About Karen Chhour’s future

Written By: - Date published: 11:06 am, August 3rd, 2024 - 27 comments
Categories: act, crime, Maori Issues, maori party, Parliament, political parties, Social issues, uncategorized - Tags:

Act minister Karen Chhour has recently adopted the mantle of victimhood and claimed that she has been under attack and feels unsafe in Parliament.

From Radio New Zealand:

“It no longer feels like I can walk [Parliament’s] corridors without fear of personal attacks from either other members around the House or even from outside the House as well,” Chhour said.

“It just feels like this environment is so toxic. How can we actually do our job? How can we actually do what we need to do in this place if we fear what we say is going to cause that kind of retaliation and it’s not going to be called out?”

She is apparently referring to Te Paati Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi who in the House in May of this year referred to her as a puppet.

During a debate Kapa-Kingi said this:

“E te Minita, ka aroha ki a koe kua karetaohia e tō pāti. Kia kaha rā”

[To the Minister, how sad that you have been made a puppet by your party. Be strong.]

If this caused Chhour angst then perhaps politics is not for her. Because being described as a puppet is on the scale of things a pretty controlled insult. Far worse is said in Parliamentary debates.

At a personal level I have sympathy for Chhour. Workers should not be subject pressure or bullying or personal attacks.

But she is no ordinary worker. She is a highly paid politician who is primarily responsible for getting through some really regressive policies.

And she shows no particular skills. She seems to have been picked for her job because of her back story and not for her abilities. She is someone who had a difficult childhood and some exposure to the workings of Oranga Tamariki many many years ago when it was called Child Youth and Family.

She is now at the sharp edge of decision making about how the modern system, which is considerably different to the system that she was exposed to, will operate in the future.

Can I say this as delicately as possible but her long term campaign against section 7AA is completely, completely misguided. Contrary to her and her party’s assertion this section does not require Māori kids to be taken away from well intentioned Pakeha couples. It requires Oranga Tamariki to engage properly with Iwi Authorities and to have a proper plan for dealing with Māori kids in trouble. Given that most kids in care are Māori and that historical approaches have not worked and that Iwi Authorities have been doing outstanding work the Minister’s stance is retrograde.

Her solution has attracted negative comments from radical left wing organisations like the New Zealand Law Society. In its submission it said:

The New Zealand Law Society does not agree that repeal of section 7AA will improve the well-being and best interests of children and young people. Nor will it address any perceived undermining of welfare and best interests due to cultural considerations. There is no evidence that section 7AA is responsible for undermining the safety of children.

Or how about this:

The Cabinet Paper concludes that section 7AA creates a conflict for Oranga Tamariki when making decisions in the best interests of the child or young person. In our view, there is no evidence to support this proposition. Section 4A makes it clear that in all matters relating to the administration or application of the Act the well-being and best interests of the child or young person are the first and paramount consideration, having regard to 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 this duty is not overridden by the requirements in section 7AA.

And there is also this:

In the Cabinet Paper, the Minister states that section 7AA has ‘negatively impacted on caregivers’, and that ‘some caregivers have suggested that section 7AA has resulted in a requirement for culturally appropriate environments, which is valued more that children’s welfare.’ The Law Society is not aware of evidence to support the notion that there have been a significant number of removals of children from caregivers because the caregivers were “deemed to be the wrong ethnicity”.

The best resourced most capable and best qualified union to talk about legal matters has spoken. There is no justification for the repeal of section 7AA.

The Waitangi Tribunal formed the same opinion and wanted to talk to Chhour to ask her for her justification and she refused to do so.

In a carefully worded interim decision concerning the repeal of section 7AA the Tribunal raised three matters:

First, we are concerned that the government’s singular focus on implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, and this needs to be corrected before proceeding further. The second is a concern that this rushed repeal of section 7AA will cause actual harm. The third is to draw to the government’s attention a more principled way forward, already available under the Act. This is the periodic review of the legislation and policy provided for in section 448B of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989.

Even the regulatory impact statement attached to the bill concedes “[t]here is no empirical evidence to support the notion that section 7AA has driven practice decisions that have led to changing care arrangements”.

