News reports have highlighted the Tribunal's findings of institutional racism. Here, we discuss some other aspects of the Tribunal's report to help agencies give effect to some of the gems in the report (eg in their policies and practices).

We look first at the Tribunal's approach to the Crown's 3 Ps Treaty framework.  We then look at new Treaty principles proposed by the Tribunal. Later, at some strategies for reflecting these principles.

The "3 Ps" - out with the old

The "3 Ps" comprise the well-established Crown Treaty framework - the principles of partnership, participation and protection. They came out of the Royal Commission on Social Policy in 1986.

The Tribunal described these principles as outdated and the Crown accepted that they reflect a "reductionist view" of the Treaty (Hauora, p79).

Thirty years on, with a lot more Treaty jurisprudence and Treaty settlements under our national belt, there's clearly room to do better. The Tribunal proposes a new set of Treaty principles for New Zealand's primary health care framework.

They are principles the Tribunal has relied on in a number of key reports (eg Te Whānau o Waipereira Report;  The Napier Hospital and Health Services Report; Tū Mai Te Rangi! Report on the Crown and Disproportionate Reoffending Rates.)  They are relevant to all sectors. We briefly outline them below by reference to the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Tribunal treaty principles

Principle 1: Recognition and protection of tino rangatiratanga

This is guaranteed under Article 2 of Te Tiriti.  It means that the right of Māori to organise in whatever way they choose - whānau, hapū, iwi or other form of organisation and to exercise autonomy and self-determination to the greatest extent must be recognised and protected.

Principle 2: Equity

This is an Article 3 Treaty commitment. It's also about acting in good faith as a Treaty partner.

Equity is not just about allowing equal access to healthcare or other services for all. The Waitangi Tribunal  highlighted that equity is also not just about reducing disparities.  It involves the bigger goal of equitable outcomes for Māori.

The Tribunal approved the World Health Organisation's definition "Equity is the absence of avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people, whether those groups are defined socially, economically, demographically or geographically." (Hauora, p67)

Principle 3: Active protection

This principle is all about action and leadership. Devolution and permissive arrangements without Treaty leadership are not sufficient. Provision for equal opportunity or a "one-size fits all" approach also falls short.

The Crown must actively pursue and do whatever is reasonable and necessary to ensure the right to tino rangatiratanga and to achieve equitable health and social outcomes for Māori.

Principle 4: Partnership

Yes, this "P" remains. Its meaning reflects an interplay of articles 1 and 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

For the Crown to be a good governor it must recognise and respect the status and authority of Māori to be self-determining in relation to resources, people, language and culture (ie tino rangatiratanga). It must involve Māori at all levels of decision making.

Both the Treaty parties must act reasonably and in good faith towards each other.

Principle 5: Options

This principle is about giving real and practical effect to the principles of tino rangatiratanga and equity; articles 2 and 3 of Te Tiriti.  Where kaupapa Māori services exist, Maori should have the option of accessing them as well as  culturally appropriate mainstream services. They should not be disadvantaged by their choice.

It's the job of the Crown to ensure each option is viable and sustainable by providing sufficient financial and logistical support, strong leadership and effective monitoring.

Report findings 

The Tribunal concluded that the Crown had breached the Treaty in a number of ways. It found that from inception  Māori primary health care organisations have been significantly underfunded, leading to a decline in the number of services. Whereas at a peak there were 14  Māori primary health organisations in the country, there are now only four (Hauora,p156).

A similar story of unrealised potential and breaches of the partnership and tino rangatiratanga obligations can undoubtedly be told in other sectors. For example, Iwi Social Services and Maatua Whangai were incorporated into the Childrens Young Persons and their Families Act in 1989. They were established to play a key role in the statutory care system in response to Puao-Te-Ata-tu. However, they were undermined by a lack of resourcing and support (eg Shane Walker, Maatua Whangai o Otepoti Reflections -ANZASW).

