The Waitangi Tribunal v Karen Chhour

Written By: - Date published: 10:08 am, May 12th, 2024 - 109 comments
Categories: act, child abuse, child welfare, law, law and "order", political parties - Tags:

The Waitangi Tribunal has released an interim decision relating to the Government’s intention to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. This was a provision introduced by the last National Government designed to ensure that Oranga Tamariki had a proper partnership with Iwi authorities.

In a carefully and discretwritten interim report the Waitangi has chided the Government over its intent and directly criticised the propsal. The Tribunal expedited the release of the decision because a Cabinet decision is imminent.

From the report:

There are three matters we wish to raise.

First, we are concerned that the government’s singular focus on implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, and this needs to be corrected before proceeding further. The second is a concern that this rushed repeal of section 7AA will cause actual harm. The third is to draw to the government’s attention a more principled way forward, already available under the Act. This is the periodic review of the legislation and policy provided for in section 448B of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989.

About the haste shown the report says this:

Child protection law is complex, emotive, and difficult to get right Changes to the law call for the utmost care and attention.

The report highlights how poor Minister Karen Chhour’s understanding of the proposal is.

She has regularly claimed that section 7AA has the effect of reversing child uplifts by the Department. This of course involves ignoring the clear provision of section 4A of the Act which states that “the well-being and best interests of the child or young person are the first and paramount consideration”.

The report suggests that Chhour had not even thought about the implications for the Treaty of the Repeal. It refers to the Regulatory Impact Statement on the bill which is as blunt a RIS as I have ever read. The RIS states:

Repealing Section 7AA removes the duties imposed on Oranga Tamariki to recognise and provide a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty The repeal goes against evidence that highlights:

  • Section 7AA has led to strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations to provide early support, which has prevented Māori from entering the Care and Protection system, improving long-term outcomes This also reduces disparities between Māori and non-Māori in care and reduces disparities down the line.
  • The duty in section 7AA(2)(b) has supported tamariki and rangatahi Māori to connect with their culture and develop a positive sense of identity which protects against adversity and supports long-term well-being.
  • The introduction of section 7AA has also played a pivotal role in strengthening trust and relationships between Oranga Tamariki and Māori. Repealing section 7AA is not consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi.

About Chhour’s claim the section has caused well intentioned pakeha caregivers to miss out the RIS states “[t]here is no empirical evidence to support the notion that section 7AA has driven practice decisions that have led to changing care arrangements”.

Numerous Iwi are upset and it is easy to understand why. Chhour is saying without a factual basis that Maori are prepared to put the health and safety of their Tamariki at stake in what is in her view an inappropriate concern about the Ta Ao Maori of their tamariki.

And about the implications for the Treaty of the decision the Tribunal said this:

It is important to note that section 7AA is a Treaty clause which puts in issue fundamental article 2 rights reserved to Māori, in particular, the guarantee of Tino Rangatiratanga over kainga and the right to cultural continuity it embodies. It is also the provision under which Treaty partnership agreements have been entered into between the Crown and various iwi and Māori organisations. The first aspect goes to the substance of the policy to repeal, the second goes to the appropriate process in the event government wishes to repeal or amend such a provision. There are established Treaty-based relationships in place. If the Crown wishes to make a fundamental change of this nature it should start by having direct good faith dialogue with the parties to these agreements. To simply tell those parties what is going to happen, and invite them to make submissions to a select committee, is to dishonour the very basis of the agreement itself.

Chhour has replied to the decision in a way which reinforces the very strong impression she does not know what she is talking about. From Radio New Zealand:

Minister for Children Karen Chhour said, in a statement, that the repeal of 7AA “has no effect on the need for Oranga Tamariki to keep children in state care safe”.

“The repeal of section 7AA does not prevent the consideration of the cultural wellbeing of children in state care, and existing partnerships between Oranga Tamariki and iwi and Māori organisations will continue.”

Some had raised concern with her that 7AA “has led Oranga Tamariki to focus more on a child’s cultural needs rather than their immediate safety, stability, and wellbeing”, Chhour said.

“Section 7AA was a measure introduced to address Treaty obligations. My concern is that it has taken the focus away from the best interests of the child.”

What should a responsible Minister do? Rely on expert advice or prefer the reckons of anonymous commentators?

This is why she should discontinue her attempts to avoid a witness summons and appear before the Waitangi Tribunal and explain her rationale for the change. Ministers get paid big dollars to make these decisions and should be accountable to treaty partners as well as to the public.

This is cheap dog whistle politics. Shame on the Government for playing political games with such an important issue.

109 comments on “The Waitangi Tribunal v Karen Chhour ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. weka 1
    12 May 2024 at 11:28 am

    Who would have prepared the RIS?

    • Incognito 1.1
      12 May 2024 at 11:56 am

      According to the RIS [linked in OP]:

      Advising agencies: Oranga Tamariki – Ministry for Children

      Responsible Manager: Phil Grady, Deputy Chief Executive, System Leadership, Oranga Tamariki – Ministry for Children.

      Reviewing Agency [sg?]: Oranga Tamariki, the Treasury, Ministry of Justice

      • mickysavage 1.1.1
        12 May 2024 at 4:12 pm

        He gave evidence to the Tribunal and the decision makes a number of references to what he said.

        • Incognito 1.1.1.1
          12 May 2024 at 4:37 pm

          Yup, and Mr Grady’s strong evidence to the Tribunal is worth searching and reading in the Inquiry Report.

  2. Joe90 2
    12 May 2024 at 11:51 am

    From my SO; Dyson, Bennett, Tolley, Martin and Sepuloni were all well regarded for their understanding and commitment to children in need of state intervention.

    Not this idiot.

    • Incognito 2.1
      12 May 2024 at 11:59 am

      She’s no idiot, I’m afraid, but another neo-authoritarian from the ACT Party who knows exactly what she’s and they’re doing.

  3. Powerman 3
    12 May 2024 at 12:33 pm

    Disruption, confusion and division are the tools being used by this government to further their agenda.

  4. Jim Skeats 4
    12 May 2024 at 12:40 pm

    The child traffickers at Oranga Tamariki wont save their jobs by this nonsense. Free the children from instituionalised racism that keeps the Waitangi Tribunal members in their jobs

  5. Dolomedes III 5
    12 May 2024 at 1:47 pm

    The state is between a rock and a hard place here. Yes it's horrible that Maaori kids have been abused in state care, but how do the numbers compare with the numbers of Maaori kids abused by their own whanau and hapu? There wouldn't have been any need to uplift kids if their parents and relatives had been doing a better job of looking after them.

    The report is riddled with ideology and revisionist nonsense about the treaty.

    "Child protection law is complex, emotive, and difficult to get right. Changes to the law call for the utmost care and attention."

    Gotta love the self-righteousness of this extract. What makes the tribunal so sure that lawmakers got it right when they wrote section 7AA?

    " section 7AA is a Treaty clause which puts in issue fundamental article 2 rights reserved to Māori, in particular, the guarantee of Tino Rangatiratanga over kainga and the right to cultural continuity it embodies."

    How does "cultural continuity" guarantee anything about children's well-being? When Oranga Tamariki reverse-uplifted a Maaori child from a pakeha family, it was claimed that the couple would be unable to meet the child's "cultural needs". The curious assumption seems to be that Maaori are hard-wired for what Maaori culture in some narrow sense. Where do we start with this idea? Do not most of these kids also have European ancestry? And surely a stable loving family environment would be pretty high up in any kid's hierarchy of "cultural needs".

    I agree with Chhour. The Waitangi Tribunal has shown us that it is guided by ideology rather than evidence.

    • mickysavage 5.1
      12 May 2024 at 4:18 pm

      What makes the tribunal so sure that lawmakers got it right when they wrote section 7AA?

      Nice attempted rewrite. Did you actually read the post? All the informed advice was that the reality is entirely different to what Chhour reckons some people told her.

      And I am not sure why you think blundering into change is a good thing to do.

      Are you seriously claiming that cultural continuity hurts children?

      And Chhour has presented no evidence whatsoever. The Tribunal was informed by professional advice from Oranga Tamariki.

    • AB 5.2
      12 May 2024 at 4:40 pm

      How does "cultural continuity" guarantee anything about children's well-being?

      I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that any single element in a child's upbringing 'guarantees' anything about their well-being. So your statement in my opinion is setting up something of a straw man.

      To answer your question properly requires agreed definitions of "well-being" and "cultural continuity" followed by a deep dive into the literature on psychiatry, social work, psychology, behavioral science and probably other stuff. An endeavour that could easily consume a year of someone's life – even if they were qualified to do it.

      To be as certain as you seem to be that cultural continuity has no important effect on wellbeing, looks to me like reckless over-confidence.

      • Belladonna 5.2.1
        12 May 2024 at 9:10 pm

        Well, here's an empirical example of where OT placed the cultural 'well-being' of the child above all other considerations – in pulling her out of a stable home, purely because the caregivers weren't Maori.

        https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131476321/hardest-decision-of-our-lives-foster-parents-return-moana-to-state-care

        In this case, OT – dragged the foster family through the courts until they could not afford the stress or the cost involved.

        “[t]here is no empirical evidence to support the notion that section 7AA has driven practice decisions that have led to changing care arrangements”.

        To claim that this is not happening flies in the face of widely reported evidence.

        • weka 5.2.1.2
          12 May 2024 at 10:03 pm

          that's a really shitty series of events and it sounds like OT handled it badly. However there is nothing in there to suggest that staying with a Pākehā foster family is better for the child than her going to live with a Māori family.

          It's not cultural 'well-being', it's cultural wellbeing. There are problems with fostering Māori kids outside of their people, why is that so hard to accept?

          • Traveller 5.2.1.2.1
            12 May 2024 at 10:20 pm

            "However there is nothing in there to suggest that staying with a Pākehā foster family is better for the child than her going to live with a Māori family."

            Weka that's not the issue. It's not Maori v Non Maori. It's the retraumatizing of incredibly vulnerable children. Moana was a "traumatised young girl" when she was placed with her foster family. Here is detail you will have read in the Stuff piece:

            When Moana was placed in the care of a Hawke’s Bay couple in September 2018 her teeth were rotten, she had an untreated club foot and showed all the symptoms of a traumatised child.

            The then 3-year-old – one of four siblings – had already been removed from her mother three times.

