The big example last week was the Oranga Tamariki Pratice Review into the Hastings case.

The review and discussion after it mainly focused on the actions of staff. It's shocking reading.

Key findings include that:

• there were legitimate concerns for the safety of the baby warranting involvement by Oranga Tamariki (OT)
• not enough consideration and weight was given to options of parental, whānau, hapū or iwi care of the baby
• engagement with the parents, whānau and NGO partners was inadequate
• the social workers didn't properly understand or act within their statutory delegation
• the basis for applying for an interim order without notice was "weak" and a with-notice application should have been possible
• mechanisms to check the exercise of statutory duties and powers did not operate effectively.

But is there more at issue? Yes! The OT policy framework that underpinned the decisions and actions that occurred.

Policy was relevant 

The actions of staff within OT, as in any other organisation, don't exist in a vacuum. They are shaped by organisational context and policy. In this case, the policy framework reflected in the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 ("the Act").

The case review indicates that staff were effectively biased against the options of leaving baby with the parent(s) or whānau members.  It suggests that staff should have been more open.

But the bias was not surprising. The parent in the case had apparently had a previous child removed from her care. The case review indicates staff believed that the "subsequent children" provisions of the Act applied. These provisions basically prescribe bias.

Subsequent children provisions

The "subsequent children" provisions were passed into law as part of the last National Government's "vulnerable children" agenda (sections 18A-D of the Act).

The provisions basically prescribe that if a parent has previously had a child permanently removed from their care due to abuse or neglect, any subsequent child who comes into their care will be regarded as "in need of care or protection" unless that parent can demonstrate they are safe to care for the child.

The parent is not barred from parenting their subsequent child. But the dice is loaded against them.  Whereas OT usually has to investigate and substantiate care and protection concerns, the onus lies on the parent to show OT they can safely parent the subsequent child.

The provisions were considered justified by the government because evidence shows increased risks to subsequent children. However, risks are already considered as part of assessment along with evidence of change and signs of safety.

A bad policy choice was made and the subsequent children provisions passed into law. The adverse effects are that:

• they skew the Ministry's and court's  assessment towards risk and away from protective possibilities (as appears to have occurred in the Hastings case)
• they stigmatise a parent previously involved with the Ministry
• they come close to "once a bad parent always a bad parent"
• they potentially alienate a child from their cultural identity and turangawaewae
• they may be discriminatory - likely to impact most on whānau Māori (given the disproportionate number of Māori in care and likely disproportionate number of subsequent parents who are Māori).

Bad policy. It's no wonder that the social workers in the case were closed against the possibility of the parents caring for their baby.

Policy implementation

Another policy problem identified in the case review was that legislation and Ministry policy wasn't properly complied with.

For example, staff misapplied the subsequent parent provisions (1).  They failed to engage with the parents, whānau and involved NGOs and to implement the Ministry's cultural framework and standards for working with tamariki Māori (eg Whakamana te tamaiti - empowering the Māori child).

These failures raise questions about how the policies were implemented - the extent of resourcing and support for staff in the regions to implement the policies and standards.

Policy implementation is often a weak point for agencies- statutory and non-government. It requires resources, commitment and perseverance from an agency to embed policy in a systemic way. One-off training and induction just doesn't cut it.

Recommendations

The case review makes some important recommendations for change. But it could have made more.  Good news- we can expect a lot more effort and commitment from Oranga Tamariki to:

• engage with whānau and NGOs
• embed the cultural practice standard - Whakamana te temaiti
• support and resource implementation of policy and legislation across sites in the regions.

Outstanding

But the review raised some important issues. They weren't addressed and are outstanding. These are about the need for:

• repeal of the subsequent children provisions, replacing it with policy that works to support parents to safely care for a subsequent child
• mechanisms for early engagement of and accountability to iwi/Māori for decisions about their mokopuna.  The case review recommended more oversight and checking of decisions before an application for an interim custody order without notice can proceed. However, the checks continue to be internal (the only exception is the community resource panels). What about external involvement of the iwi to which a child links through whakapapa?

(1.) All the conditions of section 18B were not met (ie court determination wasn't made) and s18A treated as relevant to whānau members.

Contact us for an obligation-free policy consultation if you want to discuss a policy issue.

If you don't want the worry of policies and procedures any more, take a look at the services we offer and consider joining our online policy service.

The post Bad policy – a loaded dice appeared first on The Policy Place.

We walk a fine line as managers.

On the one hand we need to trust our staff and give them scope to use their professional skills and respond to diverse situations and clients. On the other hand, we need to ensure quality service provision and that staff act within the law, regulations and kaupapa of the organisation.

