Matua Whangai

What Lessons of the Past Can Inform and Add

Value to Current Statutory Practice?

Presented to

Project: Maatua Whangai 2020

Contracted by

The Department of Child Youth and Family

Prepared by

Possible Partnership

K.R. & J.M Murphy-Stewart

November 2006

1

He Hohou Rongo

Tuuaatuuaa. I te orooro, i te oromea, i tukitukia ai koe, i taitaia ai koe, oi kiri Tangaroa.

Tere te nuku nei, tere angaia. Tuutaria ki tenei maanuka, tuutaria ki teenei ngahoa. Kaapiti hono.

Purua too taringa kia turi, kia hoi. Kei whakarongo koe ki te koorero iti. Ko te koorero iti, ko tahu-hunu, ko tahu-rere, ko te hau-aitu.

Rere mai te maramara koi hopiri, koi hotau. Rere mai te mangamanga, koi hopiri, koi hotau. Torotika! E tuu te maota, hee!

Tuutakina i te iwi. Tuutakina i te toto. Tuutakina i te kiko. Tuutakina i te uaua. Tuutakina kia uu. Tuutakina kia mau.

Teenei te rangi ka tuutaki. Teenei te rangi ka ruruku. Teenei te papa ka wheuka.

E Rangi e, awhitia. E Papa e, awhitia. Naau ka awhi, ka awhi. Naau ka aaka, ka aaka. Naau ka toro, ka toro. Tupu he toka whenua, tupu he toka Mata-te-

raa.

Na wai i hoomai? Na te pakanga i hoomai. Na te riri i hoomai. Na ngaa taangata i hoomai. I hoomai ki a wai? I hoomai ki te kikokiko. Kei te kikokiko,

kei te tini honohono, he manawa ka irihia nei e Tuu-matauwenga.

E Tuu-ka-riri, e Tuu-ka-nguha, e Tuu-ka-aaritarita! E tuu i te korikori, e tuu i te whetaa, e tuu i te whaiao, e tuu i te ao maarama.

Ko maiea. Maiea ngaa atua. Maiea ngaa patu. Maiea ngaa taangata. Ko maiea.

"Tuuaatuaa i te orooro" is a karakia for peace which Wiremu Te Rangikaheke used to open his account of Maori religious traditions written for Governor Grey in 1849.

Cited with permission from http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~dominic/tuatua.html

2

What Is Maatua Whangai?

Maatua Whangai as a programme and a practice is a gift presented by Maori to all people based on principles, ethics and values of care and protection of our children within their extended family. This gift contributed directly to the principles enshrined in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. Maatua Whangai as has been noted by others is “all things to all people”. This is because it is a strategic process aimed at addressing and overcoming primarily Maori disparity within the social, community and justice system. Hence as a programme and a practice it is any action which is ethically, culturally sound and accountable which collectively contributes to addressing and restoring the care and protection of primarily Maori children within their extended family. Although Maatua Whangai is bound to much deeper meanings within Maori cultural perspectives, it is here at this interface with the Crown and statutory social workers that Maatua Whangai is managed inter-operatively1 (Yanosy 2006, Berman 2003). It is therefore an appropriate application of ethics, values and principles which ensures that primarily Maori children are protected and uplifted in their wellbeing within their extended family. As a programme, it is defined here as:

• The application of these notions in the relationship with the Crown, where identified resources are applied to achieving agreed strategic objectives aimed at addressing primarily Maori disparity and improving services to all people within their extended family.

• The ability of sites/offices/institutions to develop, reconcile and

maintain relationships within networks of extended families. Hence as practical example of Maatua Whangai as a programme would be to engage skilled people to address, guide, facilitate and reconcile a relationship between a Departmental site and an Iwi Social Service. This so involvement of a Maatua Whangai project is so that the work of both parties may apply resources more effectively. As a practice, it is defined here as:

1 Interoperability particularly semantic interoperability is a concept used in relation to the World Wide Web, cultural issues in geography and military operations particularly between different nations or cultures. This concept is explored here as being related to the interoperability between Maori and the Crown. Yanosy provides key definitions of semantic interoperability. “In most cases people assume that each have the same world model as theirs and this source for error, these subtle differences in world models result in similalr expressions having potentially different meanings.” (2006:16)

3

• The ability of social workers to account to, recognise, identify and enhance the authority within extended families. To do this in a manner that recognises their power as a resource to reconcile and enhance this authority within.

• The ability to develop and maintain relationships within extended

families generally and to appreciate and accept the limits of their power to act. In this to accept and acknowledge the guidance of others that can be given in their dealings with extended families.

A practical example of Maatua Whangai as a practice would be to identify from the very first intake the kinship connections of a mother identified as Maori who continually has no capacity to parent. To engage with her in a manner that identifies the authority within her extended family and ensures that none of her children (five born one after another) are lost or disconnected. To ensure that the authority within is supported and that the power of the Department is actually deployed to reconcile and enhance the well-being of her children within the extended family. Fundamentally Maatua Whangai is:

• The establishment of mechanisms and practices at all levels of interoperable relationship between the Department and Maori as extended families.