            Then, the girls mother and OT want the girl returned because, get this, they don’t think the couple can meet her cultural needs. Oranga Tamariki wants girl removed from couple after three years because it says her cultural needs are unmet | Stuff

            When referring to another case of reverse uplifts (Restored Story: Oranga Tamariki – The new wave of trauma (newsroom.co.nz)), South Island Māori leader Tā Mark Solomon "was so aghast at the re-traumatisation of the children he directed the couple to complain to the Ombudsman. Solomon bluntly labels what has happened as reverse racism. “I still look at the fact that [after] two and a half years, traumatised children have been traumatised again by the processes of Oranga Tamariki. You’re re-traumatising all those children just so we’re ‘culturally safe’ now. Where’s the consideration of the trauma of doing that. I think that’s what’s missing from this whole picture. What will this do to those children?”

            And Nicola Atwool, associate professor of community and social work at the University of Otago, says of this latest re-uplift and separation for the children: “Children are real live human beings, they’re not objects. They’re not parcels that we can move around. They have feelings, they have significant ties. Children’s very survival depends on their emotional connections to adults. “I don’t want to be disrespectful, but it’s a simplistic belief that culture trumps all else. And so therefore it justifies the removal of these children from where they have been for two and a half years, and the movement to people who at this point in time are from a child’s perspective, strangers.

            • weka 5.2.1.2.1.1
              12 May 2024 at 10:42 pm

              your argument seems predicated on the idea that moving the child from the foster home to the Māori family would be more traumatising than leaving her with the foster parents and her being raised outside of her culture.

              I don't think there is any way to know in that particular case, and also as I said it sounds like OT handled it badly.

              But in general, the idea is that all other things being equal, a Māori child is better off being raised within Māori culture than not. The issue then becomes how to manage that with traumatised kids in a good way.

              I think the idea that there is an idea that culture trumps all else is wrong. Who has actually said that? What I see is a government department with a long history of problems going back through CYFS. Underfunded, working in one of the worst areas of social work, and a big unwieldy system that was always going to have significant failures.

              Mariameno Kapa-Kingi talked about this in her speech in parliament last week. Māori kids are caught in the effects of colonisation and then when Māori try and rectify that through the Pākehā system, that impacts badly too. Better to empower Māori to sort out the social issues directly.

              https://twitter.com/wekatweets/status/1788088262252499387

              • Traveller …
                12 May 2024 at 10:54 pm

                “your argument seems predicated on the idea that moving the child from the foster home to the Māori family would be more traumatising than leaving her with the foster parents and her being raised outside of her culture.”

                All other things being equal, yes. I agree with your third paragraph, but we live in an imperfect world. Children uplifted from their ‘forever home’ and moved to live with total strangers is cruelty at its worst.

                • weka …
                  12 May 2024 at 10:57 pm

                  and all the Māori kids that have been placed outside of their culture?

                  • Maurice …
                    13 May 2024 at 7:56 am

                    What defines a child as a Māori kid? Will OT be DNA testing next?

                    • weka …
                      13 May 2024 at 10:44 am

                      If you don't know what Māori children are, maybe step back and listen for a while.

                  • Traveller …
                    13 May 2024 at 10:45 am

                    Should be left where they are. That's certainly the view of both Mark Solomin and Nicola Atwool.

                  • Traveller …
                    13 May 2024 at 11:49 am

                    "what about the ones going forward?"

                    Every effort should be made to place children within extended family. I would argue that applies to all children, not just Māori children. However, as I pointed out here (https://thestandard.org.nz/the-waitangi-tribunal-v-karen-chhour/#comment-1999540) we don't live in a perfect world.

                  • Traveller …
                    13 May 2024 at 1:13 pm

                    "right, so how will OT manage that process if the section is repealed?"

                    1. OT is a dysfunctional and incompetent organisation, that failed Māori children before section 7AA and have continued to fail them after it. https://thestandard.org.nz/the-waitangi-tribunal-v-karen-chhour/#comment-1999521.

                    2. As Chhour says (quoted from the oped) “The repeal of section 7AA does not prevent the consideration of the cultural wellbeing of children in state care, and existing partnerships between Oranga Tamariki and iwi and Māori organisations will continue.”

                    3. The removal of Māori children from immediate familial settings should be done in conjunction with wider whanau, hapu and iwi. All things being equal, it is preferable children are placed with extended whanau. All things being equal. And btw, the same applies to non-Māori children.

                    • weka …
                      13 May 2024 at 2:49 pm

                      that doesn't answer my question though.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      13 May 2024 at 5:42 pm

                      Substituting that view of OT (in 1) into Chhour's statement yields:

                      … existing partnerships between "a dysfunctional and incompetent organisation, that failed Māori children before section 7AA and [has] continued to fail them after it", and iwi and Māori organisations will continue.

                      A recipe for (continuing) strife – but what to do? [wrings hands]

                      Children’s commissioner calls to disestablish Oranga Tamariki [24 Nov 2020]
                      A new report from children’s commissioner Andrew Becroft is calling for an immediate overhaul of Oranga Tamariki – largely through a transfer of power to Māori.

                      The report, released yesterday, found Māori were poorly served by the current systems, and that racism and inequality is entrenched and reproduced for pēpi, tamariki and rangatahi Māori by these systems.

                      The Misery-Go-Round [13 August 2022]
                      New Zealand’s child protection agency, Oranga Tamariki, is constantly in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. But is it the institution that is flawed or the society that expects it to fix bigger problems? Aaron Smale unravels the causes of decades-long failure and what is needed to finally address systemic issues.

                      How government's youth crime rhetoric misses the bigger picture [10 September 2022]
                      "We are dealing with that crisis of 'hey a kid's just driven into a dairy' – we can do a lot more to prevent it" – youth worker Aaron Hendry
                      …
                      And for governments of all stripes, the challenge will be investing in the longer-term, delayed payoff strategies those on the ground say will work.

                      So, another example of what Aotearoa NZ apparently can't afford to do – address root causes, whether it's poor outcomes (on average) for Māori, or a high per capita contribution to global warming and ecosystem collapse.

                      “You can see it coming” – Opportunities to improve child welfare and Family Court proceedings to reduce the risk of children offending in childhood and beyond [2021]
                      These included shortages in resources, high thresholds for support, poor collaboration and coordination between services, chronic delays, and poor oversight over child welfare and child offending cases. Further concerns specifically related to child offending proceedings, such as ambiguous referral processes, were also identified. The need for addressing the sociostructural conditions underlying child welfare concerns and providing earlier and more effective intervention was also highlighted. Urgent addressing of this “breakdown across the whole system” is critical to ensure more positive outcomes for Aotearoa’s most vulnerable children and families and reducing extensive social and economic harm.

                      Calling for fundamental change [4 December 2022]
                      This is a Treaty thing, it’s a moral thing, but it’s also just a practical thing. I think this is how we actually address the harm which the child protection system has caused Māori for generations now. Taking back authority is our right, and it’s the only way we’ll ever end the hurt.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      14 May 2024 at 3:47 pm

                      Absolutely. On the proviso that it is viewed as an investment, and with the necessary expectations and accountability.

                      Just one proviso? smiley [Investment, expectations & accountability.] Phew! Let's get cracking – our CoC govt was quick out of the blocks with billions in tax relief for landLords, and repealing the 2022 Smokefree Act, but two gaps at the top of the cliff could stand more closure yet, especially if "it's not affordability that's the problem".

                      Growth in life expectancy slows [20 April 2021]
                      The gap between Māori and non-Māori life expectancy at birth was 7.5 years for males and 7.3 years for females in 2017–2019.

                      All Kiwis are equal, but some are more equal than others. Imho, we have little to fear and plenty to gain from working together to to if not close then at least decrease these gaps. Does our CoC govt have the courage and intelligence to succeed where others have failed?

                      https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/19-03-2022/danyl-mclauchlan-on-too-much-money-a-book-about-what-divides-us

                      “Current debates that seek to revive animosities between ‘iwi’ vs ‘Kiwi,’ for example, are classic Cartesian devices – anachronistic, divisive colonial throwbacks.”

                  • Traveller …
                    13 May 2024 at 3:06 pm

                    "that doesn't answer my question though."

                    Yes, it does. But we can disagree. What we can't do is ignore the evidence of damage done to children by 7AA, and the expert opinions of people such as Dr Nicola Atwool (during the appeal hearing on the Moana case):

                    "Māori children placed with non-Māori caregivers are being uplifted and placed with whānau that they do not know and in some instances live a long way from where the child has been living, making any sort of … transition impossible. In these instances, section 7AA, … that requires decision-makers to consider the importance of a child's mana, culture and whakapapa, is cited as justifying this action. Again, the practice is ideologically-driven and is neither child-centred nor trauma-informed. Uplift is traumatic for children. It involves the forced removal of a child or group of children from all that is familiar to them at an age when they cannot comprehend what is going on. Forced removal should only occur in the most dangerous situations where the risk is imminent."

                    Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill — First Reading – New Zealand Parliament (www.parliament.nz)

                    • Traveller …
                      13 May 2024 at 6:08 pm

                      @ Drowsy

                      So, another example of what Aotearoa NZ apparently can't afford to do – address root causes, whether it's poor outcomes (on average) for Māori, or a high per capita contribution to global warming and ecosystem collapse.

                      Soon after section 7AA came into force, OT requested an audit to find out "where uplifted Māori children had been sent, looking specifically at non-kin carers" and "find out the ethnicity of their carers and the status of their placements" (The story the Crown and court didn't want you to see: ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right’ (newsroom.co.nz)).

                      OT have been fabricating reports (Lawyer wants psychologist, social worker charged over child removal case (newsroom.co.nz)).

                      They were found to have been emotionally and psychologically abusive towards one child. (What happened to 'Moana' was abuse at the hands of Oranga Tamariki | Stuff).

                      I could go on and on, but it's not affordability that's the problem, it's about having the courage and determination to weed out dangerous ideology.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      13 May 2024 at 6:47 pm

                      I could go on and on, but it's not affordability that's the problem…

                      yes Good to know that our CoC govt can afford to "expedite the transfer of investment, resources and decision-making powers to" Māori, once it's top priorities, e.g. billions in tax relief to long-suffering landLords, are done and dusted. But does our CoC have the will?

                      Moana Eruera: We must stop the number of our tamariki going into the system [27 Jan 2023]
                      In these times of unprecedented disparities, the rising cost of living, coupled with the continued disproportionate data on tamariki Māori entries to state care – the future for social services is clear.

                      It’s about ensuring that tamariki Māori and whānau holistic needs are met.

                      It’s about the Crown acting on the intergenerational cry from Māori to work with us to dismantle and devolve statutory social services and expedite the transfer of investment, resources and decision-making powers to our people – urgently.

