Thinking big about housing

A guest blog post by Alan Johnson.

The Government does not acknowledge that there is a housing crisis.  This denial is most likely for reasons of framing – once it admits the frame of a crisis it will then need to accept the blame for it.

But for the people on the right side of the ownership divide, the housing market is not a crisis but a bonanza.  These people have seen the value of the residential property assets rise by more than 60% during the term of this Government and if they own property in Auckland it has almost doubled.

Another reason why the Government won’t acknowledge the housing crisis is because its supporters – the property investors, speculators, landlords, developers as well middle class baby boomers – have benefited hugely.  Furthermore, these gains have more or less been tax free.

Continue reading Thinking big about housing

Prospects for social work in Aotearoa New Zealand: Segmentation or solidarity?

 A  guest post by David Kenkel

Like many social workers, I’ve been following the debate about forcible data collection and the design of what look likely to be very interventionist approaches by the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children/Oranga Tamariki.  I’ve wondered why a large proportion of New Zealand citizens apparently approve of strategies being applied to others they would hate to have applied to themselves? In thinking about this I’m drawn to the whakataukī: There, but for the grace of God, go I. I like this saying because it captures a vision of solidarity and community. It reminds me that the differences between my life and the lives of others are mostly to do with accidents of history. It’s a way of acknowledging that the good or bad fortune of ourselves and our neighbours are as much to do with the lottery of social circumstances, as our own individual efforts. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, I suspect it was a similar vision, that drove Michael Joseph Savage and the first Labour Government of New Zealand, to introduce the Social Security Act 1938, establishing the first social security system in the world (Silloway-Smith, 2010). The economic circumstances of the time made it clear that the wellbeing of each was inextricably linked to the wellbeing of all.

Continue reading Prospects for social work in Aotearoa New Zealand: Segmentation or solidarity?

Who defines social work? In defence of the global definition

The following is the response of the Re-Imagining Social Work Collective to the call for comments and suggestions by the New Zealand Social Workers Registration Board on their definition of ‘social work’ and proposed scope of practice.

Continue reading Who defines social work? In defence of the global definition

‘Disguised compliance’ – innocent shorthand term or jargon hiding a powerful discourse?

In a recent twitter storm (or perhaps more accurately, a surge)  there was a great exchange of ideas between Aotearoa and UK social workers, lawyers and service user advocates  on the topic of the term ‘disguised compliance’ in child protection. We say ‘surge’ because it was a powerful and constructive exchange rather than the sometimes personal, incoherent and bitter fights that can erupt in that forum.

The discussion itself was prompted by an article ‘Disguised Compliance – Or Undisguised Nonsense‘ written by an English lawyer Paul Hart critiquing the term on two counts: that it doesn’t really describe what it attempts to (that it should be called ‘disguised NON compliance’) and that, more worryingly, it’s used in a kind of medical diagnosis way to describe almost any kind of hesitance or reluctance to engage on the part of people engaged with child protection services. In some cases, its power as an interpretive lens has become so broad that it can put people in a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ position where almost anything they do is viewed suspiciously. Another article ‘We need to rethink our approach to disguised compliance‘ by David Wilkins similarly expressed concern about how commonplace the term had become , not just in “relation to (suspected or actual) manipulation or intent to deceive. Rather, it can be used as a catch-all term in relation to almost any signs of resistance or even just ambivalence on the part of the parent”.

On the other hand, active manipulation of facts can obscure what is actually happening for a child. Anyway, one of the main players in this discussion, Jadwiga Leigh, has put the various threads of this discussion into the neat Storify page below.

 

We are curious to know in our Aotearoa New Zealand  context – do practitioners here see it being used in the same way? Is it used too widely here? Or has it maintained its specific usage and is generally helpful?

Supporting an inquiry into abuse in state care

By Elizabeth Stanley

Over the last few months, the NZ government has faced multiple demands for independent inquiries: to uncover alleged war crimes undertaken by NZ military forces against Afghani civilians, to acknowledge NZ women who were forced to have their new-borns adopted, and to understand the experiences of the thousands who endured abuse within NZ’s state care system. To all these victims, the government’s response has been ‘no’, ‘go away’.

Continue reading Supporting an inquiry into abuse in state care

Podcast on poverty, child protection and the state

The RSW’s Ian Hyslop has appeared on a 95bFM podcast:

Poverty child, protection and the state: What needs to change?

Ian discusses the dominant narrative and some alternatives: social workers can advocate for political solutions and practice development that combats structural disadvantage and supports child and whānau centred practice. Have a listen – tell us what you think!

Image credit: Seb Lee-Delisle

Submission on the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill

Beehive, NZ government building.

With the first ‘tranche’ of proposed legislative changes associated with the Child Youth and Family review comes the opportunity to make submissions to the Social Services Committee. We have made one in regards to the final proposed change – to delegate fairly substantial powers beyond the state organisation (name as yet unknown) to third party professionals/organisations. They don’t have to be social workers (in fact the point is exactly to extend certain powers beyond social workers to other professionals) and the organisations remain unknown. If passed, this Bill will have two main results we should be concerned about. Firstly, it is a direct challenge to the expertise of social workers – specifically – to be able to receive notifications and make the most intrusive types of orders – without leave. Even more concerning is the move to enable those outside the state (whoever it is) to be able to perform all the functions currently held by the CE of CYF. This includes every coercive power of the state you can think of, and with a direct reference to requiring the appropriate ‘contracting’ to be in place, seems clearly to set the scene for the privatisation not only of less contentious services such as foster care or preventive services (already contracted to a number of NGOS), but of direct front-line decision-making and practice such as taking notifications of concern, applying for declarations, and applying for custody orders. We think it’s a bad idea, for reasons given below.

Continue reading Submission on the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill

Poverty, social work and the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill

By guest writer Mike O’Brien

Mike is an Associate Professor at the School of Counselling, Human Services and Social Work at the University of Auckland.  In this post he raises concerns about the current rewrite of the Social Security Act . He is a Board member at Te Waipuna Puawai and of the Auckland City Mission and is a member of the Impacts of Poverty and Exclusion policy group for the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services. He is also the social security spokesperson for the Child Poverty Action Working Group.

Continue reading Poverty, social work and the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill

How could parents be supported to have a voice in CYF’s processes?

In the second of a two-part guest blog post Hannah Blumhardt (with input from Anna Gupta) builds on the suggestion in Part One that parents should have a greater voice in the CYF system. The Expert Panel Report, which makes wide-ranging proposals for reforming CYF, offers virtually no recommendations for boosting parents’ inclusion. Drawing on recommendations from an English research project, this post considers possible options for rectifying this omission.

Continue reading How could parents be supported to have a voice in CYF’s processes?