State abuse in faith-based children’s homes

With the welcome media focus of late being on the need for an indpendant inquiry into the herstorical abuse of children in state care, I thought I would add what I see is some missing kōrero to this.

Judge Carolyn Henwood, Sonya Cooper, Elizabeth Stanley, the Never Again stance from HRC[1] Susan Devoy[2] the Nga Morehu on the Hui[3] have mainly focused on the state abuse of young people in New Zealand larger care institutions. With all of these good people “speaking out” on our behalf, I’ve wondered about the voices of those who are no longer with us, about the women’s stories and the very small children who were placed by the state into faith-based children’s homes.

I have been talking about this on various social platforms for months now and the response has been almost a deafening silence. It seems that whilst some experts (legal people, academics, key stakeholders) are very vocal about abuse in some of the bigger institutions…few seem to talk about the abuse that happened to children in faith-based children’s homes. Particularly to tamariki Māori who were disenfranchised from their cultural connections and this in itself caused trauma, from which many have never healed.

In this blog, my focus is on those tamariki (under 8 years) who were placed in faith-based care by the state. My brothers Kanara and Tipene were still in nappies when we were taken from our parents to be put into one of these homes. Where in less than a week, the abuse began. The house father (caregiver), a well respected church attending man was super skilled at grooming small children.

The narcissistic showering of fatherly attention making a vulnerable child feel special and wanted. Followed closely by the confusing withdrawal of that attention. So that a child craves for it back, not understanding that they have not done wrong; they were just being cruelly manipulated. The same person who used to turn my mother away when she came crying for her babies at the door of the facility. I still terror sleep at the powerlessness we experienced as small beings in those places…of the hallways and endless rooms, leading onto more rooms, where there is no escape into the sunshine. Waking not being able to breathe.

These places where the vetting of caregivers was not a priority because the assumption was, that they were good Christian folk with children’s best interests at heart. The thing with religious based homes and non-vetting is that ‘caring’ folk from the community could access the “underprivileged” children on outings, camps, overnight stays, that led to weekends and school holiday stays. These ‘good folk’ were Ministers, church elders and congregation made up of Doctors, Judges, Lawyers, Police, Freemasons and others.

Sexual, physical, emotional and ae, cultural abuse occurred. In some places ritualistic abuse happened but that’s not being tabled as an abuse type. It’s in the ‘too hard to believe’ box and therefore not credible. Well I’m putting it on the table. What do you think happens when Ministers, church elders, congregation members put their hands up to take underprivileged children?  Some of those placements cared for the children and some took advanctage of their innocence and vulnerability.

Mark Solomon was right when he said “when it comes to abuse of children, there are three groupings.” Those that stand with the victims, those that stand with the perpetrators and the worst roopu, those that deny and bury it. I’d like to add another, the ones that stand silent scanning for which roopu they’re going to shuffle towards.

As long as people believe that state abuse only happened in ‘some’ institutions by ‘some’ bad social workers, it takes the focus off and serves those people that the National 9 year reignhave been trying to protect [4] . And, if you know anything about children and abuse disclosure you will know that Māori and women are less likely to speak out about their abuse because of the insidious nature (double whammy/intersectionality) of racism and sexism.

The protecting of state abuse of children is at all levels and ongoing. The stats are being collected but state is no longer reporting on the abuse of children in care [5]. Why because it’s prolific and that’s only the children who are actually disclosing their abuse. Many do not because they are afraid of very real concequences, threats to be silent, dumb and run, or that they will be shifted to worse placement…and let’s face it, this abuse is rarely recorded.

Have you ever asked state care survivors about accessing their records? Often when they go to find their records to give evidence to a possible claim, to find their whakapapa connections, official records are conveniently lost, destroyed, or blacked out. Whakapapa connections wiped for hundreds. Abuse records wiped. My DSW file was blacked out, and no record of my childhood injuries, or the complaints I made on behalf of my brothers and I, ever found.

The abuse of children in state care did not miraculously stop in 1992; it is ongoing. Different children, different social workers, different placements but the culture of abuse and covering it remains as active as it ever was. See, for example [6].

An Inquiry needs to include all institutions and children’s homes of any description (either run by churches or the State) – and either as a State Ward, a home/welfare child or in foster care and all forms of abuse. Not just limited to sexual abuse like the Australian Inquiry where many abuse survivors missed out on telling their story.

It is most important that the  inquiry not become a legal exercise as that will keep the whole system in tact. It needs to ensure that there is a broad range of people speaking to the kaupapa and that the impact is not limited to a short term change in policy but reaches to include stronger Treaty relationships. All of our mahi shows it is whanau and hapu that know where our tamariki need to be if they are in an unsafe place so there needs to be strong advocacy in terms of tino rangatiratanga. Individuals need to be heard and compensated but it is tino rangatirtanga we need to end the abuse of our mokopuna in state care.

Finally, for those of you ‘good Christian’ folk who abused small children in your care, good luck explaining this to God when your time comes. And for everyone else, stand your sacred ground, honour the Treaty and be a spanner in the works for whānau, not a cog for the Crown!

Contact Paora at: https://www.paoramoyle.com

#BeaSpannerNotaCog

[1] https://www.hrc.co.nz/news/e-kore-ano-never-again/

[2] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11809895

[3] https://www.facebook.com/TheHuiNZ/videos/596718103870588/

[4] http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/70377103/catholic-priests-who-abused-new-zealand-children-will-not-be-investigated.

[5] https://www.facebook.com/MPJanLogie/posts/1901834233368019?pnref=story

[6] http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2016/06/cyf-caregiver-jailed-for-horrific-sex-abuse.html#.WOmt_ANDajo.facebook

Advertisements

Submission on the Terms of Reference for Historical Abuse in State Care Royal Commission

My name is Paora Joass Moyle. I am a proud descendant of a long line of Ngāti Porou wāhine toa and also many strong Celtic women through my Welsh ancestry. I write on behalf of my siblings (both blood and whāngai) who spent our childhoods raised in the care of the New Zealand state. (Read our story here).

When my only child was just seven years old he announced confidently, you know mama you’re not a state care kid, you’re a shero because how would we ever know what it’s like for those kids if they didn’t go through that. It teaches us what we most need to learn about ourselves aye mama?” I never saw my 14 years of being raised in state care in that light before. My son was expressing how he saw vulnerability as a privileged position and how we have a choice to either see that for what it is, or to ignore it.

From the mouth of a babe, I was given permission to speak out about what it is like to grow up disconnected from my bi-racial parents, my culture, my whenua, tikanga and reo. That vulnerable positioning has become my life’s purpose. Thus, I use my experience to speak about the need for positive change in New Zealand’s child protection system. This positioning also inspired my 27 year career in social work, and to be the kind of parent where there was no chance of the state taking my child.

Thank you Sir Anand (Chair for RC)  for your letter inviting me (as a survivor and long serving social worker) to comment on the draft terms of reference (TOR) for the Historical Abuse in State Care Royal Commission (RC). In your letter you outline the four elements you would like me to comment on. The first being the “scope and purpose.” The second element being a “suitable reference to the Treaty of Waitangi.” (I will not comment on all as many others will also provide their views).

My first key comment is te Tiriti o Waitangi as a founding document of this nation should be first and foremost in the RC going forward to address multiple failures of the Crown to keep our tamariki safe in state care. Particularly when it is Māori who have been the predominantly targeted people over the time frame stated in the draft TOR.

One of my gravest concerns is that the government officials who put the TOR together appear not able to think and operate in equal partnership with Māori. Despite the RC website stating, “the Inquiry will adhere to the highest of standards of professionalism and integrity” and“we will work in partnership with Iwi, Māori and whānau. How do you do this when the RC operates from a dominant white-stream worldview? Being secondary speaks volumes of a deep underpinning assumption that we as Māori are incapable of deciding for ourselves, much less looking after our own child protection needs. Why does my tikanga have to be less than yours?