                      Liked by the same Nicola Atwool that Chhour quoted – makes sense.

                    • Traveller …
                      13 May 2024 at 7:12 pm

                      @ Drowsy

                      "Good to know that our CoC govt can afford to "expedite the transfer of investment, resources and decision-making powers to" Māori, once it's top priorities, e.g. billions in tax relief to long-suffering landLords, are done and dusted. But does our CoC have the will?"

                      None have so far. Back in 2016, the then Labour spokesperson for Children talked about this (61 little names on New Zealand's roll of dishonour – NZ Herald), yet as PM her government's top priorities were 'fattening' up the highest earning state servants (Public servants paid over $400k almost double in year | RNZ News), buying prime real estate in Auckland (Government pays up to $600k for prime Auckland office space to lie empty | Stuff) and spening up on road openings (Billion-dollar Transmission Gully opening ceremony cost $337,000 | Stuff).

                      "…makes sense".

                      It does.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      13 May 2024 at 8:02 pm

                      And for governments of all stripes, the challenge will be investing in the longer-term, delayed payoff strategies those on the ground say will work.

                      Wonderful that affordability isn’t the problem – where there's a will…

                      61 little names on New Zealand's roll of dishonour
                      [21 March 2016]
                      Following the Kahui boys' deaths, several initiatives and action plans were launched to address the nation's shocking level of child abuse.

                      The first was the Vulnerable Families initiative launched by then Social Development MInister David Benson-Pope in September 2006. Aiming to give the children of at-risk families "the best start in life", it was announced the same week as the $10 million Action Plan for young people in South Auckland and the $7.3 million Early Years initiative targeting teen parents in high-risk areas.

                      In 2012, then-Minister for Social Development Paula Bennett released the White Paper for Vulnerable Children, which outlined how New Zealand should identify, protect and care for children. The paper had 30 new initiatives including a one-stop information system for authorities and the development of a risk predictor tool, targeting support and services for the country's most vulnerable kids.

                      Two years later, the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 came into force to support the Government's setting of priorities for improving the well-being of vulnerable children and to ensure children's agencies work together to improve their lives.

                      And, late last year, Social Development Minister Anne Tolley released an interim report from an independent expert panel that revealed the Child, Youth and Family system was falling extremely short when it came to vulnerable children.

                      She announced a major overhaul for the agency, saying "we need a better skills mix and enhanced training for frontline staff, with a clearer system that allows staff to do their job and spend more time focussed on the needs of children, rather than spending the majority of their time on administration."
                      …
                      "It's easy to say, not so easy to do," she said.

                      "The Government cannot do this on its own. But the sooner we can get in and work with these families the better chance we have of preventing a child getting hurt. It truly does take a village to raise a child – the community, neighbours, non-government organisations and iwi all have an important role to play."
                      …
                      Dr Patrick Kelly is the clinical director at Starship Children's Health and the head of its child abuse team. He gave evidence for the Crown at the Kahui trial and inquest and has spoken on countless other cases.

                      In his eyes there is only one fix for child abuse – recognising it as a health issue and funding the professionals at the frontline to do more.

                      "DHBs have little money dedicated to child protection. It is not seen as a health problem. We need to look at it in a health prevention sense," he said.

                      "Why not make our health workforce a child protection workforce? Let's realise that this is everyone's problem and let's put some serious resources in."

                      Dr Kelly said reorganising CYF was pointless.

                      "We need to put much more energy into creating infrastructure around child abuse expertise in the health industry.

                      "We have been banging on about this for years. We need to realise that if we don't tackle this we're going to be paying the bill and so will our children for the rest of their lives. We may as well bite the bullet and spend the money now."

                      "Spend the money now…", "investing in our next generation of humans."
                      Thank goodness affordability isn’t the problem – let's go for it smiley

                    • Traveller …
                      13 May 2024 at 8:30 pm

                      @Drowsy

                      I'm not sure about declaring child abuse a health issue, but the rest of what Dr Kelly says resonates. But until we have a very different approach to how we train and supervise our social workers, we will continue to get the same results.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      13 May 2024 at 9:43 pm

                      But until we have a very different approach to how we train and supervise our social workers…

                      Better training and (presumably not back room bureaucratic) supervision of social workers couldn't hurt, and more of them, since affordability isn't the problem.

                      I'm intrigued by your phrase "a very different approach" – are you thinking of anything in particular? Are there other countries that might prove good role models in this regard? After all, no point reinventing the wheel if it one can be adapted to work locally.

                      https://www.compareyourcountry.org/social-expenditure/en/0/547/default

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending

                      https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm

                      https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm
                      https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun?country=GRC~CAN~AUS~JPN~USA~SWE~ITA~DEU~NLD~FRA~GBR~NZL

                    • Traveller …
                      14 May 2024 at 11:51 am

                      @Drowsy

                      "I'm intrigued by your phrase "a very different approach" – are you thinking of anything in particular? Are there other countries that might prove good role models in this regard? After all, no point reinventing the wheel if it one can be adapted to work locally."

                      Just a comment on your links – they relate to spending, not outcomes. I raise that point because the two are not always connected. For example, from your last link, the UK was 8th out of 12 in social spending as a share of GDP in 2016, whereas according to Global Child Abuse, Violence, Safety | Rankings By Country (undispatch.com) in 2019 the UK was the "safest place to be a child". We've had an awful lot of spending in this country with very little delivery, so while I advocate for more spending on child protection specifically, it needs to be evidence based and accountable.

                      In answer to your question, what I had in mind was absolutely not 'back-room bureaucrats'. I have a niece who works in the area of child uplifts. Her training was hasty (and conducted by people who R claims hadn't seen front line service for years) and her introduction to the real-life experience rushed. Her first child uplift was conducted with another inexperienced social worker and the help of (thank God) experienced police support. R remains committed to the profession but has found far better support in employment with a contract provider to OT, where she is currently employed.

                      On the wider subject of child abuse, the social workers I know have a deep sense of being little more than an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff. They feel undervalued, disempowered and hopelessly under resourced.

                      If we're going to truly address NZ's abysmal record, we need to invest in resourcing child protection measures, particularly at the 'front end'.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      14 May 2024 at 12:33 pm

                      On the wider subject of child abuse, the social workers I know have a deep sense of being little more than an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff. They feel undervalued, disempowered and hopelessly under resourced.
                      …
                      If we're going to truly address NZ's abysmal record, we need to invest in resourcing child protection measures, particularly at the 'front end'.

                      yes And, since "it's not affordability that's the problem", maybe more investment at the top of the cliff, lest Kiwi social workers, no matter how well trained/resourced, continue to be overwhelmed in their well-intentioned efforts to paper over socio-economic chasms.

                      The Misery-Go-Round [13 August 2022]
                      New Zealand’s child protection agency, Oranga Tamariki, is constantly in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. But is it the institution that is flawed or the society that expects it to fix bigger problems? Aaron Smale unravels the causes of decades-long failure and what is needed to finally address systemic issues.

                      A socially just child protection system? [8 Dec 2021]
                      Are the above questions evidence of fanciful and misguided idealism? Is the current economic, social, and constitutional template a fixed immovable reality? Is jarring socio-economic inequality natural, desirable, and God-given? Are we better to persevere with a diet of rescue and punishment?

                      A Political History of Child Protection [Hyslop, 2022]
                      Lessons for Reform from Aotearoa New Zealand

                    • Traveller …
                      14 May 2024 at 1:10 pm

                      @Drowsy

                      "And, since "it's not affordability that's the problem", maybe more investment at the top of the cliff, lest Kiwi social workers, no matter how well trained/resourced, continue to be overwhelmed in their well-intentioned efforts to paper over socio-economic chasms."

                      Absolutely. On the proviso that it is viewed as an investment, and with the necessary expectations and accountability.

                    • Traveller …
                      14 May 2024 at 3:55 pm

                      @ Drowsy

                      Your graph on wealth inequality is timely, considering the conversation happening around partnership schools, and considering how they were so readily adopted by Maori.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      14 May 2024 at 8:32 pm

                      Your graph on wealth inequality is timely, considering the conversation happening around partnership schools, and considering how they were so readily adopted by Maori.

                      It's Rashbrooke's graph – he has an opinion on charter schools too.

                      Education inequalities at the school starting gate
                      Gaps, trends, and strategies to address them

                      What this study finds: Extensive research has conclusively demonstrated that children’s social class is one of the most significant predictors—if not the single most significant predictor—of their educational success. Moreover, it is increasingly apparent that performance gaps by social class take root in the earliest years of children’s lives and fail to narrow in the years that follow. That is, children who start behind stay behind—they are rarely able to make up the lost ground.
                      …
                      Why it matters: These performance gaps reflect extensive unmet needs and thus untapped talents among low-SES [socioeconomic-status] children. The development of strong cognitive and noncognitive skills is essential for success in school and beyond. Low educational achievement leads to lowered economic prospects later in life, perpetuating a lack of social mobility across generations. It is also a loss to society when children’s talents are allowed to go fallow for lack of sufficient supports. The undeniable relationship between economic inequalities and education inequalities represents a societal failure that betrays the ideal of the “American dream.”
                      …
                      What can be done about it: Greater investments in pre-K programs can narrow the gaps between students at the start of school. And to ensure that these early gains are maintained, districts can provide continued comprehensive academic, health, nutrition, and emotional support for children through their academic years, including meaningful engagement of parents and communities. Such strategies have been successfully implemented in districts around the country, as described in this report, and can serve to mitigate the impact of economic inequalities on children’s educational achievement and improve their future life and work prospects.

                      If, as you wrote, "it's not affordability that's the problem", then why not do more to mitigate economic inequality directly, rather than attempting to mitigate the impacts of inequality on educational achievement. Might it have somethng to do with 'affordability'?

                      "Destiny should have had a charter school" – Seymour

                      New jobs, higher pay, cheaper housing – who could blame them.

                    • Traveller …
                      14 May 2024 at 8:52 pm

                      @Drowsy

                      …then why not do more to mitigate economic inequality directly, rather than attempting to mitigate the impacts of inequality on educational achievement.

                      Education is a key factor in addressing inequality. Partnership schools had particular success amongst those demographics suffering from inequality. That's worth considering.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      14 May 2024 at 10:45 pm

                      Education is a key factor in addressing inequality.

                      There are at least two key factors – our education system can only do so much to mitigate the flow-on effects of early childhood cognitive and noncognitive skill deficits that are typically a consequence of poverty. That's worth considering.

