What exactly is Tariana Turia’s “Whanau Ora” policy about? No one knows.
Today in the house Tariana said she “hopes whanau will be no worse off, and hopefully be in a position to enjoy an improved quality of life” because of Whanau Ora.
Tariana Turia wants whanau to take a blind leap of faith in her flagship Whanau Ora policy but then absolutely fails to give assurances that when whanau blindly jump, that they’re actually going to land on something of substance.
Surely there has to be an expectation that whanau will be significantly better off from this policy, not simply a hope they “won’t be worse off?”
Lets face it, its about taking money from the social welfare system (that everyone hates, without realising that there will be may be a time when they lose everything and will need it), and giving it to the iwi elite so the Maori people will have to beg and beg and beg for assistance which will come with strings attached and is hopelessly inadequate.
My guess is it will be an expansion of contracts already held by Maori Urban Authorities (for instance) from health services to welfare. It could be viewed as devolution, which I thought Labour approved of, but will certainly constitute more paternalism. The sticking point will be that the authority will not be able to compel ‘difficult’ beneficiaries to accept their services, proffered in their role as appointed agents for benefit receipt.
Hey Lindsay,
Do you want single mothers to live on the street? And why?
Putting social issues in the hands of whanau is madness. Its a way of giving out less and expecting whanau to cop the rest. Also, not all whanau maintain close relationships or want to be responsible for each others economic issues. It seems like apartheid and opression to me. At the moment it seems like thats what the Maori Party stand for. They have failed their constituency.
Nga mihi,
Tautokai
Do define ‘difficult’ beneficiaries for us Lindsey. Do you mean people who won’t do as they’re told by the “authority” or what?
That’s what the Maori Party has always stood for.
It is a catchy slogan to lobby for funding and political support. At worst, it is just another meaningless political cliche.
I would bet that this will increase welfare bill.
No whanau will end up getting less. As an extra bonus there might be a few more jobs going in the tax churn industry.
Millsy, No.
Anne, the beneficiaries that people like John Tamihere and Willie Jackson (both heads of urban authorities) have in their sights for managing via whanau ora. People who are poor parents; have family violence problems as either perpetrators or victims; have substance abuse and gambling problems. Maori authority intervention may help. But if it is actively resisted it may worsen problems for the children of people who do not want their benefit controlled, by increasing transience and isolation.
But I am only speculating about how far the policy might go.
Kelvin,
perhaps you should ask the chief families commissioner?
tautokai.baxter, you are right, but it goes further – it’s also the Tories way of kick-starting the devolution out to charities across the board. Perfect politically for Key/English neo-liberal agenda: start with Maori because it’s about “giving control back to Maori”, then say “this cannot apply to Maori only because that’d be favouring one group of NZers over another group of NZers and that just ain’t fair”. Key’s already making these overtones in fact. The Maori Party need to wake up to how these nasty people think. Listen, for example, to all the wonderful things Key appeared to be saying before yesterday’s announcement about tax changes, then look at what he did say – more for the rich, kick in the guts for the poor. People need to wake up to the fact that Key and English and those of his ilk can never, ever be trusted. Pushing welfare out to charities is not a new concept and the nats have been talking about it for years. Just google “wisconsin model welfare” or “david green business roundtable new zealand” or “lindsay mitchell NZ”.
“Pushing welfare out to charities is not a new concept”
We tried this before – back in the 19th century.
That’s right millsy, and the Maori Party are going to albeit unwittingly but very effectively play a large part in sending us all back there. Pita needs to give Tariana a good shake up.
Am I being moderated because I said “Lindsay Mitchell”?
“Pushing welfare out to charities is not a new concept”
We tried this before – back in the 19th century.
Could be wrong but the quote sounds like it means *contracted* out to charities, not just ‘left for charities if they feel like it.’ I think there is/was some Aussie organisation doing that work for the government that was also talked about here last year or 2008…
StephenR: It was Mission Australia. Howard delegated social welfare millions to a religious corporation that then decided who would get funding. Paula Bennett in opposition denied several times that such a scheme was planned by National.
Mission Australia.
We tried something like that back up till the 1970s.
Thousands of children of single parents, would be put in orphanages run by the clergy, and be subjected to all sorts of abuse.
Yep, plenty of personal responsibility there….
millsy says: “Thousands of children of single parents, would be put in orphanages run by the clergy, and be subjected to all sorts of abuse.”
It would be more accurate to say “Thousands of children of single parents would be put in orphanages run by the clergy and of these a small proportion were subjected to all sorts of abuse.”
Yes, there were some tragedies, but the various Christian bodies did a tremendous amount of good as well.
One can only speculate, but I wonder what the net position is positive/negative in terms of letting the Sallies or the Church care for children compared to leaving them with feckless and inadequate parents.
I once read that some sociologist had written that a bad home was always better than a good institution. I guessed that he hadn’t had to endure the former.
Do we really want our poor children having Jesus getting rammed down their throats all the time? Being told what sinners their mothers were.
And there was a LOT of abuse.
In the late 1960s/early 70s many children were adopted out. At its peak, adoption reached around 4,000 annually. The orphanages and industrial schols were a facet of earlier times.
What is so fundamentally bad about adoption when compared to children being brought up in abusive/neglectful homes?
I think your imaginations are running wild in respect to National’s plans for welfare.
I am not opposed to adoption. I am opposed to forcing poor women to give up their babies to rich couples.
Lindsay – I think that there are lots of reasons that some people hate the idea of children being moved from biological parents, however unsuitable, and into adoptive homes.
Most of these are political, and few benefit most of the children involved.
George,
Do you want single mothers chucked on the streets.
And, again, please explain why poor parents should get their babies taken off them and given to rich people.
Stinks to high heaven of eugenics to me.
Millsey
Strange question.
No.
I belive it to be a perfectly reasonable question. Opponents of the welfare system seem to be unable to contemplate the grim alternative of hardship and homelessness for those at the bottom of society.
yes, there will always be those who neglect their duties as parents, but I think that this is an issue for CYFS and the police to deal with. But white middle class types like you think that CYPS should be de-fanged, for want of a better term.
“But white middle class types like you”
A lot of assumptions there, even without your presumptions on how I feel about issues.