• That accounts for, facilitates and reconciles any aspect of that

relationship so that primarily Maori disparity is addressed. Maatua Whangai therefore is a strategic inter-operable relationship between Maori and the Department at all levels which is mutually beneficial, reconciled and grounded on trust. Why Are We Involved? Possible Partnership is the partnership of Kim and Jeanette Murphy-Stewart. We have been engaged by the Department to reflect upon the nature of Maatua Whangai programme and practice and to offer some suggestions as to its application in the present. The how, what and why of Maatua Whangai is intimately woven through both our personal and working relationships. We have both worked for the Department of Social Welfare at a time when Maatua Whangai was operational and have shared similar connections to the programme. Also in the lives of our respective extended families we have experienced and seen maatua whangai in operation. It is from this shared experience that we know it works and that it has to work. We appreciate that there is sinuous boundary between Maori and the Crown which is sometimes fraught. That this is fraught with differing political

4

perspectives, biases and positions which seem at times irreconcilable. Into this mix we appreciate that we may raise contentions and be confronted for our actions and positions we have offered. We do not do this work lightly. For us it is both a distillation of our experience but more importantly, it is an acknowledgement of the people who have contributed to this possibility being realised. So when you read these words many voices will be heard. This includes our mentors, our colleagues, our students, and our own extended families. Importantly this includes all those who have gone before us who have contributed to the development of Maatua Whangai as a programme and practice. All of these people are acknowledged because without you there is no Maatua Whangai. Specifically however Possible Partnership has in this project worked in close collaboration with an historical reference group. This is made up of -

Naida Glavish Naida has overseen the development of this project from the outset and has overseen our work in this field for many years.

Ossie Peri Ossie is recognised for the major contribution he made to the Maatua Whangai programme during its operation. Ossie has contributed to our understanding of Maatua Whangai principles, values and ethics.

Solomon Tipene Solomon played a key role in significant parts of the Maatua Whangai programme policy development. He offered us our first opportunity to write these sorts of reports.

Bill Takerei Bill was Kim’s colleague in DSW New Lynn and Waitakere. He had a very close working relationship with Mike Tipene and the operation of the programme. Bill has contributed his encouragement to us in undertaking this project.

Iritana Tawhiwhirangi Iritana is synonymous with the Kohanga Reo movement. She is however one of the progenitors of Maatua Whangai in the Department of Maori Affairs. She made a significant contribution to how the programme developed. This group oversees the work of Possible Partnership in this project.

5

Alongside this Possible Partnership with the support of the Department is developing a present day practice reference group. This is forming from teaching and other colleagues connected to Te Wananga o Aotearoa School of Applied Social Sciences and from a representation of Departmental staff known to the Service Development team in National Office. This group is well connected to the practice issues faced by present statutory social workers. This group formatively is a community of practice which may test, develop and polish the ideas of what Maatua Whangai is as a programme and practice in present day realities. Hence, Possible Partnership is a facilitator and writer on behalf of our people so that we together may make peace with the past in order to create a different future for our children What Is Different Now From Then? To reflect more deeply on a Maatua Whangai programme and practice will be to establish contrasts between the time of its origin and operation with that of the present. Part of this is to avoid traps where we may look back at Maatua Whangai with nostalgia and avoid some of the hard lessons that we may have to learn. Also, to acknowledge that much has happened in the world of social work, policy and Maori society since the programme was effectively terminated in 1990. Maatua Whangai from our experience and for many of those involved was an exciting time. Where the experimentation of new relationships, new networks, new structures and new polices involved us and excited us as social workers in the Department of Social Welfare. This brought about an air of involvement from the bottom up and a sense that somehow together we could address these disparities in our community. This is not to forget that this was in a Department whose reputation had been as tarnished at least as much as it is now. To address this however the Maatua Whangai experience brought us face to face with our community and it was through these encounters that we built the energy to move forward. In contrast however is seems that the Department has moved back from confronting, building and maintaining these relationships. In part, this may well have been exacerbated by many other problems such as staff turnover but a failure to address these relationships face to face will only further undermine the Department and its work. Clearly public and Maori perception of the Department was one of the drivers behind support for Maatua Whangai. Indeed some considerable effort was made by managers with the support of Maatua Whangai workers to address perceptions both at person-to-person levels and in the physical presence of the Department in its communities. Although it might now seem mundane, much energy at the time went into addressing the design of buildings in order to embrace the community that a district (site) served. Certainly, it was seen that what was shown in the external presence of the Department through its buildings was to come to reflect the internal culture

6

and behaviour of staff. In contrast, from personal experience we have encountered Departmental buildings in the present whose physical presence were so unwelcoming as to be counter productive. This was further reflected in the staff. The experience was worse than being in a Police Station indeed the Police Station in the same locality was physically - as were the staff far more welcoming. So it could be suggested that even a simple expedient of an inclusive redesign of buildings might be a positive step forward for the Department and its relationships with the communities it serves. There are other contrasts between the origin and operation of Maatua Whangai and the present that we need to explore. Doubtless further investigation will further enhance our ability to address some of the issues we are facing today. The issues of Maori disparity in the 1980’s were perceived as being at least as significant then as they are today. Since this time there is, however a number of substantive changes in our society, our policy process and political landscape that could make the application of Maatua Whangai in the present more fraught but nonetheless important if not more important today than in the past. Maatua Whangai grew out of and drew upon several reserves of societal strength. Both of these reserves have been severely strained but are not yet completely exhausted. These are the reserves of goodwill in the relationship between Maori and the wider non-Maori community and the reserve of Maori extended families in their own cultural authority and resources within to confront their own disparities. The first of these was a significant reserve of goodwill between Maori people at all levels of society (not just the symbolic, specialised, sanitised or sanctified) and the wider non-Maori community. Goodwill existed in the innocence of new policies like Tu Tangata that preceded Maatua Whangai. This was also seen in the environment of willingness that saw the contribution of Maori things as non-threatening and as a positive source of inspiration. This has been sorely tested over the last few years in terms of our public or societal face. It is suggested that probably hidden behind this visage there remains reserves of goodwill which can be encouraged. These can doubtless been seen in the public expressions of goodwill surrounding the death of Dame Te Atarangikahu, the positive public response to the recent Maori television presentation of the ANZAC Day celebrations, in the simple and respectful relationship generated in Maori language classes and doubtless there are such reserves within the Department. Each of these will need to be drawn upon to exemplify the positive possibility of a Maatua Whangai project operating in the present. Certainly, a Maatua Whangai project would not operate effectively without being built upon a positive relationship of goodwill. More importantly, Maatua Whangai drew upon the reserve of cultural strength that lay within Maori themselves as extended families. When Maatua Whangai began its operation, it was before the massive economic reforms of the latter part of 1980’s and the 1990’s. Maori were still employed in forestry, railways and public works. Hence, the circle of desolation was not quite as great. There were reserves of people who were

