His comments on The Hui over the weekend come on the heels of yet another damning report into Oranga Tamariki’s uplifts.
Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier’s report finds that the process to uplift children is being used as the rule rather than as the exception.
Of the 74 cases investigated, Oranga Tamariki were aware of the pregnancies months before birth and only scrambled at the last minute with zero interaction with the Māori support networks that are supposed to step in and simply uplifted the newborn infants.
None of the supposed dialogue to prevent uplifts occurred at all.
That’s because the lip service to dialogue is just that, lip service.
Oranga Tamariki is a neoliberal welfare experiment. The point is to intervene early and save the taxpayer downstream justice and corrections costs.
Oranga Tamariki is there to look after the welfare of the state, not the welfare of the children taken.
This is part of an attempt by the Right to rationalise welfare to just the worst examples so as to save on universal provision of benefits.
To do this National weakened legal rights of parents, denied parents access to legal aid to combat uplifts and streamlined 0800 numbers to immediate response teams.
This entire model is based on Big Data so that once certain risk indicators are ticked off, immediate uplift without notice can occur.
The question must be asked why Labour are so prepared to die in a ditch for a right-wing experiment in welfare that is failing.
Any new Labour Government must look to radically reform the values of this monstrosity because enabling the taking of children with almost zero oversight is simply not a protection agency worth protecting.
First published on Waatea News.
“The question must be asked why Labour are so prepared to die in a ditch for a right-wing experiment in welfare that is failing”
For the same reason it seems, that they’re prepared to die in a ditch for a number of other dysfunctional government agencies. And probably because that core of competent Ministers are already overloaded (such as Little, Woods and Co).
Ministers ir seems can very easily become captured by public service officials – especially when they’re not equipped with adequate bullshit detectors. And even otherwise fairly reasonable and apparently intelligent people such as Jeremy Lambert can quickly become ensconsed in the cistern when the treats and trinkets prey on their egos and contribute to their impressive C.V.s.
How has it all been allowed to go on for so long! – and I mean in terms of years rather than months.
Any change or reform is at a glacial pace while people get seriously damaged – and worse still when it needs to be much more immediate as we need to respond to world events.
This is just one agency that’s been severely infected and none of them are public/civil/people service oriented.
Steady as she goes ………. good things take time ………… Rome wasn’t built in a day (or even decades apparently)
So 3 years in power and now the government come out and say the system is broken – this is just staggering in their arrogance. Why now – it’s an election silly! I’m surprised there wasn’t a 9 years of neglect thrown in there for good reason. What’s Willy been doing for 3 years – sitting on his fist? Crocodile tears – that’s all.
And please don’t blame this on Winston – the old coot doesn’t even probably know or care about Oranga Tamariki
Tracey Martin is the Minister responsible for OT. She has done a shit job. And has sounded like a spoon fed pig ignorant pakeha troll every time she has made any public pronouncements on this shit storm. I am so very disappointed in her. Her complete lack of support for Social Workers is staggering. Her lack of nous regarding the unsound management of this key Government agency is an unforgivable level of incompetence in a government minister. And the NZ public are supposed to accept this because the alternative is National. What stupid fucking people we are.
Shona: “….has sounded like a spoon fed pig ignorant pakeha troll every time she has made any public pronouncements on this shit storm.”
I’m sure that you’re aware of the fact that OT doesn’t uplift only Maori babies. Rather, it relies on a series of risk factors, which can apply to babies of any ethnicity. Given this fact, it isn’t clear to me why Tracey Martin’s being a pakeha has anything to do with anything.
D’Esterre: “…Given this fact, it isn’t clear to me why Tracey Martin’s being a pakeha has anything to do with anything.”
Little understanding of economics and the consequences of a nearly 200 years of colonisation just passed you by did they D’Esterre?
The fact of the matter is Māori have complained about this algorithm for many years. Lets couple that with the fact a minister has refused to make a department accountable for their racist shit by not engaging with stakeholders – makes them a racist piece of shit by default. Do you need more examples of why it’s racist, exploiting power differentials is a tool of the classically racist as well.