If we don't get the balance right, the consequences can be dire. If staff are left to decide every situation there will be inconsistencies galore and a high likelihood that something important is missed.  Conversely, too many rules can quash worker spirit and prevent client-responsive practice.

Organisational policies and practices are key to getting the balance right. But as many of our clients ask us, how do you know what areas should be covered by policies?

Compliance

In some areas, it's not hard to know if you need a policy. Legislation, regulations and standards require it. For example:

• the Children's Act 2014 requires agencies to have a child protection policy.
• the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 requires the development of policies by the Chief Executive
• both the Social Sector Accreditation Standards and Health and Disability Standards require policies and procedures to meet certain standards.

Clients frequently tell us that their main challenge is keeping up with all the legislative and regulatory changes they have to comply with. Compliance isn't just a one-off policy. It means being on top of what policies are required and what policies should cover.

This is a biggie for our online clients. They tell us they have peace of mind now knowing that they no longer have to worry about staying on top of all the regulatory changes. They trust that we will keep them updated and they enjoy being able to input to policy reviews.

More tricky areas 

It's often tricky making decisions in situations where there are competing interests. Policies and procedures are especially important here.

A case in point - too little 

The case is still being investigated so we don't know all the facts. But the tragic case of the Canterbury University student found in his hostel room several weeks after his death may be an example of not having enough policy and procedure in place.

There were competing interests. The hostel held itself out as offering pastoral care. But as media comment afterwards indicated, the hostel also needed to respect its students' rights to privacy and independence.

Without adequate policy guidance and procedure in this type of situation, staff are left to work out how to balance competing interests by themselves. They may veer too much on the side of privacy and independence.  They may think it is unduly intrusive to regularly check on students. They are unlikely to feel empowered to act when and if they have concerns about a student's wellbeing.

The balance can be so hard. It shouldn't rely on ad-hoc decision-making by staff. It should reflect a systematic and thoughtful process of policy making where competing interests are properly considered and weighed.

Not getting the right balance can be devastating. Our hearts go out to the student's whānau for their loss.

Regulating for the balance between interests

The Government is now in the process of regulating for this balance of competing interests for domestic students living in hostels.  The Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill is currently before Parliament. If passed, it will require student hostels to adhere to a code of practice for the pastoral care of domestic tertiary students.  Hostels will now be required to have policies and processes in place to support student wellbeing.

Adherence to the Education (Pastoral Care of International Students) Code of Practice 2016 is already mandatory for international students.

Too much policy

The worst thing about tricky situations is that often you don't know it's tricky until after something bad happens. When that happens, we often see over-regulation - organisations using their policies and procedures to deal with everything including the trivial stuff.

Or, as in this case perhaps, the Government legislating for something that could have been achieved through good policy and practice. There was a voluntary code of practice that the hostel could have applied but was outdated. But regardless of any regulation, if a hostel says it provides pastoral care, at the very least you'd expect the hostel to have policy and procedure around what pastoral care practically involves eg staff sighting a student, supporting a student to access help with issues.

Getting it right - check things out

So too much policy, too little - it is hard to work out. BUT you can't ignore the fact that you need policies for compliance and for other tricky situations. The stakes are often too high.

Don't worry if it feels hard - you're not alone.

It's why many clients come to us. We have years of experience in accreditation, regulation, policy work and management that we draw on to get the balance right in policies and procedures.

We're here to help. We can help you build a strong policy foundation so that you can feel assured not only about meeting compliance but also that you've covered the tricky stuff. Do we really need a policy sets out some of our key considerations when deciding if a policy is necessary.

We don't want our clients to be looking back and thinking "what if..." or "I wish we'd done that....".  We aim for our clients to be looking forward, feeling strong and able to focus on the best quality services for our people and communities.

Dedication

This post is dedicated to Mason Pendrous and his family.

In the words of the late Dame Whina Cooper:

"Take care of our children. Take care of what they hear, take care of what they see, take care of what they feel. For how the children grow, so will the shape of Aotearoa." 

The post Good decisions need good policies appeared first on The Policy Place.

The post Performance assessment appeared first on The Policy Place.

If you want to get more out of your operating expenses and want more time to spend on other things, then read on.

Policies are multi-functional

Organisational policies and procedures are not just about compliance. They are multi-functional:

• They are like a will. They help avoid the chaos and distress of uncertainty about what to do about a situation.
• They double as a how-to guide for staff when faced with new responsibilities, roles and challenges.
• If you're expanding into new areas or building new collaborations, policies and procedures can be used to reflect agreement on the important stuff like communication, reporting, information-sharing, expenditure and income allocation.
• They help you manage risks, for example of litigation, penalties, health and safety issues and risks to reputation.