The Tribunal report makes a number of recommendations. This includes two interim recommendations, that:

• an independent Māori statutory authority be explored
• the Crown and claimants work on a way of assessing the extent of underfunding of Māori primary health organisations and providers.

The parties must report back to the Tribunal on progress with these after 7 months.

Some learnings 

There's some great learning in the Tribunal report about giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Some key points for organisations' policies and practice are that:

• agencies should have a strong leadership focus on fulfilling Treaty obligations and achieving equitable outcomes for Māori
• feedback and data should be gathered about access and outcomes for Māori.  It should be regularly reviewed, evaluated and used to support continuous improvement
• if you're not making progress be wary of attributing blame to clients. Instead, consider different ways of delivering your service
• avoid deficit language "hard to reach", "vulnerable children" that tend to individualise what are often structural or system issues
• consider and invest time, good faith and energy into building constructive treaty partnerships (with mana whenua, local Māori, tau iwi agencies)
• the Crown must ensure funding of kaupapa Māori services is sufficient for their viability and that mainstream services it funds are competent to provide services to Māori (ie staff and board are culturally competent)
• Māori are engaged at all levels of social and health sector decision-making from governance through to service delivery.

More to come

There's more in this and other Waitangi Tribunal reports to learn from. Like other Tribunal reports its rich in opportunities to learn about Treaty compliance.

In another blog we'll take a look at how the Social Sector Accreditation Standards- Level 2 and Core Health and Disability Standards line up with the Tribunal's approach.

Get in touch with us if you're wanting help with your policies and procedures. We love to hear from you.

The post Learning from the Waitangi Tribunal Māori health report appeared first on The Policy Place.

are you ready?

Earlier this year, we listed some changes coming your way with new legislation. In this post, we look at Oranga Tamariki reforms relating to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We’ll update you about other changes in subsequent posts.

The context

As we know, the youth justice and care and protection systems have had a disproportionately adverse effect on tangata whenua.  Those impacts reverberate today in inequalities across key areas of life like health, education and wealth.

But we also know about the strength and survival of Māori; that despite colonisation, Māori culture, identity and practices survive and flourish; and that access to identity, whakapapa and culture is integral to the wellbeing of tamariki and whānau Māori.

Addressing inequality

The reforms tackle the inequality between Māori and non-Māori in the care and protection and youth justice areas head on.  Under the new legislation, the kāwanatanga (governance) responsibilities of Oranga Tamariki, as a Crown agency, will include:

• setting goals to reduce disparities
• measuring progress on this for tamariki and rangatahi Māori
• publicly reporting on progress at least once a year
• having regard to Māori culture and values (tikanga Māori), in particular to mana tamaiti (tamariki), the whakapapa of Māori children and young people, and the whānaungatanga responsibilities of their whānau, hapū and iwi.

The Ministry is expected to up its game and has been reporting progress. So how can the rest of us, as government-funded organisations, also play a part?  Reducing inequalities requires our collective effort:

Nāu te rourou, nāku te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi
With your food basket and my food basket the people will thrive.

How culturally competent are we?  

This will, of course, be different for everyone. But like any other competency, there are some basics that need to be met.

These are set out for funded agencies in the cultural competence standard of the Social Sector Accreditation Standards - Level 2, which is the equivalent of Standard 8134.1.4 of NZ Health and Disability Standards applied to Ministry of Health-funded agencies.

The basics  

The cultural competence standard is comprehensive. Organisations must have policies and procedures in place to ensure work is carried out in a culturally competent and culturally safe manner.  Treaty concepts of partnership, participation and equality of outcomes are core.

Agencies must meet requirements like:

• collecting data about the cultural identity of clients and using this to help service planning and development
• providing access to cultural supervision and cultural advice
• cultural diversity in staffing
• using Māori practice models and tools to support connection with whānau, hapū and iwi
• having cultural networks and relationships eg with iwi and kaupapa Māori, Pacific services.

Can we up our game?