I stated in my opening address to you at a two-day survivor hui in February Sir Anand, “Te Tiriti was not even mentioned in the draft terms of reference and if we are to get this get this right, we must begin how we mean to carry on. Māori MUST have their own stream within the RC.” This means, our own panel of experts (including lived-experience) and advisory survivor roopu, if we are to engage successfully with our hard to reach people. Our world view, our experience, the loss of our mokopuna (grandchild) to genocidal, policy and practice in Aotearoa, is not EVER secondary. It is first and foremost in our living breathing existence. Has the state become so immune to the continued disproportional statistics of our tamariki in state care that, when we call for our own safe processes, we are still treated as an add-on? I don’t think Taika Waititi was kidding when he said “New Zealand is as racist as f..k!”

An example of “racist as f..k” is the way the TOR, (p5, 2.2) lumps Māori in with other groups of people. “In considering this, the Inquiry is also invited to have particular consideration for Maori and any groups where differential impact is evident, e.g. by gender, LGBTQI people, Pacific people and people who have experienced mental health issues.” Genocide and inter-generational trauma are not merely a “differential impact.” Please cease othering your te Tiriti partner. Is this truly adhering to the highest of standards of professionalism and integrity and working in partnership with whānau, hapu and iwi?

My second key comment is there have never been any safe spaces/processes for our Māori state abuse survivors to tell their stories. (Which is why we have had to take our concerns to the Waitangi Tribunal: Wai 2615 – The Māori Children placed in State Care Claim). A best example of this is voiced by my brother who at 8 years old (among a raft of other abuses) was put into psychiatric care with adult patients. He had this to say:

“Your MSD historical abuse claims process is there to make YOU feel better. It blames me and you get to distance yourselves from an unpleasant occurrence and thereby confirm your own invulnerability to the risk. Your process puts the onus on me to ‘prove’ that I was raped, beaten, abused and in doing so it labels me; makes me responsible for all that happened to my small body.

The whole claims process is like facing your rapists again. Like the Judge who took a fancy to me and would take me in the school holidays and on long weekends. A Judge although much older now, is very senior and still there. I see his face, when you all sit there assessing my words, my innocence, my stolen childhood. Where I have to recount the detail and you look at me with eyes, that spell out neon words in the air between us, “troubled” “broken” “dysfunctional” and “cognitively impaired.” Your labels and pathologising is like a knife to my guts, cutting me into bits and telling me I am to blame for your re-rape of me.

You have no understanding of inter-generational trauma, layered like whakapapa…heck you don’t even know what that means. How the mamae and energy of it is passed on through our cellular memory. Your homogenised approach is an affront to me and re-traumatises my being.

You all (MSD process/panel) can then see yourselves as different, impartial and independent (the good guys, expert, well-intentioned). You are NOT! Your espoused tīkanga process does not help us, it repels us. Your victim-blaming marginalises me as a survivor. Your offer to access my notes for me is a load of BS also. I get my DSW notes and they are all redacted. Further, confirming to me that I am to blame and that you are protecting yourselves as state representatives, as colonisers, allowing me little to draw from.

My file notes were written by culturally ignorant social workers to cover their racist missionary-styles decision-making and NOT for my well being. Nothing in my notes remotely relates to my recollection of how I was treated. You (MSD) call yourselves “a tīkanga informed process with culturally competent professionals.” You are not even able to voice your knowledge of Māori models, modes and methods of healing that are vital to us as Māori. Even my medical notes were not to be found which, could’ve corroborated many of my injuries. Such as the burning of my genitals through electrical convulsive treatment (ECT) intended to punish me for telling or crying out for my mother.

All your white arrogance and assurances that you offer a “flexible” and thus “tīkanga” approach are just more lies; more fracking my Māori’ness. When you ask me to prove my rape to you, you ask me to undress to offer up my small body, so that you may inspect, poke and prod, measure, sodomise me and then calmly get up, and leave me lying exposed whilst you wash your hands and make your findings.

There are thousands more of us, whom my sister and other advocates are tireless in providing us with a voice. We want and deserve our own process according to our rights under te Tiriti” (Personal communication: June, 2016).

My third key comment is with the time frame of the RC. Genocidal policies and processes impacting our mokopuna did not miraculously end on the 31 December, 1999. Sir Anand, your stated reasoning for the draft time frame is, “After 2000, people were not in institutional care, by and large; people were in the community, and New Zealanders had available to them a number of mechanisms — Human Rights Commission, Health and Disability Commission, Ombudsmen, etc.”  With respect, this a monumental cop-out because those processes and others since (such as, CYF/MSD/CLAS), have not provided a true tīkanga space for Māori survivors to tell their stories. Just because Big Tobacco says smoking is good for you, does not make it so. In exactly the same way posters adorning OT offices declare that they are “tika, pono and with aroha.”

Further, I contend that not a single one of these toothless processes has been able to STOP the tide of racist targeting of our most vulnerable mokopuna from the NZ state. 62% of youth incarcerated into care and protection residences and 73% in youth justice are our rangatahi. All part of the brown pipe-lining of our babies as fodder to fill NZ’s prisons. The proposed TOR time frame only serves to protect the current model (Oranga Tamariki) from being investigated as continuing to fall short in its statutory duty to keep our stolen mokopuna safe from harm.

The New Zealand government not only fails in their obligations to te Tiriti o Waitangi but also to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The declaration recognises “the right of indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training, education and well-being of their children, consistent with the rights of the child.” Secondly, the declaration recognises “the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group.” Let’s call it what it is, not “cultural genocide” but straight up genocide!

In 2014, I wrote about the new focus upon Māori newborns (aka under 5s) by CYF. “In New Zealand, the statistics of newborns uplifted by the state are not made public; these requested through the Official Information Act process. In the 2012 – 2013 year, 13 new-born Māori from a total of 26 were removed from the birthing table, and 80 Māori babies from a total of 157 were removed from their mother within 30 days of their birth (Bernadette McKenzie, Deputy Chief Executive, Child Youth & Family, personal communication, June, 6, 2014). In the first instance, these infants are most often placed with state approved non-Māori caregivers until the concerns held can be addressed via a FGC. Māori make up 15% of the total New Zealand population and the uplift of nearly 100 infants a year from their mothers, many of who are not returned, essentially wipes out future generations of Māori. The actual number of infants uplifted is likely to be much higher as the primary ethnicity is recorded by the social worker and often this is discretionary depending who that social worker decides the child may go to.” (See Moyle, 2014).

In 2018, I am still talking about our babies being uplifted where 45 over the last year were taken from their mother the day they were born. The number has increased in the last three years, with 225 in 2017 – 38 more than 2016 and 63 more than 2015. Over the last three years, 574 babies ended up in state care within the first month of their life, according to figures released under the Official Information Act (See article source here). The percentage of these infants being Māori has increased from 50% in 2013 to 70% in 2018.

This targeting of our mokopuna is the structural/systemic/institutional racism (not unconscious bias), that the Puao te ata tu inquiry spoke at great lengths of, and like the Brown inquiry of 2000, was largely ignored. These uplift statistics of our mokopuna also correlate with what is being reported in other colonial jurisdictions such as the USA, UK and Australia, that right now are greater than they have ever experienced before. For example, ten times that of the Stolen Generations and the 60s Scoop. And whilst our Chief social worker commented in this article, “some of the babies would have been taken for planned adoption rather than protection reasons.”  This is misleading in order to distract from the truth of the increase. There is a vast difference between children taken with a mother’s consent to adopt, and those uplifted for reasons of concern for their safety.

It is also not true that these infants are taken as a “last resort.” My FGC findings with over 30 whānau members showed that often the under 5s (including newborns) were often uplifted as a first resort in family violence situations (See, Moyle & Tauri, 2016 for further reading). Especially where predictive risk modelling type assessments were being used by police, social workers and contracted assessment services. They are deficit-focused rather than strengths, and they accentuate weakness from a white-is-right worldview. ‘Child centered’ as a policy/practice is about as state centered as the term ‘child poverty.’ It is ludicrous to assess a child apart from their collective environment and connections.

