Posts Tagged ‘discrimination’
Learning from the Waitangi Tribunal MÄori health report
The first report from the Waitangi Tribunal of its Kaupapa Inquiry into MÄori healthĀ – Hauora – was released this month. It concluded that our primary health care system has failed to achieve MÄori health equity; that New Zealand’s legislative, policy and administrative framework is not, in fact, fit to achieve this outcome.
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.Ā 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The Tribunal described these principles as outdated and the Crown accepted that they reflect a “reductionist view” of the Treaty (Hauora, p79).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 WhÄnau o Waipereira Report;Ā The Napier Hospital and Health Services Report; TÅ« Mai Te Rangi! Report on the Crown and Disproportionate Reoffending Rates.)Ā 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.Ā It means that the right of MÄori to organise in whatever way they choose – whÄnau, hapÅ«, 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 TribunalĀ highlighted that equity is also not just about reducing disparities.Ā It involves the bigger goal of equitable outcomes for MÄori.
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 MÄori.
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 MÄori to be self-determining in relation to resources, people, language and culture (ie tino rangatiratanga). It must involve MÄori 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.Ā Where kaupapa MÄori services exist, MÄori 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 findingsĀ
The Tribunal concluded that the Crown had breached the Treaty in a number of ways. It found that from inception MÄori primary health care organisations have been significantly underfunded, leading to a decline in the number of services. Whereas at a peak there were 14Ā MÄori 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 (ie Oranga Tamariki Act)Ā 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 MÄori statutory authority be explored
- the Crown and claimants work on a way of assessing the extent of underfunding of MÄori primary health organisations and providers.
The parties must report back to the Tribunal on progress with these after 7 months.
Some learningsĀ
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 MÄori
- feedback and data should be gathered about access and outcomes for MÄori.Ā 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 MÄori, tau iwi agencies)
- the Crown must ensure funding of kaupapa MÄori services is sufficient for their viability and that mainstream services it funds are competent to provide services to MÄori (ie staff and board are culturally competent)
- MÄori 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.
Challenging hate through workplace change
Whatās the difference between stereotyping, prejudice and hate speech and does it matter?
Yes, it does matter.Ā In the words of our Chief Human Rights Commissioner:
āIt is a matter of life, death and human rights. Disrespectful words and actions give permission for discrimination, harassment and violence.ā
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 MÄori. 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
Thereās the law. Itās 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.
Thereās also government policies and programmes. These aim to facilitate inclusion and promote diversity. Examples are the Refugee Re-settlement Strategy, MÄori 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 ā develop and implement organisational and workplace policies on diversity and inclusion, honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi, addressing harassment and bullying. But this canāt 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 kÅrero, education.
A systemic approach and commitment to ongoing learning and improvement are required.
So is courage. We need the courage to say ānoā to the perpetration of stereotyping and prejudice, to question and challenge it in the everyday.Ā We need the courage to say āyesā, ātino paiā to truly embracing diversity.