And the last time Chhour tried to get section 7AA repealed this time through a private member’s bill 12 months ago National MP Tama Potaka said “[i]t would be contradictory of us to dismiss this provision entirely, which is intended to be a genuine option to address and meet the best interests of the child in State care”. He said that National would amend rather than repeal the section.

Clearly Chhour is under some distress. Her recent interview with Tova O’Brien did not go well. And she expressed some emotion in complaining about people claiming she is not Māori enough and is not the right sort of traumatised person. She is right. Those sorts of criticisms are disrespectful and unhelpful.

But here is the thing. What she and this Government are changing will directly affect many, many people. Kids will be thrown into boot camps when there are much better options. Social workers and caregivers and the recipients of their aroha are being directly affected by this Government’s decision to cut their funding. And Iwi authorities’ mana will be lessened and marginalised when they present the best option we have to do something meaningful for Māori kids in trouble.

And she is part of a Government that has marginalized Te Reo and Te Ao Māori. And her party wants to foist on us a crap referendum based on a bullshit interpretation of Te Tiriti that will divide the country and set race relations back decades for kicks and political advantage. Please understand my complete lack of sympathy for her plight.

She may disagree and think that her proposal is best, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. She may get upset that large sectors of the community disagree with her. She may be incensed that someone called her a puppet.

But her job is really important. If she cannot listen to the criticism, weigh up the evidence and come up with what is best for us all and instead get upset because people are getting fed up with her then she needs to think about a different job.

And coming from a member of the Act Party is a bit rich. This is the party which demanded an urgent debate on the day that Kiri Allan crashed. It is part of a movement that hounded Jacinda Ardern from the Prime Minister’s position, that attacked Nanaia Mahuta mercilessly, that reduced Clare Curran to tears in the house, and that piled the pressure onto Golriz Ghahrahman until she cracked.

Let Parliament be a respectful place where MPs are courteous to each other, where law changes are considered seriously and where decisions are based on a proper analysis of the evidence and where everyone works for the common good. We do not have that right now. We have a far right party damaging our legal system based on hunches, ill informed reckons and the desire to create chaos for political advantage.

No wonder people are angry.

27 comments on “About Karen Chhour’s future ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    3 August 2024 at 12:08 pm

    Good summary. I can't see any reason for the repeal of that section, especially when there is absolutely no substantive justification for its repeal.

    As far as I can see it appears to have been done, at best, by one person supported by her populist party, against the advice of almost everybody actually involved in the awful process of trying to protect an raise children with family issues.

    I suspect that this is primarily a donor issue. A shit load of money wound up in the Act coffers to support this change.

    • Incognito 1.1
      3 August 2024 at 1:16 pm

      It is in the Coalition Agreement between National and ACT:

      • Remove Section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989.

      https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/18466/attachments/original/1700778592/National_ACT_Agreement.pdf?1700778592 [pg. 9]

      • lprent 1.1.1
        3 August 2024 at 9:25 pm

        Yeah, but given the preponderance of Maori in child care and the clear evidence that the many previous practices only make the problems worse, why just put a explicit repeal in if they have absolutely no workable plan.

        Because they don't beyond some waffle. The only coherent plans across of all three coalition parties are to reduce monitoring of the problems (aka deregulation), boot camps which are always a failure, and charter schools which are usually an expensive failure. None of which address known problems with taking children into care.

        The ONLY justification that I can see from Act has been that 7AA upsets some foster parents. Which seems to me to be is probably where Act's financial interest probably comes from, hooked into their Hobson's choice stupidity.

        So where is the plan to fix the obvious issues with children who wound up with badly monitored bad fostering causing widespread abuse. Have they read the abuse in care report, or even its summary. The level of systematic abuse from the kinds of care done outside family groups was and almost certainly still is horrendous. In my view it is worse than the abuse inside families. Especially when you look at how it impacts largely on Maori and Polynesian.

        Do Act like torturing children? Because I can't see any other reason for repealing 7AA

  2. Darien Fenton 2
    3 August 2024 at 12:40 pm

    I agree parliamentary debate should be respectful. It's just hard to swallow coming from an ACT Minister whose party last week complained of racism when a couple of Select Committee members opposed ACT MP Laura Trask leading a subcommittee on Section 7aa, supposedly on the grounds of her being pakeha. Not true of course, as Carmel Sepuloni, who is on the Committee said. Laura Trask is a novice MP, who has now been parachuted in to chair part of a very delicate and controversial policy, which Karen Chhour is responsible for. Don't tell me this isn't about a power grab by ACT and crying in the corridor because she doesn't like the inevitable push back is pathetic. She has power. Power as a Minister, power with a huge salary and staff, power to change lives for the better or the worst. All I can see is the worst part of it.

