My biggest fear over the drive to repeal Section 7aa is that the Political Right don’t understand what they are actually repealing.
This exchange above between the Prime Minister and Chloe Swarbrick spells that fear out.
7aa obliges Oranga Tamariki to actually work with Iwi to house mokopuna rather than be taken into a State care system that ends up abusing children in State care at a higher rate than if they were just left in the community!
Removing 7aa allows the State to simply uplift who they like without any consideration whatsoever to the history of abuse Māori have suffered at the hands of that State!
The real reason that the Right are going down this path has little to do with the safety of the children taken into State care and everything to do with using Māori as a political punching bag.
Because 7aa is identifiably Māori, ACT are pushing for this public health vandalism for political purposes.
National want to use Bag Data to direct social policy, this will see an enormous spike in uplifts with no idea of where those newly uplifted children will be placed.
We have shown that we have learnt NOTHING from the recent Royal Inquiry into state abuse.
It’s patently clear the PM knows nothing of politics. He’s just a hand job brought in to massage National members and supporters. Of that they have the perfect person. Brownlees attempt to hide Luxons inability to answer the question highlights how appalling Luxon is. Thankfully he’s just a one term PM and will go down as our worst.
That title has already gone to your mate Hipkins what a loser.
A loser? Ah the so called compassionate soup kitchen handler Trevor’s true personality shines through. Time to get off the benefit Trev.
National know bugger all about much other than trampelling over anyone who does not have a 100 million in the bank.
Martyn could have dropped the last 4 words in the headline and made that point also. It’s going to be a painful 2 and a bit years if they last that long.
It’s a shame that Labour does such a poor job of candidate selection that voting for them is more of a burden than something to be enthusiastic about.
I think you might find many people on both sides of this argument have a limited idea of what s7aa provides. In my view it largely repeats what ss4A & 5 already says.
Mr Bradbury. As you will know very well, if in fact the Speaker was “protecting” the Prime Minister on that question he would have been doing exactly what Mallard did routinely to protect Ardern from ever having to answer any questions in intelligible language. As I am sure you also know, the default position for politicians of all stripes is to give an answer while avoiding actually answering the question – Labour did it, National is doing it, it’s the way the game is played.
And it turns out the OT case of ” reverse uplift” that Chourr stated she was basing her (emotional) manipulation of the public around in order to drop clause 7AA , the case that demonised a couple, turned out to be the children were returned rightfully to these children’s real family who are great NZ citizens fostering kids and vetted by and known to OT.
Those children are flourishing.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/the-child-uplift-case-that-started-them-all-couple-involved-finally-breaks-their-silence-over-uplift-that-started-the-outcry/EULVT5H2IRCDDHRSRLINDC7PAM/
Who committed the harm Ms Chourr ?
Dropping 7AA was not about what was sold to the public as protecting children but really about ACT systematically going piece by piece through all Regulations to dismantle Te Tiriti.
In a meeting with Chourr, there was no interest in an organisation who actually do the grass roots work but rather a monopolised conversation of her own agenda, her sales talk and enthusiasm in progressing her baby, the bootcamps trial as the solution.
Roll on the expensive CoC sham of the Ministry of Regulations who employ more than the ministry they cut..
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350386154/new-ministry-paying-staff-average-salary-150k-despite-public-sector-job-cuts
I wonder how many, on either side of this argument, understand what s7aa of the Oranga Tamariki Act provides. In my view it largely restates what is already covered elsewhere in the Act; e.g. ss4A & 5. It’s repeal will, in my view, have limited impact on the practical application of the Act; the wellbeing and best interests of tamariki will remain the paramount consideration.
What if a Pakeha child had been placed with a Maori whanau and it was later discovered that there was a very suitable family member able to take that child later on. Chhour et. don’t seem to realize that children in their own culture matters it’s who they are “nature v nurture Chhour seems to think she is the only one who wants to protect children are we all monsters in her eyes.
Comments are closed.