September 28, 2025 • 24 mins
Church leaders are continuing to publicly apologise to survivors of abuse.
The Presbyterian Church is the latest to address it in two public apology events, the first was in Dunedin at the weekend and the next is in Auckland this Saturday.
It’s the latest in a series of public apologies from church and public sector leaders after the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care.
Over five years of investigations, the inquiry heard nearly 3000 survivor accounts of abuse and neglect over five years of investigations.
The more than 130 recommendations focused on creating a new, independent redress system, strengthening the care system, and holding institutions accountable.
Today on The Front Page, lawyer Amanda Hill has represented Abuse in Care survivors and is with us to explain how the process is working, and how it’s not.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Editor/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Jane Yee
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kilda. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page,
a daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. Church
leaders are continuing to publicly apologize to survivors of abuse.
The Presbyterian Church is the latest to address it in
(00:26):
two public apology events. The first was in Dunedin at
the weekend and the next is in Auckland this Saturday.
It's the latest in a series of public apologies from
church and public sector leaders after the Royal Commission of
an Inquiry into abuse in care. Over five years of investigations,
(00:47):
the inquiry heard nearly three thousand survivor accounts of abuse
and neglect. The more than one hundred and thirty recommendations
focused on creating a new independence redress system, strengthening the
care system, and holding institutions accountable. Today on the Front Page,
(01:08):
lawyer Amanda Hill has represented abusing care survivors and it's
with us to explain how the process is working and
how it's not. First off, Amanda, tell me how you
think the redress scheme is going so far?
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Well? I guess one of the challenges is that there's
no single redress game. There are many different schemes some good,
some bad, some ugly. There is a lot of talk
and work her own redress, but there's a big gaping
hole in the middle, and that's the government's decision not
to proceed with the Royal Commission's key recommendations around independence game.
(01:52):
So if I were standing back and looking at the biggest,
biggest problem with redress or or the biggest lack of progress,
that would be the government decisions around that, and so
everything else sort of pales in comparison to that. But
I also acknowledged that there's organizations who are doing their
best without that government support.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
So if that independence scheme would have gone ahead, it
would just be a blanket rule or a blanket thing
across all of them. But at the moment, what we've
got is different readress schemes for different institutions, and different
whether they be state based or faith based.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Yes, So the idea behind the independent scheme, which the
Royal Commission called was to provide a sort of a
single scheme that dealt with abuse and state care, faith
based care, schools, everything, and that they would be buying
from faith based organizations so they'd become part of that scheme,
(02:48):
which meant that there was transparency, independence, accountability. Everyone knew
what the rules were, but with the decision not to
proceed with that, what the government's done is trying to
even up as the various processes within government which are
wildly inconsistent, and to trying to do a bit of
work inside their own house, but leaving faith based organizations
(03:11):
to forge your head on their own. So we still
have lots of different things going on.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Has the horse bolted in that respect? Is it too
late to put that in place now?
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Not at all, Not at all. I think there will
always be an opportunity for a single independent scheme, and
the current situation in terms of state matters is very patchy,
but there will always be an opportunity to bring and
put it to me to a finally, so while we're
(03:44):
pretty gutted with the decisions right now, there will always
be work to try and bring that about.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
What are some of the roadblocks that survivors are finding
themselves up against.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
There is still, i think a real lack of belief
around the scale and nature of abuse and care. There
is still real difficulty around access to records. Although there's
been quite a lot of good work in that space,
(04:17):
there is still a real lack of understanding of what
good redress looks like. And in New Zealand the compensation
levels in particular punishingly low, and that's partly reflective of
the role of acc which means that you can't sue
(04:39):
for general or compensatory damages, but it is a really
the approach is often superficial, not always understanding what the
impact on survivors is, not understanding that abuse has lifelong impacts,
and just sort of thinking that a few pass or
(04:59):
something up and hand it over, that's done, whereas what
we know is that redress is a journey rather than
an event.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Budget twenty twenty five saw seven hundred and seventy four
million dollars put aside to improve the state abuse redress scheme.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Is that enough?