                      Is the Big Problem Facing Kiwi Kids Poverty Or Parenting? [20 June 2013]
                      What we need to understand, the real issue for us here tonight is that if we keep saying it’s bad parenting, it allows us to sanctimoniously pat ourselves on the back and say that’s nothing to do with us and it’s everything to do with us because they’re our children. – Celia Lashlie

                      Additional direct govt action/support to mitigate poverty would pay dividends, and if "it's not affordability that's the problem", then why not give it a go? An interesting question, no?


                      Inequality is a corrosive force, like rust. Big income and wealth imbalances eat away at trust and empathy, making the country less healthy and less united. They also leave some people with much greater opportunities than others. In New Zealand, income imbalances widened faster in the 1980s and 1990s than in any other developed nation. The wealthiest tenth own more than half of all wealth. This is the result of deliberate policy choices that could be reversed. In doing so we would create a country in which people recognise each other as equals and can come together to tackle common problems.

                      Imho, those who are broadly comfortable with the current distribution of (abundant) wealth in NZ must be wearing rose-tinted glasses if they can't see the harm it's doing, i.e. how much less resilient/sustainable Kiwi society is becoming as a whole.

                      There will always be very wealthy individuals who oppose being parted from any more of their precious wealth with every fibre of their being. Some are opposed to disclosing even the magnitude of their wealth to the IRD – I wonder why.

                      The big money up against Parker [27 April 2023]
                      Nearly 12 per cent (41) of the 352 families [each] with an estimated net worth of at least $20 million did not agree to respond even though the Tax Administration Act makes such surveys compulsory.
                      …
                      Inevitably it pitches the ordinary taxpayer against the very wealthy and National leader Christopher Luxon yesterday defended the ultra-wealthy. “It’s not the wealthy that are the problem here,” he said.

                      The IRD study found that the 311 high net-worth families had paid, on average, 8.9 per cent of their economic income (as distinct from their wages and salaries income) in tax.

                    • Traveller …
                      15 May 2024 at 9:53 am

                      @Drowsy

                      "Additional direct govt action/support to mitigate poverty would pay dividends, and if "it's not affordability that's the problem", then why not give it a go? An interesting question, no?"

                      An interesting question, yes. Reducing poverty was one of Jacinda Ardern's top priorities, was it not?

                      ""Under my leadership, we will no longer campaign for, or implement a capital gains tax – not because I don't believe in it, but because I don't believe New Zealand does.""

                      PM Jacinda Ardern has ruled out implementing a Capital Gains Tax while she is at the helm of Labour – NZ Herald

                      An annual report card released by the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef), in early September, compared the performances of 41 high-income countries on child welfare issues, from suicide rates to childhood obesity, education and environment. New Zealand is at the bottom third in 35th place.
                      NZ election: The people left behind in Ardern's 'kind' New Zealand (bbc.com)

                      Child poverty statistics show increase in material hardship for the year ended June 2023

                      Child poverty statistics show increase in material hardship for the year ended June 2023 | Stats NZ

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      15 May 2024 at 1:44 pm

                      "Additional direct govt action/support to mitigate poverty would pay dividends, and if "it's not affordability that's the problem", then why not give it a go? An interesting question, no?"

                      An interesting question, yes. Reducing poverty was one of Jacinda Ardern's top priorities, was it not?

                      Indeed it was, and recall the scrapped 'Closing the Gaps' initiative under Labour (Clark), or the ambition to close the wage gap with Australia and trackle the housing crisis under National (Key).

                      Partisan political views are a distraction – they avoid the question:

                      … if "it's not affordability that's the problem", then why not give it a go?

                      If I had to pick only one descriptor for this article – published in 2020, early in the third year of the Labour-NZF coalition, just before pandemic effects began to be felt locally) – it would be 'authentic'.

                      Why poverty in New Zealand is everyone's concern
                      Liang describes poverty as a "heritable condition" that perpetuates and amplifies through generations: "It is also not hard to see how individual poverty flows into communities and society, with downstream effects on economics, crime and health, as well as many other systems. Loosen one strand and everything else unravels."

                      A Kete Half Empty
                      Poverty is your problem, it is everyone's problem, not just those who are in poverty. – Rebecca, a child from Te Puru

                      Doctors are trained in the analysis of stories. We look for patterns within individuals, families and societies. The symptoms of poverty are evident to any doctor practising in the public system in New Zealand. It is as telling as a rash. We're good at recognising the signs because right now, we're seeing a lot of it.

                      Why fix it? Child poverty is real in New Zealand. By any measure, it's become worse as the income gap has widened. It is well established that income inequality correlates directly to disparities in health, with the poor getting sicker even as the rich access cutting-edge advances in treatment. If we do indeed have a "rock star economy", not everyone has been invited to the party.

                      This has been happening for decades and it will take a lot of resource to fix. So why try? Humour me, if you know already: I know people who still think poverty is a lifestyle choice.
                      …
                      For me, though, it (addressing poverty) boils down to morality. It hurts when I see kids unable to reach the full extent of their talents because of something they never asked for. It also hurts because I know I have spun a luckier number than them on the wheel of fortune. It hurts because we paediatricians see a little of ourselves in each child we meet: it's one of the ways we stay young and ever-so-slightly immature.

                      New Zealanders still cling to the idea that we're an egalitarian, classless society. The reality is we're increasingly stratified. The gap between rich and poor is wider than we like to admit and it's possible – depending on where you live and work – to avoid seeing poor families. This may be why some deny the existence, let alone the impact, of child poverty in our country.

                      Imho, some Kiwis who believe they are well-served by systemic inequality will resist meaningful change with every fibre of their being – they know the benefits of keeping bottom feeders hungry.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_schools_in_New_Zealand

                      Charter schools are just (more) tinkering – they cannot address the scourge that is widespread poverty in a wealthy country where, as you wrote, "it's not affordability that's the problem". So, what is the problem, in your opinion? Why not arrange for more wealth to flow to Kiwis whose needs are greatest?

                      Less? Unacceptable! – Unpalatable – UNTENABLE

                      https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/16-08-2022/the-side-eyes-two-new-zealands-the-table

                    • Traveller …
                      15 May 2024 at 2:05 pm

                      @Drowsy

                      Imho, some Kiwis who believe they are well-served by systemic inequality will resist meaningful change with every fibre of their being – they know the benefits of keeping bottom feeders hungry.

                      I don't know anyone who fits that description. It's very 18th century, and a bit of distraction.

                      OTOH, the government could re-introduce a stamp duty on property sales, which no-one seems to be discussing as an alternative to the clumsy CGT proposals.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      15 May 2024 at 3:50 pm

                      Imho, some Kiwis who believe they are well-served by systemic inequality will resist meaningful change with every fibre of their being – they know the benefits of keeping bottom feeders hungry.

                      I don't know anyone who fits that description.

                      As Liang observed, the gap between rich and poor is wider than we like to admit and it's possible – depending on where you live and work – that you won't be exposed to certain views, such as the idea wealthy Kiwis are in danger of becoming prey, or that a proportion of working-age Kiwis being out of work is beneficial.

                      https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/opinion/the-case-against-a-predatory-wealth-tax/

                      Our economic ‘Goldilocks’ zone relies on a proportion of the working age population being out of work to keep prices down across the economy
                      https://berl.co.nz/economic-insights/refining-balancing-act-employment-vs-low-prices

                      OTOH, the government could re-introduce a stamp duty on property sales, which no-one seems to be discussing as an alternative to the clumsy CGT proposals.

                      "A bit of a distraction" – the "clumsy CGT proposals" you say? Maybe it's time for another tax working group.

                      If, as you wrote, "it's not affordability that's the problem", then what is the problem, in your opinion? What has prevented successive govts from taking effective action to address poverty – of providing a fair chance to disadvantaged Kiwis – and will our CoC govt be any different? Not worried personally, but I do worry about future generations of Kiwis. Is that wrong – what track is Aotearoa NZ (and indeed the world) on?

                      The great wealth transfer and inequality [18 April 2024]
                      The great wealth transfer comes at a time of intense debate about the future of New Zealand’s tax system, especially whether a capital gains tax should be introduced. The International Monetary Fund has recommended the implementation of a comprehensive capital gains tax.

                      Should this also include a tax on wealth or wealth transfers? New Zealand is in the minority of OECD countries in not having taxes on end-of-life bequests. Therefore, this significant shift in wealth within the next twenty years could potentially support additional taxes for some of New Zealand’s pressing needs, such as our infrastructure deficit.

                      Latest official child poverty measures: 2022/23
                      (February 2024)
                      When I originally concluded this year’s update to the child poverty statistics on March 19th, I hoped that data collection and, therefore, research on social issues would remain protected. Quality data is the cornerstone of informed policy-making. However, only a little over a month later, we witnessed the scrapping and fund withdrawal from critical longitudinal studies, Living In Aotearoa (Walters, 2024) and Growing Up in New Zealand (Gerritsen, 2024) , that would provide critical insights into child poverty. The (financial) dismantling of these vital studies debilitates the capacity to generate evidence-based and actionable policy recommendations and assist the Government in achieving its short- and long-term goals, such as school attendance, education outcomes, child poverty reduction, and improvement to people’s overall well-being (Rashbrooke, 2024; RNZ, 2023; also see GUiNZ's research outputs to see the amount of insights that are generated from this longitudinal study).

                      The Child and Youth Wellbeing team is also leaving the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, a central position within the Government, and being reshuffled into the Ministry of Social Development and Employment at the beginning of May. This move is presented as a decision for better coordination and comprehension in addressing children's and youth’s well-being…

                    • Traveller …
                      15 May 2024 at 3:57 pm

                      @Drowsy

                      "As Liang observed, the gap between rich and poor is wider than we like to admit and it's possible – depending on where you live and work – that you won't be exposed to certain views, such as the idea wealthy Kiwis are in danger of becoming prey, or that a proportion of working-age Kiwis being out of work is beneficial."

                      I grew up in a modest, working-class family in suburban Auckland. I live in a working-class suburb. My children went to local schools, public schools and one to an integrated (catholic) college. Who are the people with these views? Where is your evidence they exist in any number?

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      15 May 2024 at 4:57 pm

                      Where is your evidence they exist in any number?

                      I feel your difficulty. Imho, 'they' don't have to be numerous to have profound and lasting effects on socio-economic trends – 1% might do it. No need to polarise; we can agree to disagree.

