Ministry no longer for ‘vulnerable children’

1 News: Ministry for Vulnerable Children today drops ‘vulnerable’ from its name

The name change for Oranga Tamariki-Ministry for Children, dropping the word “vulnerable”, officially takes effect today.

Good riddance to a stupid name.

Changing names of ministries can be costly and of dubious benefit, but “Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki” was awful and unpopular. I don’t know if anyone but the last Government supported or liked it.

Children’s Minister Tracey Martin says what the ministry does is far more important than its name.

“However, we want the Ministry’s name to reflect that we have aspirations for all children and young people.”

Ms Martin says Oranga Tamariki is only nine months old and it has to focus on its core work – improving the quality and range of care available to children most in need, lifting social work standards and improving youth justice outcomes.

But she says over the Government’s term, Oranga Tamariki-Ministry for Children will widen its view.

“We want a plan and measures in place so that as a country we make sure that we are doing the right thing for all of our kids.”

All children are vulnerable – that’s why they have parents caring for them. Some are more vulnerable than others. But labelling some of them ‘vulnerable’ was a silly idea.

It may have been more accurate describing them as ‘Children in Unfortunate Circumstances’, or Children With Crap Parents’.

We have a Ministry of Health rather than a Ministry for Sick and Dying People.

But Ministry names are best kept simple.

The name change to Oranga Tamariki-Ministry for Children is sensible.

55 Comments

  1. When National named their ministry, “…for Vulnerable…” they argued black and blue that critics of the stupid title were wrong and that they were RIGHT God-dammit!!!

    • Of course they were right.

      My children and those of my personal acquaintances never came under any aspect of the dept. It simply existsts to care about and for those children whose parents are, for whatever reason, unable to provide or derelict in their care and duty of their own

      • Gezza

         /  January 19, 2018

        The word Vulnerable has such negative connotations it automatically stigmatised the very children it was supposed to help. It was an utterly stupid name & the change is a welcome one. Any blame attached to any costs for signage, letterhead, website changes etc should be laid at be door of the idiots in National & the bureaucracy who approved it.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  January 19, 2018

          Quite right. Should have been the Ministry for Stuffed Up Kids. Still is.

  2. robertguyton

     /  January 19, 2018

    Labour has done very well, ejecting much of the crap that National imposed while they were the Government. More to come, finger’s crossed.

  3. sorethumb

     /  January 19, 2018

    Our social policies are created by Marxists. Fortunately help is on the way
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL_f53ZEJxp8TtlOkHwMV9Q
    [Garlic to vampire]

  4. Statist wastrel Tracey Martin states:

    “However, we want the Ministry’s name to reflect that we have aspirations for all children and young people.”

    The reality is that most children in this country will never come to the attention of, less receive assistance from, this Ministry. She might want to “widen” the scope of the Dept, in an interventionist socialist manner, but at its core is vulnerable children whose parents or caregivers who default on duty and care. The thought that a jumped up Terrier type list MP from a 7% party can flat out waste half a million to rebrand speaks more to ideology and an inflated sense of importance, than it ever does to altering outcomes for our most vulnerable children.

    • Blazer

       /  January 19, 2018

      so why did National..waste 1/2 million rebranding it to…’Vulnerable’ Children..then?

      • PartisanZ

         /  January 19, 2018

        Few of these things need to be Ministries IMHO. They could almost all be departments of a more integrated Ministry of Social Development & Well Fair organised along much more horizontal and democratic lines than the ‘corporate hierarchy’ ones presently in place …

        This would actually be more ‘productive & efficient’ as well … not to mention ethical, egalitarian, fair and just …

        • Gezza

           /  January 19, 2018

          Yep. Tautoko that.

          • Gezza

             /  January 19, 2018

            Except for the elongated name. It should be the Ministry of Social Welfare, as it was. But that should also be its actual mission & objective.

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 19, 2018

              Well Fair … ?

            • Gezza

               /  January 19, 2018

              Well I think I know what you’re getting at but I wouldn’t go for that personally. It’s a complex word when it gets to breaking down what Fair would mean in delivering its services. All government departments should be treating the people they deal with fairly. And the Courts & various Tribunals all have an enforceable obligation to follow the Courts’ interpretations of Fairness & Natural justice.

              What I mean is social welfare is a good enuf term for what that Ministry or Department should be concerned with.

    • sorethumb

       /  January 19, 2018

      Don’t forget corporate socialism: the immigration ponzi keeping land prices high and wages down.

