Abuse in care survivors in line for under a third of government's $774m package
Photo:
123RF
Less than a third of the government's $774 million abuse in care redress package
will end up in the pockets of survivors
.
Figures obtained by RNZ revealed only $205m was earmarked for paying new claims with $52m to go towards topping up previously closed claims.
In defence of the figures, Erica Stanford, the Minister leading the government's abuse in care response, said redress payments were not the most important thing for some survivors and some of the $774m in this year's Budget was going towards changing the care system and providing other supports.
However, $92m was for the civil servants who administered the redress funds and another $37m would pay for operating costs like premises and IT.
For every two dollars going to survivors, more than a dollar would be spent on administration.
Cooper Legal principal partner Sonja Cooper, whose firm had acted for hundreds of abuse survivors and victims, said it was a disgrace.
Sonja Cooper
Photo:
RNZ / Aaron Smale
"We were really disappointed with the announcement in any event," Cooper said.
"I think now when you break it down, it actually just gets worse. The more information that is received, the more cynical and disappointing what's been offered to survivors is.
"I've been reflecting on this because obviously we've seen what other Commonwealth countries have done. We've seen what Australia has done, we've seen what Canada has done, we've seen what Ireland has done and we really are letting everyone down. This must be the worst redress scheme put in place by a government for survivors of abuse in care across the Commonwealth.
"I just think that's a disgrace. New Zealand has no excuse for that."
The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care had called for a new, independent and survivor-centric redress system.
In announcing the $774m Budget package last month,
the government also quashed any hope
of establishing a new system, saying
it would be costly and cause delays
.
But Cooper said the revelation so much of the government's package would be spent on administration had demonstrated why government officials should not have been trusted with the redress system in the first place.
Officials were "taking so much away from the pockets of survivors, who deserve better than this", she said.
"It's again, the system looking after itself. It's again, the system taking for itself and giving as little as it can to survivors, while the government continues to crow and pat itself on the back.
"This is not a success. This is a failure, and it is a failure in so many ways. All of those who've been advocating for survivors, I've been doing it for 30 years now, I feel like we are back at the start.
"This is not going to make survivors go away. It is a temporary fix and all I can hope is that at some stage we have another government that will actually do the right thing for survivors, because this is not."
The Royal Commission investigated the cost of abuse in care and estimated it totalled between $96 billion and $217 billion - the vast majority of that was borne by survivors.
The government's $289m of funding for financial redress and targeted supported represented just over 1.5 cents for every dollar of harm borne by survivors.
In May following the announcement, Stanford called the $774m an investment into redress.
"The announcement on Friday was significant," she told the House. "Let's start with that. More than three-quarters of a billion dollars - $774 million, as a pre-budget announcement; the single largest investment into redress in this country's history."
Erica Stanford
Photo:
RNZ / Marika Khabazi
Stanford was not available for an interview on Tuesday, but in a statement emphasised the funding was not only about redress.
"To be clear, the $774 million investment in Budget 2025 was made to improve the redress system
and
[emphasis added by the Minister's office] improving the safety of children and vulnerable adults in care today. Many survivors have shared that their highest priority is for the system to change so what happened to them is prevented in the future," the statement said.
"This includes important investments in initiatives like improving care workforce capability, improvements to safeguarding to reduce abuse and harm to children and young people in care, upgrades to mental health units to improve safety and dignity, more funding for oversight of compulsory mental health and addiction care, funding through the social investment model to fund effective initiatives that prevent entry into care, and upgrading systems to triage and respond to complaints.
"It's important to note, that redress is about more than just monetary payments. The $485.5 million redress investment encompasses not only payments, but targeted supports, accessing records, being listened to and apologised to, funding for legal representation, and implementing improvements so that survivors have access to equitable redress regardless of which agency is administering it. That is what survivors have told us is important to them. While there are survivors who may be only interested in receiving financial redress, there are many others for who other aspects are just as important to them as a payment, if not more."
The changes announced in this year's Budget would result in the average abuse in care claim payment rising from about $20,000 to about $30,000 - just over one month's salary for Minister Stanford.
Keith Wiffin, a survivor who entered state care at 10 years old and sat on the Redress Design Group which provided a report to the government in late 2023, said survivors were grateful for the redress they received but it fell short of the promises the government had made.
"Once again it's just not the investment required to bring about resolution and solution," he said.
"Obviously, a lot of that money is not going to where it was originally indicated it would go to. It's just not going to bring about resolution - the investment required is more than that.
"And I don't want to seem ungrateful because it's taxpayers' money and I am grateful for anything they put in. But it's just a small top up to an existing system which has fundamentally failed in the past."
He was also outraged by how much of the funding would be spent on administration of redress.
"It just highlights how unjust the whole thing is and how much how much of a misleading presentation by Erica Stanford and co, when they've clearly indicated that that money is to go to survivors," Wiffin said.
"It's always the case with state sector redress programmes. There's so much of it gets sucked up by administration costs and various other associated costs and it's just another unjust thing for survivors to have to carry."
Wiffin was also still waiting for an explanation as to why the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry were dismissed, he said.
"It was fairly blunt in terms of dismissing the independent process, just dismissing it," Wiffin said.
"I've had no reason why they have done that and I think we are owed that. So that it feels very disrespectful not to offer that explanation. Others may have had some indication, but certainly I haven't."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