  3. Kay 3
    3 August 2024 at 1:31 pm

    A few years ago when she was in Opposition, I came across one of the many multitudes of press releases the ACT MPs were required to churn out on a daily basis. Something to do with unemployment (I think she was their welfare spokesperson?)

    I decided to email her about it, not expecting a reply at all, but she did reply, and we maintained a very civil correspondence whilst agreeing to disagree. Given I can never get replies from the Greens- the party I vote for- but I got a response from my natural enemy, well she gets credit for that. But not my vote!

    Also completely agree with this post.

  4. adam 4
    3 August 2024 at 1:32 pm

    Bugger Me.

    A piece of fluff from Kapa-Kingi and the world has fallen.

    But crickets from our main stream press about the deep racism and retrograde nature of Chour's law change and the continuation of negative impacts it will bring.

    What a truly fucked up time we live in. When a ugly retrograde piece of legislation can be forced through, because of someones feelings got hurt.

  5. Ad 5
    3 August 2024 at 1:36 pm

    The cultural change in acceptable behavior has shifted this week with the Privileges Committee scolding Genter for honestly being a good hardass.

    Chhour complaining is part of the change of what's acceptable.

    Same with those limp-wristed fools in the Green Party complaining about the weakest of slights once actual party discipline comes down. So pathetic.

    So long as you're not punching people, I expect power to be contested very hard.

  6. ianmac 6
    3 August 2024 at 2:09 pm

    Eventually the issue of 7AA comes down to the ineptitude of one Christoper Luxon. It seems that there is little support for the removal of 7AA and yet the top notch Luxon Negotiator was out-shone by a very minor party.

    Great summary of the issue thanks Mikysavage.

  7. Bearded Git 7
    3 August 2024 at 8:04 pm

    Great post Micky. This is all Seymour’s fault-he chose the wrong person to front this issue. This is only going to get worse.

    If he had any sense he would replace her with himself now, but he is not used to managing a caucus that is in government and he would hate to admit he got this badly wrong.

  8. gsays 8
    4 August 2024 at 12:14 am

    Far from a piece of fluff, this is punching below the belt.
    “If Section 7AA were around in Karen Chhour’s time, she would have been raised Māori, she would have been raised being connected to her whakapapa and having a knowingness of her Māoritanga. Instead, she was raised Pākehā with a disconnection and disdain for her… people."

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350362931/act-mp-karen-chhour-breaks-down-tears-over-unsafe-workplace

    Doesn't mean I am in favour of the repeal of 7A. To sheet these actions to Chhour's door is drawing a long bow.

    It was done and dusted for Luxon and crew to get power, as pointed out by Incognito above. (Comment 1.1)

    I heard Chhour on RNZ on this subject, she didn't convince me of it's appropriateness but came across as a committed, compassionate human being

    • Incognito 8.1
      4 August 2024 at 11:57 am

      I think that Karen Chhour is a driver of this particular repeal rather than merely a party puppet.

      She introduced the private member’s Bill on 22 Sep 2022.

      It was rejected at the First Reading in Parliament on 23 Jul 2023 with both National and ACT MPs voting in favour.

      https://bills.parliament.nz/v/6/3e5bd3e0-b189-4110-b3d8-7e8345384863?Tab=history

      I like to think that it was no issue to put it into the Coalition Agreement.

      None of this justifies playing the person but even taking out/down the person, if this is even a deliberate strategy by some opponents, won’t change the course of what the coalition is doing.

      If I have time, I’ll follow-up with my own perception and assumptions of some of the reasons that might be driving Chhour and also the coalition parties in their war against ToW (as an umbrella term) and the NZ version of Project 2025.

      • gsays 8.1.1
        4 August 2024 at 1:38 pm

        Thanks for expanding on that, it sheds a bit more light on the issue.

        She's not as 'pawnish' as I thought.

        I would be interested to read yr views as to her motivation.