      • Joe Bloggs

         /  January 19, 2018

        “keeping land prices high and wages low” – that’s the capitalist’s ponzi scheme

  5. I am sure Cindy’s baby will be well feed.

    • PartisanZ

       /  January 19, 2018

      If all the knives in her back don’t kill her …

      Why shouldn’t her baby be well fed?

      What would you have replied to me if I’d said years ago, “I’m sure John Key will make an absolute killing on that Parnell property?”

      • Corky

         /  January 19, 2018

        There’s a disconnect there, Parti. But you have answered the question as to why it was unwise and politically flawed for Jacinda to be having a baby while in office. This will cost Labour big time if they don’t handle things correctly.

        • PartisanZ

           /  January 19, 2018

          There isn’t any correct way of doing this Corky …

          You have no idea where I stand. I certainly have no great hopes for this Labour-led government beyond the usual FIIRE economy management purveyed by both ‘centrist’ parties since the millenium. They’ve already started to break promises to prove it.

          The psychic-and-emotional environment of the country might remain somewhat improved and healthier? But really, a distorted form of capitalism is in charge and must remain so for the foreseeable future. Even a ‘socialist’ government has to stroke it …

          RoNS may be curtailed or minimalised in favour of sharing the roading fortune? That can only be a good thing. Poverty may be slightly more reduced than under National?

          Meaningful cannabis law reform is a dead man walking …

          A glimmer of hope remains that End-of-Life-Choice might get across the line, but I think this government is cut in the same ‘gutless’ mold as their predecessors of either ilk and will be unable to risk alienating the ‘Right-to-Life’ lobby, regardless of how archaically religious and deceiptfully paranoid their arguments are …

  6. Clarke will make a lovely SAHD and look great with a sick up towel over his shoulder. I only hope they don’t plaster the poor kid over the magazines and tabloids. I’m actually not confident of that though. What a boon for Labour and now watch the press fawning over her like a Queen Bee as a very normal mammalian condition becomes our very own Kardashian dream…..

    • Gezza

       /  January 19, 2018

      Jesus trav. She’s a new mum. She’s finally telling everyone. Give her a break mate. How did you feel when you told everyone about your first? Good on her.

      • PartisanZ

         /  January 19, 2018

        I fully expect Right Brigade questions about “responsibility”, “appropriateness” and even “national loyalty” … Some Klik Bait journalist is bound to ask … There’s tabloid sales in it.

        Possibly even irresponsibility questions: Our Prime Minister “fell pregnant” in like an unplanned way?

        If not, you mean she planned it all along? ….. She can’t win …

        Meantime, I hope this ‘news’ is some comfort to Meteria?

      • Guess what I’ve had several kids and I love them all fiercely. They’re number one in my life and I remember very well my first one. I’d never do or have fine anything to endanger them or my family group.

        If Clarkcinda want this to be about branding and politics (and there’s evidence tinduggest they are) then expect reaction. Mine isn’t unusual. I would never hold an at home press conference, put three fish hooks on instagram and inform NZ this way. I wouldn’t allow Clark to put the doting letter online from the wee girl as he did yesterday. It’s all hinky to me.

        Excuse my cynicism, I just come from a place where I see a couple who’ve been all over magazines and the media. I see a woman who is posing in Vogue and puts fish hooks on Instagram and it seems a tad staged. Silly me

        • Please excuse iPad isms…..

          • Gezza

             /  January 19, 2018

            Excuse them? Of course I do. I suffer from them myself. 😀
            Corks can be ruthless about them, too. 😡
            FiP’s ! ❤ :/
            I don't even know what fishhooks on Instagram are. Couldn't give a monkey's, tbh.

            Stop boasting about your former fecundity! Not everyone was a hot nun at Woodstock you know.

        • Blazer

           /  January 19, 2018

          you are old…Jacinda is young…your hatred of her is well documented.I don’t expect her to parade her child festooned in red rosettes.’I would never hold an at home press conference, ‘….who fucken..cares!

          • I do not hate her at all. I’ve never remotely expressed that sentiment it’s not how I roll. Please do grow up and stop attributing an imaginary “hatred” to me. Yet again can I remind you to please stop your ad hominem. Ms Ardern is a public servant, an employee of ours, and otoh I am an anonymous poster here. You don’t know my age and I consider your outbursts unnecessary

            • Blazer

               /  January 19, 2018

              exhibit…A-https://yournz.org/2017/09/28/ardern-adds-details-to-timeline-of-becoming-leader/#comment-221014

    • PartisanZ

       /  January 19, 2018

      “Lipstick on a pig” stuff really, isn’t it?

      At least you’re consistent.