                      ‘Regulatory Responsibility’: Embedded Neoliberalism and its Contradictions [May 2010; PDF]

                      Rising wealth and income inequality:
                      A radical social work critique and response                       [26 July 2017]

                      How Ruth Richardson’s Mother of all Budgets is still f*cking us today [28 Sept 2019]

                      Neoliberalism: what it is, how it affects health and
                      what to do about it                       [NZMJ, 3 April 2020; PDF]
                      “Once the program begins to be implemented, don’t stop until you have completed it. The fire of opponents is much less accurate if they have to shoot at a moving target”.
                      – Roger Douglas

                      Rising inequality: A major issue of our time
                      [16 May 2023 : one-year anniversary tomorrow]
                      Income and wealth inequality has risen in many countries in recent decades. Rising inequality and related disparities and anxieties have been stoking social discontent and are a major driver of the increased political polarization and populist nationalism that are so evident today. An increasingly unequal society can weaken trust in public institutions and undermine democratic governance. Mounting global disparities can imperil geopolitical stability. Rising inequality has emerged as an important topic of political debate and a major public policy concern.

                      How to Get Closer Together
                      Impacts of Income Inequality and Policy Responses
                      [Nov 2011 : PDF]
                      Inequality cannot simply be explained as wrong choices or behaviours. Inequality of resources and opportunity are powerful background forces. In order to get ahead, people need more equal access to resources – more income and wealth equality creates more equal opportunity for everyone in society. (National Equality Panel, 2010)

                      Professors Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in The Spirit Level (2010) have documented the relationship between income inequality and health and social dysfunction across 25 developed countries including New Zealand, and summarised their findings in their Index of Health and Social Problems (IHSP). The results of this work show that New Zealand is performing poorly in comparison to countries with lower levels of income inequality.

                      If, as you wrote, “it’s not affordability that’s the problem“, then what (or perhaps who) is the problem, in your opinion? What has prevented successive govts from taking effective action to address poverty – from providing a fair chance to disadvantaged Kiwis – and will our CoC govt be any different? Not worried personally, but I do worry about future generations of Kiwis. Is that wrong – what track is Aotearoa NZ (and indeed the world) on?

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      15 May 2024 at 5:13 pm

                      Oops, the first link, to Kelsey's article, isn't working – try this one.

                      ‘Regulatory Responsibility’: Embedded Neoliberalism and its Contradictions
                      https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/4332/3834

                    • Traveller …
                      15 May 2024 at 9:56 pm

                      @Drowsy

                      Thanks for the links. I've enjoyed the exchange, so I'll have one last crack at putting my thoughts together.

                      In NZ, attempts have been made to address income inequality through a redistributive tax policy, and mechanisms such as Working for Families. Based on Treasury research from 2019 (Who pays income tax… and how much? | The Treasury New Zealand), the top 9% of earners pay 42% of the total tax. The bottom 48% of income earners pay just 8% of the total tax. So I would suggest that the tax system is already carrying its share of reducing inequality.

                      When we look at the GINI coefficient (What is our history of inequality? – Inequality: A New Zealand Conversation), after the rise in inequality (as measured by GINI) in the mid 1980's, there has been little change since the mid 1990's.

                      Wealth inequality is also shown at What is our history of inequality? – Inequality: A New Zealand Conversation. That shows that the share of assets owned by the top 1% was 25% in 2018, the same as it was in 1956. The wealthiest 10% held 70% of the asset wealth in 2018, up from 64% in 1956. That

                      What this is telling us is that income and wealth inequality has not increased over recent decades, due to redistributive policies followed by NZ governments of all stripes.

                      However, in the Covid period, wealth inequality was exaggerated by monetary policy driving up house prices (Why do housing prices soar despite a COVID recession? – The University of Auckland). (Although this is certainly now subject to a correction).

                      So what? I don't believe the answer to inequality lies in taxing the wealthy more or in more Government targeting of assistance. It lies in policies that dramatically lift our standard of education and that drive NZ to a sustainable higher wage economy.

                      What those policies could be would be an interesting conversation.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      16 May 2024 at 9:05 am

                      I don't believe the answer to inequality lies in taxing the wealthy more or in more Government targeting of assistance. It lies in policies that dramatically lift our standard of education and that drive NZ to a sustainable higher wage economy.

                      I too believe improving educational engagement and achievement can contribute to ending intergenerational poverty. Assuming that, after a few years, policies to lift standards are at least partially successful, it will then be, say, another ten years or more before those higher standards begin to pay-off in terms of any reduction in poverty/inequality. It seems both heartless and frankly dumb to continue with our current tax settings (e.g. billions in tax relief to landLords) and levels of Govt assistance to impoverished families, when we know that, on average, poverty is compromising the development of cognitive and noncognitive skills in pre-school children right now, and that it's difficult to overcome the effects of cognitive deficits no matter how good school education is.

                      Basically, I don't understand the rationale for continuing to cripple children through poverty, particularly if, as you wrote, "it's not affordability that's the problem". And that leads me to wonder why it's so very important poverty be tackled in this way (by raising education standards), and only this way – am I missing something?

                      Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed.
                      – Einstein

                      Nat/Lab MPs have been promising and/or trying to lift Kiwis out of poverty for decades – it's not smart to wait another 10+ years, imho.

                      https://www.greens.org.nz/ending_poverty_together

                    • Traveller …
                      16 May 2024 at 10:01 am

                      @Drowsy

                      It seems both heartless and frankly dumb to continue with our current tax settings (e.g. billions in tax relief to landLords)…

                      IMHO, we don't have a tax issue, we have a spending issue. According to the OECD, we faced the second-biggest tax raises in the developed world last year (New Zealanders slapped with world's second-largest tax hike, OECD data shows | Newshub). You can argue for a retention of the inability of landlords to claim a legitimate business expense, but successive governments have spent far too much money on poorly conceived and executed ideas to trust them with any more.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      16 May 2024 at 11:55 am

                      IMHO, we don't have a tax issue, we have a spending issue. According to the OECD, we faced the second-biggest tax raises in the developed world last year…

                      Yes, only Australia (with a 7.6% increase, and where Kiwis are currently heading in droves), had a larger tax increase. Poor old Aotearoa could only manage a 4.5% increase.

                      Maybe Kiwis migrating to Aus are thinking about more than tax – wonder what the Taxpayers' Union would make of it all.

                      Basically, I don't understand the rationale for continuing to cripple Kiwi kids through poverty, particularly if, as you wrote, "it's not affordability that's the problem". And that leads me to wonder why it's so very important poverty be tackled in this way (by raising education standards), and only this way – am I missing something?

                      … successive governments have spent far too much money on poorly conceived and executed ideas to trust them with any more.

                      Ah – so you don't trust NZ govts to make good use of tax revenue, but you do support govt spending to dramatically lift NZ's standard of education? Fair enough. Maybe they can marshal sufficient resources to give it a decent try, although I fear that average spending will at best produce average outcomes – not a recipe for dramatic improvement, imho, but at least the post-pandemic school attendance rates are trending up.

                      https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/public-spending-on-education.htm

                    • Traveller …
                      16 May 2024 at 12:05 pm

                      @ Drowsy

                      And that leads me to wonder why it's so very important poverty be tackled in this way (by raising education standards), and only this way – am I missing something?

                      I don’t believe it is only through education, but that is a sustainable, long term (not in the sense of taking a long time, but in the sense of being enduring) solution. Amongst other things, reducing poverty comes from sustainable development, and a strong economy delivering real wage growth.

                      Ah – so you don't trust NZ govts to make good use of tax revenue, but you do believe our CoC govt can dramatically lift NZ's standard of education?

                      I don’t trust this government particularly any more than any other when it comes to spending the country’s money. Only time will tell. But one area where I believe early indications are encouraging is in education.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      16 May 2024 at 12:19 pm

                      I don’t believe it is only through education…

                      That’s good.

                      But one area where I believe early indications are encouraging is in education.

                      Could you elaborate on those encouraging early indications in education. I'm particularly interested in a realistic timeline for positive socio-economic outcomes, and in the scale of those (projected) outcomes. And what else our CoC govt might choose to do in the meantime.

                      https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/05/fucking-useless.html

                    • Traveller …
                      16 May 2024 at 12:39 pm

                      "Could you elaborate on those encouraging early indications in education."

                      Structured literacy – a sensible return to a proven system (The Basics — Lifting Literacy Aotearoa).

                      Greater involvement of diversity in educational modes – whether that be charter schools or integrated schools.

                      Expanding food in schools to low-equity, not-for-profit, community-based early childhood centres.

                      Let's move our comparative education achievement from mediocre at best (How does New Zealand's education system compare? OECD's Education at a Glance 2023 | Education Counts) to something far more aspirational.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      16 May 2024 at 7:35 pm

                      Expanding food in schools to low-equity, not-for-profit, community-based early childhood centres.

                      Early childhood centres to receive school lunch programme [8 May 2024]
                      “The first 1,000 days are key to a child’s development. I am proud this government can innovate to help even more children who need it.” [Seymour]

                      Good for Seymour, who also wanted to take an axe to the Healthy School Lunches Program.

                      Seymour immovable on school lunch programme cut, despite its many proven benefits [8 March 2024]
                      Seymour has been a fierce critic of the Ka Ora, Ka Ako Healthy School Lunches Program, which provides lunches to more than 230,000 learners in 998 schools, describing it as “unaffordable”, “wasteful” and a “marketing stunt”.

                      Is Seymour "expanding food in schools" also "a marketing stunt"? Not to worry – I'm all for it, and it's great to see the Associate Minister of Education is aware of how crucial those first 1000 days are. Our CoC govt would surely be willing and able to do even more to alleviate the scourge of child poverty, were it not for the necessity of billions in tax relief for landLords. And kids, that means waiting just a little bit longer for the help you need – just as well "affordability isn't the problem."

                      Let's move our comparative education achievement from mediocre at best (How does New Zealand's education system compare? OECD's Education at a Glance 2023 | Education Counts) to something far more aspirational.

                      yes for aspirational efforts, e.g. aspiring to end poverty in NZ, on the two provisos: (1) that they are viewed as an investment, with the necessary expectations and accountability; and (2) they don't compromise billions in tax relief for landLords.

                      https://www.greens.org.nz/ending_poverty_together

                      Our CoC government is a landLord government.

                      This government has taken their inspiration from the U.K. and Liz Truss. If we get a decade of these plonkers we will be basically where the U.K. is now after a decade of stagnant wages and crumbling public services.

                      Not sure they gonna need a decade. They skipped right past Cameron and potentially even Johnson and May and landed on Truss crossed with Sunak.