Speaker 2 (05:17):
It's hard to tell because it really depends on where
that money is going. There is a backlog of claims
within the Administry of Social Development and Ministry of Education,
so some of that is just about getting work done
that hasn't been done yet. It's not necessarily about when
I say improving, they may not making people work wait
(05:38):
five years because that's the current wait time. And some
of it is lifting up some compensation which has been
very low, lifting them up to a slightly higher level.
So how that money is it has passed up is
probably I don't have the information around what that's been
(06:00):
applied to, but I know there have been top ups
for some people who have resolved their claims, particularly with
social development, that's been really good for them. But when
your top up sort of only takes you to a
reasonably low amount, that's still you know, when you stand
back and look at the bigger pictures, it's still pretty hard.
But there is I call it tinkering. I think a
(06:21):
lot of the work being done is tinkering. When you're
trying to improve something that's so badly broken, you sort
of go, well, what's the cost of just actually starting again?
Speaker 1 (06:30):
And I mean one of the major questions to come
out of the inquiry as well, I suppose, is how
do you quantify someone's abuse?
Speaker 2 (06:39):
And you can't. You can't. What you often hear from
particularly organizations where abuse has been perpetrated, is no amount
of money can fix this harm. But the end of
that sentence really needs to be but we'll give it
our best shot. And often that's not what's happening. And
so this thing of amount of money can fix the
(07:01):
harm means that they don't really put an effort and
to try you can't. There are some ways you can quantify,
and so when you look at things like assessing perhaps
someone's lost opportunity, lost wages, that the loss of potential
earning scheme through ACC is one of those measures we
(07:22):
look at. You know, have you been able to parents,
have you been able to hold down a job? Do
you have mental health, a drug, alcohol issues? Again, it
hard to quantify, but it has been done. You look
overseas and there are plenty of jurisdictions where it's been done.
So it's not like we're starting from scratch. There is
a whole jurisprudence around us.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
How is it for survivors being able to access their
redress payments reliably? And you mentioned a five year wait
time at the moment, why is it taking so long?
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Clartly? One of the challenges will always be with the
state processes is it is the state investigating itself? There
is it's MSD looking at you know, did its own
staff members cause harm? And there's not really any motivation
to do that quickly. So there's been a dragging of
(08:17):
feet over a long period of time, there have been
multiple changes to processes. There's been so many different ways
that redress has been administered, in some clunkier than others.
But really there's just not been the resourcing, the staffing,
or the motivation to resolve claims quickly, and so they're
built up because I think the state never realized or
(08:41):
recognized just how many victims there were, whereas the Royal
Commission was very clear that a huge number of people
in state and based care were of use.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
One name that comes to mind when thinking about the inquiries,
of course, lake Alice. As of last month, Arenz reported
one hundred and forty one people have been ruled eligible
for the Lake Alice redress scheme, with one hundred and
two of those opting to receive a one hundred and
fifty thousand dollars payment. Some have decided to go to arbitration.
(09:13):
Can you explain to us what that means?
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Sure? I guess. The first thing to note, though, is
that this Lake Alice process is limited to people who
were in the Child in Adolescent unit run by Doc
seven Leaks and who suffered ect in an unmodified format
lecterer of shock therapy or the use of a drug
called peraldehyde. So this is a very targeted group of
(09:37):
people rather than the larger group of Lake Alice or
other psychiatric institutions. So it's a it's a microcosm really,
and it came about because of the United Nations finding
that what happened there was torture met the definition of torture.
So it's the first thing. It's a smaller group the
process for those people either, but there's a pathway. Effectively,
(10:02):
arbitration doesn't mean something's failed. That means that they get
to choose. And so the first pathway, as you say,
a payment of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. That's
an expedite in payment, so that happens quite quickly, and
that comes with an apology and some help with services
and things like that. If people want to take a
(10:23):
more individual approach, they and those meetings have occurred now
with an independent arbitrator who's a retired High Court judge,
and that means that they get to meet someone and
talk about their experiences and have a more personalized and
tailored approach, which suits some survivors they want to go
(10:45):
down that road. Others they and particularly this cohort. They're
often sick, they're very old, they need the money for
whatever reason, and digging through those memories is hard. So
this option of either a fairly fast approach recognizing that
you meet the eligibility criteria, or the arbitration where you
(11:06):
may receive a higher amount but you go through this
process that provides it some tailored options for survivors.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
And I understand the deadline for the expedited pathway is tomorrow, Tuesday,
September thirtieth. What does this mean?