So if you can’t see the horseshit racism coming from Oranga Tamariki and the Minister in charge – I’m confused what bubble are you living in…
Ignatius: “Little understanding of economics and the consequences of a nearly 200 years of colonisation….”
In the first instance, I recommend that you go read my response to Greywarbler, further down this comment thread.
Note that NZ hasn’t been a colony, de facto since the establishment of its first government in 1852, de jure since the early years of the 20th century.
Are you seriously claiming that “nearly 200 years of colonisation” – even had that been the case – justifies and explains the fact that Maori disproportionately beat the shit out of, and kill, their and their partners’ children? Never mind the accompanying egregious violence toward their partners? Surely not…
I am of Irish descent. Ireland was actually a colony, ruled by the English (and the British) from 1171 until 1919. The sad history of the sexual abuse, exploitation and trafficking of children there, going back centuries, isn’t blamed upon “colonisation” per se.
In the 19th century and earlier, the treatment of children in the British Isles and Ireland – and in the Americas – was often callous. This reflected a view of children as being assets who were potentially worth money and could be exploited in various ways. It was Lord Shaftesbury in the early part of the 19th century, who pushed reform of child labour laws in Britain and was a vocal opponent of slavery.
“Māori have complained about this algorithm for many years.”
You do know, don’t you, that there’s no “algorithm”? Do you know the history of policy changes in the child welfare sector from about the late 1980s? I certainly do, having at that time taken a great interest in those developments. Judging by your comments, you do not.
The establishment of OT was accompanied by law changes. Social workers began to use a series of risk factors, to determine which children required intervention. Those factors do not include “ethnicity”. If Maori children are disproportionately picked up by those risk factors, that’s due to disproportionate risk.
OT doesn’t take Maori children just for the hell of it, you know. They’re uplifted because they’re at risk of harm. It appears that OT has employed (I think) S78 provisions as a default or first resort, rather than last resort, as intended.
“…accountable for their racist shit by not engaging with stakeholders – makes them a racist piece of shit by default.”
Hmm…giving yourself away as a member of the generation which wouldn’t know racism if it fell over it, as I remarked on another comment thread recently. Racism is what governments do, not what individuals do, think or say. My generation certainly understood this. Nobody can proscribe how people think and what they say.
However, governments can enact legislation and regulations which discriminate either in favour of, or against, particular groups in society. This is what constitutes racism. The signal examples in my lifetime were apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia, and pre-civil rights-era USA. My generation fought against these racist systems. Successfully.
In contemporary NZ, and by the definition I’ve given above, the Maori electoral system is racist. This is indisputable, and I’m surprised that Maori cling to it in the face of that fact.
I’d add that by-Maori, for-Maori child welfare services – which have been advocated for by some Maori and activist pakeha – constitute segregation. Mandate them in law, they’re apartheid. South Africans and Americans would recognise them as such immediately. I’m astonished that anyone would suggest a retrograde step of that sort in this country.
The ” 9 year of neglect” thing is a given now, it doesn’t need mentioning.
Probably why so many scuttled off the blue boat.
The tories in this country have been hard core devotees of this bat shit crazy liberalism for years. It’s a bullshit ideology no better than fascism or communism which is screwing up children’s lives.
Hope to hear Willie Jackson ROAR, on this and other matters. Aotearoa needs his voice now like never before.
Where was the roar 18 months ago when the issues first came to light – that’s right not much more than a wimper. A know he’s a mate of the blog but he is now just another loyal Maori stormtrooper for the Labour party. At least dame Tariana has some values and moral fibre.
Oh course it will be Winston’s fault – the new 9 years of neglect……
Oranga Tamariki is there to look after the welfare of the state, not the welfare of the children taken.
I query this. OT isn’t about the State. It’s about the state of mind of the people involved at the top which involves racism, prejudice, disdain, cold charity, class consciousness, power and lack of welfare provision.