The under 5s are the largest growing uplift group under Oranga Tamariki. (A title that grossly misrepresents the meaning. Rather than tamariki ora, is more aptly Tamariki Trauma.) An organisation where the social work ‘elite’ fail to challenge the brown care to incarceration pipeline. That re-branded itself from CYF, promising to have NZ child protection sorted in 5 years time. And in 12 months of rolling over its same senior staff into the new model; it did so assuring the same “partnership with whānau, hapu and iwi” (stated earlier in this submission) yet minus any acknowledgement of te Tiriti or the need to address institutional racism. Not even the Expert Advisory Group with its ‘no social work experts at the table’ could utter the words ‘institutional racism’ in any of its shiny reports. A year on, under Oranga Tamariki the total number of children in NZ state care has skyrocketed from 5,600 to 6,100 and 63% of those are ours.

These numbers are unprecedented and result from racist practice window-dressed as cultural competence to work with our mokopuna. Supported also by Family Court practice that often put our women and children at risk of further harm (See Backbone Collective reports on this). Employing overseas social workers and new graduates (like interns doing fine brain surgery) to deal with complex cases, high workloads, in a robotic risk averse work environment, with little understanding of dynamics of colonial fallout/domestic violence, historical trauma and with no external culturally competent supervision, adds to the bush picnic (See more on institutional racism in child protection here).

In a recent report commissioned by the new child protection model, it quoted 12% of children in state care have disclosed being abused, since being placed in care. That is, those who have had the courage to tell. It, like other disclosure research states that the actual number is thought to be considerably higher. If we were to take that 12% and apply it to the 100,000 survivors that went through state care from the 50s to the 90s, then we are looking at 12,000 at the very least. And we’ve probably transacted at least another 70,000 children through state care since 1990.

Which leads to my last two questions. If it took the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service (CLAS), 7 years to listen to 1,100 survivors, what does the RC hope to achieve with 12,000 potential survivors in 2 ½ years (by end of this political term)? And if it cost the Australian Royal Commission 500 million over 5 years, realistically what will we achieve with 12 million?

I, my brothers, my whāngai siblings and wider whānau have contributed multiple times to this kaupapa over the years. My/our final comment, is if we are to learn anything about what we are not getting right for mokopuna ora in Aotearoa, then we have to listen to, and cease dismissing the experiences of those most affected. Lived-experience is everything. It is true knowledge. It is vital that the voices of Ngā Mōrehu and all survivor groups are centralised in this RC. It is essential that as Ngā Mōrehu/survivors are supported to speak out. Our silence does not belong to Oranga Tamariki, MSD, the Family Court or any system, and positional people that trough feed off the backs of our mokopuna. We will no longer be silent so that others can remain comfortable. These systems have no right to keep us from protecting ourselves, our whānau and future generations of our people!

RECOMMENDATIONS

  • Tangata whenua must have their own stream in the Royal Commission, their own panel of chosen experts, and advisory survivor roopu, all with appropriate resourcing.

 

  • Change the timeframe to include current abuse experienced by our young people state care.

 

  • Consider an appropriate restoration process that includes not just an apology but compensation for all survivors that come under the final terms.

 

  • If faith-based institutions want to be open and accountable for the way they failed to care for some of their wards, I suggest they combine their resources and establish their own inquiry. Perhaps run it alongside the Royal Commission, with an appropriate resolution process and compensation for survivors.

 

  • In the learning about how to make it different, the RC must investigate how institutional racism within the current model of child protection contributes to the gross over-representation of our mokopuna in state care.

 

  • Look to establish a totally independent (of MSD) quality assurance and accountability body to act as oversight to the practices of Oranga Tamariki. A body which also processes compliments/complaints from families and individuals experiencing this practice.

 

  • Look into a tangata whenua model/body responsible for approving social workers as culturally competent (fit and proper) to work with tangata whenua in need.

 

  • Look into the need for OT social workers to engage in external ‘culturally competent to work with Maori’ supervision for OT social workers.

 

  • If, the RC cannot do anything to put matters right for survivors (both present and historical), then just hand it all back to us, our lands, resources, our babies, everything!

Paora Joass Moyle

info@paoramoyle.com

Image (with permission) from Robyn Kahukiwa

Adding to the conversation on the herstorical abuse of children in NZ state care

Tēnā koutou katoa. My name is Paora Crawford Moyle. I spent 14 years in state care and I have 27 years of social work experience behind me. I speak out a lot on the gaps within New Zealand child protection, particularly in relation to mokopuna Maori over-representation.

This kōrero is for Ngā Wāhine Mōrehu and also for those who have passed on from this life with no acknowledgment for the abuse they endured. It is also for the many of our disabled whānau who are often left out of this conversation.

Recently we learned of Labour’s commitment to an ‘independent’ Inquiry into the historical abuse of children in state care. So while we are talking about the kind of Inquiry we might have, I thought I would take the opportunity to put a key points.

Just as many girl children were abused in state care as boy children

When I read a headline Abused Males Want a Royal Commission and I see the media coverage on the Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Conference recently held in Christchurch, I wonder if other wāhine survivors like myself feel like our specific experiences are marginalised? Thus, I wanted to make the absolute point that female survivors want a Royal Commision just as much as male survivors do. And “As many boys as girls were sexually abused. About 57% of the men we saw had been sexually abused and 57% of the women.” Findings from New Zealand’s Confidential Listening and Assistance Service (CLAS).

Apart from the recent Ngā Wāhine Mōrehu piece on the Hui, female state care survivors (or care leavers) are almost entirely excluded from the Inquiry conversation. It is vital that women as a survivor group with specific experiences are not left out of the setting up of an Inquiry. Why? If you know anything about children and abuse disclosure you will know that Māori and women are less likely to speak out about their abuse due to the intersectionality (what I refer to as the double whammy) of racism and misogyny/sexism. Yet we know that one in four New Zealand girls is sexually abused before the age of 15. An international survey found that New Zealand had highest rate of any country examined and the results showed, for the first time, that Māori girls suffer twice as much sexual abuse as non-Māori girls.

Female survivors of state care abuse have reported experiencing forced internal inspections for venereal diseases (VD) and forced contraception. I was forced to take contraception which there was no need for because I was not sexually active at the time and later I was only interested in girls. I also remember conversations about sterilizing two whangai disabled sisters based upon an assumption that menstruation would be traumatic for them. Although it was very behind closed doors, we know it happened. And just last year we again had forced sterilisation being tabled by Anne Tolley as a method of birth control.

As for forced internal inspections, Sonya Cooper who has been supporting survivors for more than 20 years stated, “Attached are a number of documents we were provided with by media, regarding the VD checks undertaken at the Girls’ Homes…Last month, for the first time, MSD accepted that a client was exposed to abuse by way of medical examinations performed by a doctor which were conducted in a manner which was outside the guidelines of the time. MSD stated that while it did not accept responsibility for the actions of the doctor, it accepted that the client was exposed to this abuse while in its care. Prior to this, MSD had failed to accept that such examinations were abuse, or failed to answer this allegation when presented with it.” (Personal communication from Cooper Legal, 16 November 2017). These practices were horrific and very traumatising for girls and young women. They have impacted generationally upon our whānau, from which we have not healed.

There are also specific issues from the past that directly correlate to what women, Māori women and whānau report they are currently experiencing in systems. In my PhD research, Māori women speak of their experience of sexism, structural racism and cultural ignorance/intolerance in statutory social work and in the Family Court. This is directly linked to the increased number of tamariki Māori (0 – 5s) being uplifted by the state and fast tracked to permanency outside of their whakapapa. If, we truly want systemic change we have to take a good hard look at everything and not just pati pati round the garden. Including ALL abuse types that children endured in state care.

All abuse of children in state care must be included into any Inquiry

It is vitally important that we have survivor groups out front informing the public (such as, the Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Conference) about what historical state abuse is and who it impacts. We also need to be informing people about ALL abuse types being harmful to children and that they must be included into the Inquiry terms of reference.