Speaker 2 (11:23):
So my understanding is that because this was a time
limited process and that was a decision made by Cabinet,
that if someone hasn't registered with the Crown Response Unit
by the thirtieth of September, then that payment won't be
available to them. There's a couple of steps that need
(11:46):
to be taken to be eligible for that scheme. So yes,
there will come point where some people who haven't been
involved in that process may miss out.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
That doesn't seem fair at all.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
It isn't fair to the people who have been involved
in One of the challenges sometimes is that the expectation
that survivors will put their hand up to go through
this process and that they will have the ability to
engage within this case government. There's been a lot of
(12:17):
help given to survivors. Myself and other lawyers are appointed
as panel lawyers, and there's been some really good support provided.
But again they have to come to the scheme. The
scheme doesn't come to them. The state. They know the
names of the people who are in the child adolescent unit,
(12:37):
so there's no proactive reaching out to people. And that's
where the challenges lie. Because what we know is that
some of the people from the Callis are some of
the most damaged survivors that I've ever met, and they've
suffered so much harm and their ability to engage with
schemes to ring government is a scary thing when you've
(12:58):
been harmed so badly, and to re engage with government
and to put yourself in that position again is a
really hard thing. So there are real challenges around that.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
And so if people haven't come forward, of those who
haven't come forward already as of tomorrow, is government kind
of relieved of any responsibility.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
That's a really good question, and that's a bit of
an unknown to be honest, And I think if there
is another cohort of survivors you know, the Minister may
have to make some decisions there. Because this scheme is
running for a particular time, I cannot have designated that time.
(13:40):
The Arbat's job is is time limited. And what happens
after that, I think it remains to be seen, But
that may be a political decision more than anything else.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
Today, I'm apologizing on behalf of the government to every
everyone who suffered abuse, harm and neglect while in state care.
To they make this apology to all survivors on behalf
of my own and previous governments. You deserved so much
better and I am deeply sorry that New Zealand did
(14:17):
not do better by you. I am sorry that you
were not believed when you came forward to report your abuse.
I am sorry that many bystanders, staff, volunteers and careers
turned a blind eye and failed to stop or report abuse.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
I see that the Presbyterian Church is publicly apologizing in
Auckland this weekend. They did so on Dunedin last weekend,
and I've noticed the church use the phrase holistic redress.
Is that different to redress? Can you explain to me
what that means?
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Sure? I think and that often means different things to
different organizations. So there's no single approach. But I guess
when we talk about redress it responds to all of
the harm rather than an element of redress is compensation.
(15:18):
It's money, but redress can also means an apology. It
also means making sure someone can access independent legal advice,
so often paying legal costs, counseling or other support. I
know for for some schemes, access to facilitators to help
(15:40):
you navigate your entitlements with ACC for example, ACC is
an enormous barrier for survivors. It's incredibly difficult to navigate
lifelong help with parenting or with all sorts of things.
So when I talk about redress or healing being a
(16:02):
journey rather than an event, that that's what I mean.
As supply of services over time is really really important.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
And so the holistic part of it could mean any
range of things.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Yes, yeah, whatever, And this is what a good redress
responds to the survivor in front of view, That responds
to their needs and what they want, and it's a
conversation rather than going here's your money, see you later,
you're done. There is much more to be gained through
(16:37):
holistic redress than a fairly transactional approach.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
Have any other faiths set up their own redress process
and if so, what do they look like? How do
they compare?
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Different churches or faith based organizations have different processes and
have for many years. The Salvation Army has had a
process so many years and that was often run one
person out of the Salvation Army. Again, those challenges of
investigating your own people and the lack of independence there
during the Royal Commission. It caused some organizations to give
(17:14):
themselves a hard block and to revise what they were doing.
Some have done that better than others, but so every
organization has a different approach, and it's often in a
state of flux. So it's changing a great deal when
I think a lot of organizations were waiting for the
(17:36):
final report of the Royal Commission Fanikia, which was a
shot last year and to took a lot out of that,
but lots of them were waiting for the state to
implement an independent scheme and just had gone, right, we'll
hang in there until this is going to happen. And
now without that, I think they are looking at their
(17:58):
own schemes and making steps. That is a wide range
of responses and wide range of schemes.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
How does the redress compare between state based and faith based?
