’t the fault of OT, which is just doing the job with which it is tasked. Nor is it the fault of the rest of us.

      • Are you as dishonest as Judith collins and the national party D estter?

        From 2015, or about 5 years after they shafted and shat on law reform to curb alcohol abuse …

        “ALCOHOL A MAJOR FACTOR
        “The Wellington District Child Protection Team was formed in March 2010 with police dedicated to Wellington, Kapiti, Hutt Valley and Wairarapa.
        Detective Sergeant Kylie Schaare has dealt with some of the most horrific cases the unit has seen in the past 12 months.”

        “Alcohol was a major factor ……. which was apparent in a lot of physical and sexual abuse cases the unit dealt with, Mrs Schaare said.”.
        —————————————————————
        https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0907/S00333.htm
        http://www.talklaw.co.nz/document/show/51
        “Both alcohol abuse and dependence disorders are more common among younger people, males, Mäori and Pacific people, and people who have fewer qualifications, lower household incomes and who live in areas of higher deprivation. 50”

        Judith Collins victim blaming …””I see a poverty of ideas, a poverty of parental responsibility, a poverty of love, a poverty of caring.”

        Deputy Commissioner Bush acknowledged the five drivers of crime: ………guess what got top billing….Alcohol.

        “About 70 % of incidents which require police attendence involve alcohol” https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/52179908/new-zealands-problem-with-alcohol-new-zealands-problem-with-^

        “Alcohol, suicide and self-harm
        Depending on the age group and gender,up to 30 per cent of deaths from suicide and self-inflicted injury are estimated to be attributable to alcohol, 26”

        “research indicates ( booze ) outlet density is higher in areas of greater socio-economic deprivation in New Zealand, ….suggesting that people living in those areas may be more likely to experience harm simply because of where they live. “199

        ““research indicates ( booze ) outlet density is higher in areas of greater socio-economic deprivation in New Zealand,”

        Judith collins … “I really reject and will always reject the statement or inference that crime in this country is because of poverty. Utter rubbish. It is about criminality.”

        Judith Collins and National are criminaly dishonest …. hiding their part in keeping child abuse and other social harms like violent crime ,,,, ‘ stubbornly high ‘.

        D estter has been told all this before ,,, Its like talking to a deaf, senile ,racist …. https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2019/12/04/guest-blog-hone-harawira-a-white-man-kills-and-black-people-suffer/#comment-483894

        • Reason: “Are you as dishonest as Judith collins and the national party D estter?”

          I do you the courtesy of spelling correctly your nom de guerre. Please return the courtesy.

          Nothing in your comment in any way contradicts – or is contradicted by – my earlier comments. I haven’t made any observations about alcohol or any other factor driving the violence and crime in that part of society which disproportionately has its babies uplifted.

          I would greatly appreciate it if you would read comments carefully before you respond to them.

          “Judith Collins victim blaming …””I see a poverty of ideas, a poverty of parental responsibility, a poverty of love, a poverty of caring.””

          Collins is right, you know. Remember who the victims are: the babies and children, the subject of this post. There are other victims as well, but this post is about OT, and what it must do.

          “Judith collins … “I really reject and will always reject the statement or inference that crime in this country is because of poverty. Utter rubbish. It is about criminality.””

          Collins’s view is widely-held. She’s entitled to her opinion, though I see it as a bit one-dimensional. However, it’s incontrovertible that not all poor people commit crime. And not all criminals are poor. So to that extent she’s right: it’s just that her perspective isn’t sufficiently nuanced.

          What does she mean by “criminality”? I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that she means “inherently criminal”. That’s nonsense, of course: no humans are inherently criminal, but some people grow up in households and communities where crime is normalised. Everyone has agency: people can choose how they act.

          “D estter has been told all this before ,,, Its like talking to a deaf, senile ,racist ….”

          So here we have not just inability to spell, but also insults. Which is the point at which it becomes obvious that you’re out of substantive counter-arguments.

          It’s clear that you don’t read my comments carefully – or possibly at all – before you react.