7

through being employed were able to sustain the interconnections which make extended family life strong2. It was this reserve that the progenitors of Maatua Whangai knew intimately when it was offered to the Crown as a resource to tackle Maori disparity. This resource has been eroded since the restructuring of the 80’s and 90’s. Indeed as Clare Betty (2006) pointed out (when writing about historical and contemporary perspectives of abuse), that it was this time when her father was made redundant that the serious abuse in her family began. For her the man who once could have contributed not only to her own immediate families care but also to the care of others within her extended family was completely undermined. This shift in the fundamental economic wellbeing of extended families in the division between those who survived and prospered from this shift in our society and those who were damaged by these events has become it seems alarmingly wider. Indeed the widening of this circle of desolation has become too great in some cases almost to put some beyond the power of the Department or even the authority of their extended families. This situation is not hopeless. There are now different reserves being developed in Iwi and Maori services and in vastly more extensive network of social work education. Some of which is directing its intellectual capacity to towards addressing this circle of desolation. Regardless of these effects, there remains a crucial reserve of cultural wisdom, skill and leadership which if supported, harnessed and encouraged may contribute to making this situation different. What this also highlights in the contrast between the origins of Maatua Whangai and the present is that Maatua Whangai grew almost completely on the word of it progenitors. Seemingly, no reference was made to any research or academic literature to justify an application of the Crown’s resources behind a new programme. Looking at the record is that most of how it would operate came after it had been signed off by the Ministers who jointly sponsored the programme. This is in complete contrast it appears to the situation today where any new initiative requires a powerful body of academic and research literature to back up the policy position. This is even before it becomes a possibility of implementation. The evidence of the worth of Maatua Whangai did not come from academy or research it came simply from the effects that it produced on the ground. These were not produced in academically defined or managed prescriptions or programmes. Rather they were produced by and in people on the ground having the confidence to know and accept that things had to be different and in their willingness to make it happen. Often in my observation, we might not have had a prescription or a policy framework to direct us but we knew that we had the capacity to work together and that we would make this situation different. In that sense, Maatua Whangai harnessed and was part of a wave of creativity and innovation. This is despite whatever else

2 For example, the late Mike Tipene before becoming a Maatua Whangai worker was along with other members of his extended family was employed variously in the AEPB and the Auckland Harbour Board. With support of their work they were able build and maintain Waipuna Marae in Panguru. Also through his leadership he was able to maintain the inter-connectedness of his extended family in the dislocating environment of urban Auckland.

8

could be pointed to as its shortcomings. Notwithstanding the significant social, practice and policy energy which lead to reports such as Puao Te Ata Tu and the formation of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act are potent evidence for the achievements of Maatua Whangai. Evidence which stands in its own right. Part of this move to sustaining policy founded upon centrally controlled and defined research and academic evidence is an ideological outgrowth of the re-structuring of the state sector. Also in the growth of much more tightly defined demands of management reporting which feeds the decision making process. What this did was to stifle much of the positive atmosphere which pervaded the Maatua Whangai environment. This has created an environment where practitioners appear constrained. Constrained in their ability to play a critical part in creating the face-to-face relationships and test the innovative and creative boundaries required to tackle the risks, complexities and uncertainties of our current environment. This unfortunately is driven in part by the politicised environment in which the Department operates where child protection services have become one of the contested arenas between differing perspectives. This has become more trying as the number of tragic events has influenced the public mind and in their demand for answers and accountability. In trying to respond, we have become more defining in our implementation of rules, guidelines and in imposing more programmes to be delivered in the hope of addressing our concerns. It seems paradoxically the more we try to define and prescribe the more we collectively fail to come to terms with the problems we face. Indeed, it would seem that recent tragic events have challenged our illusions that all we have been doing was actually working. If anything, these recent events seem to demonstrate a clear need for us to do something strategically different. To recognise a different strategic need will be to acknowledge and apply the evidence of the past and to harness the creativity and innovation of the future. Moreover, it will be to allow and facilitate the communication between practitioners who are immersed in the realities of the present to speak to each other. It was in this way that Maatua Whangai contributed to creating the possibility of addressing the circle of desolation that beset all too many of our extended families. This was in supporting us a frontline social workers to make our contribution to their well-being all that more effective. What Must We Do Before We Precede Any Further? One of the most cogent results of the work of Maatua Whangai has been in the creation of Iwi and Maori Social Services. Indeed an evident legacy of the programme is in those services that have retained the name or logo in the development of their services. In order to produce this result, Maatua Whangai drew upon, called upon, galvinised and mobilised Maori communities and traditional structures. Quite simply they got Maori people to step up to the mark and to take responsibility for their own situation.