Great bang for your buck. Yet, so many organisations and businesses are not reaping these benefits.

Danger

Too often organisations' policies and procedures sit in old electronic and paper files, pulled out just for audits then put away again.

To state the obvious, this is dangerous! It's a bit like not maintaining the structure of your house or whare. Eventually, rot can set in and more damage occur.

Unfortunately, we hear of lots of such calamities. Some publicly-aired ones include:

• injuries in childcare centres where there was no policy and procedure to guide action and as a result, errors were made;
• injury to a person being transported by an agency without sufficient safeguards in place;
• abuse perpetrated against children and disabled people in residential settings where processes for reporting  concerns were inadequate; and
• a failure to provide adequate medical treatment where there was no policy and procedure on informed consent and client-centred practice.

Time waster

Without good organisational policies, you're also likely to be wasting a lot of needless time and energy, for example:

• repeatedly telling staff what to do and having them tell you that they don't know what to do
• dealing with complaints
• solving recurring problems with ad-hoc responses
• doing fix-its on solutions that were made up by staff because they couldn't access good guidance.

It's wasted time; time that could be better spent on yourself or whānau or on other organisational priorities.

What's good organisational policy and procedure?

To help figure out what state your policies and procedures are in, consider the criteria for policies and procedures in the NZS 8134.1: 2008 Health and Disability Services Standards.  Standard 2.3 requires policies and procedures to:

• align with current good practice and service delivery
• meet legislative requirements
• be reviewed regularly
• be supported by a document control system to ensure that old versions of policies are not being used.

Guidance for NZS 8134.3.1:2008 recommends additional criteria; that policies and procedures should:

• be written and relevant to the organisation
• be sufficiently flexible to respond to consumer needs
• have a user-friendly format
• contain appropriate technical information
• be accessible to all staff
• be developed and regularly reviewed with relevant service providers
• identify helpful links (ie to other documents)

See here for how the Policy Place online policy and procedure service measures up.

Where to start

The task of reviewing and updating policies and procedures can feel overwhelming. It can be hard to know where to start.

If you're into the DIY approach, as a first step get updated on legislation changes. Take a look at our post outlining key legislation changes over the last year.  At the very least you will need to review and update your policies using the legislation and the standards with which you much comply (ie SASS or HD stds.) Involve staff, research and reflect good practise literature.

Let us handle it 

You can let go of the stress and give us the job to do. At the Policy Place we are reviewing and updating organisations' policies and procedures all the time. You get the benefits of policies and procedures that reflect cross-sector knowledge of good practice and policy and procedure expertise.

We give you policies and procedures fit for the 21st century with our online service. We keep them updated and regularly reviewed so you, your board and staff, have a lot less to worry about and a lot more time and energy for the things you want to do (eg recreation and leisure, other work priorities).

Book your free policy consultation 

Email us about your policy and procedure needs.

The post Are you missing out? Is good policy what you need? appeared first on The Policy Place.

The post Online policies and procedures – so easy! appeared first on The Policy Place.

We all have a role in the revitalisation of te reo Māori. We all have much to gain.

This was a key message in the Waitangi Tribunal's 1986 Report on Te Reo Māori claim and more recently in its Ko Aotearoa Tenei report.

It's a message that is now reflected in the principles of Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori 2016/ the Māori Language Act 2016. The principles of the Act include that te reo Māori:

• has inherent mana and is enduring
• is the foundation of Māori culture and identity
• enhances the lives of iwi and Māori
• is protected as a taonga under Article 2 of the Treaty
• is important to our national identity.

The Government recently launched its new Māori language strategy under this Act. It reflects these new legislative principles and responds to long-time calls for the language to be protected as a taonga and revitalised.

So what does all of this mean for those of us working outside government? In this post I look at what we can do to support the revitalisation of the reo.

Maihi Karauna 

This is the government's new strategy to revitalise the reo. It replaces the previous Māori language strategy, which was strongly criticised by the Waitangi Tribunal for being deficient and contributing to a decline in the use of te reo Māori (Ko Aotearoa Tenei, pp 165-7).

Maihi Karauna was developed as a partnership between the Crown and iwi and Māori (represented by Te Mātāwai).  It provides for:

• Te Mātāwai to focus on homes, communities and the nurturing of tamariki Māori as first language speakers of te reo Māori. Whānau, hapū and iwi are a vital part. See here for  Te Mātāwai's Maihi Māori/ Māori strategy
• the Crown to create and foster societal conditions where te reo Māori is valued and in partnership with Te Mātāwai, develop policies and services that support language revitalisation.