RNZ News
40 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Iwi files court action against minister and DOC over Ruapehu ski fields
Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone A central North Island iwi has filed court action against Minister of Conservation Tama Potaka and the Department of Conservation (DOC) over concession made to the commercial operators of Tūroa and Whakapapa ski fields on Ruapehu. The iwi, Te Patutokotoko, alleges the Crown failed their legal obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi by failing to engage with them and actively protect their interests in their ancestral maunga by continuing to deal with private owners over them. Lead claimant Te Kurataiaha Te Wanikau Tūroa told RNZ the the iwi has been looking for a solution to the issue for years, but was "shrugged off no matter what plan we put forward". Tūroa said the iwi had spoken directly to the minister about their concerns. "We actually put in an interest for Whakapapa 18 months back, we got right to the end of it... the Crown just shut us off at the 12th hour. "It was a let down. But we didn't cry. We just carried on. That's what we're doing," Tūroa said. Earlier this year, Whakapapa Holdings Limited and Pure Tūroa were granted 10-year concession by DOC to operate the north and south sides of the maunga respectively. The previous owner went into receivership in 2022 and the successful bid by the private companies came as a relief to Ruapehu mayor Weston Kirton who said the ski fields were vital to the district's economy. Te Kurataiaha Te Wanikau Tūroa said he did not want the companies to be kicked off the mountain, but wanted the iwi to have more say on how the maunga was operated. "It's an activity that our people, and New Zealanders, and foreigners come to do. It just needs to be run better. "We still have no coexistence with iwi our people in this, and that's where the breakdown is," Tūroa said. In a statement, Conservation Minister Tama Potaka said it would not be appropriate to comment as the matter was before the courts.

RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Government gives itself new RMA powers to override councils
The government has given itself new powers to override councils, if they their decisions will negatively impact economic growth, development or employment. Housing and RMA reform minister Chris Bishop has said the new regulation would stop councils stalling on housing developments. But the opposition said Bishop is annointing himself the chief council despot and it's a massive over-reach. While councils said they shouldn't be blamed for a lack of housing growth. Political reporter Giles Dexter reports. Tags: To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.

RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Why NZ's involvement in possible US-Iran war may hang on Europe
File photo. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone An expert in warfare law says New Zealand might struggle to stay out of a US-Iran war if the Europeans get involved. As Israel continues its attacks on Iran, the US has moved additional fighter jets and ships to the region and President Donald Trump is warning that "patience is wearing thin". Professor and specialist in the laws of war, Al Gillespie of Waikato University, said the White House may seek military or diplomatic backing from its partners. "It will be hard if the Europeans get involved because the the British and the French appear to be willing to deploy something and if we get pulled more towards the European line then it will become harder, and it will depend also what Australia does," he said. In 2003, New Zealand stood aside from Australia when it joined in the American war on Iraq. This time around, on the diplomatic front, "I really wouldn't want to call it", Gillespie said. "We [have] showed a willingness to get involved. We've been involved in the defence of the Red Sea recently. This is a step further. This is a significant step further." To back an offensive war by the US when other means had not been exhausted would be an "extreme inconsistency" with the government's stated support for the international rules-based order. Israel's attack was launched when the US and Iran were about to resume talks on Tehran's nuclear programme. Iran has accused the US of helping Israel in the attack already, with " weapons, intelligence and political backing". Legally, Trump would need approval from Congress to launch an offensive war outside the US. "In theory he can't, but he is very good at trying to sidestep these rules," Gillespie said. "If he can argue that the United States was at risk and imminent risk, then he could potentially use his authority. "Congress would probably support him if you put it to them and made the case." New Zealand was speaking the right language about adhering to the International Court of Justice, and "in theory" an illegal war by Trump could be brought to the UN Security Council, Gillespie said. The Security Council held an emergency session on 13 June where its Under-Secretary-General for political affairs said, "We must at all costs avoid a growing conflagration which would have enormous global consequences." In 1981, the council condemned an attack by Israel on nuclear site in Iraq. "You won't get that kind of consensus on the Security Council anymore," Gillespie said. New Zealand had "lost our voice" recently... such as on the war in Gaza in part, so silence might be an option over Iran, he said. "I'm not sure whether we would speak with any certainty about the illegality of what's just happened. "I'd say it's a diplomatic choice, but many of the reasons we do that are so that we don't incur the wrath of Mr Trump. "There's so many things to balance right now. There's the relationship with China, the relationship with the Middle East, there's the relationship with America, there's trade negotiations, there's security negotiations, there's AUKUS in the background, a lot of things get muddied. And so it's not clear which way New Zealand would go." Trump's "grand plan for the Middle East" was another unknown quantity. "No one's quite sure how all this fits into his equations." Emily Mosley of the Australian Institute of International Affairs said Trump was not all-powerful over Republicans in Congress and this allowed people even outside the US, to look for ways to have influence. The voting record, in how it sometimes contrasted with the social media posts emanating from the White House, showed there was room for pushback, she told an international affairs conference in Wellington on Tuesday. "The choice before us is clear: Engage with the whole breadth of American institutions and demand accountability and stability, or panic and risk eroding one of the most effective checks." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.