Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Chief Ombudsman say as the Ministry of Social Development's
payment scheme for survivors of abuse and care is unreasonable.
Peter Boche says the rates of compensation are arbitrary and
the criteria for accepting claims are too narrow. And the
finding comes after a complaint by a law firm representing
one thousand claimants saying that the payments are just not enough.
(00:21):
Peter Boscher. Now, Bosha joins me.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Now, hell, Peter, good afternoon to you. Andrew.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
So you're saying that MSD is paying victims of state
abuse too little.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
There are a number of things about the scheme, Andrew,
which are unsatisfactory. Can I quickly put a context for
your listeners. Everyone's heard of the Royal Commission of Abuse
and Care and redress that will occur to survivors of abuse.
This relates to the period before two Thy seventeen and
(00:53):
MASB set up a scheme whereby it would offer redress
to those who claimed. We've found that aspects of this
are unreasonable. The basis upon which decisions were being approached
not clear. What was being taken into account not clear.
But perhaps worst of all, Andrew, and something I'm really
(01:14):
keen on in this role, people not getting clear reasons
for decisions and not understanding why what they received was
the amount in question. So a number of things we
were unhappy.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Well, well, have you also investigated why the ministry might
be actually, you know, being arbitrary and being I don't
want to say the word tight, that's a terrible word
to say. But you know why the purse strings are closed?
Have you looked into why they're doing it? Can you?
Can you even answer that?
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Yes? I can look look. Some schemes for address, such
as the accident compensation scheme, are quite prescriptive and quite known,
and I think a number of people when they have
an acc situational claim, have a pretty fair idea of
what's likely to happen to their claim in terms of outcomes.
The real problem here what was a lack of structure
(02:09):
in terms of what was being considered and what might
be felt to be appropriate. So I think the best
way for me to answer your very good question is
the results were two arbitrary. I think what people want
is to know the territory into which they're heading. Here
they didn't know, and sometimes when the result came couldn't
understand why it was what it was, so just to arbitrary, really, Andrew.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Okay, sure, but of course the reaction from people who
haven't been involved in the decision is New Zealand currently
is in a bad economic state. We just don't have
more money.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
The fact is that for anyone who is injured or damaged,
whether it's a road accident or whether it's through state
care which has been careless and negligent, that person has
the right have their dignity restored. A can, for instance,
go to court and see, which is a very expensive exercise,
(03:06):
and if they succeed, there will be meaningful redress. Look,
I'm afraid we are a society. We care for everyone.
That's what we do as a caring, civilized society. Where
the state has cared for someone carelessly and injured them,
the state has the responsibility to say so into front up.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Peter, I thank you for your time this afternoon. Peter
Boscher is the chief on Woodsman.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.