9

The other crucial result produced by Maatua Whangai was in the creation of the Children and Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. The first part of this was their advocacy to have over turned the predecessor bill which was proposed to replace the Children and Young Person Act 1974. This bill proposed a formalised system of professionally directed intervention in child protection. The import of this bill was contrary to the practices of Maatua Whangai which were largely well supported by management and frontline social workers. Indeed the influence of Maatua Whangai through the 1989 Act was significant enough for the Department to declare that all social work practice would be Maatua Whangai practice. This was so much so that the legislation itself would be sufficient to create the extended family centred practice exemplified by Maatua Whangai. It is in the seeds of its own success that we believe that lead to the demise of Maatua Whangai. Clearly, by the end of 1989 and into 1990, Maatua Whangai was being sidelined and its spirit was being slowly sapped. Seemingly, by this time there was no place for Maatua Whangai as it positions were not being filled and its workers were either transferring to new positions or leaving. Sadly however all too many Maatua Whangai workers have died and have passed away in the sadness of knowing that the programme had been allowed to end. It is this sense of sadness that seems to have pervaded the last months of the programmes operation. A sadness that came from a sense of betrayal that all they had worked for was being swept away. This sense of betrayal by the Department of Maatua Whangai is a persistent legacy even to this day. It is implied in the record of where in December 1989 commitments to fill Maatua Whangai positions were made but not honoured. It is in the stories that have been shared by leaders in Maatua Whangai who were sent to promote the programme around districts only to find on their return that the programme was no longer to function3. It is in recollections of academic mentors4 who speak of how elders felt bereft by the programmes termination. There is enough in this sense of betrayal from the Maori people, with whom we work to know that this is keenly felt and all too real. All too real for the Department to ignore if it is desirous of asking for Maori people to come forward again to support a Maatua Whangai project in the present. We sense however, that there is an urgent need for both the Department and Maori people to come forward to consider such a project. In order to have this happen there will need to be re-established a foundation of trust which grows the possibility of goodwill. This will be for us to confront the secrets and lies that are buried in our relationships. Also, this will be for us to confront the secrets and lies that are buried within the circle of desolation that besets our people. It therefore requires a willingness and commitment

3 Personal communication from Ossie Peri October 2006 4 Personal communication from Dr Catherine Love March 2004

10

to accept and address the past in order to create a different future. This will take an “honest stocktake”5. To Proceed Further We Will Have To Consider? Part of an “honest stocktake” regardless of our position will be to include the Treaty of Waitangi. It is no longer sufficient to imply or expect a commitment to the Treaty6 without an explicit understanding of the Treaty in the context of the Department and statutory social work practice. In light of too many recent tragic events, we can no longer hold onto any illusions that these implicit statements are sufficient to address the issues in front of the Department. Understandably, this position will be fraught along the different lines that the Treaty raises. These can be seen in rights arguments for the inclusion of Treaty in contrast to a needs based arguments as specific criteria for the inclusion of cultural recognition. Regardless of these positions, we are now faced with a situation which is unavoidable. This is where the level of Maori disparity7 whichever way we choose to read it is such that “cultural recognition” of Maori needs now can equate to an equal status in the delivery of our services. As Professor Dorothy Scott (2006:9) commented “If this happened to middle class families on the scale it is happening to indigenous families, the pain would be not be inaudible.” The Treaty does not have to be a source of anxiety because it is a perfect basis of an inter-operable practice framework and a practice driven strategy. Accordingly, a Treaty framework is critical as a key tool in guiding us in our commitment to address this disparity. A tool for creating, mediating and maintaining mutually beneficial relationships aimed at addressing disparities. The following framework is suggested as means whereby current Departmental frameworks maybe leavened by the Treaty. In this framework, we will explore the articles of the Treaty and apply them as a guide for practice. Certainly, to if we are to consider a Maatua Whangai programme or practice such a framework will need to be explicit. Particularly if we are to again ask skilled Maori leadership to step up to assist the Department achieve its desired outcomes. The most vexed questions, in our observation, are the seemingly irresolvable tension around the notion of rangatiratanga. It is here that we have to accept that no matter what they (us and them) are not going away and that disparity on any level will be an unacceptable cost to us all as people. Hence, the first plank of a Treaty practice framework is to recognise and accept the potential of a creative relationship around the notions of 5 See also the internal advice from Jess Kereama (2006) in her call for an “honest stocktake”. She also identifies other crucial concerns which a Maatua Whangai programme may assist in addressing. 6 Tis is mentioned in the position descriptions of social workers (p5 & p7) and practice leaders (p8.) but unmentioned in “Child Youth and Family Practice Framework” Care and Protection or Youth Justice. 7 Departmental figures place this at between 35% and 45% of the intake in the Department whilst Mike Doolan reports that 51% of all children killed within their families were Maori.

11

kawanatanga and rangatiratanga (Article One and Article Two). Here it is suggested that practice is driven by ethics and behaviours which recognises and seeks to reconcile these notions. Also that they are connected to the notions of “power and authority” as discussed in Recommendation two of Puao Te Ata Tu. Here the notions of power are related to kawanatanga and authority is related to rangatiratanga. This places a Maatua Whangai practice and the cultural notions that it had enshrined in the Act clearly in this framework. The unresolved contest however surrounds just how far we should go in defining this concept of rangatiratanga in our rhetoric and ideology. The real issue for us is that as Andrew Ladley (2005:27), points out that this will “require us to test the limits of political acceptability” to actually go about “making things work.” It is here that we suggest that in the domain of the Department’s work there is a ‘circle of desolation’. That within this circle, the notions of self-determination, autonomy and independence associated with rangatiratanga applies to everyone and anyone. That is it applies to all of us, to all of them as our clients/customers and to those who are the “natural helpers and natural prevention networks” (Indigenous Law Resources Part Two 2002:6) found within the authority of extended families. Also within this circle our experiences of cases demonstrates that this desolation demands of us an ability to unravel, identify and reweave the damaged strands of extended families. This it involves us all as people to identify and restore what remnants of rangatiratanga that exists. It is to that end when we are outside this circle that we will be bound to test our limits, to review our relationships and mobilise our resources more effectively. It is in these tasks that a Maatua Whangai practice and programme is a critical resource to leaven and support us as practitioners. Hence we propose that the first element of a Treaty practice framework is in accepting and reconciling the balance between kawanatanga and rangatiratanga (Article one and two). In this also is to acknowledge that our children above all else within our extended families are the treasured face of our future (taonga mokopuna8). In practice the reconciliation will be produced in an equality of outcome (Article three) for all of those with whom we support within their extended families. Here, the framework looks further into how it ensures equal space for Maori ethical prescriptions, values and principles and our ability to apply these inter-operatively. Accordingly it is this practice of ‘working within families’ (as a Maatua Whangai practice) is by its very nature bi-cultural and ensures an equality of treatment for each worldview. The exact nature of how this practice operates is not located simply in a set of prescribed formula. This in not to deny the merit of the practice wisdom contained within other practice models. Rather it is to suggest that our use of these is facilitated within the framework of equal space and leavened by the ethical perspectives implicit in the Treaty relationship. Here this ethical framework is developed from (Article Four) our respective worldviews and is based upon our underlying