Why would we consider excluding children like my 8 year bother who experienced electro-shock treatment in Cherry Farm, or those who were locked up 23 hours in solitary confinement? Or the perpetual emotional and cultural abuse we suffered, as evidenced in the 1978 ACORD Inquiry into the “cruel and inhumane treatment…violence and assaults of children and sexual violation of girls and young women.”

Cultural abuse where we were separated from our whānau, referred to as “inbreds” and “Pakeha girls were treated better than Māori girls who were seen as stereotypically bad, and troublemakers…put down and treated with contempt” and “they were stripping children of all their support systems and identifications and making them dependent on the internal system within the home…the institution makes the child obey in order to survive” (Mitchell, I. in ACORD 1978).

Abuse of children also happened in religious based care

I was made a state ward and placed by the state into religious based care. From the outside these places looked like any ordinary homely setting but within a week of going into care the abuse began. The vetting of caregivers was not a priority because the assumption was that they were ‘good’ Christian folk. As a consequence we were very vulnerable to predatory adults and we know that 60% of all victims of historic sexual abuse were abused while in religious based care.

There were also good Christian folk from the community who could access underprivileged children to go on outings, camps, overnight stays, leading to weekends and school holiday stays. They were Doctors, Judges, Lawyers, Police and other respected community leaders. Any Inquiry terms of reference need to include religious based care and not just in the bigger institutions we hear so much about; or it risks excluding more then half the victims.

Any Inquiry must be independent

An inquiry must be independent of the Ministry of Social Development or Ministry for Children. Otherwise it is NOT independent and risks repelling survivors akin to putting Judges robes on their rapist. It risks retraumatising victims and surviors.

An Inquiry MUST be able to compel witnesses and access un-redacted documents; must not have a cut-off date; must deal with compensation/restitution and structural change to our systems. It must include all institutions and children’s homes of any description (either run by churches, charities or the NZ state) and all forms of abuse not just sexual (a big mistake made by the Australian Royal Commission which excluded many thousands of survivors). Personally I think that only a Royal Commission of Inquiry like that of the will do because then it is able to hold Ministries/sytems to account for their multiple and continued failings.

Hei aha, if we have to have the Minister for Children leading it then like Māori Women’s Welfare League did last week, I urge her to consult widely and to give it time. Rushing through the terms of reference by mid Jan next year just leaved out the most important people and again protects the abuser. Consultation must include survivors, survivor groups and organisations with a history of involvement in or supporting those in state care. Ensure that provision is made for lived-experience to be at the change table. It must include a variety of lenses especially when considering previous reviews and recommendations such as Puao te ata tu.

Finally, I am just one voice, a wāhine toa survivor…Ngā Wāhine Mōrehu. I claim the right to be at the change table, to be valued as an ‘expert’ on this kaupapa by virtue of lived-experience. We are hero/shero’s who came to show you what you need to learn. I might be one voice but I speak powerfully on behalf of hundreds of who have been rendered silenced. WE ARE HERE, not to be further victimised and ‘saved’ but to be the living testimony and centralised, collective voice of change.

For those supportive of a Royal Commission of Inquiry here is a survey intended to help shape the Inquiry terms of reference. Or email your views to the Human Rights Commision info@hrc.co.nz – Subject Line: “Independent Inquiry into State Abuse”.

Paora Crawford Moyle

http://www.paoramoyle.com

Excluding essential Māori knowledge in social work: The enhanceR2P project

Two years ago I challenged the (enhanceR2P) project because I believed it was really important research in terms of gauging ‘how’ and ‘what’ students were learning in NZ social work. (See this blog for background detail: https://pmoyle.com/2015/12/10/pakeha-doing-research-on-maori-the-enhancer2p-project/)

It presented as a one-size-fits-all, white-is-best team and research methodology. I questioned it because I didn’t want social work to miss exploring how institutional racism in mainstream social work programmes starved students of the knowledge they needed to engage well with Māori. Especially, since Māori are the predominant client group transacted through statutory child protection…and then pipelined to the prison system.

At the time I asked questions, the enhanceR2P team were all Pākehā academics. When I challenged them about having “no Māori at the table,” they vehemently denied the research was monocultural but rather it was “open” and “collaboarative.” Shortly, after they added the Māori Chair of the SWRB to their team. But as I said at the time, adding a nice Māori does not make the research “bicultural” or Māori inclusive or even friendly. Tokenism is still only littlebitism.

This week I got an email from the Social Work Registration Board (SWRB) stating that they support the enhanceR2P project and were sending the project’s online surveys to all registered social workers. Of course they support it, the SWRB Chair sits on the project team!

As a fee paying registered social worker who is Māori, I DO NOT SUPPORT this research! Even the Wananga refused to participate in it because they did not want to just hand over their teaching knowledge to Pākehā centred research. And why should they when they were not invited to be a part of the inception of the research/terms of reference, only the four involved Universities. It’s the same tiko as Universities calling themselves Wananga (when they are far from qualified to do so) and kicking up a stink when Wananga go to call themselves Universities.

Looking at the enhance2RP online surveys, nothing appears to have improved over the two years in terms of including Māori and exploring how institutional racism insicial work impacts them. Example, putting into your findings the use of “Te Reo Māori terms and terms from Pacific languages” does not reflect their “inclusiveness” into the project. Again it is veenering us on and boxing us to tick.

And the Project Advisory Group make up; just more social work elitsim that support the status quo. Same with the project’s Māori and Pacifica stakeholders groups that do not appear to have influenced the research methodology used. And all the Human Ethics approval in the world means nothing when it excludes approaches that invite essential Māori knowledge currently missing from social work education.

Here are just a few examples from the online surveys[1] that broadcast how this project will benefit indigenous NZs (about as much as a bicycle will Nemo):

  • No where in the surveys or online project information is Te Titriti o Waitangi referred to, or bicultual pracitce or indeed institutional racism that plagues social work. Yet “cultural sensitivity” (a term that went out with the Ark) gets to feature, but NOT “racism sensitivity.”
  • Question 19, in Survey 1 – the example of statutory social work given is, “removing a child.” Could you not use another example? Because according to the stats it is Māori under 5s that are the most increasing client group for uplifts whilst non-Maori are decreasing. If you as a team had a mind for how harmful cultural genocide is to Māori, you might have used some discretion here.
  • Māori and Pacifica are still, “othered” add-ons, veneered to your project. See examples, question 23 and 35, Māori and Pacifica are boxed as “service users groups” and under “specialist knowledge held by social workers.” Where is the box for Pākehā (who are also a culture) and if you were as “collaborative” and “inclusive” as you espouse your team to be, then I wouldn’t need to be pointing this out.
  • Under the “Supervision” section in your surveys, there is a question that refers to “cultural and kaupapa Māori supervison” as being “choices” and “are they helpful to social workers.” Once again ‘add-ons’ because the white-stream is the norm. I’d argue that Kaitiakitanga, or bicultural professional supervison needs to be a requirement for all social workers working with Māori, particularly those working in MCOT, where our babies are prolifically uplifted for being “vulnerable” (poor, brown and powerless).
  • Question 72 where “new social work graduates have mentioned certain topics they say they wished they knew a lot more about” your survey lists “Working with Māori” in the same column as, “dealing with hostility, aggression or conflict, assessing risk, good record-keeping, acquiring advanced and specialist skills and knowledge qualifications, the evidence base for your area of social work practice – what works” and more…This is very telling!

Now more than ever, social work needs to wake up to it’s racial targeting of Māori; not pretend it’s not happening so as not to offend white-fragility that permeates the profession. We need to work collectively on all research that has the potential to effectively challenge white-is-right myths. Such as MVCOT’s insistence on being a ground breaking model for addressing Māori over-representation and doing so whilst ignoring it’s rife institutional racism.

Th enhancer2p research is about as arrogant as any white streamed research could possibly be and the SWRB supports it! Challenge the status quo of non-Māori deciding what IS Māori and what’s BEST for Māori. Unlearn the lies and so too the lie that Academic knowledge makes one an ‘expert’. Pffftttt, lived-experience and indigenous knowledge, old and new is available to us all and that is where the real solutions are. What’s the point in having a voice if you havent got the courage to use it. Be a spanner for whānau, not a cog for the State!
[1] http://www.enhancer2p.ac.nz/2017/08/newly-qualified-social-workers-survey/

Video of original challenge to the project team: https://youtu.be/dWD0ZCi5NOI

Questioning my right to even call myself a social worker

Guest blog by Annie Joass.

