National's Erica Stanford clashes with Labour MPs over redress system for survivors abused in state care
Photo:
RNZ
National Minister Erica Stanford's scrutiny hearing descended into a political slinging match between the minister and two Labour MPs as they clashed over the redress system for survivors abused in state care.
Stanford, who in charge of the government's response, faced a grilling from Opposition MPs at Parliament on Wednesday over why an independent agency hadn't been set up to deliver on a recommendation from the Royal Commission and survivors, and why ministers
considered limiting redress for gang members
.
Labour's Jan Tinetti told the committee a "key fundamental recommendation that survivors asked for" was an independent entity so that the state - the abuser - wasn't dealing with survivors directly as part of the redress.
"The Crown had been the abuser and we are hearing daily, and we heard it today, the survivors are still feeling like the Crown is abusing them because their voice has been taken away," Tinetti said.
Tinetti asked Stanford why the government didn't take that into account and
commit to a new system
.
Stanford said "many people going through the system are very happy with the service they're getting, of course there are some people who are not".
When advice was sought on a new independent agency she said she was told: "It may not be any better than we have now and I wasn't prepared to go through that huge cost, huge time, and huge complexity to maybe not have a better outcome".
Erica Stanford
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
But Stanford noted an independent agency wasn't off the cards completely in the future.
However, she went on to say, "it's bewildering to me that you have such an obsession with these large complex independent agencies when the experience of late has been, when we have set these up - like Te Pukenga" the outcomes have been worse.
Tinetti was education minister under the previous government that oversaw Te Pukenga, which the coalition government is unwinding.
"I'd also like to point out the redress report that was delivered was in 2021, the previous government had a very long time to act on that - it called for an independent agency back then," Stanford said.
Jan Tinetti
Photo:
RNZ / Angus Dreaver
That remark prompted Labour's Willow-Jean Prime to interject and say a working group was set-up to design it under the previous government. Tinetti then called a point of order to mount a defence.
"I'd just like to remind that this is estimates looking forward and Chris Hipkins did apologise during his speech on the 12th of November in the House, and offered to work with the government on this.
"We don't need to go backwards... We want to know what the minister is doing, we don't need to know what the previous government didn't do, we've already acknowledged we could have moved faster. We've already made that apology," she said.
Speaking to the point of order, Stanford said she had been "directly challenged" and wanted to respond.
A back and forth of jabs continued between Stanford, Prime, and Tinetti.
"I know you don't like to hear this," the minister commented, which Prime responded to by saying, "you're disingenuous, let's be honest", while Tinetti muttered in the background "appalling, you are disappointing minister".
The National and New Zealand First members of the committee sat in silence as the war of words played out.
Earlier in the hearing, Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson raised questions about why advice had been sought on whether to limit redress for gang members.
Ultimately, ministers chose to treat gangs the same as any other survivor, but create a new pathway for serious offenders.
Stanford said she sought advice on a range of things.
"Everyone has different opinions and ideas and views. We took everything into account, I sought advice on a range of different things - it doesn't necessarily mean I believed that thing or wanted that thing - but it's important as a lawmaker... when you take your job responsibly to look at every possible thing," she said.
"I needed to make sure I had all of the evidence at hand."
Davidson queried why she even needed to ask about limiting redress for gang members when it "sends a message that the real violence that happened is only validated for some people and not others".
Stanford responded saying she went out of her way and "called gang members and invited them personally to the apology, into Parliament... that tells you everything you need to know about my beliefs".
Without all the evidence though, Stanford said she would have exposed herself to being an "uninformed lawmaker".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Bill banning protest outside homes passes first hurdle
By Giles Dexter of RNZ Legislation to make protesting outside someone's home an offence has passed its first reading at Parliament. The bill would apply to demonstrations directed at a specific person outside their private residence, considering factors including how 'unreasonable' the protest is. Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori opposed the bill, expressing concerns it could override the right to freedom of protest, and there were existing tools police could use. Standing in for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, James Meager said the bill would be a welcome relief to many MPs, officials and other individuals who had been targeted. He said the bill was a balance of rights and freedoms. "The protection of New Zealanders' privacy is fundamentally important in our society, as is the ability to protest. The government upholds both of these values." Meager said the public's right to protest was protected by the Bill of Rights Act, but demonstrations outside homes could impede on someone's right to privacy. "Unreasonable, disruptive intrusions into people's private spaces are simply unacceptable." The government believed existing legislation did not clearly reflect the importance of privacy in the context of demonstrations, meaning police had difficulty in applying offences like disorderly behaviour. The offence would only apply if the protest was targeted at a specific person outside their private residence, meaning marches that passed by someone's house would not be covered. Time of day, duration, the demonstrators' actions, noise levels and distance to the premises would also be factors in determining the offence. Despite Labour leader Chris Hipkins earlier expressing his concerns that protest had become personalised, his party did not support the bill. Labour's justice spokesman Duncan Webb said the bill "chips away" at free speech rights, and New Zealand could not call itself a liberal democracy while passing legislation that prohibited demonstration. "The point of political action is to disrupt. It is not to be nice, it's not to be convenient. Protest is disruptive, that's what a protest is." Webb acknowledged other MPs have experienced people acting inappropriately outside their residences, but the legislation was targeted to suppress political action. "If that's your problem, the easy fix is actually to fix the offence of disorderly behaviour, and make it clear that disorder that flows into a private premise can in fact still amount to that offence." The Green Party also opposed the bill. MP Celia Wade-Brown said threats to people's safety or their families' safety were unacceptable, but the new offence had a disproportionate punishment. "Three months in prison, $2000 fine, this is not a parking ticket." Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi said if police felt they could not apply existing legislation to remove someone behaving unreasonably outside another's home, then police should "check their practice." Speaking in support of the bill, ACT's Todd Stephenson accepted there were two competing rights in the legislation, but the Select Committee phase would be a chance for a discussion about how the balance could be struck. "It's worthwhile at least going through the Select Committee process and uncovering what powers the police do or don't have currently, but they're saying they don't have sufficient powers." Casey Costello from New Zealand First said it was a "sad, sad indictment on our democracy" that the legislation was even needed. "We know we have politically motivated groups who will purposely release private residential addresses of elected officials, of businesspeople, in order to invoke an intimidatory approach to dealing with decisions." She disagreed it was a limitation on protesting, but a protection for people's privacy. "It is absolutely reasonable to say that we will ensure that voices can be heard, but my children, my mother, my family will not have to bear the price of the decisions or the public position that I hold," she said. The Justice Committee will now consider the bill and report back within four months.
