[ad_1]
Action Minister Karen Chhour recently struck a victim tone, claiming she had been attacked and felt unsafe in Parliament.
from Radio New Zealand:
“I feel like I can no longer walk down the corridors of Parliament without fear of being physically attacked by other members of Parliament or even outside Parliament,” Joel said.
“It feels like this is such a toxic environment. How can we do our jobs? How can we do what we need to do in this place if we’re worried about retaliation for what we say and no one is speaking up?”
She was apparently referring to Te Paati Maori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, who called her a puppet in Parliament in May this year.
During the Kapa-Kingi debate Said this:
“Dear Minister, I feel sorry for you, you are being manipulated by your party. Stay strong”
（Minister, it is so sad that you are being used as a puppet by the party. Stay strong.）
If this makes Chhour anxious, then politics may not be for her. Being described as a puppet is largely a fairly manageable insult. There are worse things to come in a parliamentary debate.
On a personal level, I sympathize with Chhour. Workers should not be pressured, bullied or physically attacked.
But she’s no ordinary worker. She’s a highly paid politician largely responsible for pushing through some truly regressive policies.
She also shows no particular skills. She seems to have been chosen for her backstory rather than her abilities. She had a difficult childhood and had been exposed to the operations of Oranga Tamariki many years ago when it was known as Children Youth and Families.
Now she is on the brink of decision-making, facing choices about how a modern system will work in the future, because the modern system is very different from the one she has been exposed to in the past.
I can say this as gently as I can, but her long campaign against section 7AA is completely misguided. Contrary to what she and her party claim, the clause does not require Māori children to be taken away from well-meaning Pakeha couples. It requires Oranga Tamariki to engage appropriately with iwi authorities and to have an adequate plan in place to deal with Māori children in distress. Given that the majority of children in care are Māori, and that historical approaches have not worked, and that iwi authorities have been doing an excellent job, the Minister’s position is retrograde.
Her solution drew negative comments from radical left-wing groups such as the New Zealand Law Society. it says:
The New Zealand Law Society does not believe that repealing section 7AA will improve the welfare and best interests of children and young people. It will not address any cultural issues that are considered to undermine welfare and best interests. There is no evidence that section 7AA is responsible for undermining child safety.
Or like this:
The Cabinet paper concluded that section 7AA creates a conflict for Oranga Tamariki when making decisions about the best interests of a child or young person. We do not consider that there is evidence to support this assertion. Section 4A clearly states that in all matters relating to the administration or application of the Act, the welfare and best interests of the child or young person are the primary considerations, taking into account the principles set out in sections 5 and 13. It is clear from these sections that Oranga Tamariki has a duty to ensure the safety of children and young people, and that the requirements in section 7AA do not override that duty.
and this:
In the Cabinet paper, the Minister noted that section 7AA had “a negative impact on carers” and that “some carers believed that the requirement under section 7AA to provide a culturally appropriate environment was more important than the welfare of the child.” The Law Society found no evidence to support the view that large numbers of children were being removed from carers because they were “perceived to be of the wrong race”.
The unions with the best resources, the most power and the best standing to speak on legal matters have spoken. There is no reason to repeal section 7AA.
The Waitangi Tribunal held the same view. I want to talk to Chhour I asked her the reason, but she refused.
In a carefully worded interim decision to repeal section 7AA, the tribunal asked three questions:
First, we are concerned that the government’s focus on delivering on the promises made in the Coalition Agreement has caused it to neglect its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, which needs to be corrected before moving forward. Second, we are concerned that a hasty repeal of section 7AA will cause real harm. Third, we want to draw the government’s attention to a more principled way forward that already exists in the Act. That is the periodic review of legislation and policy provided for in section 448B of the Aboriginal Affairs Act 1989.
Even the regulatory impact statement accompanying the bill acknowledges that there is “no empirical evidence to support the view that section 7AA drives practice decisions that result in changes to care arrangements”.
The last time Chhour tried to repeal Section 7AA through a private member’s bill was 12 months ago National Party MP Tama Potaka said “If we completely repealed the provision it would be contradictory, the provision was designed to be a real option to address and meet the best interests of children in state care.” He said National would amend the provision rather than repeal it.
Chhour is clearly in trouble. Recent interview with Tova O’Brien It wasn’t going well. She expressed some emotion, complaining that people claimed She’s not Maori enough, nor is she the traumatized typeShe’s right. These criticisms are both disrespectful and unhelpful.
But the problem is that the changes she and the Government are making will directly affect a lot of people. Children will be sent to camps when there are better options. Social workers, carers and the recipients of their aroha will be directly affected by the Government’s decision to cut funding. And Iwi authorities will be weakened and marginalised when they present the best options we can to do something meaningful for Māori children in distress.
She is part of a government that has marginalised Maori culture and the Maori language. Her party wants to foist a rubbish referendum on us based on a bullshit interpretation of the Maori language that will divide the country and set race relations back decades in an attempt to gain excitement and political advantage. Please understand that I have no sympathy for her plight.
She may disagree and think her advice is the best, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. She may be upset that a large portion of the community disagrees with her. She may be angry if someone calls her a figurehead.
But her job is important. If she can’t listen to criticism, weigh the evidence, and come up with what’s best for all of us, and instead gets frustrated because people are fed up with her, then she needs to think about finding another job.
As a member of the PAP, this is a bit of an exaggeration. Call for urgent debate on the day of Kiri Allan crash. It was part of a campaign that forced Jacinda Ardern to give up the prime ministership, relentlessly attacked Nanaia Mahuta, reduced Clare Curran to tears at home and pressured Golriz Ghahrahman until she broke.
We don’t have a Parliament that is a respectful place where MPs respect each other, where changes to the law are carefully considered, where decisions are based on a correct analysis of the evidence and where everyone works for the common good. We have a far-right party that is undermining our legal system based on hunches, miscalculations and a desire to create chaos for political gain.
No wonder people are so angry.
related articles
[ad_2]
Source link