Tena koutou katoa,

Ko Longman Hill te maunga

Ko River Deveron te awa

Ko Monowai te waka

Ko Joass te hapu

Ko McDuff te iwi

Ko Shirley Bradley toku whaea

Ko Barry Bradley toku matua

Ko Paora Moyle toku hoa rangatira

Ko Annie Joass toku ingoa

No reira, tena koutou, tena tatou katoa

I’m a big believer in reflective practice; it keeps us alert, aware and accountable if only to ourselves. In that vein, this piece of writing is nothing more than a reflection on my place in social work in Aotearoa in 2017. I’m compelled to write it because being a social worker of 20 years plus hasn’t led me to a place of confidence or faith in my own capability to work with people. It’s actually led me to a place of deep uncertainty, to questioning my right to call myself a ‘social worker.’ Also to the uncomfortable feeling that I don’t belong in a profession, which is in my opinion, doing more to impose and perpetuate oppression and structural racism, than not.

Currently I work across two organisations. One is charged with the education / training of social work students and the other is a provider of social work services. Our client group in both institutions is predominantly socially and financially disadvantaged people, mostly tangata whenua. Whilst this has always been a source of tension for me because my people and I have personally benefited from the systemic, violent oppression of the very people I am professing to be able to help. (I know this is not news to anyone)…but what is really getting stuck in my craw is that now more than ever, I am being asked to work within a system of continued structural oppression that is getting tighter, meaner and leaner. Here’s how I see it playing out.

Firstly, in my role as an educator I am required by my organisation to be a paid up member of the Social Work Registration Board (soon to be mandatory). The Social Work Registration Board is the government body that holds statutory responsibility for ensuring professional standards within social work. I and many other Social Workers pay this government agency money and here’s what they do with it. They make decisions about the social work qualification framework, which are discriminatory, and barrier building against Mᾱori and financially disadvantaged students accessing social work education. Whether intended or not, the consequences are far reaching and will have a profound impact on the profession.

The insistence of the Social Work Registration Board that all social work qualifications must be gained via a 4 year degree, instead of a 3 year degree or even a 2 year diploma, has effectively locked out an entire cohort of students who can’t afford to study for 4 years. In particular students over 40 who now only qualify for 3 years full time student allowance supported study. This affects many more Mᾱori than non-Mᾱori who are far more likely to have been excluded or dis-advantaged by New Zealand’s inherently euro-centric education system. Many of these students have returned to education later in life and more often than not require or are being directed to some form of pre-degree tertiary skills course. The result is 6 to 12 months of their 36 months funding is used with some students facing the choice of self-funding up to 2 years of their social work education now. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the demographic most likely to be affected by this disastrous combination of policy.

This leads me to the actual registration process itself where the next hurdle has been erected. I wouldn’t recommend trying to be social worker these days if you have criminal convictions or a vulnerable background (history with the department, such as a former state ward). Students with previous convictions are struggling to get a straight answer out of the Social Work Registration Board before they engage in study and are told each application will be reviewed on its merits at the time of application, which is now at the end of a very expensive 4 year degree. Who are most affected most by this? Mᾱori. We have overwhelming evidence that the judicial system in this country is at its core biased against Mᾱori, we know that Mᾱori are far more likely to be arrested than non-Mᾱori for the same offense, we know that Mᾱori are far more likely to be convicted than non-Mᾱori for the same or similar offense and we also know that many of the best social workers are those with lived-experience of the issues our clients are dealing with.

“From 2010-2014, police and justice figures show Maori made up 51 per cent of prison sentences, 40 per cent of prosecutions and convictions. And yet, over the same period, Maori made up only 30 per cent of those who received pre-charge warnings – in other words, were let off – compared to 57 per cent of Påkehå. Of those who got to court and were offered diversion – a system which enables offenders to escape a record – Måori made up only 20 per cent. In other words, if you’re caught with cannabis and you’re Påkehå, you’re more likely to receive a pre-charge warning or get diversion. If you’re Måori, you’re more likely to be convicted and sent to jail.”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/84346494/new-zealands-racist-justice-system–our-law-is-not-colourblind

Ok, let’s assume you do manage to get registered in spite of some of these things. The bar now appears to be set higher again if you want to work with MSD as part of the re-structure to the Ministry of Vulnerable Children actively weeding out staff with a vulnerable background and replacing experienced New Zealand social workers with Canadian, British or South African imports. Then add into this mix the stringent new Vulnerable Children’s Act vetting policy. Basically, if you’ve ever ‘f’ed up, no matter the circumstances or length of time passed since, you’re out.

Finally, if you are one of the lucky few that qualify to become a registered social worker, here’s the kicker; you can’t un-register. So if you can’t find a position as a social worker and have to work in a lower paid role such as a support worker, you still have to pay your APC of $380 per annum or run the risk of being investigated (in case you are using any of your social work skills and knowledge in your low paid job.) And should you find yourself the subject of such an investigation there’s a good chance you will also find yourself named and shamed in the Social Work Registration Board newsletter. I have had the rationale for this explained to me in this way “we can’t allow NGO’s to employ someone for their social work skills and refuse to pay for their registration”. Those naughty, greedy NGO’s, they’re always on the take aren’t they. Please follow the link below to the example downloaded from the SWRB Website.

file:///C:/Users/AJoass/Downloads/DECISION-for-website-Iakimo.pdf

But seriously, what’s the up-shot of all of this? Fewer Måori Social Workers eligible to train and / or practice. And if we think back to what the ground-breaking report Puao Te Ata tu (1988) had to say on the largely white-streamed department, it gives us insight into the impact policy like this is going to have some 40 years later.

“The most insidious and destructive form of racism, though, is institutional racism. It is the outcome of monocultural institutions, which simply ignore and freeze out the cultures of those who do not belong to the majority. National structures are evolved which are rooted in the values, systems and viewpoints of one culture only. Participation by minorities is conditional on their subjugating their own values and systems to those of “the system” of the power culture.”

“One of the major criticisms of the Department concerned the numbers of Maori people employed. People believed that more Maori people, particularly mature people, well grounded in both Maori and Pakeha lifestyles were needed in both the front line and as decision makers. Maori staff often complained that they were used as window dressing and expected to share the knowledge of their culture whenever required without having this knowledge recognized as a work-related skill.”

“Because of the insistence on academic qualifications for many positions in the Department, Maori people saw this as effectively locking the gate against Maori applicants. People asked for qualifications to be interpreted broadly. Life experience, fluency in Maori language and ability to relate to another cultural group should be qualifications for certain positions. These skills should be recognized in classification, salary and grading. “

The question I have then is this? Do we really think that making social work education longer, more expensive and less accessible, in addition to increasingly tighter restrictions around who will meet the requirements for registration, is going to enhance the integrity of our profession?

In thinking about my other role as a frontline social worker I find I feel even more confused. My role involves working with women who are vulnerable, pregnant or have small children who are struggling with addiction and mental illness. Many of these women will be impacted by the multi-generational trauma associated with colonisation. They will be impacted by poverty, lack of meaningful opportunity, lack of participation in the mainstream “legitimate” capitalist culture of non-Måori. It will be my job to support these women to make change in their lives, so that hopefully the “cycle” will end their and their babies will grow up loved, cared for and happy. Good goal to have.

So how does this get achieved? Well, ideally being able to work systemically, having the time and space to work with the multi-faceted issues impacting the woman, her whanau, hapu and iwi if necessary. Having the time to understand and harness the strengths within the whanau to make lasting change. But here’s why I’m afraid that won’t work; the Ministry of Vulnerable Children.

I would like to highlight the two most problematic areas for those of us who want to ensure that tamariki Måori aren’t transacted through the system in greater numbers than ever.