There's always room for improvement. No matter what our competency level, there's always more ways in which we can learn and grow and become more responsive and inclusive.

Where to start?

A good starting point is to review and reflect on our values and performance. Even better, if we can join others in on it. Questions like the following can help:

• what does data tell us about who is accessing the service and who are applying for and being recruited to staff roles
• what's indicated by feedback and complaints from tamariki and whānau Māori
• what's the state of our relationships with mana whenua and kaupapa Māori organisations
• could cultural advice and supervision be used more
• what do we know about practically applying the concepts of mana tamaiti / tamariki, whakapapa and whanaungatanga
• could tikanga practices and reo become more part of our BAU and how can we make this happen.

The next step is to act on what’s identified from the review. It doesn’t have to be big. It’s just important to keep moving forward.

And keep the end goal in sight: ending the injustice of inequality, of honouring every child and young person’s right to be safe and thrive.

Rangatiratanga

Although the majority of children in care identify as Māori (69%), the Ministry reports that only 21% of its funded services are Māori organisations[1]. The new legislation looks set to change this.

It requires the Ministry to take steps to develop strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations. Already, partnership agreements have been made with  Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Te Rūnanga-Ā-Iwi O Ngāpuhi.

It is a time of opportunity, for more services by Māori for Māori and for new and different ways of working, planning and investment in care and protection and youth justice services. It is exciting, will undoubtedly be challenging and gives us all the opportunity to learn and grow.

[1] Oranga Tamariki. Improving outcomes for tamariki Māori, their whānau, hapū and iwi. Engagement and feedback document. Dec 2018

In our next post...
___________________________________________________________________________

In our next post we will update you on the age change provisions in the Oranga Tamariki legislation. This is another positive change, likely to have significant implications for agencies.

The post Some exciting changes and lots to do appeared first on The Policy Place.

What’s the difference between stereotyping, prejudice and hate speech and does it matter?

Yes, it does matter. In the words of our Chief Human Rights Commissioner:

“It is a matter of life, death and human rights. Disrespectful words and actions give permission for discrimination, harassment and violence.”

We have plenty of examples in our history that prove it. In Aotearoa, stereotyping and hate speech have been part of the colonial wars against Māori. Likewise, integral to the white Australia policy and the killing of its aboriginal peoples. Most recently, prejudice was the justification for killing 50 Muslim people in Christchurch.

So what should we be doing about prejudice and stereotyping in a democracy where freedom of expression and opinion is so valued and necessary?

The big picture

There’s the law. It’s geared to stopping the harmful effects of prejudice and stereotypes e.g denial of opportunity, inciting others to hate. Paul Hunt, the Chief Human Rights Commissioner and the United Nations recommend that the laws relating to hate speech and racial hatred need improvement in New Zealand.

There’s also government policies and programmes. These aim to facilitate inclusion and promote diversity. Examples are the Refugee Re-settlement Strategy, Māori TV, population-based ministries and government-sponsored campaigns around issues like domestic violence and sexual harassment.

The everyday

Members of the Muslim community have publicly shared about the commonplace denigration of their religion and ethnicity. Their experience is not unique as a minority living in NZ. Our culture still seems to give voice and power to anglocentrism.

Our mahi at the Policy Place is workplace/organisational policies and procedures. So my question is - what can we do in our everyday work space to support change and transformation?

Organisational courage

Some obvious things – develop and implement organisational and workplace policies on diversity and inclusion, honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi, addressing harassment and bullying. But this can’t just be a compliance exercise, a tick box.

The policies must be truly embedded in the organisation, part of the organisational pulse. This takes training, ongoing team kōrero, education.

A systemic approach and commitment to ongoing learning and improvement are required.

So is courage. We need the courage to say “no” to the perpetration of stereotyping and prejudice, to question and challenge it in the everyday.  We need the courage to say “yes”, “tino pai” to truly embracing diversity.

The post Challenging hate through workplace change appeared first on The Policy Place.