          It seems to me that you take all critique personally, hence your overreaction. I do not know why this is so, though I could speculate.

          In any event, it’d be better for your blood pressure – and the debate – if you were to read comments carefully and respond to what’s actually said, rather than what you think they’ve said. And without blowing your stack.

    • So, DEsterreThere’s a big set of propositions about children out there in fact there’s an infinite set of propositions out there. I could say this kid has hair then I could just change the number from 1-9 all the way to infinity so that’s infinite propositions just about the hair on your head.

      Some very small slither of those propositions are propositions that we know of and are aware of and propositions that we’ve thought about and these are propositions that we have attitude about. So we say this is true, this is false I’m pretty sure this is true and so on and so on.

      And if I’m unclear a proposition is a statement capable of having truth value.

      Example: the sky is blue. This is a proposition

      Example: the ministry for children. This is not true thus not a proposition. It’s noun, how are you doing today is not a proposition.

      So when we talk about child welfare and wellbeing you and I and Sanctuary are going to have different attitudes and we think the other is wrong for the attitude we each hold. In this case it’s the conclusion to Sanctuary’s primary argument and he is incoherent because his arguments is unsound. I think it’s false to protect the reputation of the crown and its agents by removing children from the care of there parents. And now I’m going to take the neutral position by being uncertain if that conclusion is true.

      Now you, Desterre, would persuade me of the notion that protecting the crowns reputation is true with the means of connecting propositions together to build an inference between the proposition that A) the crown has an obligation to children and B) that child welfare and safety is a crown obligation.

      Now the idea is that you can give some argument where the conclusion is the proposition that we have differing attitudes towards.

      Ideally the premise that makes up your proposition will have the shared attitudes towards the crown so Desterre, Sanctuary and Sam will have the same attitudes towards the crown in order for your propositions to be true. In this way I, Sam, will have to be committed to changing my attitude about one of your premises or, accepting the conclusion that state intervention into the affairs of Māori is ethically and morally sound.

      So if the premises still have propositions that we still have disagreeing attitudes then we need to ask for further arguments that lead up to another premises before we can arrive at the conclusion that state intervention is required or until we reach a level where we each share the same attitude about the proposition.

      So pretty straightforward I hope. That’s my model for state intervention. I hope that’s beneficial for you to improve your argument for state intervention. I’m saying that I’m open to be convinced. Yknow if you have a number or static or an argument that can override my instinct to reject state intervention then I’ll look it over and agree or disagree.

      • Sam: As usual, I have absolutely NO idea what you’re on about. Though in truth, I fell exhausted by the wayside before I’d got halfway through.

        But I must say that I’m puzzled that you didn’t address this to Sanctuary, to whom I was responding. Though maybe you do reference Sanctuary: I didn’t get all the way through, as I said.

        However. As I remarked to Sanctuary, Maori (of whom I assume you’re one) need to be a great deal more clear-eyed about the awful things happening in that part of Maori society. And what the causal factors are. Don’t scream racism at the rest of us: skin colour is irrelevant.

        • I detect a bit of honesty there so I’m willing to approach this from a neutral position.

          So when I say “protect the reputation of the crown”- what I mean by that in these contexts is as Sanctuary says which is: “These uplifts are the result of one thing – the state getting serious about doing something about child abuse. When the government gets tough, you are always going to hear the moaning from those who don’t like it.”

          So in this contex:

          A) the crown has an obligation to children

          B) that child welfare and safety is a crown obligation.

          Now my concern is that the crown has a track record of failing children and we are speaking under a blog dedicated to the crown failing children so now my question to you is how can I trust that what you say about state intervention is inline with proposition A and B?

          • Sam: “So when I say “protect the reputation of the crown”- what I mean by that in these contexts is as Sanctuary says…”

            I reiterate: why are you addressing this to me, and not Sanctuary? It was Sanctuary who made the original comment, to which I responded. Make your argument – whatever it is – to Sanctuary, not to me.

            • That’s a dodge. You’ve abandoned the position that that Sanctiary has nailed it and even quicker you’ve abandoned the position you agree with Sanctiary and and just invented a new position because you couldn’t defend your old position.

