Idolatry and Maori Child Abuse, Part I

Whanau Culture's Collateral Damage

There was a small furore inside the Wellington beltway two weeks ago when Paula Bennett, Minister of Social Development had the temerity to suggest that Maori elites and the controllers of millions of dollars of Maori assets had a responsibility to commit more resources to looking after their own Maori children. The reason is that whilst representing around ten percent of the population, Maori account for 50% of the children identified on government roles as being at risk—which is to say, they don't have parents or caregivers that either parent or give proper care.

The risible response of the Green co-leader Turei was to accuse the Minister of racism. Such a response must be dismissed contemptuously. But, it begs the question: why are Maori children at such risk? Always the reasons are complex. We do not mean this sarcastically. Life is complex; all human culture is complex; it is exceedingly thick, with layer upon layer of reality (as God has wonderfully ordained it to be). Turning a culture so that it moves in a different direction is a complex undertaking—too complex for any one agency to achieve. Impossible for government agencies—for God has not ordained such tasks for government.

In general, however, Maori elites and those who control the power structures within Maoridom are agreed on where the problems lie and what the solution must be. To them the solution is monocular and straightforward: more money. Or, to be more precise, more of other people's money. Money poured forth is the simplistic naïve materialist solution offered. Yet the majority of non-Maori power elites would agree. So, the only debate in our society over the solution to the plight of Maori children is how much money of other people's money can be delivered, and by whom. The right generally argues for lesser amounts, citing the weak economy, national debt levels and so on, whilst the left always argues for more. The Maori party, in turn, always argues for much, much more.

It is noteworthy that the recent brouhaha was, once again, over money. The Minister of Social Development was arguing for more money for at risk Maori children—but was trying to source it from Maori elites (those tribal leaders who control the billions of dollars in various tribal settlements for historical grievances genuine and manufactured). For some reason, beyond the ken of rational people, this was deemed racist.

Why does Maoridom have such an appalling childcare record? (We generalise, of course. There are many salutary and excellent Maori parents, and fine Maori families. Sadly, however, they are relatively smaller in proportion to their population than non-Maori ethnicities.) Why?

Whilst the reasons are legion, there are at least three which we believe are the more pernicious. The first is the degradation of the nuclear family at the expense of extended family or whanau. Maori apologists have hailed their whanau-culture as a point of great superiority over pakeha culture. The paradigm of the extended family, we are told, means that every child grows up within a community of blood relatives, aunts and uncles, cousins, and more distant blood relatives. The whanau culture creates a bond of responsibility to many children, not just one's own. Children ostensibly grow up within a far wider and richer group of adults and children. Any weakness in parents can be compensated by the influence of the wider whanau.

Western culture is seen as inferior at this point, for the nuclear family is believed to be narrow, isolated, restricted and shallow. It does not have the breadth, colour, depth, and richness of an extended family structure.

To be sure, an extended and strong community, whether based on blood or other bonds should be a great blessing—but, and it is a colossal “but”, the extended community in the long run is destructive unless it takes up its roles and responsibilities upon the foundation of strong nuclear family structures. A true oneness of the community can only be sustained upon the solid ground of many strong nuclear families. When the community is misshapen to where it substitutes for a nuclear family, the outcome is most often destructive.

The problem is that the extended family has no soul to damn and no butt to kick. The whanau concept, as currently manifested within Maoridom, does not hold birth parents primarily accountable and responsible for their children. A major reason so many Maori children are neglected is that it is impossible to hold a community accountable for their care; there is no primary caregiver by definition. Thus, the Maori concept of whanau has in general become a hindrance to the proper care of children. Until Maori acknowledge that God gives children to parents first and foremost, and only to the community secondarily and indirectly, and that He holds birth parents responsible and accountable, and until Maori reform their whanau culture accordingly, high rates of child abuse amongst Maori will likely continue.

A second major cause of putting children at risk is the concept of whanau socialism—which of course is related to the first. Maori parents are inculcated in the heinous idea that commitments to whanau supersede their duties and commitments to their own children. So, when somebody dies all are obligated to attend the tangi, often taking days off work; all are obligated to contribute. Maori parents are continually needing to expend their cash and assets upon extended family obligations—most often at the expense of the care and provision for their own children. And when such impoverished families get into strife, whanau socialism makes it acceptable to cast them upon the whanau for care and help—as a sort of payback or return for having been a dutiful whanau member.

Many Maori have migrated to Australia for this reason: to escape the perpetual impoverishment that comes from the never-ceasing demands of the extended family upon their income, time, resources, and assets. The obligation to “share” and pay koha are often overwhelming. Until Maori cleanse their culture of such notions, and build their communities upon the principles of the sanctity of private property; the rejection of theft and immoral expropriation of the property of others; a rejection of whanau claims upon the income and assets of extended family members, and affirm the fundamental truth that commitments and duties to one's own children are more important than duties to one's whanau, high rates of neglect of children will continue.

The latter principle of commitment to one's marriage and family being more important and a higher priority than commitment to one's extended family is, of course, derived from the beginning of the human race, where God declared and commanded that a man, in marriage, should leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife. The modern whanau socialist model at root constitutes a rebellion against this divine plan and command. Evil consequences always flow when individuals and cultures think themselves smarter than the Living God.

God will not be mocked—and the truth of this is showing up in the incidence of child abuse amongst Maori.