Is it better on either side or do both sides
have kind of positives and negatives?
Speaker 2 (18:15):
It varies wildly, And this is what I mean about
the lack of consistency. You know, there are some organizations
that sort of don't easily fit. So when I think
about really good redress schemes, you look at something like
deal With. Deal With School up in Auckland, there was
(18:36):
an independent inquiry and discovered in a culture of sexual
abuse at the school over many years, an extraordinary number
of boys in the school sexually abused over a long
period of time, and deal With instituted a process that
was independent of the school. And nothing's perfect, but it
(18:56):
was a pretty good process and the compensation paid by
deal Worth was far and away above anything that the
state had ever Often at the other end, some Catholic
orders very very limited redress, almost grudging, I think it
is probably a word to use, and other organizations not
(19:19):
engaging at all. So it's hard to compare because they're
so different. But to give you an example, someone who
had experienced sexual abuse a deal Worth could receive compensation
of so two hundred thousand dollars. Someone in state care
who had experienced the same abuse and potentially abuse for
(19:42):
a longer period of time might get thirty or forty
thousand dollars. That's what that difference looks like.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
In terms of these institutions, I'm sure, and you've spoken
to a lot of survivors as well. Does it feel
like if we pay this person this lump sum, this
will all go.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
I think it feels like that to some organizations. But
I think what I've seen over time is that when
people and often I've seen this and people coming and
new to some organizations, when they meet survivors and they
see them face to face and they hear what happened
(20:25):
to them, and they hear what their adult life has
been like, and that you know, a lot of my
clients have huge challenges as adults and they see this
person in front of them, and sometimes, you know, survivors
will bring photos of what they were like when they
were kids. And that's really impactful for organizations because it's
real easy to see this person in front of you
(20:46):
as someone who is a challenge to how you do things,
and lots of organizations want to be organizations that are
doing great things in the community that are helpful, they
are doing the right thing, they're morally upright. And to
have this person saying you're yourself hurt me and your
organization never stepped into help or even worse, in terms
of some of the Catholic organizations, you're you and you
(21:08):
move the priests to somewhere else. And that is really
hard for organizations to hear. But some of them have,
to their credit, recognized that you can't just package it
up and send it on its way, and that you
have to be more accountable. And that's to their credit.
But I think we've got quite a long way to go.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
And in terms of public apologies, I suppose different survivors
will feel different things about public apologies, but what are
some of the thoughts and feelings that you've heard from
survivors about them.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
We also, keele, survivors are not a homogeneous group, and
in your right, it means different things to different people.
And I think when I think back to the apology
delivered in Parliament, and I was at Parliament for that,
and there was a range of emotions from people feeling
like a sort of release them from a lot of
(22:03):
the hurt the fucking mar in my mind, that they've
been caring for years, that they felt that that sort
of brought that to an end for them in a way,
and others perhaps a bit more cynical, perhaps going right, Well,
an apology is empty without meaningful action with it. And
at that point the government will say we're looking at readress,
(22:26):
we're looking at what we can do. But there wasn't
anything concrete with the apology. And I think people have
been let down by those organizations so often just wanted
to sort of go okay, well you said sorry, Now
what does that look like? So yeah, the full range
of responses there.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
And lastly, Amanda, if you could change one thing tomorrow
without any no qualms about money or legal processes or
laws or legislation or time or anything, what would it be.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
I would implement the Royal Commission's recommendations to bring in
a single independent scheme. It would bring in all of
the different organizations into under one roof. It would mean
that's if IRIS didn't have to go to three or
four different organizations because they were replaced in different places
as kids. I would make sure it was consistent and
(23:17):
transparent and accountable and there was a one stop place
where people could go and if we have it all there,
The Royal Commission has presented this and we just need
to implement it.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
Why isn't it happening?
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Political will? I think, isn't there? There is some work happening,
But like I say, it is picking low hanging fruit.