              No your new position seems to be it was all Sanctuarys fault which is reductio ad hominem and it’s quiet a epicentre of sophistry all rolled into one great be Sanctusry did it.

              Either you’re lying about how clear eyed Māori should be or you was just saying the first thing that comes to your mind because you’re pack peddling pretty hard away from it.

        • To Sam, – Don’t get sucked into this.
          (Not saying that you would, but just… don’t. It would only get worse, I think.)

          • It’s okay – I was the person over-reacting. Sam is fine, clearly.

            (I have to say that I am probably hyper-sensitive to anything that I experience as racist. I have been known to throw people out of my house for that reason – and chase them down the road, shouting. I doubt it’s a “woke” thing, – it’s some gut-level reaction that has happened in me since I was knee high.)

            • Kheala: “I am probably hyper-sensitive to anything that I experience as racist.”

              I’ll take a punt that this is directed at my earlier comment.

              With regard to racism, when I was young, we understood it to be the purview of governments, not of individuals. It is only government laws and regulations which can constructively discriminate against – or in favour of – particular groups.

              What individuals think and say simply cannot do that, most especially when a country’s laws forbid discrimination, as is the case in NZ.

              In the decades since, the term racism has become generalised out to a reductio ad absurdum. It now seems to mean “things I say that you don’t like”. Or vice versa.

              This has damaged free speech in many countries; if people criticise people from other ethnic groups, they have the “racism” epithet flung at them. Which has the unfortunate effect of squelching debate and thereby crimping free speech.

              In my response to Sanctuary, I observed that Maori need to be a great deal more clear-eyed about the awful things happening in the families which have their offspring uplifted.

              I said this because Maori activists are blaming OT, pakeha, colonisation…. in fact, anyone or anything but the families themselves who have their children taken by OT.

              If you’ve been following the various news accounts, you cannot fail to be aware of this blame game.

              Jean Te Huia pointed out that the fault lies with those families, not with OT. Denis O’Reilly reminded everyone of the meth epidemic afflicting that part of society.

              In also pointing out these things, I am doing no more than reminding people of the harsh realities. This isn’t racism: it’s critique. The statistics are eloquent: the numbers of Maori babies taken into care, the numbers of Maori on benefits, the numbers of Maori in prisons.

              If we can’t discuss this stuff honestly, there’s a real risk that some hobby horse rider will propose solutions based on the wrong interpretation of the stats. And those solutions will fail.

          • Kheala: “To Sam, – Don’t get sucked into this…”

            Perhaps you aren’t aware of this, but I surely am. Sam has “form” for responding to me with comments that are, at best, difficult to follow, completely incomprehensible at worst.

            On this thread – given that it would have been more appropriate for Sam to direct the comment to Sanctuary – I read the first few sentences of the comment, could make no sense of it, and gave up on the rest. Life’s too short and all that…

            • So you can’t read English anymore? Or you’re faking it.

              As soon as I bring up an argument you retreat into this world of oh, I don’t understand, my IQ suddenly took a dive.

              When it comes to attacking others for there virtue you’re IQ miraculously recovers.

              You’re just a rat. There are many rats in the left movement eating at the hull of the ship. Castro, a little Marco, the aurthers of the standard who just alienate everyone and you’re one of them.

              Of the right was to adopt a softer stance on abortion, gays, trans, welfare, public housing, economics, if the right was to soften on any one of these as Seemore has they’d be able to turn there bad fortunes around, the public would song there name all because of the rats that infect the left movement.

      • Yknow if you have a number or static or an argument that can override my instinct to reject state intervention then I’ll look it over and agree or disagree.

        Hi Sam,

        I think you may have been out of nz for a time (as I was also) – because there were horrific cases of family violence and child abuse over here, with many tiny children, infants and babies, dying. I could not get my head around it even some time after I returned. NZ had one of the worst rates in the world, if not the worst. I started to research it just now and it brought back too many awful memories. I don’t want to go there.

        So, something had to be done. O.T, discomforting as it is, is preferable to what was happening before. Children’s lives have been saved.

