Yes, it's always best - with the benefit of hindsight - to get things right the first time around...yet as we all - ought to - know, that's not always the way things turn out 'in the real world'. No indeed. And so I reckon it's indeed 'better (to be) late than never' (about most things), rather than incessantly criticize folk, including governments, because they - for whatever reason (legitimate or otherwise) - seem to do things wrong 'from the get go' (as some like to put it).
Yes, speaking as someone who wrote a staunch (or several) blogpost/s quite awhile ago on this very matter, and moreover urging/pleading for just such a re-focus, I'm glad they're - however belatedly - now doing so...though I'm hardly conceited enough to - remotely- suppose it could have anything at all to do with my own 'agitations' thereupon. In all realism they've doubtless neither heard of *my blogsite nor would have a whole lot of use for it if they did (on a whole host of scores and levels!)
So 'good on the Government' for relenting, for reconsidering the scope, the ambit of their developing inquiry into institutional sexual et al abuse (of kids in care), now of course including children who were in the care of private - such as church-run - institutions as well as those solely in state care. As somebody involved with Oranga Tamariki (on RNZ National's 5 p.m. Checkpoint Programme with Lisa Owen this eve) aptly summed it up: "Do it once and do it right."
Yes, however long it takes...whether one year or four years... . As Jacinda Ardern might put it:"Let's do it, folks!"
*Though I did also 'make (impassioned) representations' about the equally sorry (and to my way of thinking, quite shameful) jettisoning of what was the **Stand Children's Roxburgh Service (for traumatized, ***PTSD kids) around the same time...and, moreover, emailed a copy thereof to the two relevant ministers involved (in said decision).
**Or whatever it's fandangled ****nomenclature actually was!
***Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
****Just trying to be smart myself, 'nomenclature' of course refers to names, more precisely 'a system of names: terminology: a list of names: mode of naming' (according to my ever trusty Chambers Concise Dictionary (Cambridge, 1988).
All-too-necessary Postscript:
As per usual (or rather lately, it would seem), I've spoken way too soon. Apparently, at least according to certain interested groups and individuals, many folk subjected to abuse (who fall between the cracks as it were, neither fitting perfectly into state-run outfits and/or faith-based ones), look likely/set to continue to be ignored (by said enquiry).
Moreover - and perhaps even more significantly - vis-a-vis the Government's proposed changes to its commission of inquiry into historic sexual (and other institutional) abuse, it's only, note well, only, been extended to include abuse alleged at faith-based institutions (in addition to that alleged in state-run institutions). As Minister of Children (personally overseeing said commission, alongside Prime Minister Ardern) Tracey Martin herself freely conceded the other night, other groups will not be considered.
But surely religious-based abuse and state-based abuse do not constitute all abuse that's occurred? Of course not, not by a very long stretch of the imagination...or even faculties of everyday reason...
They're sporting outfits as well, just for starters...(though it's presently escaped my recollection the list of other assorted groups mentioned by questioning media at the special news conference the other day, institutions that not only could've, but arguably should've been included in the commission's ambit or remit).
For Minister Martin to effectively shrug that huge discrepancy off rather all too conveniently into the too hard basket as if it would all have been simply too difficult by half is frankly not good enough. For said inquiry is supposed to be extensive and comprehensive, and omitting any significant class of sufferers simply downplays and sidelines and otherwise devalues those people and their life-altering experiences of trauma. Indeed it raises more questions than it attempts to answer... .
For if a certain type of individual - i.e. an inmate/ward of the state and/or a religious institution - is more important and significant in terms of the duty of care of the state towards them, then what are we really saying (to them and to our community-at-large)? I mean, really?
No-no, folks, as I said earlier - quoting someone involved in selfsame discussion - we need to 'do it once and do it right'! Nuff said!
No comments:
Post a Comment