The children who benefited from this office were those of the people "working" there, which of course took money from families with their own children.
I have long regarded Dr Cindy Kiro as odious. She is prepared to sacrifice reason and individual rights for a big nanny state that puts safety of children above everything else. She was an authoritarian bully of the worst kind, she wanted all children monitored and planned by the state, under her warm stifling embrace. Instead of focusing on the vileness of parents who brutally abuse and neglect their kids, she adopted a scatter gun.
Meanwhile, the record of child after child murdered and abused by their extended families, far too often Maori, grew under her watch. She was gutless. Unable to confront the gravy train of intergenerational welfare that sees too many have accidental children and pay them at best negligible attention, at worst treat them as violent and sexual playthings, she wanted what's best "for all children" - ignoring that most parents, most of the time raise children who turn out to be reasonably well balanced, happy, healthy and productive citizens.
It was like she saw security at airports (because of terrorism) and figured the same "screen everyone every time" approach should apply to parenting.
I watched the antics of this woman throughout the life of this blog as follows:
In 2005,
Cindy Kiro supported airlines having a deliberate policy of never sitting men next to children. She said
"children’s safety is paramount" which of course can justify a Police state. It doesn't matter how many adults are offended, blamed for abuse or what freedoms people lose, nothing comes before the safety of children.
In 2006,
Cindy Kiro promoted a single ID number for all children, so the state could track them. Her phrase "
"If there is glue ear, or major issues about safety at home, then people do not learn properly. All the little bits need to come together." seems to justify monitoring every child. As
Not PC said at the time "
To say that all children need to be numbered because some children have been beaten by their parents is not just disingenuous, it's downright insulting to the vast majority of New Zealand parents." Indeed, Cindy Kiro wanted it to be about ensuring every child "
did better", because the state, somehow can know best.
I first
called her Cindy "Stalin" Kiro in June 2006. Why? Because she called for a "plan for every child" agreed by the state
in a press release that remains on Scoop, but curiously not on the OCC website (Stalin rewrote history often too). She said "
“In future we need to put in place a plan for each child from the day that they are born so that children don’t fall through the gaps again". Terrifying stuff, nonsensical when you consider CYPS is incapable of handling the deluge of cases of children living with criminally negligent/abusive parents already. A chilling vision of the state checking if, maybe you let your 10 year old taste wine, or maybe let your child briefly read Lady Chatterly's Lover, and punish you appropriately.
In October 2006 I blogged how Sue Bradford SUPPORTED Kiro's idea. Kiro called it
"Te Ara Tukutuku Nga Whanaungatanga o Nga Tamariki" "
This would provide a systematic approach to monitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential. The assessments would take into account the whole child: their physical, social, educational, emotional, and psychological development.”She was awfully excited about planning childrens' lives.
In September 2007
I despaired it took the MSM a year to catch up on this story. Kiro
claimed it would cost NZ$5 million a year. The Dom Post reported she "
would make it compulsory for every newborn's caregiver to nominate an authorised provider to assess their family's progress through home visits. Those who refused to take part would be referred to welfare authorities." In other words, state goons to watch on your family. She said "
She did not know of any similar schemes internationally. "We can lead the world in it.""
North Korea watches on families constantly Cindy, hardly world leading. I bet you don't know much about North Korea though do you? It's a long way from where you have spent your life.
In November 2007, I blogged about how she talked about "our children" again and how "we" needed to change "our" attitudes to child abuse, as if most people were casual about it. She said "
New Zealanders had to change their attitudes and behaviour to become more child-focused". I'd bet most parents would beat to a pulp anyone they caught harming their kids.
No Dr Kiro, perhaps abusers should change their attitudes, and you can stop lumping everyone in the same group you collectivist!
In February 2008, I blogged about how she encouraged people to spend more time with their kids, having recently pocketed her relatively comfortable salary paid for forcibly by the people she wants to spent more time with their kids.
In August 2008, I blogged on how she called for "action on child poverty", not from those who breed without the means to raise kids. No. She wants to force everyone else to pay for those families. She wanted more welfare, and for no penalties for DPB beneficiaries not naming "deadbeat dads" (hey we can all be forced to pay for it).
Finally
in December 2008 I asked when she would be fired.
Zentiger at NZ Conservative noted how she said "
New Zealand has a high tolerance to violence", making the murder of children everyone's problem and fault.
However Dr Kiro never liked picking on those who abused their kids, because it would raise some uncomfortable truths about demographics both of income and race. She let down Maori children in particular because she wouldn't finger point at the disproportionate number of young Maori who have children they never wanted, who leave children in the hands of extended families that include abusers, and who live a life on welfare giving scant attention to the educational, nutritional and emotional needs of the children.
That is the scandal of modern New Zealand - and Cindy Kiro was too ideologically blind or afraid of offence to point it out.
She COULD have called for an outright ban on anyone convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence from ever having custody of children or being allowed to live under the same roof as children - but no.
She COULD have called for a denial of welfare payment to anyone who abused children, but no.
She COULD have shouted loud and clear to Maori, given her own background, that it is disproportionately poor fatherless Maori families on welfare that somehow see the worst cases of abuse. Parents who abuse their kids, neglect them or let them be abused or neglected should have them removed.
but she is a gutless control freak who would rather regulate and monitor everyone Orwellian style (bet she never even read "1984") than point blame at those who ARE to blame. Not only that she wanted you to be forced to pay MORE welfare to those who are to blame, meaning less for you and your kids.
The Office of the Childrens' Commissioner should be abolished, to save the money taken from families to pay for it. To have a bureaucrat willing to advocate to sacrifice the freedoms and responsibility of most citizens because a small number are vile towards children is wrong - the experiment of this bureaucracy has failed - it is time to save a little money, and let the criminal justice system focus on identifying, convicting and punishing abusive parents, and placing the victims in the hands of those who give a damn - which also means abolishing the institutional bias against adoption.
but that's another story.
It's today! The Greens will hate it, because it runs counter to the philosophy so many have had rammed down them for the last two decades - that the best way nature can be is left alone.