                      They are speed running 12 years of Tory idiocy

                    • Traveller …
                      16 May 2024 at 7:45 pm

                      Our CoC govt would surely be willing and able to do even more to alleviate the scourge of child poverty, were it not for the necessity of billions in tax relief for landLords.

                      We've thrown billions at poverty over decades. The GINI still flatlined. Returning a legitimate business claim to thousands of ordinary NZ'ers won't change that.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      16 May 2024 at 10:30 pm

                      We've thrown billions at poverty over decades. The GINI still flatlined. Returning a legitimate business claim to thousands of ordinary NZ'ers won't change that.

                      So tossing billions in tax relief at thousands of property investors won't ameliorate poverty? No chance of trickle down effects helping thousands of impoverished Kiwi kids? Bugger; sounds hopeless.

                      Surprise: Landlord Tax Cuts Don’t Trickle Down [30 April 2024]

                      Oh well, never mind. Imho, tax relief for landLords represents a poor investment in NZ's future, but let's agree to disagree – time will tell. At least I won't be living with the long-term socio-economic fallout.

                      Treasury advice released this week warned the Coalition Government it would struggle to fund its election promises without raising tax revenues [15 May 2024]

                      Givealot : Crowd funding for ordinary landLords smiley

          • Belladonna 5.2.1.2.2
            13 May 2024 at 3:29 pm

            nothing in there to suggest that staying with a Pākehā foster family is better for the child than her going to live with a Māori family.

            It is much better for any child to continue with a family with whom she's extablished close connections over many years, rather than being uprooted to go and live with strangers.

            There is no doubt that continuity of care is (in the absence of actual physical danger) a much better result for any child.

            The well-being of the child was anything but central to this process. The very belatedly expressed 'desire' of the mother who was manifestly unable to be a suitable caregiver, fostered by the ideological beliefs of the OT social worker involved – were evidently considerably more important to OT.

        • adam 5.2.1.3
          14 May 2024 at 3:48 am

          Once again the burbles of the white moderate.

          I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/01/17/martin-luther-king-polite-racism-white-liberals/

          • Belladonna 5.2.1.3.1
            14 May 2024 at 9:46 am

            Ah, yes, those moderate people who are the core of our society. Who know that 'order' matters on a real day-to-day basis, while 'justice' is an abstract concept – that alters depending on your perspective and over time.

    • lprent 5.3
      13 May 2024 at 4:20 pm

      Yes it's horrible that Maaori kids have been abused in state care, but how do the numbers compare with the numbers of Maaori kids abused by their own whanau and hapu?

      Since those statistically validated numbers haven't been presented by the dimwits who are in favour of the repeal of section 7AA, I'd say that the that argument is a fatuous dogwhistle by stupid bigots. Like you.

      Since this pack of ignorant meme followers who are the current crown ministers have been actively cutting virtually every social statistical program, including those run by stats dept, universities, and various government ministry funded statistical collection dropping real data and starting to just mine what they have. Kind of self-reinforcing because they have already biased the sampling techniques beyond redemption.

      For instance anyone who has a choice actively avoids government ministries and organisations where they have been contaminated by generations of stupid National and Act inefficient policies. Those just that raise the administrative costs of my tax dollars to ridiculous levels. Better a life of crime than dealing with those kinds of levels of stupidity. The only programs that work efficiently are superannuation and basic ACC – and that is because those are the ones less affected by the uninformed ideological bigotries of people like you and Chhour.

      I would say that this government would prefer not to find out what actually happens in the real world and what the the real numbers are. Problem is that would require them to make informed decisions, and like you, these cretins prefer to just avoid anything accurate. They prefer to just haul theories about what is happening out of their processed data from their arse without looking at the food sources. Which is what they are doing with their reprocessed data mining.

      And surely a stable loving family environment would be pretty high up in any kid's hierarchy of "cultural needs".

      Hell, the only thing that we know about the downstream welfare of adopted kids is that they commonly, as adults, often actively seek out their birth families when they are given the opportunity. We have no idea about the number of people doing that either, because no-one has been systematically collecting stats on it.

      Nor do we know how many adopted kids wind up getting abused in their adopted families or eventually winding up in prison or under mental care. Because those numbers also aren't systematically collected. If they had been then we would have known about various forms of abuse in state and church institutions many decades ago.

      Anecdotally based on what goes through the courts and the few studies of adopted children, abuse and eventual prison numbers appear to be extremely high in all adopted populations and extremely bad relative to the general population.

      I agree with Chhour. The Waitangi Tribunal has shown us that it is guided by ideology rather than evidence.

      Which just shows how much of a stupid an ignorant you are. There is virtually no statistically significiant information about the overall benefits or costs of forced adoptions over the lifetime of the adoptees.

      What research there is tends to be small samples and tends to look like this with significiant levels of alienation by the adoptees from their adopted families. Not only for cross-cultural adoptions, but even between families or roughly the same ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

      BTW: any 'abuse' that I used in this about you and various government actions was scaled to reflect your habit of arguing without any evidence. Anyone can do that. So I just made a few assumptions about you and expressed them. Clearly you expect that based on your dickhead behaviour…

      • alwyn 5.3.1
        14 May 2024 at 4:18 pm

        You appear to disapprove of people who don't provide any satisfactory statistical evidence for their claims when you say.

        "Since those statistically validated numbers haven't been presented by the dimwits who are in favour of the repeal of section 7AA, I'd say that the that argument is a fatuous dogwhistle by stupid bigots"

        Then a bit further down in the same comment you tell us that

        "Anecdotally based on what goes through the courts and the few studies of adopted children, abuse and eventual prison numbers appear to be extremely high in all adopted populations and extremely bad relative to the general population."

        That is a pretty definite claim. What are the numbers to back it up? Surely you are going to provide them if you can make such definite claims about what they are supposed to tell us.

  6. Maurice 6
    12 May 2024 at 6:16 pm

    Is it just me? Or this starting to sound like the signaling of the dissolution of the Waitangi Tribunal?

    • alwyn 6.1
      12 May 2024 at 6:29 pm

      It would be pretty easy to do I would think. If they wanted to I imagine the Government could even get the Labour Party pleading for it's removal.

      The term of all the judges is, if I have read it correctly, three years. Just let all the current members' terms expire and appoint new members, People like Muriel Newman and Graham Adams perhaps.

      In three years, in May 2027, we could have a completely new group in the Waitangi Tribunal Commission of Enquiry who could refuse to accept the arguments for any more settlements or rights to the seabed and so on.

    • Dolomedes III 6.2
      12 May 2024 at 6:55 pm

      I doubt this government would be so bold – unfortunately.

    • Michael who failed Civics 6.3
      13 May 2024 at 2:46 pm

      Wishful thinking on your part. But the racist Right are sure to retaliate against the Tribunal.

  7. Traveller 7
    12 May 2024 at 9:54 pm

    "She has regularly claimed that section 7AA has the effect of reversing child uplifts by the Department. This of course involves ignoring the clear provision of section 4A of the Act which states that “the well-being and best interests of the child or young person are the first and paramount consideration”."

    Yes it does, but Chhour is correct, because that is precisely what happened.

    "Then on July 1, 2019, section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act came into force. The new legislation laid out the ways in which the state needs to uphold the right of tamariki Māori to be connected to their culture and whakapapa. The combined effect was immediate. With the Hastings uplift backlash building, Newsroom understands Oranga Tamariki requested an audit to find out where uplifted Māori children had been sent, looking specifically at non-kin carers. "Essentially they were finding out exactly where the Māori kids were, and we were asked to find out the ethnicity of their carers and the status of their placements. That’s why they’re on spreadsheets in OT offices up and down the country,” an OT social worker told Newsroom. Oranga Tamariki, it seems, were in a scramble to self-correct." (My emphasis added).

    The story the Crown and court didn't want you to see: ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right’ (newsroom.co.nz).

    • mickysavage 7.1
      13 May 2024 at 7:31 am

      But Chhour is incorrect in asserting that placement outside of whanau hapu or iwi is not damaging to the child or in their best interests.

      • Traveller 7.1.1
        13 May 2024 at 11:07 am

        We don't live on the pages of a text book, Micky.

        In the Moana case, "Oranga Tamariki could not find Moana's extended whānau, and the identity of her father was unknown". (Oranga Tamariki wants girl removed from couple after three years because it says her cultural needs are unmet | Stuff).

        In another case "For 17 months the girls stayed with a temporary caregiver while Oranga Tamariki says it tried repeatedly to find “culturally appropriate placements” to take all three children, but with “no success”" and "it was at a time when there were no other options available, no one was putting up a hand for a three or four sibling group.”" (The story the Crown and court didn't want you to see: ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right’ (newsroom.co.nz)).

        The most important consideration in the case of children in these situations is not culture, it is love, security, connection.

        The cases to date have given us ample expert evidence that the reverse uplifts driven by 7AA have the potential to be extremely damaging.

        Oranga Tamariki wants girl removed from couple after three years because it says her cultural needs are unmet | Stuff

        "A psychologist who has written two reports in relation to Moana over the past two years said breaking her attachment to the Smiths “could be extremely disruptive to her and could have significant long-lasting implications in terms of mental health and a whole range of things”. If Moana was placed with the Taipas, there was “a good possibility of attachments developing with them and wider whānau”, but “if she is removed [from the Smiths] there is the possibility of her suffering further trauma and of having her healthy development affected and maybe having her regress development wise,” he said. “The gains made to date could be lost,” he said."

        The story the Crown and court didn't want you to see: ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right’ (newsroom.co.nz)

        "The case has also drawn the attention of the country’s top expert in attachment trauma, University of Otago’s Dr Nicola Atwool. “Yes, the issue of cultural connection needs to be addressed. But whether that justifies inflicting further trauma on children who already have a trauma history is very questionable.” “There are other ways in which these situations can be navigated and, in particular, if we are moving children, then we should not be doing that by this kind of uplift. There are other ways in which children can be moved. “But the question in my mind is: did anybody ask where these children felt they belonged? Who did these children feel loved by? And we should only ever disrupt that when they are in imminent risk. And there was no evidence of that,” Atwool says. “Children are real live human beings, they’re not objects. They’re not parcels that we can move around. They have feelings, they have significant ties. Children’s very survival depends on their emotional connections to adults.

        and

        The story the Crown and court didn't want you to see: ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right’ (newsroom.co.nz)

        “I don’t want to be disrespectful, but it’s a simplistic belief that culture trumps all else. And so therefore it justifies the removal of these children from where they have been for two and a half years, and the movement to people who at this point in time are from a child’s perspective, strangers.