It isn’t good for the State to have these children wrenched away from their mothers and family to some 19th century devised asylum, or cold adoptive parents. I think conservative christians are behind the organisations that run this abomination. And I give them a small ‘c’ because they are more concerned about middle class conformity and appearances than they are about applied Christianity. I noted that the CEO of OT is Irish. I wonder if she comes from Magdalena Home thinking. Bill English and his wife are actively organising in social ‘welfare’, Jenny Shipley had it in for single parent beneficiaries.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4352372/Haunting-images-everyday-life-Magdalene-Laundries.html#
The ‘welfare’ government sector is infected with the idea that women with children and no man are bad and shiftless, and have to be saved from ‘learned helplessness’ reliant on State charity. They spout the lie that work will save them, and in their rabid ideology put any sort of work ahead of actually mothering their children, which should be in a responsible, regular and informed way, but government doesn’t bother to offer classes to ensure they become adept at parenthood. There are barriers to gaining educational qualifications, and National actually cancelled training classes for single parents.
Remember the way that criticism descended on Green Party leader struggling to gain a law degree and also carry out her motherhood role. The fact that she took in an extra undeclared boarder to help with the costs caused outrage and accusations of criminality, lying and defrauding the ‘welfare’ department. Declaring the extra would have resulted in a decrease in her payments when she actually needed more, so she needed to keep it secret.
The two-faced attitude from government to welfare results in increasing deterioration of poor people’s lives; not help to move upwards and be self-sufficient, but determined efforts to make it difficult as all concerned convey the belief that the needy person is a loser anyway, can never manage responsibility, not worth helping. It’s an ugly attitude from authority and very depressing to those supposed to be helped by these gorgons.
some of those ‘nuns’ look like men
Greywarbler: “OT isn’t about the State.”
All through all of its iterations, the prime purpose of what is now OT has always been the welfare of babies and children. That remains the case. It has never been its job – nor has it been resourced – to featherbed useless parents, even though some people think that it is. The government may now be expecting more of the agency with regard to working with at-risk parents. If that’s so, it’s to be hoped that it provides enough resources for the purpose.
“…racism, prejudice, disdain, cold charity, class consciousness, power and lack of welfare provision.”
Aside from the paucity of welfare benefit levels nowadays, I disagree. OT and its predecessors have always responded to need. Sometimes we might question whether these agencies intervened fast enough, or whether social workers took the word of family who couldn’t be trusted. But nevertheless, people did the job that was required of them.
The issue of abuse and crap parenting is largely one of class, not ethnicity. See this:
https://i.stuff.co.nz/opinion/113633133/child-abuse-is-a-national-disgrace–lets-not-forget-that
And this, from a while back:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11607959#:~:text=61%20children%20have%20died%20as,%2C%20neglect%2C%20violence%20and%20maltreatment.
It’s really important to be honest about this situation. If Maori children are disproportionately uplifted, it’s because Maori are disproportionately involved. And that’s because of class: in NZ, class is defined by level of income.
“….to some 19th century devised asylum, or cold adoptive parents.”
We don’t have asylums or orphanages in NZ, haven’t had such things for a very long time. While I in principle do not support adoption, I accept that some children need to be rescued. Foster parents, by and large, do a very tough job. The children they take on are often very damaged by their families, and have serious behaviour problems as a result.
In the 1990s, change of policy meant that children – especially Maori children – were fostered within the extended family. This was as a result of a review of child welfare services in the late 1980s, which found that Maori children were usually being fostered by non-Maori people, which fact was blamed for the prevalence of poor outcomes for Maori.
However. Poor parenting practices are often to be found also in the wider family. And through the 90s and into the noughties, we all watched the sad trail of court cases, when children had been horribly injured, or (often and) killed.
Hence the establishment of OT, and the the use of criteria to determine risk. Children known to be at risk were uplifted at birth, so that they were saved from the damage and deaths that had plagued the years since about 1990.
