Lindsay Mitchell has been commenting on welfare since 2001. Her articles have been published in major New Zealand newspapers and she has appeared on radio, tv and before select committees discussing issues relating to welfare. See lindsaymitchell.blog

CONSENTUAL COLONISATION

Right now most academics, politicians, public servants, pundits and media maintain that the colonisation of New Zealand was a coercive and negative process for Maori. Moreover, that colonisation is an ongoing process.

I differ. I think much of the colonisation occurred with consent.

Take just one aspect of our shared history - social security.

While Maori were not wholly locked out of earliest social security provision, they were disadvantaged. It was harder to secure the Old Age Pension due to difficulty in procuring proof of birth. Then, authorities vested with the power of granting shied from issuing pensions to elderly Maori ensconced in communal living lest younger members misappropriated the funds. There was also debate about how much money an elderly Maori person living communally needed to live versus a retired European living independently. Neither of these considerations would be brooked today. And these discriminations quickly fell by the wayside.

Post 1938 Maori increasingly enjoyed the fruits of social security. They were moving to the cities for work and wanted the same unemployment safety net. They were having large families and wanted the same family assistance. They aspired to own homes and wanted the same family benefit capitalization opportunity and access to state-advanced mortgages.

Colonisation provided a population large enough to supply the funds required for a universal safety net. Maori contributed and benefited willingly - or as willingly as non-Maori. (Willingness wasn't unamimous. I'm still no fan but recognise I am in a tiny minority. There are downsides to social security and they have disproportionately harmed Maori.)

Readers can doubtless think of other examples of how colonisation has been a positive process not least, the hundreds of thousands of life-long intimate individual unions between Maori and non-Maori.

I believe the term 'consentual colonisation' could be very powerful. Right now those who would angrily reject the idea are winning the debate and driving division.

Next time someone raises the matter of colonisation perhaps I'll ask, "Do you mean consentual colonisation?"

https://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2021/03/consentual-colonisation.html

JOHN TAMIHERE ROMANTICISING MAORI CRIME

According to John Tamihere, who has regrettably in my view taken the Maori Party down a full-blown victimhood track:

Māori make up 60% of the prison population in New Zealand Women’s’ Prisons alone.

“We are the most incarcerated indigenous population in the world. This is a national catastrophe and disgrace,” Tamihere said

“80% of those women are there for crimes of dishonesty. They did not wake up and say to themselves today I’m going to steal and be dishonest,” he said.

“They woke up and said I have to put food on my table. I have to get my kids to the doctors. I have to pay for their uniforms. I have to give them things that others take for granted. So they are in prison for crimes of poverty – not dishonesty.

It's a self-deluded romantic apologist view.

The following stats (in the image) are exported from customised NZStat data:

2018-19 sentenced population = 519

Which could be classed as 'crimes of dishonesty'?

Robbery etc

Burglary etc

Theft etc

Fraud etc

Offences against justice etc

= 327

63 percent

Dancing on a pinhead John might say when all crimes are taken into account his 80% is true. The graph will show the most serious crime sentenced for.

But semantics aside, do you accept that these crimes were perpetrated to acquire school uniforms and doctor visits for children?

Afterall tens of thousands other Maori mums didn't turn to crime to look after their children.

https://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2020/08/john-tamihere-romanticising-maori-crime.html

A CHILD’S ETHNICITY SHOULDN’T OUTWEIGH THEIR SAFETY

Oranga Tamariki is now front-footing the issue probably due to biased media reporting. For instance, Michelle Duff (DomPost, March 28) wrote about the 220 children abused “in state care”, who were “…taken from their families, from their homes, to a place that’s meant to be safer”.

They were not uniformly taken elsewhere. Many were left with or later returned to their family or other family member.

No abuse or re-abuse of children is acceptable. But the facts show that family members and parents posed the greatest danger to these victims. This suggests that where the state primarily fails is in poor decision-making and monitoring of risk.

Which calls into question whether the very best interests of the child are being put first and foremost.

With adoption now a rare event, are potential caregivers being locked out who, despite being the wrong skin colour, would make safe, stable and above all, loving parents?

Doubtless, cultural background and whanau links will become questions of importance for these children in time but immediate security must surely be a priority.

My thoughts will be regarded as sacrilege by some. Exactly why, I’m not sure.

Oranga Tamariki has a duty to protect life. That is their first responsibility. They are New Zealand’s child care and protection agency. All other considerations are secondary, including ethnicity of child and potential caregiver.

Returning to Green co-leader Marama Davidson and her incendiary statement that “torture and abuse” at the hand of the state must stop.

If abuse at the ‘hand of family’ were to stop, Oranga Tamariki, the focus of all this recent venom, wouldn’t need to exist.

Read Lindsay Mitchell’s enlightening NZCPR guest column here > https://www.nzcpr.com/a-childs-ethnicity-shouldnt-outweigh-their-safety/#more-30000