Goals

Maihi Karauna sets some "audacious" goals. By 2040:

• 85 per cent of kiwis (or more) will value te reo Māori as a key part of national identity
• at least 1,000,000 New Zealanders will be confident talking about at least basic things in te reo Māori
• 150, 000 or more Māori aged 15 and over will use te reo Māori at least as much as English.

Tracking progress

Unlike the previous Māori Language strategy, Maihi Karauna sets indicators for measuring progress towards these goals. The plan is to implement it progressively, starting with the current "establishment phase" (for more on implementation planning see here.)

What can we do? 

Maihi Karauna requires each of us to step up and nurture and promote te reo Māori as the indigenous language of Aotearoa.

To date, it has been largely Māori who have fought for the survival of the language. Broader support is required.  As people working with whānau, rangatahi and adults, social and health organisations can play a key part.

What about a language plan?

As part of implementing Maihi Karauna, public sector organisations will be expected to have language plans in place by 2021. A language plan could also be a good start for agencies and businesses wanting to give more priority and focus to the language. Think about how to engage with your staff, the expertise of Māori speakers on staff and obtain cultural advice about local tikanga and reo, for example, from mana whenua and local Māori/iwi services.

Review and update relevant policies and processes

It 's timely to review your policies on Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Diversity and inclusion. Consider if changes should be made to better support te reo in your organisation. For example, consider:

• supporting and requiring staff and volunteers to pronounce kupu Māori correctly, particularly the names of people and places and frequently used phrases
•  incentives for staff to commence or further their learning of te reo
• how te reo me nga tikanga (cultural practices) are used in the organisation's day-to-day practices
• increasing access to cultural supervision and cultural advice
• making the reo more visible in the organisation (eg signage, labels)
• promoting reo initiatives such as Māori radio, tv and social media channels
• recognise and remunerate Māori language speaking as a core competency for staff
• support national promotions of te reo (eg Te Wiki o te reo Māori).

Any or all of these should be included in your policies and procedures.

Conclusion

So there's a lot we can and should be doing. There's no need to feel overwhelmed. Every small step counts.

In Ko Aotearoa Tenei (p166), the Waitangi Tribunal referred to an old Māori proverb :

"Mā te huruhuru, te manu ka rere" which means birds can fly only with feathers.

Let's all be part of enabling te reo Māori to soar.

Kia Kaha Te Reo Māori!

Book your free policy consultation

The post Kia mauriora te reo Māori appeared first on The Policy Place.

Language is one of the problems. Some terms commonly used in the corrections system are dehumanising eg “muster.” It reminded me that some language we use in the social sector can be equally problematic.

At the Policy Place, we want our policies and procedures to support people – centred practice in health and social services. Here’s some terms we’ve identified as problematic, some alternatives and why.

What do you think?

What terms are used in social and health services that you think are problematic?  Let us know along with what you think are good alternatives. We'll add your terms to the list below to help us all become more conscious and agile with people-focused language.

Book your free policy consultation

The post Words for people not processes! appeared first on The Policy Place.

In this post, we overview some key changes to consider when reviewing and updating your organisation's policies and procedures.

If policy review and updating feels like a makimaki/monkey on your back, contact us now for help. You can schedule a free 30 minute consultation about your needs and your best policy solution. We can take care of the reviews and updating.

If you're a DIY policy person, tick off these changes as you review your organisation's policies and procedures.

Legislation changes

Key changes that have commenced this year have been:

• new provision for family violence leave and variation of employment terms for staff affected by family violence
• changes to the law relating to family violence including how and when family violence information can be shared between authorised services and persons
• changes relating to information-sharing for child protection and wellbeing purposes
• extension of Oranga Tamariki legislation (statutory care and youth justice) to under 18 years (was previously  up to 17 years)
• more support for young people leaving statutory care or custody up to 25 years
• new principles to guide decisions and interventions under the Oranga Tamariki legislation (eg addressing mana tamaiti, recognition of whakapapa and involvement of those with whanaungatanga responsibilities)
• new requirements on the CE of Oranga Tamariki to enter strategic partnerships with iwi, to give practical effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to report and monitor performance on outcomes for tamariki Māori
• the introduction of new care standards setting minimum requirements for the statutory care of tamariki.