Which would you prefer? Babies saved from harm, or allowed to stay with mothers and then being injured or killed? I know which I’d rather see.
“I noted that the CEO of OT is Irish. I wonder if she comes from Magdalena Home thinking.”
That’s a helluva trip to put on Gráinne Moss. She’s Irish, so surely she thinks like Them, huh? Do you make an accusation like that because she’s Irish, or because she’s Catholic?
She’s a youngish woman. The Magdalene Laundries were instituted – and not just by the Catholic church – in the 18th century, long before she was born. By the time she’d have reached working age, all of them had been shut down, I believe.
All that’s necessary is to look at the pix in that Mail article. I grew up Catholic: nuns haven’t worn that sort of clobber since around the time of Humanae Vitae in the late 1960s.
I’ll take a punt here: before Moss began working for OT – perhaps even before she came to NZ – she had absolutely no idea at all of the level of violence, in families and toward children, in this country. I’ll take another punt: she was appalled and profoundly shocked.
We should all see this aspect of NZ as foreigners and recent immigrants see it: it’s just awful. And, by God, our child welfare services ought to be pulling out all the stops in an attempt to stem the violence against children!
“The ‘welfare’ government sector is infected with the idea that women with children and no man are bad and shiftless, and have to be saved from ‘learned helplessness’ reliant on State charity.”
You have evidence that this view still prevails in the social welfare sector? I wouldn’t be nearly so certain about that.
When I was young, that was the perspective of the welfare people. My late father died when I was very small. We grew up in poverty as a consequence. Many years later, my late mother told me that there had been some well-meaning suggestions from the welfare – and from within the extended family – that she should adopt out some of us. Being very well-educated and articulate, she resisted them and kept us all, god bless her. Note that we’re pakeha, not Maori.
“…but government doesn’t bother to offer classes to ensure they become adept at parenthood.”
How on earth is this government’s role? My impression is that you and others take exception to child welfare agencies sticking their noses in where they’re not wanted. This is certainly what Maori are quoted as thinking and saying. And yet you expect the government to do this sort of thing, that the rest of us manage perfectly well without. Bringing up children is hard work, but it isn’t rocket science.
“…criticism descended on Green Party leader struggling to gain a law degree and also carry out her motherhood role. The fact that she took in an extra undeclared boarder to help with the costs caused outrage and accusations of criminality, lying and defrauding the ‘welfare’ department.”
I well remember Metiria Turei’s case. I remember, too, that hers was persistent offending. She didn’t tell WINZ the truth about her financial situation, despite the fact that she was being supported financially by her child’s father’s family, I believe. I knew who they were: they were devastated that she hadn’t been honest about this.
But in my view, her most egregious offence was the fiddling of the electoral roll. Remember that? She’d enrolled in an electorate in which she wasn’t resident, from a misguided desire to support a friend.
Stepping down from parliament was the only thing she could do.
“The two-faced attitude from government to welfare results in increasing deterioration of poor people’s lives…”
It has for many years been my view that the level of welfare benefits is criminally low. I’ve spent the years since Ruth Richardson’s Mother of all Budgets – in which benefits were savagely cut – campaigning for the election of a government which would reverse those cuts. To no avail.
In 2017, I voted for Labour: the last roll of the dice for me at my age. And – as we’ve seen – the coalition has failed to do anything pointful about raising benefit levels, despite the urgings of its own welfare working group. So: I won’t be voting Labour again. Certainly not at the upcoming election, maybe never again.
In my view, the current desperate state of the sector in which OT operates is in no small measure to do with benefit levels being too low for beneficiaries to be able to live decent lives. It astonishes me that the current crop of Labour pollies apparently cannot see this.
Greywarbler: “OT isn’t about the State.”
All through all of its iterations, the prime purpose of what is now OT has always been the welfare of babies and children. That remains the case. It has never been its job – nor has it been resourced – to featherbed useless parents, even though some people think that it is. The government may now be expecting more of the agency with regard to working with at-risk parents. If that’s so, it’s to be hoped that it provides enough resources for the purpose.
