As this review of the literature has found earlier, violence against children was a rare exception in pre-colonial times and sharing parenting responsibilities was the norm. Taonui (2012) concludes that this suggests that today’s high rates of child abuse among Māori have their origin in the post Māori-European contact period. He takes this further by suggesting that the structures and organisations that address child maltreatment derive from the structures that created the problem in the first place, and thus maltreatment is influenced by a removal -/- alienation of the child from their indigenous culture and not the inherent nature of it. Berating Māori leaders of decimated communities featuring disproportionately high in abuse and violence statistics is in this context ignorant and arrogant. One aspect which Hoeata et al. (2011) believe to be a strong contributor to violence within Māori households is a shift towards patriarchal family structures brought about by colonisation, further stresses being added by today’s economic reality of women struggling to meet according household and parenting expectations as well as earning a second income.
“The passivity and submission by Māori women to men is not of a traditional Māori world but stems from the colonisation of traditional Māori life ways through the imposition of a patriarchal monotheistic religion and British settler culture” (Hoeata et al., 2011, p.7).
Piripi (2011) also locates one of the main causes for Māori disparity in dysfunction and deprivation in the public sector’s failure to recognise and address the Treaty status of Māori society and a misplaced focus on the individual (Māori) needing to put more effort into improvement. He places hopes on “public servants to show leadership in the delivery of frank and honest advice, which can mitigate the fragility of political agendas and public demands” (p.241). Taonui suggests that current child protection measures address symptoms rather than causes; he offers ways forward which echo Pūao-Te-Ata-Tū: that more Māori with strong cultural skills need to be a part of decision making for children in need, that Pākehā working with Māori children need cultural re-training and that the reporting (of concerns) needs to be devolved to appropriately resourced Māori-centred or Māori-sensitive organisations. And finally ‘re-enculturation’ of individuals, families and tribal groups with the aim of making potential victims less isolated and vulnerable and more emancipated and making potential perpetrators of violence more aware of the traditional values of their culture and thereby less likely to transgress them. Because “the current crisis derives from cumulative intergenerational experiences of colonisation, alienation and impoverishment”, Taonui believes that re-enculturation will result in “culturally strong families (who) are less violent (and that) culturally based programs for Māori are more likely to be successful” (p.176).
26 There is general consensus in literature written by Māori authors that solutions are best sought in cultural re-connection and the recovery of matauranga Māori (Māori knowledge, wisdom) and tikanga. A pioneer of this approach was Sir Apirana Ngata (1874-1950), the first Māori to attain degrees at New Zealand universities (BA’s in politics and law) and Member of Parliament from 1905 to 1943. Ngata is among many things remembered for his great contributions to Māori culture and language, one example being the establishment of the School of Māori Arts and Crafts in Rotorua (Mead, 2003). A central pillar in this process and an important aspect of social capital3
for Māori is the learning of Te Reo Māori and the promotion of the intergenerational dialogue so that tamariki Māori maintain their understanding of and identity within Te Ao Māori (the Māori world) (Waldon, 2011). Those rights are embedded in Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi and Article 30 of the Convention of the Rights of Children which states:
Article 30: Minority or indigenous children have the right to learn about and practice their own culture, language and religion. The right to practice one’s own culture, language and religion applies to everyone; the Convention here highlights this right in instances where the practices are not shared by the majority of people in the country. (United Nations, 1989, p.9).
An understanding of Te Ao Māori including Māori concepts of health and wellbeing are essential to providing for tamariki Māori as indigenous children. Successful programmes for prevention of violence within Māori whānau should equally be grounded in Te Reo and tikanga Māori (Dobbs & Eruera, 2014). Government agencies should work closely with iwi to incorporate iwi needs, priorities and aspirations and adequately resource relevant research, evaluation and leadership that build local knowledge and capacity within a Māori worldview. Western approaches and frameworks for family violence have not curbed the epidemic and are failing Māori (Kruger et al, 2004). Tikanga Māori provides a conceptual framework to address whānau violence and kaupapa Māori models are critical to achieving change. As identified earlier, there is a dearth in research to identify at which point family violence became a significant issue for Māori and traditional methods to prevent it or deal with it were marginalised; there is also very little iwi specific research on these issues. Some Māori writers (e.g. Taonui, Love) decry a disproportionate focus of the New Zealand media on negative statistics and events involving Māori which serves to reinforce racist stereotypes and undermines the negotiation of constructive ways forward by Māori providers and strategists. The resulting increasingly controlling and punitive efforts by statutory agencies promote in turn a resistant “bunker” reaction by many affected Māori communities. The recommendation is for a positive investment in services that are viewed as safe and supportive.
Since the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 criticism has arisen that Māori processes, i.e. whānau hui, were being appropriated and transformed, thereby removing the
3 Social capital: “collective values of all social networks and the inclinations that arise from these
27 essence of successful operation, including whānau rangatiratanga (Love, 2000). And further that the processes, procedures and regulations Māori tribal entities must conform to in order to be recognised as an approved Iwi Authority -/- Social Service under the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act, claiming that these entities were modelled on the very Pākehā institutions from which Māori were seeking emancipation (Walker, as cited in Love, 2002). Walker describes these processes and structures as “replacing white bureaucracies with brown bureaucracies” (p.29). Durie’s (1998) analysis is that policies in health, welfare and education are developed first, then Māori are asked to react after which their views may be added; what is wanted is an integrated Māori-inclusive approach throughout all policy development stages. As Jackson (1995, as cited in Love, 2002) states: “Justice for Māori does not mean the grafting of Māori processes onto a system that retains the authority to determine the extent, applicability and validity of those processes” (p.27).