The removal of the “whanau first” provision from the Act means that Social Workers are no longer compelled by the Act to seek placement within whånau, hapu or iwi (although I have been reassured that it’s “encouraged” I am not encouraged). This may seem subtle but it is not when it is coupled with the addition of an amendment, which states that “if a child is removed from the care of the whanau, then permanency within a loving stable home should be achieved at the earliest possible opportunity.”

Reflect for a moment on the fact that the Ministry is overwhelmingly staffed by Påkehå and Tau iwi social workers who even if they do understand the intrinsic importance of whakapapa to a Måori child, may not have the skills to do this (remembering that Måori Social Workers are not going to be coming through in greater but smaller numbers). Combine this with the new preference for hiring Canadian, English and South African Social Workers in the Ministry, who may or may not be skilled social workers, but I seriously doubt are competent and capable whakapapa chasers. This work takes time, it requires a deep appreciation of the importance of whakapapa within te ao Måori, and it is information given and received only in the presence of trust.

Let’s say that you are working with a Mum who hasn’t managed to make adequate changes in her life before baby comes along. And that through good relationship building and focusing on strengths within the whånau, you have found a whånau member who is willing and able to love and care for baby in the interim. This whånau member must be fully cognizant of the fact that they will be thoroughly vetted, police checked, and monitored if they are to receive any financial resources for the care of that baby through the Ministry. Any previous convictions are looked at; a raft of information is gathered (which now also can be shared with the new data sharing requirements of the Act about to come into law). And not only is the whånau member vetted but their mates are too. Anyone who will visit the house regularly. I am genuine when I ask this question. Who would seriously want this level of intrusion in their lives? I would think twice about it whether I had anything to “hide” or not.

The risk of not finding suitable kin-placement however is now amplified with the clearly stated intent within the amendment of the Act which relates to achieving permanency within a loving stable home at the earliest possible opportunity. This equates to fast-tracking children to permanency. It isn’t stated implicitly in the Act what these timeframes will be exactly but it is underpinned by the belief that a permanent loving home is better for a child than temporary care regardless of whether the home is kin or not. Now someone cynical might construe this as being driven by fiscal goals rather than what is best for the child because when permanency is achieved, financial contributions for the child’s care from the State ends. I have been told by Ministry workers that the guidelines are 6 months for a baby and 12 months for an older child. Also when permanency is achieved that is the end of any hope that the child will ever return to the care of their mother.

So when I think about the kinds of young women I will be working with, women with multiple, complex issues affecting their ability to be a stable, loving parent at that time and knowing that making real and lasting change takes time because overcoming addiction, trauma and abuse is not something that happens overnight. It could take Mum 6 months to a few years to get her life back on track. But under the new amendments her chances of being able to get baby back at the end of it are nil if permanency has been achieved. Unless she gets her shit sorted within a prescribed timeframe she will never get to be a mother to her own child.

This is the space we now have to work in between. And it’s going to be tight, my prediction is at times it’s going to feel like we just have a finger in the dyke. Holding back the wall of harm, which feels like a State determined to punish women, and babies who only need time, resources and support. What does that do to her? What does it do to the child? The whånau, hapu and iwi? It perpetuates and reinforces the myth that Måori are intrinsically in-capable parents, it also denies the impact of historical trauma and it re-traumatises another generation. The State has become the abuser.

At a personal level I know exactly what it does. I am adopted, both of my children came into my care via the Ministry and my partner grew up in state care. I have lived with the loss, the complexity and the hurt of not knowing anyone you look like, not knowing why you do the things you do, where your mannerisms came from. I’ve seen it in my girls even when their connection to their birthparents was retained; it is still not the same. When whakapapa is severed it damages your physical and mental health at a primal level and it’s a long road back to strong sense of self from there, more often than not via addiction, incarceration and mental health issues.

So my hope is that as a team of social workers we can hold the space. That we can work in a way where risk to baby is not denied but openly discussed and managed. Where alternate care within whanau, hapu and iwi is recognised as being best for baby (if baby really can’t be with mum) but also resourced accordingly and with open-ness and trust, and where potential whanau carers are not afraid to put their hands up. Where Mum could have the time and space to address the root cause of her pain, to heal, to grow, to learn and where eventually she becomes a leader and mentor to other Mums. Where there is always hope for tamariki Måori to return fully to their birthright, their whakapapa, their true home.

In writing about and discussing these racist, oppressive policies with every social worker, politician and student whom I come into contact with, I’ve realised that co-mingling with my self-doubt and confusion is a small but growing sense, that maybe being a dog with a bone, someone who won’t shut up or just live with it, is in fact an OK place to be. Maybe I am meant to be here after all.

Yeah, fuck it. I’m not going anywhere. Too much to do!

By Annie Joass

It sticks like a knife in our collective guts

Every time Anne Tolley and Bill English talk about the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, or oppose an inquiry into the historical abuse of children in state care, it sticks like a knife in my guts.

I am Ngāti Porou through my mother, and I’m Weira — Welsh — through my father. After spending 14 years in state care, and 25 years in social work, I consider myself an expert on what it is truly like for a child with Māori whakapapa to grow up separated from all that intrinsically belongs to them.

I was five when I was taken into state care, and 18 when I was finally able to escape it. My mother, miserable and unwell, had left us, for her own survival as well as ours, to escape my father’s violence. She was deemed to have “abandoned her children”, and so my father was awarded legal custody of us.

He then applied to Social Welfare to have us temporarily placed in its care. On my fifth birthday, he took me and my two brothers (my older sister was placed with other caregivers) to a children’s home, and left, promising to be back for us soon. I waited every day for weeks and months after that, but it would be many years before I saw him again.

Over the years, other children came and went, but my siblings and I stayed in those homes. To everyone who came to visit and view the “underprivileged” children, we looked well adjusted and cared for.

But our experience contradicted appearances and we suffered things children are not supposed to: psychological, sexual, and other physical abuse over many years. It still makes me sick to say that.

I didn’t bear it silently. I fought to protect my brothers and me from the abuse we experienced from adults charged with our care. I spoke out at every opportunity. But I was never believed. I was labelled a troublemaker and my complaints were ignored. I still suffer from the guilt of not being able to do more to protect my brothers.

It was a difficult and lonely navigation for us. The perpetual emptiness was a feeling we all experienced. As property of the state, the effects of separation and abuse manifested in many ways. Some were immediate and obvious: the disruptive behaviour. Bed-wetting. And some were repressed and long term: the inability to form trusting and lasting relationships with others — a common experience for those who’ve been in state care.

We are survivors, although none of us came through that experience unscathed. Even after I left state care, the trauma followed me. For many years, I tried to fill the emptiness with drugs and alcohol, and toxic relationships.

But, as my brother Tipene said to me: “Our stories have to be told. How would people know what it’s like for a child to go through state-imposed trauma unless we all tell our story?”

There are still thousands of kids in state care who don’t have a voice. And too many of them are Māori. According to the Children’s Commissioner, Māori make up 61 percent of all kids in state care and 71 percent of the total in youth justice residences.

If that isn’t institutional racism, what is?

Many of us squirmed at the naming of the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki — at the tacking on of a bit of Māori with no mind of how ignorant it is to put “vulnerable” and “wellbeing” together in the same title.

One cancels out the other, just as “automatic uplift” cancels out our tamariki.

The “vulnerable”, however, fits like a glove when we consider the extent of historical state abuses on tamariki who continue to be removed in great numbers from their whānau and placed with non-kin.

As I’m writing this, friends and followers of my activism are high-fiving me on the government’s backtracking on the removal of whānau-first placement protections for tamariki in the proposed Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) bill.

The bill is part of the government’s overhaul of Child, Youth and Family (CYF).

The current law gives priority to placing a child with a member of their whānau, or wider hapū, or iwi.

But the new bill, as it stands, removes that priority and instead puts the emphasis on the child’s safety.

After fierce opposition from many Māori, including the Māori Party and Tariana Turia, Anne Tolley said last week that she was prepared to reconsider the wording of the bill.

But I don’t believe there’ll be much of a backtrack at all. As Anne Tolley told the Stuff website, she won’t be budging on ensuring child safety is the single most important priority.