It is tinkering. It's not acknowledging that the state. And
someone said this. I think it was a High court
judge that this many years ago. The abuser cannot be
(23:57):
the save yet you cannot fix your own house. It
has to be taken out of the organizations dealt with independently.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
Thanks for joining us, Amanda.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
No problem, think you everything.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzadherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Jane Ye and Richard Martin, who is also
our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page
on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune
(24:36):
in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Kilda. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page,
a daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. Church
leaders are continuing to publicly apologize to survivors of abuse.
The Presbyterian Church is the latest to address it in
(00:26):
two public apology events. The first was in Dunedin at
the weekend and the next is in Auckland this Saturday.
It's the latest in a series of public apologies from
church and public sector leaders after the Royal Commission of
an Inquiry into abuse in care. Over five years of investigations,
(00:47):
the inquiry heard nearly three thousand survivor accounts of abuse
and neglect. The more than one hundred and thirty recommendations
focused on creating a new independence redress system, strengthening the
care system, and holding institutions accountable. Today on the Front Page,
(01:08):
lawyer Amanda Hill has represented abusing care survivors and it's
with us to explain how the process is working and
how it's not. First off, Amanda, tell me how you
think the redress scheme is going so far?
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Well? I guess one of the challenges is that there's
no single redress game. There are many different schemes some good,
some bad, some ugly. There is a lot of talk
and work her own redress, but there's a big gaping
hole in the middle, and that's the government's decision not
to proceed with the Royal Commission's key recommendations around independence game.
(01:52):
So if I were standing back and looking at the biggest,
biggest problem with redress or or the biggest lack of progress,
that would be the government decisions around that, and so
everything else sort of pales in comparison to that. But
I also acknowledged that there's organizations who are doing their
best without that government support.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
So if that independence scheme would have gone ahead, it
would just be a blanket rule or a blanket thing
across all of them. But at the moment, what we've
got is different readress schemes for different institutions, and different
whether they be state based or faith based.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Yes, So the idea behind the independent scheme, which the
Royal Commission called was to provide a sort of a
single scheme that dealt with abuse and state care, faith
based care, schools, everything, and that they would be buying
from faith based organizations so they'd become part of that scheme,
(02:48):
which meant that there was transparency, independence, accountability. Everyone knew
what the rules were, but with the decision not to
proceed with that, what the government's done is trying to
even up as the various processes within government which are
wildly inconsistent, and to trying to do a bit of
work inside their own house, but leaving faith based organizations
(03:11):
to forge your head on their own. So we still
have lots of different things going on.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Has the horse bolted in that respect? Is it too
late to put that in place now?
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Not at all, Not at all. I think there will
always be an opportunity for a single independent scheme, and
the current situation in terms of state matters is very patchy,
but there will always be an opportunity to bring and
put it to me to a finally, so while we're
(03:44):
pretty gutted with the decisions right now, there will always
be work to try and bring that about.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
What are some of the roadblocks that survivors are finding
themselves up against.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
There is still, i think a real lack of belief
around the scale and nature of abuse and care. There
is still real difficulty around access to records. Although there's
been quite a lot of good work in that space,
(04:17):
there is still a real lack of understanding of what
good redress looks like. And in New Zealand the compensation
levels in particular punishingly low, and that's partly reflective of
the role of acc which means that you can't sue
(04:39):
for general or compensatory damages, but it is a really
the approach is often superficial, not always understanding what the
impact on survivors is, not understanding that abuse has lifelong impacts,
and just sort of thinking that a few pass or
(04:59):
something up and hand it over, that's done, whereas what
we know is that redress is a journey rather than
an event.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Budget twenty twenty five saw seven hundred and seventy four
million dollars put aside to improve the state abuse redress scheme.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Is that enough?
Speaker 2 (05:17):
It's hard to tell because it really depends on where
that money is going. There is a backlog of claims
within the Administry of Social Development and Ministry of Education,
so some of that is just about getting work done
that hasn't been done yet. It's not necessarily about when
I say improving, they may not making people work wait
(05:38):
five years because that's the current wait time. And some
of it is lifting up some compensation which has been
very low, lifting them up to a slightly higher level.