8 This meaning of mokopuna as the face of our children as the well of our future was a definition given by Anaru (Papa Tip) Reedy.

12

codes of values. It might be argued that this element of the Treaty is not officially recognised. If we are however, to seriously confront the realities of our situation we will need to accept our value and ethical positions whilst understanding our mutual roles in protecting our children. Maatua Whangai implicitly guided and supported us as practitioners through this framework. This was so that our children could benefit from our support of both perspectives in order for them to be safe in the future. What Makes Maatua Whangai Different From Now? Paul Meredith in “Hybridity in the Third Space: Rethinking Bi-cultural Politics in Aotearoa/New Zealand” discusses issues of our identities confronting us in the Treaty relationship. Here he stated that: “I do not posit this conceptual perspective within a political and cultural vacuum nor do I celebrate a false sense of liberation from the continued influence of the historical colonial encounter. What I do argue though is the need for a more optimistic and complex strategy of negotiating affinity and difference that recognises the postcolonial reality of settler-societies (such as Aotearoa/New Zealand). Here postcolonial does not mean that ‘they’ have gone home. Instead, ‘they’ are here to stay, indeed some of ‘us’ are them, and therefore the consequential imperative of relationship negotiation.” (1998:3) It is this idea of “a more optimistic and complex strategy of negotiating affinity and difference” which best summarises the potential presented by a Maatua Whangai programme/practice strategy. Doubtless such a strategy may make perfect sense within a Maori worldview because its precepts are derived from that worldview. The concern however will be to attempt to demonstrate and protect a Maatua Whangai programme/practice from within a non-Maori worldview. Also to demonstrate that the maintenance of a Maori owned and gifted lore/law is about ‘one law for all’. As such a consistent application of this lore/law through a Maatua Whangai (working within families) strategy does not detract from rather it enhances the ability of all others to realise their own potential. It is here that several strands in the literature of communication sciences (Yanosy 2006, Berman 2004), marketing and organisational development (Locke, Searls & Weinberger 1999) and transformative approaches to social organisations (Judge 2005 & 2006) particularly derived from and building upon the literature surrounding communities of practice (Wenger 1999, Snyder, Wenger, Briggs 2005). A consideration of these perspectives is in part to account for the greatest challenge that might have betrayed Maatua Whangai originally. That is that once introduced the notions of whanau hui became family group conferences and whanaungatanga became kinship care. With this we created the illusion that the Act would legislate for practice and we no longer needed designated Maatua Whangai workers. Indeed what had been established as Maori lore/law for all had been converted into being part of Pakeha law.

13

As a response to the significant crisis in our child protections system calls have been made for (among others) systematic assessment in families to assess preventative measures at key milestones in children’s lives and a closer definition of risk assessment in order to more accurately predict levels of intervention. Unfortunately either strategy may falter unless they are established: -

with the consent of the communities they are supposed to serve particularly Maori or

attempt to measure their outputs/outcomes in terms acceptable to

those they propose to serve or

within appropriate relationships in which these projects maybe realised.

In particular we find the notions associated with risk containment problematic. This is not to dismiss analysis of risk but rather to see risk as a whole within communities and extended families. Hence the measurement of false or true negatives and positives based upon past time reporting of events does little strategically to create different picture of the future. It fixes risk in past and does not appear to create the communication infrastructure which can follow the fluidity of risk. For instance it is possible that the true negative of one moment may in the very next turn out to be a true positive. Also such an analysis of risk as an ultimate outcome would be to construct a set of actuarial tables for child protection through which abuse as a human problem might be diagnosed. Unfortunately human behaviour is much more chaotic and as such is unlikely to be solely amenable to such an analysis. This is even before a cultural critique which might question such assessments of risk to children within the context of their connection to their extended family. To respond to these contingencies would require an intimate internal access to the workings of such families. This is not entirely possible as an externally located agency such as the Department which relies on its ability to gather evidence often from outside this intimacy. Statutory social workers chances of gaining such access when required can be enhanced when the authority and resources of within extended families are supported. Hence it is suggested that a parallel process of such risk assessment and management analysis is an implementation of structures which enhances the Department’s internal access within extended families. Strategically this mechanism is within a Maatua Whangai programme and practice. In light of the critical situation we face and our need to mobilise different forces in different ways suggests that a different strategic approach is needed. It is here that the thinking of Anthony Judge 9 (2005) in his discussion of “Liberating Provocations: use of negative and paradoxical strategies” appears to hold some prospect for further consideration. His advice is “if the problems are not being reduced by current strategies, a 9 http://www.collectivewisdominitiative.org/files_people/Judge_Anthony.htm

14

‘provocative’10 mode may address those who have had enough of being told how to behave” (2005:2). In his work he advances several notions which may assist us confront what appears to be intractable problems in our system. The first of these are the “insights are provided by engaging in "infinite games" as explored by James P. Carse (Finite and Infinite Games: a vision of life as play and possibility, 1986). He argues, for example:

A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.

Finite players play within boundaries; infinite players play with

boundaries.