        • That_guy 7.1.1.1
          13 May 2024 at 11:38 am

          The most important consideration in the case of children in these situations is not culture, it is love, security, connection.

          Agree, and as I elaborate below, I struggle to see any situation in which culture is the deciding factor. Because these kids are not having their basic needs met.

        • mickysavage 7.1.1.2
          13 May 2024 at 8:06 pm

          We don't live on the pages of a text book, Micky.

          Did you read that I have been involved in Youth Justice since before 1989 and do this as part of my day job?

          The most important consideration in the case of children in these situations is not culture, it is love, security, connection.

          Which is proobably why the legislation says that “the well-being and best interests of the child or young person are the first and paramount consideration”.

          If you are going to claim that individual cases were decided wrongly and too much emphasis was given to something then say so. But saying the legislation is wrong and needs to be changed when the legislation seems fine is the wrong target.

          Culture is not the deciding factor. But it is an important one that Chhour's amendment will remove.

  8. Ad 8
    13 May 2024 at 8:36 am

    Another piece of this governments incoherent garbage-wave of policies, legislation, political non-accountability, and absurd fiscal destruction.

    Good on the honest RIS drafters.

  9. Incognito 9
    13 May 2024 at 9:13 am

    It seems rather obvious that none of the commenters here who’re critical/scathing of Section 7AA (and Oranga Tamariki and the Waitangi Tribunal) have really read the Inquiry Report and RIS. And even if they had, they simply ignore the evidence and fob it off as unreliable and not to be trusted.

    They create straw man arguments and distractions, and inevitably agree with Chhour because they suffer from the same ideological blindness and bias as the Minister does.

    None are genuinely interested in robust debate here.

    It’s moot anyway, because the Minister and this Government can and will ignore any (expert) advice and evidence that doesn’t suit their agenda and will push things through Parliament regardless since Parliament is supreme. Such is the arrogance and incompetence of this neo-authoritarian coalition government.

    • Macro 9.1
      13 May 2024 at 11:34 am

      +1

      My thoughts entirely. Regrettable state of affairs. 🙁

      I began my working life in what was then Child Welfare, as a Child Welfare Officer. I had a case load of over 110 young people and the requirement to prepare up to 10 Court reports per week on children appearing before the Children's Court. It was a frankly a mission impossible. As a graduate in mathematics I was "head hunted" by one of the local secondary schools I visited on a regular basis, and an immediate doubling of salary. I have to admit running from one crisis to the next was rapidly loosing its appeal. I gather case loads have reduced in size over the years but even back then it was acknowledged that a maximum case load of 30 was about optimum. I'm not sure what the current research suggests.

    • Dolomedes III 9.2
      13 May 2024 at 1:11 pm

      You want evidence? Well how about this article posted above by Traveller. Clause 7AA in action:

      https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/04/15/two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right-2/

      • lprent 9.2.1
        13 May 2024 at 4:28 pm

        So you're now arguing a statistical argument based on what – two or three publicised cases in front of a family court?

        Out of the 55 thousand cases that wind up there every year?

        You really are a stupid bigot..

  10. That_guy 10
    13 May 2024 at 11:33 am

    “Section 7AA was a measure introduced to address Treaty obligations. My concern is that it has taken the focus away from the best interests of the child.”

    This is exactly what happened in multiple cases, as described by other commenters.

    I agree that "all other things being equal, a Māori child is better off being raised within Māori culture than not" but I have to wonder if there really are any children, any at all, in this situation. This goes against the heart of what an uplift / placement is supposed to be. It's supposed to create a much better environment.

    I just struggle to see any situation in which the child's unmet cultural needs are the deciding factor. These are kids who's basic needs are not being met.

    If unmet cultural needs are the deciding factor, there are three possibilities:

    1) The environment the child is in now is as good as the proposed new environment, and the only difference is the unmet cultural needs. In which case, let's see some evidence that the disruption caused by the move is worth it. Everything we know about children says moving is the greater evil, children need stability, so no move should take place.

    2) The environment the child is in now is as bad as the proposed new environment, and the only difference is the unmet cultural needs. In which case, you're moving the child from bad environment to bad environment. So no move should take place.

    3) The unmet cultural needs are being given undue weight and the child gets moved from a good environment to a bad environment. This seems to be what happened.

    Another principle that needs to be discussed: Promises made to children must be kept unless there is a very, very good reason not to. Even if those promises were made under a previous government, even if they don't currently align with the zeitgeist. Promises made to children must be kept.

    • lprent 10.1
      13 May 2024 at 4:41 pm

      Probably would help if we actually started to collect and analyse some basic data about cause and eventual effects of social actions.

      Reality is that we don't even know statistically if moving children in the first place to adoptive places outside of their wider family ever confers any real benefits over the long-term. What we do know is that there is statistical effect of genetic selfishness in most mammals and that tends to exhibit both in familial similarities in body type, mental capabilities, and in derived cultural preferences.

      What I tend to see in arguments like this is what Traveller said or you said as being pretty useless. They are arguments based on untested assumptions about genetics and culture that are never analysed and tested. Usually based with a complete disregard for the known biological factors and are based presumptive cultural values.

      In essence they are exactly the same as the immoral decisions of closed adoption policies from the 19th century and first half of the 20th century that were largely based on the idea of parental sin or were done to try to break up indigenous cultures.

      That was the kind of policy that put ‘wild’ children into the hands of ‘responsible’ religious fanatics that caused so many problems at the height of our closed adoption peak in the 50s/60s.

      • Traveller 10.1.1
        13 May 2024 at 5:22 pm

        "Reality is that we don't even know statistically if moving children in the first place to adoptive places outside of their wider family ever confers any real benefits over the long-term."

        Depends what you mean by 'real benefits'.

        Adoption and the effect on children's development – ScienceDirect

        "In spite of arguments against adoption in favor of family preservation at all costs, or because of purported psychic trauma to the birth parent or adopted child [4], data collected over the past three decades continue to support adoption as a superior means of promoting normal development in children permanently separated from birth parents. For children suffering severe neglect or abuse in early life or exposure to illicit drugs in utero, an adoptive family is a remarkable environment for healing emotional and physical trauma and reversing developmental deficits.

        They are arguments based on untested assumptions about genetics and culture that are never analysed and tested.

        What assumptions would they be?

      • Belladonna 10.1.2
        13 May 2024 at 6:23 pm

        we don't even know statistically if moving children in the first place to adoptive places outside of their wider family ever confers any real benefits over the long-term.

        Empirically, we do know. The long tail and shameful tail of kids murdered by their parents, tells us. In almost every case the family was well known to OT.

        Every one of those kids would have been better of elsewhere. Whether the elsewhere was extended family, or external adoption.

        • joe90 10.1.2.1
          13 May 2024 at 6:38 pm

          In almost every case the family was well known to OT.

          Cite?

          • Belladonna 10.1.2.1.1
            13 May 2024 at 7:03 pm

            News reporting of the cases. It's difficult to recall one which was the result of abuse, where there was not an OT report.

            https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/133215639/baby-ru-homicide-uncle-says-he-made-a-formal-complaint-to-oranga-tamariki-almost-a-year-ago

            https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350224059/silence-oranga-tamariki-over-two-abused-children

            Here's a report on leaked information, saying that OT had involvement in over 50% of child deaths.

            https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300998907/57-kids-in-seven-years-our-shocking-child-death-toll

            I'd argue that if people had any confidence that OT would take effective action – the total would have been a lot higher.

            https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/446686/oranga-tamariki-wrong-not-to-follow-up-reports-review-finds

            • joe90 10.1.2.1.1.1
              13 May 2024 at 7:47 pm

              And those records could have absolutely nothing to do with the safety of the child.

              Really, wtf is the state supposed to do because a child is present when police were investigating a dishonesty incident or a notification is made about a family member?

              Consult the magic eight ball and uplift a child because they're going to be killed?

              • Belladonna …
                14 May 2024 at 9:38 am

                Well, they might have nothing to do with the wellbeing of the child. However, in many cases, there are reported instances where people raised very significant safety concerns with OT – who either did nothing, or acted ineffectually. It's not the odd one here or there, it's case after distressing case.

                Meanwhile, OT social workers are victimizing perfectly good carers because they're not the 'right' ethnicity. (Moana case).

                OT's philosophy of keeping the children with the mother (it's almost always the mother, since the father is long gone), because it's best for the mother. Is directly opposed to the mandate of child-centred care.

                Yes, of course, if all things are equal, and Mum just needs a bit of support – then the kids are better of with her. But where Mum has serious addiction issues, is bouncing around from one drop-kick boyfriend to another, or is manifestly unable to be the 'adult' in the family – then the best welfare for the kids is to remove them from that situation.

                It's rare for the Mum concerned to be able to make that call. So it's OT's job. One that they're not succeeding in.

                Of course, if there is a family placement – without the same issues – then that's the best alternative. But in many cases there isn't.

                The placement also needs to be permanent (or as permanent as possible). Stability is one of the most important things for kids – and even more so for traumatized kids. Bouncing backwards and forwards between foster or family care and back to Mum, only for the pattern to repeat – is very bad for the kids. Something that OT's care model seems to willfully ignore.

      • Descendant Of Smith 10.1.3
        13 May 2024 at 10:01 pm

        And we also need to collect data on the abuse that occurred that never reached the authorities both in pakeha and Maori families.

        In my own family there's a long history of abuse – both physical and sexual. I'd say less than 5% of the victims went to any authority. This is true of many families in New Zealand – the notion that reporting to the authorities is in any way useful as an indicator seems from my perspective to be more akin to luck than having any meaningful purpose.

        Many friends have also been abused and never been to any authorities. In my mothers case it was the policeman who lived next door, in one cousins the elderly neighbour, one friend it was the local priest (he meted out his own form of justice by beating the shit out of him as an adult), another a school teacher at a private school. I can do a very long list.

        I also have a reasonable list of adopted out family members – it would be fair to say the results are very mixed. What isn't mixed is they all desired to and have now through DNA found their genetic families. And guess what many of those mothers had little choice about losing their kids. In some cases the mum's parents made the call, in others the state. What no-one did was offer to help raise that child alongside the mother in a nurturing supportive way. (same issue I have with anti-abortionists – want to stop abortions, enact policies that will help raise kids – but nah you just want to exercise the coercive power of the state.

        I've seen organisations push for grandparents to raise their grandkids – overlooking the fact that the reason the now adult kids were dysfunctional was because the grandparents were abusive and dysfunctional – not at all the sweet public facing things they purport to be.

