Comments on: Whanau Ora: privatisation by stealth

By: Whanau Ora could provide Labour opportunity over National « Life and Politics

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:48:56 +0000

[...] have no problem opposing the large-scale devolution of public funds to what may essentially be private providers, who may or may not be as accountable to Ministers as their competition, we shall see. Labour [...]

By: The Chairman

The Chairman — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:11:59 +0000

It’s New Zealand’s version of the UK’s family intervention programme.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/115736

By: What will whanau ora do for the underclass? | Fiscally Conservative Kiwi

What will whanau ora do for the underclass? | Fiscally Conservative Kiwi — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:26:54 +0000

[...] not often that you’ll hear me say this, but The Standard has raised some legitimate concerns about whanau ora. No, not about the privatisation of welfare [...]

By: BLiP

BLiP — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:48:17 +0000

fair nuff – my bad. Although, I understand that, by far, the bulk of the sleep overs were in houses for the intellectually other-abled. But, thanks for the reminder to watch the P’s and Q’s in this area.

By: Chess Player

Chess Player — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:44:34 +0000

“The IHC case is the direct result of National Ltd® turfing out the mental hospital patients without sufficient community funding to provide for their care. The patients suffer …..”

I don’t disagree with you that certain sectors are under funded (or more accurately, that certain sectors don’t get the funding intended for them – because it doesn’t ‘trickle down’ past the bureaucrats), but I suggest you get up to speed with the language before you start confusing people with a Disability with the Mentally Ill…

This may help…

http://www.ihc.org.nz/GetInformation/Resources/Language/tabid/1187/Default.aspx

By: BLiP

BLiP — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:33:01 +0000

As Basher Bennett et al start contracting out social services, lets bear in mind what happens when private organisations are given the reigns. The IHC case is the direct result of National Ltd® turfing out the mental hospital patients without sufficient community funding to provide for their care. The patients suffer and the staff suffer then, when it all collapses around them, the tax payer suffers. How can National Ltd® even be contemplating this sort of nonsense as the results of their previous actions come home to roost?

By: Swampy

Swampy — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:34:35 +0000

Ah, some common sense at last in this thread. Exactly what is wrong with iwi agencies doing the work with their own people?

I think that fundamentally this is a political argument. Iwi leadership is not exactly known for their left wing perspective on how to help their people. They’re known for the most part to be pretty well anti welfare. Waiparareira (Urban iwi authority) is one of the best in the business.

Because really that is what this policy is about, it is about Maori agencies doing it for their own people, which the Maori Party has a lot of knowledge and experience of, and which is proven to work.

By: Bomber

Bomber — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:44:48 +0000

The beauty for National in having the relationship with the Maori Party is that it gives the pretense that National are moderate, likewise the beauty of having the Maori Party front foot this privatization of social welfare is that it doesn’t look like the radical free market economic policy as social policy that it actually is.

By: Bright Red

Bright Red — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:42:33 +0000

so, your argument, Hugh, is ‘trust them’.

Sorry, but when it comes to public money, I want checks and balances, not blind trust.

By: BLiP

BLiP — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:27:09 +0000

Throwing kahu huruhuru over privatisation does not make privatisation acceptable.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:21:41 +0000

Just remember that the private groups will not be large corporations like Fonterra or Telecom, but iwi. Iwi have a long history of responsibly helping out maori people in need, and they have done bloody well without any government support – so a little bit of government support would go a long way, since the networks and procedures are already in place.

To imply that iwi would exclude people in need is not only insulting towards the principles of Maori law and good governance it’s calling into question the very basis of the Treaty of Waitangi, which is based on the premise that iwi will work in good faith towards making New Zealand a better place.

By: randal

randal — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:03:54 +0000

we wish you a merry xmas and ahapy new year.
send me some shares.

By: Draco T Bastard

Draco T Bastard — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:45:15 +0000

Who will write the rules? The providers? What happens to current legislation? How will advocacy groups operate when there are multiple agencies with multiple agendas and rule (policy) books?

They’ll break down of course as the costs of a many to many relationship far exceed their revenue.

By: prism

prism — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:33:28 +0000

Don’t let Destiny turn to density (as in Back to the Future if you remember that bit). There are great things going on in Maoriland that shouldn’t be over-shadowed by sharply dressed, charismatic men and women of confidence. Besides all the talkback chat, there is real work going on with sterling people and money to assist them to continue and expand their programmes will not be wasted.
Incidentally I am not Maori or PI, know my whakapapa and there isn’t Maori at all in it, but I want NZ to be a better place and perceive Maori to be the ones to show us the way. They will, given the necessaries to achieve that.

By: Tigger

Tigger — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:31:56 +0000

So why is English talking of reducing compliance expectations?

It’s because it’s a rort for private business, rolled up in Maori sheep’s clothing.