Interview with an Iwi Social Service Provider
This interview was conducted with the Chief Executive Officer of an Iwi Social Service. The name of the CEO and the Iwi have not been included in the report as to do so make it likely that cases referred to could be easily identified. Large sections of the interview have been included verbatim, as the CEO was able to clearly articulate his views regarding the current legislation and his experience of it.
The CEO began by suggesting that the Guardianship Act should be made consistent with the CYPF Act in order to acknowledge the relationship between the child or young person and their whanau, hapu or iwi. He described the involvement of the iwi social services in seeking custody or guardianship.
Over the years since we have started we have been involved in a number of cases. Our experience has been that judges have been sympathetic to the different applications we have made. What has been interesting has been the opposition of the statutory agencies.
The only time we have taken custody is when whanau have requested our involvement or those we take custody as opposed to CYFS solely having custody. We are seen as an option for the whanau if they want it.
A key issue is that Iwi Social Service organisations are not funded for this work.
So if I am going to lodge an application with the Court and engage a solicitor - my last bill was approximately seven thousand dollars. That was an application for joint guardianship and joint custody. There is a whole grey area in the resourcing. I personally believe that our involvement should only be at the request of whanau, but there is a need for us to be resourced to actually assist them. Otherwise I have to be the gatekeeper and decide which ones we take on. I believe it is the right of every whanau to engage our services. It is their right as a member of our iwi.
He was concerned by the lack of status accorded to Iwi Social Services in the court process.
There is a need for judges and iwi to develop a relationship. If you haven't got status, you can't actually present stuff to them. All the cases we have been involved in the judges have been pretty good, but they are difficult to meet with.
He felt that this was a serious issue, because whanau often sought support from the iwi because of their sense of alienation and frustration in dealing with a system that feels disempowering to them. The CEO had strong views about the expertise of Counsel for the Child.
A lot of them are not actually culturally-appropriate for our young people. Counsel for the Child should be trained or Maori for Maori kids. I have a whole range of examples of how we have been victimised by Counsel for the Child because of their lack of knowledge of tikanga, Maori processes and whanau, hapu and iwi and the interrelationship between these levels.
The CEO described three cases where they had made applications for custody and/or guardianship. They are indicative of the range of circumstances in which whanau approach their organisation. One involved a severely-disabled young person that the whanau were unable to provide care for and who was in CYFS custody. The Iwi Social Service became involved and found a specialist care placement which the whanau supported. The Iwi Social Service became part of a joint custody arrangement.
Youth justice matters initiated a second case; there were subsequent care and protection issues. In this case the whanau did not want CYFS to have sole guardianship, preferring this to be shared by the iwi. The young person is now back with the whanau, and the guardianship is being discharged.
The oral judgement made in a third case, involving the Iwi Social Service application for joint custody and joint guardianship under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act has been provided to the researchers. The judge cites key sections of the Act that refer specifically to the role of whanau, hapu and iwi, and it is these principles that the CEO argues should be operated consistently across all Family Court legislation and practice. The judge stated that:
The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act was passed after considerable consultation with Maoridom. It is for this reason that this Act reflects the wish for the Maori identity of many children and young people to be properly reflected in decision-making and care arrangements that are made.
The judge went on to cite Principle 5(a):
The principle that wherever possible a child or young person's whanau, hapu, iwi and family group should participate in the making of decisions affecting that child or young person and accordingly, that wherever possible, regard should be held to the views of the whanau, hapu, iwi and family group.
He then cited s13(b) which says:
The principle that the primary role in caring for and protecting a child or young person lies with the child or young person's family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group and that accordingly -
(1) A child or young person's family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group should be supported, assisted and protected as much as possible: and
(2) Intervention into family life should be the minimum necessary to ensure a child or young person's safety or protection.
The judge granted the joint guardianship application on the grounds that this would give proper effect to these principles.
For the CEO, the foundational principle for discussing issues relating to the care of children is whakapapa. He argued that wherever a child has this whakapapa, then issues about whether both parents are Maori become irrelevant.
In terms of whakapapa, the basis of Maori culture, that child is Maori. It has a Maori heritage, and whether or not the young person knows it at that time, it develops. That child is a taonga of that iwi. And we have an obligation as an iwi to care for people as best we can.
9.1 Summary
The philosophy of the CEO, and the philosophical base of the organisation are clearly grounded in the Maori world view described in the literature search. Whakapapa is the basis for whanau engaging with the Iwi Social Service, and children who whakapapa to this iwi are seen as belonging to the whanau, hapu and iwi. Whanau, hapu and iwi are responsible for the care of the children. A fundamental concern for Iwi Social Service providers is that these principles, which are referred to in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, are incorporated into other Family Court law. Consistency at this level should be supported by trained professionals and these principles applied in an informed way.