So how that money is it has passed up is
probably I don't have the information around what that's been
(06:00):
applied to, but I know there have been top ups
for some people who have resolved their claims, particularly with
social development, that's been really good for them. But when
your top up sort of only takes you to a
reasonably low amount, that's still you know, when you stand
back and look at the bigger pictures, it's still pretty hard.
But there is I call it tinkering. I think a
(06:21):
lot of the work being done is tinkering. When you're
trying to improve something that's so badly broken, you sort
of go, well, what's the cost of just actually starting again?
Speaker 1 (06:30):
And I mean one of the major questions to come
out of the inquiry as well, I suppose, is how
do you quantify someone's abuse?
Speaker 2 (06:39):
And you can't. You can't. What you often hear from
particularly organizations where abuse has been perpetrated, is no amount
of money can fix this harm. But the end of
that sentence really needs to be but we'll give it
our best shot. And often that's not what's happening. And
so this thing of amount of money can fix the
(07:01):
harm means that they don't really put an effort and
to try you can't. There are some ways you can quantify,
and so when you look at things like assessing perhaps
someone's lost opportunity, lost wages, that the loss of potential
earning scheme through ACC is one of those measures we
(07:22):
look at. You know, have you been able to parents,
have you been able to hold down a job? Do
you have mental health, a drug, alcohol issues? Again, it
hard to quantify, but it has been done. You look
overseas and there are plenty of jurisdictions where it's been done.
So it's not like we're starting from scratch. There is
a whole jurisprudence around us.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
How is it for survivors being able to access their
redress payments reliably? And you mentioned a five year wait
time at the moment, why is it taking so long?
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Clartly? One of the challenges will always be with the
state processes is it is the state investigating itself? There
is it's MSD looking at you know, did its own
staff members cause harm? And there's not really any motivation
to do that quickly. So there's been a dragging of
(08:17):
feet over a long period of time, there have been
multiple changes to processes. There's been so many different ways
that redress has been administered, in some clunkier than others.
But really there's just not been the resourcing, the staffing,
or the motivation to resolve claims quickly, and so they're
built up because I think the state never realized or
(08:41):
recognized just how many victims there were, whereas the Royal
Commission was very clear that a huge number of people
in state and based care were of use.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
One name that comes to mind when thinking about the inquiries,
of course, lake Alice. As of last month, Arenz reported
one hundred and forty one people have been ruled eligible
for the Lake Alice redress scheme, with one hundred and
two of those opting to receive a one hundred and
fifty thousand dollars payment. Some have decided to go to arbitration.
(09:13):
Can you explain to us what that means?
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Sure? I guess. The first thing to note, though, is
that this Lake Alice process is limited to people who
were in the Child in Adolescent unit run by Doc
seven Leaks and who suffered ect in an unmodified format
lecterer of shock therapy or the use of a drug
called peraldehyde. So this is a very targeted group of
(09:37):
people rather than the larger group of Lake Alice or
other psychiatric institutions. So it's a it's a microcosm really,
and it came about because of the United Nations finding
that what happened there was torture met the definition of torture.
So it's the first thing. It's a smaller group the
process for those people either, but there's a pathway. Effectively,
(10:02):
arbitration doesn't mean something's failed. That means that they get
to choose. And so the first pathway, as you say,
a payment of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. That's
an expedite in payment, so that happens quite quickly, and
that comes with an apology and some help with services
and things like that. If people want to take a
(10:23):
more individual approach, they and those meetings have occurred now
with an independent arbitrator who's a retired High Court judge,
and that means that they get to meet someone and
talk about their experiences and have a more personalized and
tailored approach, which suits some survivors they want to go
(10:45):
down that road. Others they and particularly this cohort. They're
often sick, they're very old, they need the money for
whatever reason, and digging through those memories is hard. So
this option of either a fairly fast approach recognizing that
you meet the eligibility criteria, or the arbitration where you
(11:06):
may receive a higher amount but you go through this
process that provides it some tailored options for survivors.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
And I understand the deadline for the expedited pathway is tomorrow, Tuesday,
September thirtieth. What does this mean?