        Have we not learned anything from all the enquiries into things like state care, orphanages, residential homes, etc? Have we not learned that broader objectives like decent wages, security of employment, etc will reduce dysfunction.

        I'm just hearing the same anti-maori, anti-women (sole parent) bullshit I have heard for years and years. New Zealand is a highly racist country – Maori get paid less, are identified by the colour of their skin and abused for that, have capitalist laws restricting what they can do on private land, and used by employers as cannon fodder for short-term work, and so on. Sole-parents get the same sort of abuse – they who are raising the next generation of workers.

        The problem is not them – the problem is that we have built a society deliberately that devalues their contribution. One that sees women as a production unit in the labour market so we would rather spend money on private childcare businesses than on women to have the choice to stay home and raise their children whether married or not. We now choose to hassle sole parents raising children post Paula Bennett removing their training support – training support that helped many of them study while sole parents. We removed adult education at community colleges which gave people a second chance at learning. Often a craft class got someone back into other study as confidence built up.

        We've turned into a selfish, what about me arsehole of a place where we have forgotten about helping those in a meaningful and generous way who need help. What have we got from lowering all those taxes – more me, me me. Certainly not more productive industries, certainly not better wages, certainly not an improvement in housing and fewer poor people – and especially since the rise of Trump more overt racism from white people.

        Many of those commenting here in recent times are reflective of that arseholeism. It's quite notable that they do not cite up fucked up European examples of crime, of abuse, of wrong-doing – it is Maori all the time. Some of you are quite sickening in this respect.

        The notion of placing children within their own culture really has nothing to do with Maori per se. It is a consistent theme across the world. As New Zealand becomes more diverse we are going to have to grapple with it more broadly.

        Australia and the UK are well down this road. The US starting to make headway.

        https://www.acwa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Maintaining-culture.pdf

        https://www.capstonefostercare.co.uk/knowledge-centre/fostering-across-cultures

        • Shanreagh 10.1.3.1
          13 May 2024 at 10:19 pm

          DoS this is a heartfelt & learned piece of writing. I like how it draws together many different arguments and puts a new slant on them…..for instance the grandparents looking after grandchildren situation may just putting children back into family units that were not successful first time round. I wonder are these placements vetted?

          Thank you

          • Descendant Of Smith 10.1.3.1.1
            13 May 2024 at 10:43 pm

            I'd also add that we know the cause of abuse.

            There has been extensive research undertaken in New Zealand regarding the reasons behind child abuse and understanding the factors behind it is crucial to addressing this problem. In the study by the Ministry of Development in December 2010 the study commented that the main causes of child abuse within New Zealand were due to substance abuse, as well as poor parenting practices through generations.

            Drug and alcohol abuse put a child in an environment in which the significance of child abuse is greatly increased compared with households that substance abuse is not a part of the environment. However, there is also a suggestion that child neglect in the form of abuse is the result of poverty and family stresses. But it is not just that issue of poverty that causes the child abuse but the effect of the poverty on the parents mental well being leading to multiple stresses which researchers have identified as being predictive of child abuse.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse_in_New_Zealand

            But you know we'll keep putting liquor outlets and gambling machines in poor areas, we'll stress poor unemployed parents out by having them attend seminars and soon to report six monthly, we'll target assistance and make it complicated rather than simply pay universal family benefit and get it back off rich people through the higher tax rates they should pay, we'll leave housing to be a free market failure with rents exceeding reasonable income proportions – in short we will keep poor people under stress, ensure they have easy access to alcohol and gambling and then blame them for their failings.

        • Drowsy M. Kram 10.1.3.2
          13 May 2024 at 10:21 pm

          yes

        • Phillip ure 10.1.3.3
          14 May 2024 at 5:31 pm

          Wot d.o.s. sez ..

          The only other dot I would join to…is that it is my understanding that most gang members have been thru the wringer of that state system… wholesale abuse…and all that…

  11. joe90 11
    13 May 2024 at 4:59 pm

    Good.

    Dr Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown

    @FitzmauriceLuke

    BREAKING: Court of Appeal overturns high court decision that the waitangi tribunal erred in issuing a summons to the minister for children. Says the tribunal has an important constitutional role, as well as the full powers of a commission of inquiry. Summons was therefore valid.

    […]

    @FitzmauriceLuke

    Full judgment now available here –https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZCA-160.pdf

    https://twitter.com/FitzmauriceLuke/status/1789858165816717652

    • joe90 11.1
      13 May 2024 at 5:08 pm

      lol – first up, best dressed

      @FitzmauriceLuke

      More 7AA news: the Bill repealing section 7AA has been introduced to the House today. Tribunal snuck in just in time by getting their report out on Friday, as they no longer have jurisdiction now that the Bill has been introduced.

      https://twitter.com/FitzmauriceLuke/status/1789850732469932426

    • Phillip ure 11.2
      13 May 2024 at 5:39 pm

      That is good news…

      • joe90 11.2.1
        13 May 2024 at 5:43 pm

        All Minister Chhour needs to do is turn up and provide evidence to support changes to 7AA.

        Should be a doddle…

        • Phillip ure 11.2.1.1
          13 May 2024 at 5:47 pm

          Heh ..!…she will flounder. .

          Defending the indefensible..

          Will her appearance be streamed….. ?

          It could be a rewarding watch..

          • Maurice 11.2.1.1.1
            14 May 2024 at 12:46 am

            Will not be happening.

            https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/516684/court-of-appeal-overturns-decision-that-blocked-children-s-minister-from-waitangi-tribunal-summons

            "The court released its decision on Monday.

            At the same time, a bill proposing the repeal of section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act has been introduced to Parliament, meaning the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction over the case.

            "Given the Tribunal had already released a report and the minister answered their questions in writing, it was unlikely she would need to give evidence to the Tribunal."

            Expect ACT Treaty Principles Bill to be pushed forward now?

            "ACT Party's justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson said the Tribunal had gone "well beyond its brief and has become increasingly activist".

            "The Tribunal's actions exemplify why ACT is introducing a Treaty Principles Bill. It's time we defined the principles of the Treaty based on the three articles written and signed in 1840, so that all New Zealanders are treated equally, rather than the Treaty being considered a partnership between the Crown and Māori.

            "We also look forward to the delivery of the coalition's commitment to amend the Waitangi Tribunal legislation to refocus the scope, purpose, and nature of its inquiries back to the original intent of that legislation."

            • Phillip ure 11.2.1.1.1.1
              14 May 2024 at 9:14 am

              What is significant is the precedent set…that yes…the minister must appear if summoned…

              The minister has ducked and weaved this time…but won't be able to in the future…

              • Maurice …
                14 May 2024 at 10:13 am

                Yes the precedent has been set.

                The mere introduction of requisite Bill into the House – while in recess – has stymied the Tribunal. Parliament (- more those who hold the majority there) has the power to legislate. The Tribunal is only able to operate under what ever legislation forces upon it.

                • Drowsy M. Kram …
                  14 May 2024 at 11:21 am

                  Yes the precedent has been set.

                  Yes, a sad day for Aotearoa. Our CoC govt is regressive; "racist as f**k".

                  What the Court of Appeal’s latest ruling means for the future of the Waitangi Tribunal [14 May 2024]
                  “National need to do the right thing and step in to stop the repeal of Section 7AA. They cannot allow Act to continue running rampant and belittling both the mana of the Waitangi Tribunal and the rights of tamariki Māori,” she [Sepuloni] said.
                  …
                  He [Aaron Smale] argued that the erasure of section 7AA amounted to a “political stunt to prove to a Pākehā electorate that there’s one law for all” and that “the scrubbing of a few words from one statute will not so easily erase the history behind it or the legal implications that have been the subject of significant court judgements”.
                  …
                  The tribunal’s precise claim, as Glenn McConnell at Stuff reported, was that the repeal of section 7AA may cause “actual harm”, while former NZ First MP Tracey Martin, who was children’s minister in the Labour-NZ First coalition at the time the provision was implemented, told Tova O’Brien that children would be “worse off” if the government pushed through with its plans.

                  Political tragics will remember Martin as the sensible NZF MP.

                  “Now, they [CoC ministers] know that they have to provide answers to the tribunal’s requests for information – for if they don’t do so voluntarily, then they can be legally made to do so.” This is likely to irk some government ministers, specifically David Seymour and Shane Jones, who both publicly criticised the tribunal last month in a move that some argued was a breach of the cabinet manual. PM Christopher Luxon said the ministers’ criticisms were “ill-considered”.

                  As for the repeal of 7AA, the coalition will soon be getting to work. The bill was officially introduced to parliament yesterday, during a recess period. Te Pāti Māori’s Mariameno Kapa-Kingi called this a “sneaky move”. Act’s Todd Stephenson, meanwhile, responding to the Court of Appeal ruling, said the Waitangi Tribunal had become “increasingly activist”.

                  Our “back on track” CoC govt has those cheeky activists out-gunned.

                  Hara Kiri [27 July 2023]
                  Whatever the failures of the current government and some of its ministers, one thing appears certain at this point: having a NACT coalition in power will be a disaster for most of us even while it benefits a very distinct few and the corporate media uncritically applauds—some would say encourages–their self-serving nation-busting antics. Now is the time to open our eyes and see what choice is before us in October: the politics of cruelty, division and avarice, or the politics of moderation and continuity. If the choice turns out in favour of the latter, even as a “lesser evil” option, it offers a basis to repudiate nastiness, greed and sectarianism as well as foreign ideological influences in NZ. If the choice is for the former, it means that a majority chooses to embrace the darker side of our national psyche.

                  That will be a collective tragedy, not a personal one.

                  • Maurice …
                    14 May 2024 at 12:55 pm

                    "Yip! Yip! That is what it is!"

                    The backlash from the perceived "reverse racist" steam rolling of the previous Government is never going to be pretty. We are set on a path that will not end well.

    • newsense 11.3
      14 May 2024 at 1:49 pm

      Rather makes the High Court look like a bunch of sniveling apologists and scam artists covering for an incompetent or evil minister.

      If she has a justification for what she’s doing she needs to front up and explain it.

      She’s a coward, from a party of cowards who survived on National’s welfare for so long, in a government lead by a coward.

      You can’t use government by good ol boys around a bottle of gin or whiskey as a principle of law.

      And the only principle of law they seem to appreciate is they’re the only ones who should make them and everyone else can go hang.

  12. adam 12
    14 May 2024 at 3:42 am

    All this does is make it probable that weapons will be used if the state attempts to up lift.

    Oranga Tamariki staff would be wise to stop any up lifts.