Her justification all along has been that Māori children are more vulnerable than non-Maori when returned to their whānau because they are at high risk of being re-abused.

But what she failed to mention is that this was occurring most often as a result of the dump-and-run, patch-and-dispatch practices by social workers who don’t value the needs of Māori children as highly as non-Maori.

What’s been happening is that tamariki and rangatahi in “the too-hard-basket”— those deemed high need, difficult to place, or “runners” — were returned home before it was safe, and often without safety plans in place.

Victoria University criminologist Elizabeth Stanley talks at length in her book The Road to Hell, about how Māori children were uplifted at 4–5 times the rate of non-Māori — not just for abuse and neglect but also for just being Māori.

As she writes:

“Child welfare officers encouraged the public, teachers and religious leaders in delinquency spotting. And complaints regularly saw the very presence of Māori children to be the problem. In their referrals “concerned” citizens objected to Māori because they were Māori and displayed an astonishing antagonism towards them. Māori children steadily came to notice for their potential delinquency, and this targeting was the starting point for the over representation of Māori within institutions.”

It is overwhelmingly Māori children who are returned to unsafe homes so that social workers can get their caseloads under control. It is not unconscious bias but racial bias that makes a senior manager target Māori, allocate and then de-allocate cases to get it off the waiting list and without actually doing the work of assessment and investigation.

I have witnessed all of this as a CYF social worker. And when you challenge this, it is denied, buried and you become a “troublemaker”.

And where do we put all these uplifted children? Possible whānau placements are thwarted by social workers who choose not to undertake whakapapa searches (as happened with me and my siblings).

Or because willing whānau who turn up at an FGC (family group conference) can’t be used immediately, or at all, because all members having contact with a household have to be investigated and police-checked before they can be used.

This is why children are placed with unapproved and unsafe caregivers, or in motels with Armourguard minders, or in police cells for days on end — or returned to unsafe homes only to come through the CYF door again.

Anne Tolley has ignored multiple recommendations to establish strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations. Instead her ministry consults and engages with and privileges organisations like Barnardos and Open Home Foundation.

It’s the same old policies of propping up white-is-right foster care organisations, but failing to support parents and whānau as the first and fundamental carers.

Bill English, interviewed on The Hui, denied again the need for an inquiry into the state’s epic abuse of children in care. What this says to survivors is: “It didn’t happen.” Or “You weren’t beaten or raped that badly”.

It sticks like a knife in our collective guts. And while it’s fantastic that Susan Devoy and others are calling for the inquiry, it shouldn’t be forgotten that Māori have been calling out state abuse of our mokopuna for decades. For example, in the landmark Puao-te-Ata-tureport in 1988.

Bill English and Anne Tolley keep referring to April 1 when the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki will kick in and miraculously make children safe. That’s like saying cigarettes are safe because Big Tobacco says it is.

Āe, we absolutely need an inquiry to know the scale of the state’s historical abuse on children. Without it, the cogs in the machine keep churning, trucking and trafficking.

(Credit to E-Tangata where this peice first featured, March 2017: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1180552365404385&id=605464909579803 )

Paora invites you to contact her at: https://www.paoramoyle.com

On the backs of our mokopuna

I hail from Ngati Porou through my mother and Weira through my father. However I did not grow up with my parents, I was raised in state care. So after 14 years of it, and 25 years in social work I consider myself an expert, on what it is truly like for a child with whakapapa, to grow up separated from all that intrinsically belongs to them. I had to fight to protect myself and my brothers from the abuse we experienced by adults charged with our care. Which meant that I whistle-blew every opportunity but it fell on deaf ears. I still whistle-blow today because of the thousands of kids in state care who don’t have a voice. Where as, all of us here do. We are their voice. (Unedited unreferenced notes).

That’s a really powerful concept to be aware of and what all social work needs to be based upon. The realisation that child is not born into this world without celestial connection direct to atua/tipuna. That is whakapapa and life and life is the point of everything. To sever that connection is to kill that’s child light potential. You have no right to do that, not EVER! Certainly not the NZ state.

I will speak to a selection of key issues about proposed changes to our child protection law, in particular the removal of priority tamariki placement protections. In the Bill we are told in an amended (Section 5) that when making a decision about a child or a young person who is Māori – The mana and wellbeing of the child will be protected whilst recognising the whakapapa and whanaungatanga responsibilities of their whānau, hapū and iwi; who can participate in those decisions…yeah ok maybe. A little later on in the Principles section, section 13, we are told that where a child is at risk of being removed from their whānau, that their whānau, hapū, iwi should be assisted to enable them to provide a safe, stable and loving home in accordance with whakapapa and whānaungatanga (unless it is unreasonable or impracticable in the circumstances). But who is going to know what these essential concepts mean, when it comes to frontline decision making, by mostly colonised/monocultural social workers?

What the qualifiers are saying is, that it’s ok for you to practice your ‘Māori stuff’ (tīkanga) as long as it’s within the law, a white-is-best law that defines the best interests of a Māori child. The “unreasonable, impracticable, must be considered” are the ‘get out’ clauses. So if, a social worker deems it the ‘too hard basket’ unsafe or doesn’t want to do the whakapapa search, they can decide not to return that child to whānau and place them with non-kin. “When did we decide that the future of our mokopuna should be determined with half hearted expression? (Tariana Turia, Iwi leaders Forum, 2017). The moment we all pati pati round the garden, we diminish our collective mana and recovery.

One of the first red flags for me with the closing of CYF was the rebranding of it to the Ministry of Vulnerable Children – Oranga Tamariki, like tacking on a bit of Māori and with no mind of how ignorant it is to put, vulnerable and wellbeing together in the same title. One cancels out the other, like automatic uplift cancels out our tamariki. (When you look at the stats requested via the Official Information Act you see how the uplift of Maori newborns has increased over the last few years). The ‘vulnerable’ however fits like a glove when we consider the extent of state violence upon tamariki, who continue to be removed in prolific numbers from their whānau and placed with non-kin. On selling our children to private owners, like we see happening to the last of our land and the law is changed so that there is no comeback for us. Māori are NOT vulnerable; it is the state that defines Māori as vulnerable, needing to be saved from themselves and fixed. It is this rhetoric that maintains the social work industry.

The new Ministry, with a re-furbished (Māorified) Scottish import of a child care model not social work model (a model that has not worked out well for child protectiin in Scotland). And if you are in the process of being vetted to transfer from CYF to the new Ministry you will be aware of the clause in the Vulnerable Childrens Act 2014 that states of you come from a “vulnerable background” you may not be approved as “fit and proper” to work directly with children. The “unfit” is discretionary and whilst intended to protect children what it’s doing is vetting out Māori social workers in favour of white UK/Canadian/South African imports. Another way of whitening the white-stream and purifying the new model. Some social workers are being offered a primary, secondary (support role/non child contact) or offered exit packages, and some concientised social workers threatened with dismissal if the comment publicly about the removal of tamariki placement protections. All this whilst the senior management, responsible for years of arse covering gets to roll straight over into the so-called NEW non-corrupt Ministry.

Plus, law changes being rushed through that will allow the CE to delegate the ability for non-social workers to remove children from their homes. For example, by doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers, philanthropists who make the decision and Armourguard to do the lifting. Automatic up-lift and without the need to go through Court; in the same way 2 young Māori boys were uplifted from their whānau and placed by CYF senior staff with the Prime Minister’s friends. All that is needed is a belief a child will at some point be in danger from their whānau, based on discretionary and predictive risk modeling information. We’ve already seen this occurred via the 90’s Risk Estimation System and the recent Tuituia Assessment Framework. It appears to me to be legalised and profitable child trafficking!