To be prepared against surprise is to be trained. To be prepared for surprise is to be educated.” (Judge 2005: 5)

Here the purpose is where an infinite game is about creating new ‘civilisations’ and there are no losers (Ibid 2004: 6). The following precautions however have been identified when coming to consider a negative or paradoxical strategy. This includes “avoiding their prescription or use:

If inexperienced in their implementation, unless appropriate advice is sought

If they violate ethical prescriptions

Unless those affected are appropriately informed, if that is required

by ethical guidelines” (Ibid 2005:16) Whilst we may not agree upon all of the perspectives that Anthony Judge advances in his writing on provocative strategies it is his final conclusion which cements the value of this thinking.

“The general approach advocated here places the stress on conscientizing people through making them responsible for their acts. Provocative strategies clarify questions to be asked and trigger insights into more strategically fruitful questions of a higher order – the key to liberation.” (Ibid 2005:19)

Cogently a Maatua Whangai programme and practice in the current circumstances is a provocative strategy. Given the issues we face it would seem that such as strategy is worthy of consideration. There are, however clearly evident stumbling blocks which we face when dealing with Maori disparity. These are among others around the place of the Treaty and debate about special treatment for Maori. It is proposed

10 The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1978:1697) defines Provocative as “Having the quality of provoking, calling forth, or giving rise to stimulating”.

15

here we move to consider and manage these concerns within a framework of ethics11. This paper attempts to address these concerns so that when they are confronted through a Maatua Whangai programme or practice as an ethical vehicle for these tensions to be reconciled. The key factor here is that Maatua Whangai gathered much of it strength from its integrity and integrity founded upon a strong ethical framework. To that end the following ethical framework is offered from Maatua Whangai perspective. This looks at concepts in Maori and English and attempts to create a framework which allows these two worlds to stand alongside and in support of each other. This is as follows:

1. Firstly, the framework invokes in us the ethics of integrity. In this, the concepts of being correct (tika) and right (pono)12 are cited. These are defined in the sense of acting correctly and with rectitude but not merely in a manner, which is complicit but that which adopts the advice of “To do the right deed for the right reason”13.

2. From this to look to ourselves and who we are and leaven (kinaki)14

our knowledge, skills and attributes with a greater understanding of both ourselves as Maori and non-Maori and the stories of from whence we have come and to whence we desire to progress.

3. And with this be imbued with a positive regard for people (aroha)15

and their concerns, aspirations and dreams.

4. With this, seek to apply the knowledge, skills and attributes we have gained from the gifts we bring to each other and ability to ensure that the skill and process of reconciliation (hou hou rongo)16 occurs for us as people both within us individually and collectively.

11 This is discussed further by Katherine and John Peet (1996) in the paper “Let’s Move From Rights to Ethics”. 12 Solomon Tipene offered these concepts as part of developing recommendations on the nature Open Wananga. The concept of ‘pono’ as we discussed it was broader than simply ‘right’ as it contains ideas of rectitude, honour and hence the ideas of ‘the right deed for the right reason’. 13 This is a quote from “Murder in the Cathedral’ by T.S. Eliot. It is spoken by Thomas A’ Becket before being murdered on the altar of Canterbury Cathedral after standing up to the King. 14 This concept is offered by Solomon Tipene and means to add another ingredient in order to improve the overall product and hence the interpretation of leavening for the concept of kinaki. 15 Ossie Perry added the concept of aroha or the positive regard for people to this framework. This was after presenting the basic framework to him to which he added this concept to make the framework more complete. 16 This concept was introduced to me by the late Mike Tipene who expressed the fundamental idea of the Matua Whangai programme as hou hou rongo or in his words

16

5. And thereby restores to us as people with the ‘power’ and ‘authority’

to address our concerns so that we maybe restored to a state of vigorous wellbeing (mana)17.

These perspectives are seen as offering thinking from other non-Maori perspectives that might underpin and secure a Maatua Whangai strategy. How We Might Make Things Different Through Maatua Whangai? Maatua Whangai in practice is a paradox. It is a paradox of being a strategy, a programme, a practice and way of life. As has been noted historically Maatua Whangai was to be the practice of all social workers but paradoxically no one social worker can completely practice Maatua Whangai. Hence when we come to implement a Maatua Whangai it will be in “all things to all people” that we will need to unravel, reweave and reconcile these strands. The paramount notion that we need not just to understand but accept is that Maatua Whangai practice only resides in a part of each practitioner. No one practitioner no matter who they are or how skilled they may consider themselves is ever complete. This because once I claim a completeness of a Maatua Whangai practice I will miss seeing the authority within an extended family or I will miss acknowledging someone else who has the particular cultural wisdom I need to access an extended family. So as soon as I lay claim to being complete in a Maatua Whangai practice I am paradoxically not practicing Maatua Whangai. The trick is that Maatua Whangai practice is not ever done in isolation. It is always done with a practitioner being part of a community both internally and externally to the Department. This is not only being part of community in the sense of locality but also part of a community of extended families. It is by participation in these communities that practitioners will know through mutually beneficial relationships just what there limits are and gain access to the resources which makes a Maatua Whangai practice complete. The other notion about Maatua Whangai as practice and a programme is that it is not as such new policy. It is simply old policy that has been hidden and in which we seem to have lacked confidence to implement. Maybe the damage that has been done to our extended families is just too great for us to look beyond the immediate circumstances of safety now. Whatever it is that affects us it will be a re-application a Maatua Whangai programme and practice that will assist us to move forward. This is as Maatua Whangai moved us forward when it was first started and with goodwill it has the

reconciliation. It was this concept that offered in my writing related to ‘Closing the Gaps’ overseen by Naida Glavish. 17 When drafting this, the final outcome of vigorous wellbeing (mana) was suggested and it was Ossie Perry who confirmed that this was appropriate.