        From where I sit, it seems like trying to lessen a rigid adherence to orthodoxy that has occasionally not served the child well.

        • Will 8.1.1.1
          4 August 2024 at 5:06 pm

          Chhour is definitely not a pawn; she's far too smart for that. And I agree with your comment that comes across as committed and compassionate. For some reason opposition parties have chosen to make this particularly personal. (Applause in Parliament as Karen Chhour condemns personal attacks from Te Pāti Māori about her upbringing | Newshub). Willow-Jean Prime called her a 'sell out'. Kelvin Davis said that Chhour needed to 'leave her Pākehā world'. And so on. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's 'white tears' social media posts last week continued the same theme. These attacks appear to be both patterned and coordinated, and they seem intended to paint her as a 'lesser' Māori.

          There may be good reasons to oppose the removal of 7aa, but while Labour and TPM continue to 'punch below the belt', they will fail to make that case.

          • mickysavage 8.1.1.1.1
            4 August 2024 at 8:07 pm

            Chhour is definitely not a pawn; she's far too smart for that.

            Can you provide proof? Her take on the legal issues is appallingly bad. So bad no one I know supports it.

            For some reason opposition parties have chosen to make this particularly personal … Willow-Jean Prime called her a 'sell out'. Kelvin Davis said that Chhour needed to 'leave her Pākehā world'. And so on.

            Have you been around? These criticisms are really tame and Kelvin had the decency to apologise.

            There may be good reasons to oppose the removal of 7aa, but while Labour and TPM continue to 'punch below the belt', they will fail to make that case.

            Labour is not punching below the belt. How about you respond to the case they have made instead of alleging they have not done so.,

            You can start with this – https://www.labour.org.nz/news-release_govt_s_stubbornness_will_harm_m_ori_children

            • Will 8.1.1.1.1.1
              4 August 2024 at 8:25 pm

              You're implying smart = intelligent. I can't make a jugdgement on her intelligence. However I know people who work or have worked with her, and the word they use to describe her is 'smart'.

              "These criticisms are really tame and Kelvin had the decency to apologise."

              It's subjective whether they are 'tame'. It is not subjective that they are personal.

              "Labour is not punching below the belt."

              When Prime called Chhour a 'sell out', she was targeting her race. Davis was doing the same thing. These are low blows, and suggestive of a lack of actual argument.

              "You can start with this –"

              That doesn't provide any kind of 'case'. It's slogans. A case would be evidence that section 7aa, or it's repeal, actually makes a blind bit of difference. Young children died in the care of family before section 7aa, and they have continued to die after it.

          • Incognito 8.1.1.1.2
            4 August 2024 at 8:45 pm

            These attacks appear to be both patterned and coordinated …

            Might have something to do with what’s happening in Parliament these days; leave your conspiracy theories for your SM accounts.

            There may be good reasons to oppose the removal of 7aa …

            Okay then, make the case for or against instead of being a Chhour and ACT apologist.

            • Will 8.1.1.1.2.1
              4 August 2024 at 9:22 pm

              "Might have something to do with what’s happening in Parliament these days…

              Of course it will have something to do with what's happening in parliament. It's political. It’s an ideological difference, with one side playing the man. Or in this case woman.

              "Okay then, make the case for or against instead of being a Chhour and ACT apologist"

              What gives you that idea? I've been clear – children died before 7aa and have died since. At the hands of family whose care they should never have been placed in.

        • Leonie 8.1.1.2
          5 August 2024 at 5:22 am

          Trying to lessen a rigid adherence to orthodoxy. There were definitely instances where Maori children, settled and well attached, were removed from pakeha families, the very sad South Island case of 4 children being the most well known; strongly condemned by Kelvin Davis and Ta Mark Solomon. Seemed the work of over reactive social workers after the condemned removal of the infant in Hastings, staff or directors who did not seem to understand the vital importance of attachment. I do know of 2 other cases, causing heartbreak; I certainly hope this practice is not happening still. Maybe it’s unfortunate that Karen didn't dialogue with the Waitangi Tribunal for better understanding on both sides.

      • Anne 8.1.2
        4 August 2024 at 7:01 pm

        That would be appreciated Incognito. I have been trying to figure it out for some time. My original estimate was that overall theToW case is being conducted in a climate of spite and retaliation for them essentially rocking the Tory boat. Tory… as in right wing conservative Anglo Saxon angst at being challenged by what they generally regard as a inferior race. How Chhour fits into the strategy I don’t know.

