Whānau ora? Don't ask me

The Families Commission, in its statement of intent, notes:

The Commission has also identified in this Statement of Intent a strong commitment to whānau ora. This will include the development of a whänau strategy that can work in two ways: identifying areas of specific work to promote whānau ora; and identifying how whānau ora can be incorporated into existing outcome programmes.

So what is whānau ora? According to Chief Families Commissioner Jan Pryor, it is "whanau well-being as defined by whanau". You'd think she would know, the komihana a whanau (or as Pryor would say, the Families Commission) has a paper on the issue.

According to the whanau ora taskforce, it is more about a whānau-centred approach to whānau development, focussing on placing whānau at the centre of service delivery, bringing together funding from several Ministries - health, education, housing, social welfare, and justice.

But Pryor doesn't even know what this commitment to whanau ora actually entails. Her excuse for her ignorance with this aspect of the commission's statement of intent was that she is a middle class white woman who, apparently, is not well versed in terms like whanau ora - and has forgotten the wording of the commission's own statement of intent.

If she doesn't know what whanau ora is, how is she going to understand the framework which is entitled "a whanau -centred approach to whanau well-being". That's a little different to "whanau well-being as defined by whanau".

Pryor says she is working closely with the Minister, Tariana Turia on the policy. Not close enough, as she has not the slightest idea what the Minister’s policy actually means.

More about →

More irrelevant research from the Families Commission

Family First has alerted the media - unfortunately embargoed til Friday - about the latest research from the Families Commission. It has labelled a report on gay and lesbian parenting as unnecessary, advocacy research, a complete waste of taxpayer money, and reveals nothing new that isn't faced by other blended families.

They 're right on one thing. It is advocacy research. So who are the two researchers who compiled this report?

One lesbian researches queer theory from Canterbury University, the other has published many journal articles on challenging heteronormativity and is doing a thesis on experiences of lesbians and gay men who create family through assisted reproductive technologies - no doubt this tax-payer funded research has helped with her research towards her PhD, despite the Blues Skies Fund that funded the research noting that grants do "not fund degrees".

So this is not unbiased research - it is insider advocacy research, conducted by those who say they live lives "outside the norms of heterosexuality" [whats wrong with the word "lesbian"] with a pre-determined agenda - to normalise gay relationships and to advocate for a change in adoption laws, and laws surrounding how many parents can be on birth certificates. Nothing wrong with that, but some people would not be happy with their taxpayers dollars being spent on this.

I'm more concerned that they interviewed just 19 families. And of those interviewed, just three were gay men, one of whom was a multiparent with a lesbian couple in another family, although treated as one family for the purposes of the research.The other couple were not even actively parenting children. Obviously gay men who parent are not as worthy of being researched as are lesbian parents. Why? Perhaps if they had gay men researching this they may have struck a more gender-neutral balance.

The research was done via snowball sampling which, crudely put, is getting an interviewee to recommend their mates. Surely lesbian parents have gay male friends who parent?

And your taxpayer dollars paid for it. Thanks, Peter Dunne.

More about →

Families Commissioner lied on television this morning

Chief Families Commissioner Jan Pryor was on on Q&A this morning. She was asked about the smacking referendum. She said

JAN When it came to the recent referendum we took no stance whatsoever, we made it very clear that we were not encourage (sic) people to vote either way on that referendum.

Yet in the latest Families Commission publication Family voice Jan Pryor, in talking about progress in encouraging people to support the smacking legislation said this:

However some of this progress could be undermined by the citizens initiated postal referendum ... on the question " should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand. Should anyone be hit as a way to change their behaviour - let alone a small child...why should it be okay to hit children?

The article was also in The NZ Herald.

While stopping short of advocating a "yes" vote, that sounds like taking a stance, to me. A very public and purposeful one.Is Jan Pryor a government-funded liar?

Oh and also she was asked about the Maori seats. The Familes Commission, in its submission to the select committee, supported the Maori seats on the Auckland City Council. Pryor said the position was a " contestable view that we tend to base on evidence". But the rationale? Because how Auckland is governed affects families.

No kidding. No evidence either.

Then she said that the Commission led and mostly funded the “It's Not Okay campaign”. I’m sure the Families Commission didn’t “ mostly fund” this – and it was primarily led by the Ministry of Social Development. But perhaps Russell Brown will be able to confirm this given that he was one of the faces of the campaign.

More about →