        • Yeah, heart breaking. The first point to make is that the role of the crown has been enlarged relative to the role of family caring for children. How ever that has to be made a little more complicated by associating the cases that grab headlines with Māori. It’s pretty easy when talking down to uneducated nobodies who’re thrust into the media limelight all blurry which is why I like to clap back because the crown will always be the dominant sector with in Māori and that’s wrong. That’s not what Treaty Partners do. A treaty partner does not construct a system in which Māori are excluded from raising there own children. Now as I told Desterre if you can show me where the crown has had success in raising maori children because I want to know about. I want to see happy faces, I want to spontaneous laughter because that is an indicator of a healthy economy and I want to be convinced that crown takes there obligations seriously.

          • Sam: address your comments to Sanctuary, not to me. It is Sanctuary who gave a realistic account of what’s happening in those situations where Maori babies must be uplifted.

            I merely responded to that.

            “A treaty partner does not construct a system in which Māori are excluded from raising there own children.”

            All I can say to that is: tell it to Sanctuary. And again: a good dose of realism on your part wouldn’t go amiss.

            If you are indeed living in Australia, you’ll doubtless be unaware of the awful realities of the lives of these families whose children OT must remove.

            OT doesn’t remove children just for the hell of it. Nor does it do so just because said children are Maori. It is disingenuous in the extreme to assert that Maori are excluded from bringing up their own children. If you don’t know that this simply isn’t the reality, then you ought to know it.

            Again: go back and read Sanctuary up above; that commenter is where you need to address any further observations that you may have.

              • Sam: “How do you know I’m in Australia?”

                Because your comments have indicated this to be so.

                Insofar as anyone can take at face value what you say, I think that I recall you actually saying so somewhere, but I don’t have the time to find it.

        • Kheala: “I think you may have been out of nz for a time…”

          Judging by various comments made over several years, I’m guessing that Sam lives in Australia.

          I have family in Australia. They too find it difficult to comprehend the dreadful situation here regarding family violence and child injuries and deaths.

          “…horrific cases of family violence and child abuse over here, with many tiny children, infants and babies, dying.”

          Indeed. It is truly awful. I used to work in the health sector, and we saw some of the effects of that abuse. In addition, from the early 90s, there was much more publicity about the deaths and injuries.

          I still have vivid memories of them. In particular, one murder, because I had a child of a similar age at the time. The ghastly details would freeze your blood: there was a documentary about that child that I simply could not bring myself to watch. I still couldn’t. That was savagery of the most egregious sort.

          “So, something had to be done. O.T, discomforting as it is, is preferable to what was happening before. Children’s lives have been saved.”

          You’re exactly right. Hold onto that view: it’ll sustain you against the political flag-waving and the blame game.

          • Desterre you’re ranting and raving. I just asked a simple question. I don’t need to know how much social capital you’ve acquired from virtue signalling accords social media and if you haven’t noticed that person you whole heartedly agree with dosnt share your resolve. Looks he could careless either. I don’t need to know your background. All I want to know is if you can construct an argument that reinforced the claim the the crown intervening in the a affairs of Māori is inline with crown obligations towards children.

            • Sam: “Desterre you’re ranting and raving…”

              Hahahaha! Everyone can see who’s ranting and raving. And it sure ain’t me….

              I repeat: address your comments to Sanctuary.

  6. Here’s a link to an earlier discussion of Oranga Tamariki. It covers some of the same ground:
    TDB OT Its The Welfare of the State That Matters

    D’Esterre posted an RNZ link there, to an interview with Jean Te Huia on the topic. She described O.T. as the ambulance at the bottom of the hill, and said that what is needed now is “supporting family to be family”. She mentions the impact of the loss of housing, especially state housing, and the increase in homelessness, with families living in motels or on the street.

    She spoke of the need to create a better system, one in which there would be no need to remove children. The answer is in improving those homes where those children are coming from, so that those children can stay with their parents and stay with their families. We need a better system of housing, we to get need a better system of educating our families and our whanau, a better system where our men can work, where they have employment.

Comments are closed.