“…racism, prejudice, disdain, cold charity, class consciousness, power and lack of welfare provision.”
Aside from the paucity of welfare benefit levels nowadays, I disagree. OT and its predecessors have always responded to need. Sometimes we might question whether these agencies intervened fast enough, or whether social workers took the word of family who couldn’t be trusted. But nevertheless, people did the job that was required of them.
The issue of abuse and crap parenting is largely one of class, not ethnicity. See this:
https://i.stuff.co.nz/opinion/113633133/child-abuse-is-a-national-disgrace–lets-not-forget-that
And this, from a while back:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11607959#:~:text=61%20children%20have%20died%20as,%2C%20neglect%2C%20violence%20and%20maltreatment.
It’s really important to be honest about this situation. If Maori children are disproportionately uplifted, it’s because Maori are disproportionately involved. And that’s because of class: in NZ, class is defined by level of income.
“….to some 19th century devised asylum, or cold adoptive parents.”
We don’t have asylums or orphanages in NZ, haven’t had such things for a very long time. While I in principle do not support adoption, I accept that some children need to be rescued. Foster parents, by and large, do a very tough job. The children they take on are often very damaged by their families, and have serious behaviour problems as a result.
In the 1990s, change of policy meant that children – especially Maori children – were fostered within the extended family. This was as a result of a review of child welfare services in the late 1980s, which found that Maori children were usually being fostered by non-Maori people, which fact was blamed for the prevalence of poor outcomes for Maori.
However. Poor parenting practices are often to be found also in the wider family. And through the 90s and into the noughties, we all watched the sad trail of court cases, when children had been horribly injured, or (often and) killed.
Hence the establishment of OT, and the the use of criteria to determine risk. Children known to be at risk were uplifted at birth, so that they were saved from the damage and deaths that had plagued the years since about 1990.
Which would you prefer? Babies saved from harm, or allowed to stay with mothers and then being injured or killed? I know which I’d rather see.
“I noted that the CEO of OT is Irish. I wonder if she comes from Magdalena Home thinking.”
That’s a helluva trip to put on Grainne Moss. She’s Irish, so surely she thinks like Them, huh? Do you make an accusation like that because she’s Irish, or because she’s Catholic?
She’s a youngish woman. The Magdalene Laundries were instituted – and not just by the Catholic church – in the 18th century, long before she was born. By the time she’d have reached working age, all of them had been shut down, I believe.
All that’s necessary is to look at the pix in that Mail article. I grew up Catholic: nuns haven’t worn that sort of clobber since around the time of Humanae Vitae in the late 1960s.
I’ll take a punt here: before Moss began working for OT – perhaps even before she came to NZ – she had absolutely no idea at all of the level of violence, in families and toward children, in this country. I’ll take another punt: she was appalled and profoundly shocked.
We should all see this aspect of NZ as foreigners and recent immigrants see it: it’s just awful. And, by God, our child welfare services ought to be pulling out all the stops in an attempt to stem the violence against children!
“The ‘welfare’ government sector is infected with the idea that women with children and no man are bad and shiftless, and have to be saved from ‘learned helplessness’ reliant on State charity.”
You have evidence that this view still prevails in the social welfare sector? I wouldn’t be nearly so certain about that.
When I was young, that was the perspective of the welfare people. My late father died when I was very small. We grew up in poverty as a consequence. Many years later, my late mother told me that there had been some well-meaning suggestions from the welfare – and from within the extended family – that she should adopt out some of us. Being very well-educated and articulate, she resisted them and kept us all, god bless her. Note that we’re pakeha, not Maori.
“…but government doesn’t bother to offer classes to ensure they become adept at parenthood.”
How on earth is this government’s role? My impression is that you and others take exception to child welfare agencies sticking their noses in where they’re not wanted. This is certainly what Maori are quoted as thinking and saying. And yet you expect the government to do this sort of thing, that the rest of us manage perfectly well without. Bringing up children is hard work, but it isn’t rocket science.