Speaker 2 (11:23):
So my understanding is that because this was a time
limited process and that was a decision made by Cabinet,
that if someone hasn't registered with the Crown Response Unit
by the thirtieth of September, then that payment won't be
available to them. There's a couple of steps that need
(11:46):
to be taken to be eligible for that scheme. So yes,
there will come point where some people who haven't been
involved in that process may miss out.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
That doesn't seem fair at all.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
It isn't fair to the people who have been involved
in One of the challenges sometimes is that the expectation
that survivors will put their hand up to go through
this process and that they will have the ability to
engage within this case government. There's been a lot of
(12:17):
help given to survivors. Myself and other lawyers are appointed
as panel lawyers, and there's been some really good support provided.
But again they have to come to the scheme. The
scheme doesn't come to them. The state. They know the
names of the people who are in the child adolescent unit,
(12:37):
so there's no proactive reaching out to people. And that's
where the challenges lie. Because what we know is that
some of the people from the Callis are some of
the most damaged survivors that I've ever met, and they've
suffered so much harm and their ability to engage with
schemes to ring government is a scary thing when you've
(12:58):
been harmed so badly, and to re engage with government
and to put yourself in that position again is a
really hard thing. So there are real challenges around that.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
And so if people haven't come forward, of those who
haven't come forward already as of tomorrow, is government kind
of relieved of any responsibility.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
That's a really good question, and that's a bit of
an unknown to be honest, And I think if there
is another cohort of survivors you know, the Minister may
have to make some decisions there. Because this scheme is
running for a particular time, I cannot have designated that time.
(13:40):
The Arbat's job is is time limited. And what happens
after that, I think it remains to be seen, But
that may be a political decision more than anything else.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
Today, I'm apologizing on behalf of the government to every
everyone who suffered abuse, harm and neglect while in state care.
To they make this apology to all survivors on behalf
of my own and previous governments. You deserved so much
better and I am deeply sorry that New Zealand did
(14:17):
not do better by you. I am sorry that you
were not believed when you came forward to report your abuse.
I am sorry that many bystanders, staff, volunteers and careers
turned a blind eye and failed to stop or report abuse.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
I see that the Presbyterian Church is publicly apologizing in
Auckland this weekend. They did so on Dunedin last weekend,
and I've noticed the church use the phrase holistic redress.
Is that different to redress? Can you explain to me
what that means?
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Sure? I think and that often means different things to
different organizations. So there's no single approach. But I guess
when we talk about redress it responds to all of
the harm rather than an element of redress is compensation.
(15:18):
It's money, but redress can also means an apology. It
also means making sure someone can access independent legal advice,
so often paying legal costs, counseling or other support. I
know for for some schemes, access to facilitators to help
(15:40):
you navigate your entitlements with ACC for example, ACC is
an enormous barrier for survivors. It's incredibly difficult to navigate
lifelong help with parenting or with all sorts of things.
So when I talk about redress or healing being a
(16:02):
journey rather than an event, that that's what I mean.
As supply of services over time is really really important.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
And so the holistic part of it could mean any
range of things.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Yes, yeah, whatever, And this is what a good redress
responds to the survivor in front of view, That responds
to their needs and what they want, and it's a
conversation rather than going here's your money, see you later,
you're done. There is much more to be gained through
(16:37):
holistic redress than a fairly transactional approach.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
Have any other faiths set up their own redress process
and if so, what do they look like? How do
they compare?
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Different churches or faith based organizations have different processes and
have for many years. The Salvation Army has had a
process so many years and that was often run one
person out of the Salvation Army. Again, those challenges of
investigating your own people and the lack of independence there
during the Royal Commission. It caused some organizations to give
(17:14):
themselves a hard block and to revise what they were doing.
Some have done that better than others, but so every
organization has a different approach, and it's often in a
state of flux. So it's changing a great deal when
I think a lot of organizations were waiting for the
(17:36):
final report of the Royal Commission Fanikia, which was a
shot last year and to took a lot out of that,
but lots of them were waiting for the state to
implement an independent scheme and just had gone, right, we'll
hang in there until this is going to happen. And
now without that, I think they are looking at their
(17:58):
own schemes and making steps. That is a wide range
of responses and wide range of schemes.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
How does the redress compare between state based and faith based?
Is it better on either side or do both sides
have kind of positives and negatives?