      I wonder if the fish hook image could possibly have anything to do with the words “first man of fishing”?

    • Gezza

       /  January 19, 2018

      I dunno that this makes her much different from Trump.

      • Gezza

         /  January 19, 2018

        The fish hooks are clever trav. That’s art.

        • I know art. This is not art. It’s pure branding.

          I love she’s pregnant and I’m happy for them. There is no joy like it. But her baby is their baby, it’s not NZ’s baby and it deserves privacy and love for itself not for what it represents to the nation, political advancement, career and brand enhancement or progressive ideology.

          Mark my words they’ll regret it if they turn it into a poster child.

          • Blazer

             /  January 19, 2018

            yet you applaud Rees Mogg for using his kids as mobile billboards…for the..Tories.Talk about..double standards.

            • No, rather you said I applauded JRM taking his son about campaigning. #whataboutism

            • Blazer

               /  January 19, 2018

              wrong again…it was more than his son…he called his latest kid Sixtus FFS.Missy will back me on…this…your selective amnesia is a..worry.

          • Gezza

             /  January 19, 2018

            Ma was on the blower earlier. She’s not exactly a great fan of Jacinda but she said “did you hear? The PM’s pregnant.” I said yes, it was all the talk of my forum that I spend too much time on. Some people were whinging about it already.

            “Oh for God’s sake” she said “there’s no reason it should make any difference to whether she can do her job women having been having babies and running companies or doing other jobs for years. She can’t win can she? First they complained she couldn’t talk about kids because she didn’t have any, & now she’s having one they’re complaining about that! Get a life! “

            • Gezza

               /  January 19, 2018

              PS: She said she had the tarakihi at her friend’s birthday celebration at The Roundabout & so did Bev, & the others all had $15 menu items. It was a dollar extra because it wasn’t on the $15 menu (or something, I was reading a forum comment & might’ve missed a little bit), but anyway it was delicious.

            • I know well most women can do a job from personal experience. Not remotely my problem. My objection is doing a stand up outside her home and announcing it as a village will raise baby. That’s marketing.

          • Gezza

             /  January 19, 2018

            “I know art. This is not art. It’s pure branding.”

            Well I know art too & that’s art. It might be branding as well, but then so is most art. That’s why artists sign paintings.

            “Mark my words they’ll regret it if they turn it into a poster child.”

            Maybe they will. But maybe not. Jacinda pitches to the Facebook & Twitter generation, not ours. And she’s part of the latest lot of celebrity PM’s like Trump & Justin Trudeau & Macron & some of the other European youngsters. Their kids are likely going to be growing up in a self-promotional fishbowl anyway.
            John Key’s did.

            It’s become a matter of opinion & personal outlook whether the limitless self-branding & self-marketing of today is tacky or not. I think it’s tacky but it started in the late 80’s & I accept that many others think its normal & aren’t overheated by it, and neither am I. Just wouldn’t do it myself.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 19, 2018

              If it’s art, why is the guy turning his back on mother and child?

              Sounds like something we’ve been talking about.

            • Yes. We’re a different generation.

            • Gezza

               /  January 19, 2018

              If it’s art, why is the guy turning his back on mother and child?
              It’s 3 fish hookS, Al. You’re diving too deeply. Come up & breathe.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 19, 2018

              No, it’s art, G. You said so and I believe you of course. So it is painfully symbolic in all respects. Sad for them.

            • Gezza

               /  January 19, 2018

              Art only needs to generate thought, emotion or interest Al. It doesn’t need psychoanalysis & isn’t required to make any kind of profound statement. He’s a keen fisherman. She might fish too. One hook fits neatly inside another. It actually looks like a symbolic foetus. Even if it’s not original (I dunno) I think that’s clever & cute. It’s artistic.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 19, 2018

              And who hooked who I wonder?

            • Gezza

               /  January 19, 2018

              Yeah, well. I wonder the same thing about Trumpy & Melania.

  7. PartisanZ

     /  January 19, 2018

    Should really read: traveller, yours is “Lipstick on a pig” stuff really, isn’t it?

    • Cannot see the analogy. Lipstick on a pig to me denotes that whatever one does to something, how one dresses it up, it is still simply what it is

      • PartisanZ

         /  January 19, 2018

        So, okay, I may have jumped to conclusions: Where did you stand on Gareth’s “lipstick on a pig” statement?

        • Not a fan of the man but I don’t think it was sexist to her. The pig was the Labour Party and Ardern the lipstick. He meant that dressing it up wouldn’t make a difference to the institution. I guess. It’s not an expression that offends me. You?