“…criticism descended on Green Party leader struggling to gain a law degree and also carry out her motherhood role. The fact that she took in an extra undeclared boarder to help with the costs caused outrage and accusations of criminality, lying and defrauding the ‘welfare’ department.”
I well remember Metiria Turei’s case. I remember, too, that hers was persistent offending. She didn’t tell WINZ the truth about her financial situation, despite the fact that she was being supported financially by her child’s father’s family, I believe. I knew who they were: they were devastated that she hadn’t been honest about this.
But in my view, her most egregious offence was the fiddling of the electoral roll. Remember that? She’d enrolled in an electorate in which she wasn’t resident, from a misguided desire to support a friend.
Stepping down from parliament was the only thing she could do.
“The two-faced attitude from government to welfare results in increasing deterioration of poor people’s lives…”
It has for many years been my view that the level of welfare benefits is criminally low. I’ve spent the years since Ruth Richardson’s Mother of all Budgets – in which benefits were savagely cut – campaigning for the election of a government which would reverse those cuts. To no avail.
In 2017, I voted for Labour: the last roll of the dice for me at my age. And – as we’ve seen – the coalition has failed to do anything pointful about raising benefit levels, despite the urgings of its own welfare working group. So: I won’t be voting Labour again. Certainly not at the upcoming election, maybe never again.
In my view, the current desperate state of the sector in which OT operates is in no small measure to do with benefit levels being too low for beneficiaries to be able to live decent lives. It astonishes me that the current crop of Labour pollies apparently cannot see this.
Your a racist who denies racism exists De SS
Your the sort of person who mocks and attacks Maori on the basis of crime stats ,,, while ignoring the racism of the police ,,, the courts ,,, and our justice system. ,,,, ie like when you were being snarky horrible sow towards Hone Hariwera ,,, rememeber ??? it was when you were spouting bullshit about the christchurch killer not being a white nationalist racist ,,,,
Anyway you’ve been very good at ignoring Martyns post ,,,, “Of the 74 cases investigated, Oranga Tamariki were aware of the pregnancies months before birth and only scrambled at the last minute with zero interaction with the Māori support networks that are supposed to step in and simply uplifted the newborn infants.” …Blame Maori for that you old school racist.
Personally I think the female paddy whacker in charge of 100% non compliance by her organization should be sent packing.
https://soundcloud.com/pete-dnanz/truth
https://soundcloud.com/pete-dnanz/vlc-record-2016-05-02-06h39m01s-track-13
No such thing as a racist cop or bureaucrat according to De
Any faith-based ideology in the nature of a religion or cult (in this case – neoliberalism) never really works well in politiks. So bloody 18th/19thCentury dressed up with a new label, exceptionalism and bullshit to go with it. “There is no Alternative” – when there are always alternatives; “trickle down” – when we know the exact opposite has happened; “small gummint” – until we get Pike Rivers, crappy infrastructure; worker exploitation and a number of others disasters when things aren’t properly monitored.
Even David Lange ended up realising it was a croc when he called for a cup of tea – even said as much in ‘My Life’ when talking about one or two of his Munsters. I’m afraid its really hard to feel charitable to advocates of “THE faith” when it’s the last thing they are to those they inflict their crap on. Thankfully they’ll die out over time but there’s a shitload more damage still to be done in the meantime. Simple mathematics will make sure of it, and hopefully it won’t be violent.
And yes – it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if Grassy Moss was captured by it all.
In power for three years and now he opens his mouth.
Quite pitiful really.
Just confirmed my vote for the Māori Party – 2 ticks – these labour people are weak.
Ignatius: “Just confirmed my vote for the Māori Party….”
Knock yourself out. Last I looked, it was polling about 1%. Clearly, the majority of Maori don’t vote for it. Like the rest of us (and the Maori in my extended family), most Maori rate other political parties. Possibly Labour, right now.
Comments are closed.