  9. Jenny 9
    4 August 2024 at 10:54 am

    "she is no ordinary worker. She is a highly paid politician who is primarily responsible for getting through some really regressive policies." MS

    “It no longer feels like I can walk [Parliament’s] corridors without fear….." KC

    When the powerful and privileged start playing the victim card, everyone else needs to be on guard.

  10. Rodel 10
    4 August 2024 at 11:01 am

    In Chhour's interview with Tova she got a taste of boot camp culture and didn't like it. I feel a little sorry for her. She's just a puppet of Seymour's psueudo Darwinian philosophy and will be left by him to sink or swim. Real boot camp stuff eh?

  11. Anker 11
    4 August 2024 at 8:51 pm

    I think Chour's desire to remove 7AA stems from cases like Moana. This little girls plight was commented on this site numerous times around the time of the case. I think it was Molly who said she knew of similar cases.

    I have always thought Karen came across as vulnerable, which would make sense due to her background. I am not sure how I would describe the attacks on her other to say she is being targeted. And this is having an impact on her.

    Having followed the case of Moana, I think it is so important that OT put safety above culture. Sometimes thankfully they are not mutually exclusive. But what happened to Moana is despicable.

  12. thinker 12
    5 August 2024 at 6:51 am

    On the one hand TPM don't make themselves look professional by making personal attacks (and, possibly) appearing to condone that kind of attitude from others. TPM seem to me to be trying to build support by social influence than professional politics, but I guess the rule book didn't anticipate that so it's not breaking any rules.

    But ACT took on the same broad issues as Don Brash did with his Orewa speech, so why the backlash surprises them surprises me.

    Like the nerd in the classroom who teases the poor kid with the torn jersey, then runs to the teacher when he gets his nose tweaked.

  13. georgecom 13
    5 August 2024 at 10:16 am

    For decades a central message, albeit tacit perhaps, from the ACT party has been self reliance, standing on your own two feet, no one owes you a living, the realities of life, delivering a 'tough message', a hard message, getting tough, hardening up………I found chours reaction to be so unlike the standard ACT rhetoric and attitude

  14. A Forest Dweller 14
    5 August 2024 at 4:32 pm

    OK, have stared at this over the course of a week.

    Summary: Karen Chhour:. With no education or prospects, was an apparel industry outworker, maybe former checkout operator, did ACT’s “politics” course, and was selected from the intake. Deprived background, emotionally fragile, no conceptual ability, black and white thinking, debating with her would be pointless, shooting her down inhumane. Believes completely that what she is doing is good. Dazzled by where she is standing fronting up this stuff. I do not believe she writes parliamentary bills.

    Background: Seems to be about 43. Childhood between foster homes, homeless as an adult, unsure she would survive (tons on Google). No recorded education.

    Linked-in says: 2005-10, Countdown ‘customer service’ (sic); 2019 to present, own company Kazzer Services. Listed as “New Zealand-made clothing and property management” – karen-chhour/interests says she owns no property except her own mortgaged home, so presumably home expenses go through.

    Clothing – – NBR says act-list-mp-karen-chhour/ “Chhour contracts to clothing companies and sews their clothes, tags and presses them before sending them back ready to be displayed in clothing stores”. It's called outworking, a job frequently done by migrant workers.

    ACT protegee: ‘Did a one year course in politics through the party’. Any relation to Seymour’s two-week Atlas MBA?

    See ACT’s course (or semester?) my.act.org.nz/sopps “Practical Politics”. October intake is sold out, alarmingly. “Practical politics” – appears to work politics based on how to get power by inventing threats to scare people and demonising the other side. May be Atlas-Network-wide (e.g. nes-g.org/en/last-news/practical-politics-the-first-day. Run by Atlas Network in Georgia (Caucasus, not USA)

    More ACT ‘education’ – spotify.com/show/ ‘Politics in Full Sentences’, a series of weekly podcasts “for those who love free markets and free minds”. Four years ago, but you can see the build up. Sinister.

    But back to KC – – with what she represents, as ACT's creature, it's horrifically brilliant – a weapon of mass destruction that it would be cruel to oppose. .