Practice

And don't forget relevant practice and sector developments that are important enough to incorporate into your policies and procedures, for example:

• stronger recognition across sectors of whānau-centric practice
• more recognition of the need for trauma-informed responses
• move from 3 Ps Treaty framework to article-based framework
• more focus on workplace health and wellbeing
• focus on cultural safety and cultural competency
• mainstreaming - equality and accessibility
• individualised funding.

Quit feeding the makimaki!

Usually, people contact us because they know their policies and procedures are not up to date. They are busy managing services like social housing, family violence intervention, care, mental health, counselling, perpetrator programmes, family support, sexual violence services etc.

They haven't got the time to keep their organisations' policies and procedures up-to-date. They no longer want the worry of it.

If this is you, contact us now. We can take care of your policy reviews and updating. Finally, you can get say "goodbye" to that makimaki on your back!

The post Get that makimaki/monkey off your back appeared first on The Policy Place.

In honour of the week, this post uses words of te reo Māori Kūki Āirani/ Cook Island Māori language.

It's a good time to reflect on how our agencies respect and support te reo Māori Kūki Āirani and other Pacific languages; how we ensure culturally responsive services to Pacific people.  The two are linked. Reo (language) reflects respect for peu (culture) and respect for culture is directly relevant to service access and quality.

As we outline below, Pacific peoples and their culture have a special place in Aotearoa. This reflects in accreditation requirements and should accordingly reflect in organisational policy.

Respect for pacific

Pacific peoples comprise 8% of the population. The population includes a range of ethnicities, languages and communities, those born overseas and those born in Aotearoa who culturally identify with a pacific identity. Charities Services data shows there are 500 Pacific not-for-profit organisations in the country, with churches making up the majority of these (NZ Treasury, The New Zealand Pacific Economy, 13 November 2018) .

Samoan is the largest Pacific population in the country. The Cook Island population is the second-largest. Te reo Māori Kūki Āirani comes from the same language group spoken by Māori, Tahitians and Hawaiians.  There are more Cook Island Māori living in NZ than there are in the Cook Islands (See Ministry for Pacific Peoples, Cook Islands Language Factsheet).

We are a Pacific nation and have a special relationship with Pacific islands. The relationship has been chequered at times, eg the targetting of Pacific peoples in "dawn raids" - a "shameful passage" in New Zealand's race relations".

Both this history and the importance of our connection to other Pacific islands within the "sea of islands" (coined by famous Tongan author Epeli Hauʻofa) reflect in accreditation requirements for social, health and disability services.

Accreditation requirements

Both the Social Sector Accreditation Standards - Level 2 and NZS Health and Disability Standards require that services recognise and respect Pacific cultures, values and beliefs and that services are carried out in a culturally competent and culturally safe way.

This may be demonstrated in a number of ways, one of which should be through organisational policy.

The value of a good organisational policy

Good organisational policy and procedure that is user-friendly (for staff and volunteers) provides the opportunity to communicate some minimum requirements about culturally safe and culturally competent practices and to achieve consistency within your organisation about this.  It is a good way of reinforcing the importance of cultural safety and cultural competence to staff and volunteers.

Ingredients

How and what you provide in the policy and procedure will depend on factors such as:

• whether you are a Pacific or mainstream service
• your practice framework
• your kaupapa
• the services you provide (eg direct services, advocacy).

Organisations will have their own views on what they consider important enough and appropriate to enshrine in policy. If you're not a Pacific agency, it will be helpful to consult with your Pacific staff, volunteers and clients and those you network with about what they think should be in your policy.

Some things to think about are:

• a process for staff obtaining cultural advice and preparing for engagement with Pacific clients
• promoting and using pacific languages to facilitate access to the service and express respect
• staff training (eg awareness of own cultural framework and assumptions; importance of ngutu'are tangata (family), use of pacific models of health and wellbeing)
• referral pathways  to provide people with the choice of accessing Pacific or mainstream agencies
• collection and monitoring of data about ethnicity of people accessing the service and achievement of pacific aims
• feedback and improvement strategies (eg a Pacific plan)

Conclusion

In te ‘epetoma o te reo Māori Kūki’ Āirani, it's good to reflect on Pacific connections and how we're going in delivering culturally safe services to Pacific peoples.

Through our policies, we signal what we regard as important to our organisation. The right of Pacific peoples to culturally respectful and responsive services is important enough for policy.

Contact us

Give us a ring if you need help with your policies and procedures. We love our mahi and talking to people about their diverse policy needs. Alternatively, take a look at our policy products to find out what we offer.

For more information about te reo Māori Kūki Āirani see the Ministry for Pacific People's  fact sheet and   educational language resource.

The post It’s cool to kōrero te reo Māori Kūki Āirani! appeared first on The Policy Place.

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.