Speaker 2 (18:15):
It varies wildly, And this is what I mean about
the lack of consistency. You know, there are some organizations
that sort of don't easily fit. So when I think
about really good redress schemes, you look at something like
deal With. Deal With School up in Auckland, there was
(18:36):
an independent inquiry and discovered in a culture of sexual
abuse at the school over many years, an extraordinary number
of boys in the school sexually abused over a long
period of time, and deal With instituted a process that
was independent of the school. And nothing's perfect, but it
(18:56):
was a pretty good process and the compensation paid by
deal Worth was far and away above anything that the
state had ever Often at the other end, some Catholic
orders very very limited redress, almost grudging, I think it
is probably a word to use, and other organizations not
(19:19):
engaging at all. So it's hard to compare because they're
so different. But to give you an example, someone who
had experienced sexual abuse a deal Worth could receive compensation
of so two hundred thousand dollars. Someone in state care
who had experienced the same abuse and potentially abuse for
(19:42):
a longer period of time might get thirty or forty
thousand dollars. That's what that difference looks like.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
In terms of these institutions, I'm sure, and you've spoken
to a lot of survivors as well. Does it feel
like if we pay this person this lump sum, this
will all go.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
I think it feels like that to some organizations. But
I think what I've seen over time is that when
people and often I've seen this and people coming and
new to some organizations, when they meet survivors and they
see them face to face and they hear what happened
(20:25):
to them, and they hear what their adult life has
been like, and that you know, a lot of my
clients have huge challenges as adults and they see this
person in front of them, and sometimes, you know, survivors
will bring photos of what they were like when they
were kids. And that's really impactful for organizations because it's
real easy to see this person in front of you
(20:46):
as someone who is a challenge to how you do things,
and lots of organizations want to be organizations that are
doing great things in the community that are helpful, they
are doing the right thing, they're morally upright. And to
have this person saying you're yourself hurt me and your
organization never stepped into help or even worse, in terms
of some of the Catholic organizations, you're you and you
(21:08):
move the priests to somewhere else. And that is really
hard for organizations to hear. But some of them have,
to their credit, recognized that you can't just package it
up and send it on its way, and that you
have to be more accountable. And that's to their credit.
But I think we've got quite a long way to go.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
And in terms of public apologies, I suppose different survivors
will feel different things about public apologies, but what are
some of the thoughts and feelings that you've heard from
survivors about them.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
We also, keele, survivors are not a homogeneous group, and
in your right, it means different things to different people.
And I think when I think back to the apology
delivered in Parliament, and I was at Parliament for that,
and there was a range of emotions from people feeling
like a sort of release them from a lot of
(22:03):
the hurt the fucking mar in my mind, that they've
been caring for years, that they felt that that sort
of brought that to an end for them in a way,
and others perhaps a bit more cynical, perhaps going right, Well,
an apology is empty without meaningful action with it. And
at that point the government will say we're looking at readress,
(22:26):
we're looking at what we can do. But there wasn't
anything concrete with the apology. And I think people have
been let down by those organizations so often just wanted
to sort of go okay, well you said sorry, Now
what does that look like? So yeah, the full range
of responses there.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
And lastly, Amanda, if you could change one thing tomorrow
without any no qualms about money or legal processes or
laws or legislation or time or anything, what would it be.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
I would implement the Royal Commission's recommendations to bring in
a single independent scheme. It would bring in all of
the different organizations into under one roof. It would mean
that's if IRIS didn't have to go to three or
four different organizations because they were replaced in different places
as kids. I would make sure it was consistent and
(23:17):
transparent and accountable and there was a one stop place
where people could go and if we have it all there,
The Royal Commission has presented this and we just need
to implement it.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
Why isn't it happening?
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Political will? I think, isn't there? There is some work happening,
But like I say, it is picking low hanging fruit.
It is tinkering. It's not acknowledging that the state. And
someone said this. I think it was a High court
judge that this many years ago. The abuser cannot be
(23:57):
the save yet you cannot fix your own house. It
has to be taken out of the organizations dealt with independently.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
Thanks for joining us, Amanda.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
No problem, think you everything.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzadherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Jane Ye and Richard Martin, who is also
our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page
on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune
(24:36):
in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.