17

potential to move us forward again. The trick is that Maatua Whangai is old policy and does not need much more that committed people to work together to make it happen. This is not to deny however that there are not some organisational, management and practice ideas that will leaven these efforts. A crucial one of these is in the ideas formulated by Etienne Wenger (1998) in “Communities of Practice: Learning as A Social System” where he defines this as: “Members of a community are informally bound by what they do together–from engaging in lunchtime discussions to solving difficult problems–and by what they have learned through their mutual engagement in these activities. A community of practice is thus different from a community of interest or a geographical community, neither of which implies a shared practice. A community of practice defines itself along three dimensions:

What it is about – its joint enterprise as understood and continually renegotiated by its members

How it functions - mutual engagement that bind members together

into a social entity

What capability it has produced – the shared repertoire of communal resources (routines, sensibilities, artifacts, vocabulary, styles, etc.) that members have developed over time.”

Which is all well and good as it might be argued that practitioners are already engaged in such activity. Needless to say that the issues and concerns about disparity could challenge us to consider what more we could do in order to make this situation different. Here Etienne Wenger’s (1998:7-10) discussion on “Developing and Nurturing Communities of Practice” is instructive. Particularly as his advice indicates that “their development ultimately depends on internal leadership” and “to be effective therefore managers and other must work with communities of practice from the inside rather than merely attempt to design them or manipulate them from the outside.” (Wenger 1998:8) His paper continues to give some further guidance on how they can be nurtured in an organisation. The Department however is a complex organisation which has in recent months been re-absorbed into an even more complex organisation. Hence, it might be envisaged by managers having to account for complex outputs that communities of practice may seem like just too much more to handle. In this Wenger and his colleagues (Communities of Practice in Government: Leveraging Knowledge for Performance - Synyder, Wenger, Briggs 2005) have extended their examination of communities of practice into central government in the USA. “This approach helps build buy-in from people who will implement the approaches, versus saying, ‘Oh here comes another dictate from

18

Washington.’ These are our own problems and we should design our own solutions.” This is their opening quote and it sounds all too familiar in relationship to our own situation where new programmes, statements of practice frameworks and the like are created for implementation on top of our already overloaded system of intakes and referrals. Here they spell it out: “The complexity of today’s challenges and associated performance expectations—in public, private, and non-profit sectors—requires a commensurate capacity for learning, innovation, and collaboration across diverse constituencies. But conventional government bureaucracies are designed to solve stable problems for established constituencies through centrally managed programs and policies. These structures are not sufficient to address the messy problems we face today. Many of our most urgent social problems—in education, community safety, the environment, job creation, affordable housing, healthcare, and more—call for flexible arrangements, constant adaptation, and the savvy blending of expertise and credibility that requires crossing the boundaries of organizations, sectors, and governance levels. One way to integrate efforts across these boundaries is to cultivate “communities of practice” that promote cross-boundary action learning to address national priorities.” (Synyder, Wenger, Briggs 2005: 1-2) Because of the issues we face Maatua Whangai Project 2020 is the leadership within that inspires and facilitates the development of communities of practice. Also, to be considered is how we enhance the capacity of the Department to respond to communities. Particularly as we face some critical issues of increasing intakes and our capacity to distinguish the differentiated needs of extended families. From this comes our need to form relationships which alter public perception and allow greater access to the secrets and lies within those situations we deal with everyday. Here we may need to critically look at the Department’s internal organisation at a district level. A new paradigm which has been discussed as a differential response model seems to have neglected in its discussion some crucial aspects of how: - “The various partners in the child protection system will work together in a coordinated way at the community level, perhaps even establishing local governance entities to oversee the planning, funding, and delivery of child protective services.18” (Waldfogel 1998:111) “The new paradigm also emphasizes a larger role for informal helpers. In the proposed community based partnership for child protection, the potential importance of informal support from family or community

18 This advice has parallels in recommendation 3 of Puao Te Ata Tu relating to accountability and the formation of District Executive Committees

19

members in preventing child abuse and neglect is taken seriously.” (ibid: 111) Certainly, the Patch Project in Linn County Iowa appears instructive as an initiative which “seeks to resolve the problems of service orientation and service delivery by using a neighborhood-based interagency team to deliver child protective services and other child and family services to families at risk of abuse or neglect.” This is particularly cogent when she refers to the fact that “Patchworking is also thought to help caseworkers gain more understanding of the culture and values held by families from racial or ethnic minority groups.” (ibid: 115) “Overall, the patch model has been viewed as promising. The reform initiative is expanding to five additional sites in Iowa, and national interest in the model has led Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont to move forward with patch initiatives of their own. These initiatives will provide valuable information about the extent to which this model can work well in more diverse settings.” (ibid: 116) This is interesting in that most of the casework inspired with Maatua Whangai input was undertaken in a patchworking environment. This model allowed practitioners to form relationships with communities which allowed them to identify “a larger role for informal helpers” (ibid: 111) or “natural helpers and natural prevention networks” (Indigenous Law Resources Part Two 2002:6) or most importantly with the resources and authority within extended families. More importantly however it gives us possibility of greater access to the secrets and lies that mask the abuse of our children. In this together we can ensure that there are no more secrets and no more lies. We suggest that these two initiatives when supported by skilled initiators, facilitators or mediators engaged within a Maatua Whangai framework will go some way to addressing the structural concerns that beset the Department. These will need to be leavened, by other internal systems such as defining practice frameworks, staff and management training, reviewing job descriptions and enhancing performance appraisal systems. To leaven these systems from a Maatua Whangai perspective will further contribute to achieving strategic aims. More importantly, however it will provide both staff and the community they serve with a potent demonstration of the Department’s commitment to positive development. For instance, examples of language such as family/whanau (in the practice framework) in our view should be amended. The concept of ‘whanau’ is not simply inter-operative with the notion of ‘family’. This notion of family is in our view a much more limited concept and it is inappropriate to simply couple them as one. In so doing to expect social workers who may have limited knowledge of whanau to see past their interpretation of family. So where these notions of kinship are not clearly articulated will make it all the more difficult for us to expect a different result. Also upon further examination of the practice framework, we find that there is no attention given to how social workers are making relationships with the wider community or with networks of extended families. For instance how are we to expect a social worker to have “persevered with engaging the