The Minister for Children continues to use the rhetoric that, Māori children returned to their whānau are at high risk of being re-abused. This is based on a weak, unpublished 2010 report, that when looking at the figures, has no credible intelligent analysis supporting it. It excludes factors such as biased, dump and run, patch and dispatch practice by social workers that are pressured to get their caseloads under control. So tamariki and rangatahi, particularly those deemed high needs, and/or difficult to place, are returned home before it’s safe to be. Of course they come round through the CYF door again. That’s what jacks the stats up. This report is used to justify the need for the removal of our children from their whānau. All the while the Minister denies clear evidence that the current system is highly abusive of Māori children, and that tamariki continue to experience serious acts of physical and sexual abuse whilst in state care. We know this from the burying of a 2011 HRC report and the shelving of the 2015 Confidential Listening and Assistance Service report, which mostly confirms what I talk about in terms of racist and incompetent statutory social work practice. Take a look at them.

And where do we put all these uplifted children? There are not enough placements for them at the moment. Possible whānau placements are thwarted, by social workers that choose not to undertake whakapapa searches. Or where willing whānau who turn up at an FGC can’t not be used immediately, or at all, because all members having contact with a household, have to be investigated and police checked before they can be used. And this is why children are placed with unapproved and unsafe caregivers, or in Motels with Armourguard minders and in Police cells for days on end, or returned to unsafe homes. The Minister appears to have ignored multiple recommendations to establish strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations. Instead consulting/engaging with and privileging organisations like Barnardos and Open Home Foundation. It’s the same old mistakes again, policies of propping up foster care organisations, but failing to support parents and whānau as the first and fundamental carers. And apparently the new Ministry needs 1000 new caregivers to meet the uplift demand.

And the notion that we could be returning to group homes like Epuni and Kingslea, Kohitere and Allendale. We are hearing about YP in residences who are forcibly restrained and illegally held in solitary as punishment. We have a ‘them and us – got to win’ mentality running these places. And whoops “sorry we didn’t know it was illegal” response. “From the 1950s to the 1980s, the New Zealand government took more than 100,000 children and placed them under state care in residential facilities. These children faced abysmal conditions, limited education and social isolation. For Māori these places were the equivalent of the Canadian and Australian residential schools, stolen generations. Children endured physical, sexual and psychological violence, as well as secure cells, knock-out sedatives and electro-shock therapy” (Stanley, 2016). I know because my bother was one of them at 9 years old and I couldn’t protect him from it. A slight little boy with blonde hair and big blue eyes, an angelic laughing child when he went in and a shell when he came out. It’s haunting and not something you ever get over.

The New Zealand government has never apologised for its historical child abuse and continues to fail in their duty of care to children, in their obligations to te Tiriti o Waitangi, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. There are two relevant statements in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which New Zealand is a signatory. Firstly, the declaration recognises “the right of indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training, education and well-being of their children, consistent with the rights of the child.” Secondly, the declaration recognises “the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group.” NZ has been doing that since forced urbanisation.

Other critical issues we don’t talk about in social work, is the pipeline relationship between child protection, police and the judiciary. Corrupt ‘us and them’ power dynamics occurring in the Family Court, that general public does not hear about. Institutional racism is rife across all the ministries and some of the worst biased practice is aimed at women, and Māori and if you are both, you get a double dose. Not to mention the parental alienation games played out in the Family Court that continously puts children directly in harms way. (See the reports of the Backbone Collective).

Half to two-thirds of the notifications CYF receive are through Police resulting from family violence incidents. Māori women talked to me about being “microscopically scrutinised” in every aspect of her life because 1. she is Māori and 2. in a violent relationship. This is separate from whether she is actually a fit parent or not. We are seeing mothers having their babies uplifted from the birthing table and whilst still on the breast. A 100 babies stolen from their whakapapa per year is pure genocide when you are only 15% of the population (Moyle, 2015: see Academia Edu). And we’ve heard about the practice of changing the ethnicity and the name of the child to suit whom ever the state decides that child should go to. This according to my research with whānau is still happening. Have you ever wondered why, truly why CYF are continually sited for their poor recording of ethnicity and other stats on Māori children? If you want the true stats you have to apply for them under the Official Information Act.

Also we hear about corrupt use of ‘place or safety warrants’ to uplift children, dodgy paperwork not approved by the Court, and Lawyers who won’t take on a women’s fight, because they don’t want to take on the state. This is prolific. Women are forced to have protections orders granted or their kids will be uplifted, or into ‘top tariff’ interventions where they have no choice but to take on the state through ex-parte hearings to fight for the custody of their babies. And the lack of legal aid funding causes women to drop legal action, or they represent themselves in family violence cases. Where they a put an unborn register because they are hapu again and they’re told that their unborn will also, be uplifted. It forces women and children to not seek the help they might need. The number one fear whānau have of the state since the 50s is, that their children will be stolen from them. This is state abuse and terrorism.

There are cases where social workers are known to perjure themselves to cover their racial targeting of Māori. Practitioners who might never say it to your face, that they believe our babies are better off with non-Māori. Where risk assessments, plans and reports are weighted against whānau, in favour of the state. Take for example the Tuituia assessment framework, more often used to justify a social workers decision to remove a child, rather than assess the strengths of a whānau. Where the practice of, predetermining the FGC in favour of removal, has become normalised. Some of our own Iwi organisations are now part of the web and the ngakau is sacrificed to maintain incomes. Where rūnanga are centred on capitalist profit-focused ideals and this overrides our kids in care. Twice iwi fought the Crown in Court but not once over our mokopuna. What is a fish without mokopuna? The whole care and protection industry rides on the backs of these babies.

Another serious issue is, how and what, we are teaching social workers. Many white-steam social work training programmes, are not equipping students with ‘actual’ competence to work with Māori. The core focus of social work training in Aotearoa is Western derived monocultural social work knowledge, so that practitioners are able to meet international requirements. What about NZ requirements? When we don’t require social workers to think outside their cultural context. If we do not require social workers to consider whakapapa and cultural connection, most will not. If we make our law colour-blind, in practice it will be white, assimilationist, colonising. And it will hurt children. Institutional racism, genocide and white supremacy, are not terms, students are encouraged to use, let alone have conversations about. Nor are we covering Māori principles and practices of healing and collective wellbeing, much less anti-oppressive knowledge that aligns with decolonising social work. Māori need their own body and process to approve social workers as competent to work with Māori. It is for Māori to determine, who are competent to work with our people.

Competent practice has moved into child centered practice which for Māori equates to a child alone and vulnerable. The Children’s Commissioner (2016) said we don’t even know what ‘child centred’ practice is. The Children’s Commissioner in 2015 also said that there was no evidence that children in state care were any safer than they were in the families they were removed from. The KEY issue here is where’s New Zealand’s accountability for the continued state violence on children? Where do our people go to be heard when the uplift of children has been unwarranted and those children not returned? Most often a family’s or a mother’s cries fall on deaf ears and their complaints buried in a mountain of corrupt bureaucracy and denial. Where is the Independent Complaints Authority that whānau and community groups have been demanding for decades? Where is the Royal Commission? New Zealand is shamefully one of the only commonwealth countries that have never had an independent investigation into historical institutional child abuse. Most of the NZ public remains blissfully unaware of the extent of horrendous child abuse that has occurred since the 1950s. Yes and like colonisation, it is still happening.

To protect children and undo the damage that the NZ state has inflicted on whānau, the enduring solution is to take that power from the state, and give decision making, resources and responsibility to appropriate roopu, communities, hapū, iwi. The state’s task then becomes supporting roopu to prepare for that responsibility. Our task is to work out how to make it happen.

So what can you begin to do? Removing tamariki placement protections from the Act is a direct attack on whakapapa, which was done by stealth and why we are only catching up with it now. Go to the Offical site or the Greens site and lodge your protest. Submission dates have been extended till 3 March. And if any of you are unsure how whakapapa connection plays an integral place in the wellbeing of children please be here when Annie and I present later on the “Essentialness of Whakapapa in Social Work” and knowing whom you are before you work with our people.

Finally, to be silent in the face of such abuse means that we are a part of the problem. War is when your Govt tells you who the enemy is (who to blame), a revolution is when you figure it out for yourself.

Be a Spanner for Whānau Not a Cog for the State.

Mauri ora

See Paora at https://www.paoramoyle.com