20

family/whanau even when resistance is encountered” if we are not giving them any frame of reference or support mechanisms. The same consideration allies our application of “have cultural & broader support systems mobilised” when we have neither expected nor supported or given social workers any guidance in identifying, relating or in accessing this support. A Maatua Whangai programme and practice would act as a resource to social workers in achieving the goals focused upon in the framework. Maatua Whangai programme and practice however should not have to answer all these questions for social workers and would expect a reasonable level of cultural competence19. Doubtless, these questions located in the practice framework will eventually be used to guide performance. Here the framework needs to be less case-by-case focused and needs to be outward looking, partnership and relationship focused. In its present focus, we can continue to keep putting the blame on individual social workers for their failure in individual cases. Hence, if we begin to ask other question like – did you with the support of the Department have relationships which assisted you to access extended family or what support can you draw upon from with networks of extended families to assist your work in dealing with extended families. By adding these questions, we are then able to enter into a different performance appraisal process. Certainly if we are to adopt Maatua Whangai as a practice in statutory social work will need to add these more outwardly looking goals to be exercised by social workers. In this way, they will have the networks, the support and be able to gain access to the authority from within extended families for them to do their work more effectively. Fundamentally, this comes down to ensuring the job descriptions reflect the job that needs to be done. Here job descriptions such as that for a social work supervisor could include references to

“communities of practice” or

instead of merely “facilitate working relationship” the expectation could be to establish and maintain or

where new staff are to be trained in both “work practices” and

relationships with communities or

other than merely an “open approach to” other cultures this could be a more active demonstration of an ability to work within

and finally no mention appears to be made of the Treaty of Waitangi

and to lead practice consistent with its commitments. This critique can also be made of the description for practice leaders. Presumably, they are the exemplars for each site and could conceivable be

19 Here the MAIA Model of Cultural Competency Training developed by Tess Moeke-Maxwell maybe instructive.

21

the positions which should lead a development of a Maatua Whangai practice at site level. They are also critically placed to facilitate the development of communities of practice. Critically their job descriptions should be well leavened to demonstrate the Department’s commitment to bring about a paradigm shift in practice. It is seems that they are established more as finite players “ensuring compliance with practice policy and tools” within boundaries rather than being positioned to play with boundaries and to create new opportunities to find new solutions. A Maatua Whangai project 2020 offers some key strategic opportunities to the Department. It was a top down bottom up strategy because it involved all of us as workers in pushing boundaries, creating new relationships and in that we address the issues and concerns that beset extended families in our community. It has much to offer now as it did then. What Should We Do? Based upon their findings Possible Partnership makes the following recommendations; -

Recommendation 1 That the Department of Child Youth and Family support and sanctions the release of this report to the historical reference group. Comment Possible Partnership as writers and facilitators are aware of the depth with which Maatua Whangai is held among the people who are represented in this group. It is imperative in order to protect and validate the perspectives we have developed that they are consulted. If any of these perspectives are to be considered as worthy of implementation it will require their level of prestige for any implementation to be meaningful.

Recommendation 2 That the Department of Child Youth and Family develops and engages in an ‘honest stocktake’ of their relationship with Maori at all levels. Comment Too many issues, concerns, anxieties and unresolved legacies exist at all levels between the Department and Maori for the Department to avoid such an ‘honest stocktake’. To avoid such an undertaking will unfortunately leave the Department exposed to greater risk. This will leave many of these matters so unresolved as to do continued damage to the Department. This may take various forms all the way from a Royal Commission, a Ministerial Enquiry, a Waitangi Tribunal hearing, and the formation of a special select committee or some other process developed by the

22

Department short of these formal processes of enquiry. Nonetheless such an ‘honest stocktake’ should not only be done but be seen to be done.

Recommendation 3 That the Department of Child, Youth and Family sanctions a policy work programme Maatua Whangai 2020 – working within families in order to develop communities of practice which mobilise creativity and innovation to address primarily Maori disparity in relation to the Department’s work. Comment Although it could be argued that Maatua Whangai is not new policy perse it is true to say that a lot of the creative and innovative energy that came about because of the programme has been lost. It will take an application of resources and creative thinking in order to capture and mobilise previous and present energy. This is in order for this energy to be more effectively contributed to the significant problems the Department faces. In the course of preparing this paper Possible Partnership has become more aware of some of these sources which need to be nurtured and supported. This is certainly necessary if their contribution is not to be lost.

Recommendation 4 That the Department of Child youth and Family as part of this work programme Maatua Whangai 2020 – working within families includes a review of its internal systems to reflect Maatua Whangai ethics, values and principles. Comment In order to address primarily Maori disparity and to have the required face to face relationships with Maori as extended families the internal systems of the Department need to reflect and sustain these perspectives. Such as process will be built upon the development of communities of practice which deal with the realities of the Department’s work at the interface with communities and extended families. Here these communities of practice have particular insight into these realities and what its need s to achieve better outcomes. Here is recommended that the resources of Maatua Whangai 2020 – working within families be contributed to sites to support them in the process of how their insights are contributed. Accordingly Project Maatua Whangai 2020 – working within families is presented to the Department of Child Youth and Family as a contribution the future wellbeing of our children within their extended family. K.R. & J. M. Murphy-Stewart Possible Partnership

23