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
NZ Is Trailing Its Allies Over Palestinian Statehood – But There's Still Time To Show Leadership
It's now a week since Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced his government had begun to formally consider New Zealand's position on the recognition of a Palestinian state. That leaves three weeks until the United Nations General Assembly convenes on September 9, where it is expected several key allies will change position and recognise Palestinian statehood. Already in a minority of UN member states which don't recognise a Palestinian state, New Zealand risks becoming more of an outlier if and when Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom make good on their recent pledges. Luxon has said the decision is 'complex', but opposition parties certainly don't see it that way. Labour leader Chris Hipkins says it's 'the right thing to do', and Greens co-leader Chloë Swarbrick has called on government MPs to 'grow a spine' (for which she was controversially ejected from the debating chamber). Former Labour prime minister Helen Clark has also criticised the government for trailing behind its allies, and for appearing to put trade relations with the United States ahead of taking a moral stand over Israel's actions in Gaza. Certainly, those critics – including the many around the country who marched during the weekend – are correct in implying New Zealand has missed several opportunities to show independent leadership on the issue. The distraction factor While it has been open to New Zealand to recognise it as a state since Palestine declared its independence in 1988, there was an opportunity available in May last year when the Irish, Spanish and Norwegian governments took the step. That month, New Zealand also joined 142 other states calling on the Security Council to admit Palestine as a full member of the UN. But in a subsequent statement, New Zealand said its vote should not be implied as recognising Palestinian statehood, a position I called 'a kind of muddled, awkward fence-sitting'. It is still not too late, however, for New Zealand to take a lead. In particular, the government could make a more straightforward statement on Palestinian statehood than its close allies. The statements from Australia, Canada and the UK are filled with caveats, conditions and contingencies. None are straightforward expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian right of self-determination under international law. As such, they present political and legal problems New Zealand could avoid. Politically, this late wave of recognition by other countries risks becoming a distraction from the immediate starvation crisis in Gaza. As the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy and UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese have noted, these considered and careful diplomatic responses distract from the brutal truth on the ground. This was also Chloë Swarbrick's point during the snap debate in parliament last week. Her private members bill, she noted, offers a more concrete alternative, by imposing sanctions and a trade embargo on Israel. (At present, it seems unlikely the government would support this.) Beyond traditional allies Legally, the proposed recognitions of statehood are far from ideal because they place conditions on that recognition, including how a Palestinian state should be governed. The UK has made recognition conditional on Israel not agreeing to a ceasefire and continuing to block humanitarian aid into Gaza. That is extremely problematic, given recognition could presumably be withdrawn if Israel agreed to those demands. Such statements are not exercises in genuine solidarity with Palestinian self-determination, which is defined in UN Resolution 1514 (1960) as the right of peoples 'to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development'. Having taken more time to consider its position, New Zealand could now articulate a more genuine statement of recognition that fulfils the legal obligation to respect and promote self-determination under international law. A starting point would be to look beyond the small group of 'traditional allies' to countries such as Ireland that have already formally recognised the State of Palestine. Importantly, Ireland acknowledged Palestinian 'peaceful self-determination' (along with Israel's), but did not express any other conditions or caveats. New Zealand could also show leadership by joining with that wider group of allies to shape the coming General Assembly debate. The aim would be to shift the language from conditional recognition of Palestine toward a politically and legally more tenable position. That would also sit comfortably with the country's track record in other areas of international diplomacy – most notably the campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, where New Zealand has also taken a different approach to its traditional allies.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Bill to ban protesting outside private homes passes first reading
Standing in for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, James Meager said the bill would be a welcome relief to many MPs, officials, and other individuals who had been targeted. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Legislation to make protesting outside someone's home an offence has passed its first reading at Parliament. The bill would apply to demonstrations directed at a specific person outside their private residence, considering factors like how 'unreasonable' the protest is. Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori opposed the bill, expressing concerns it could override the right to freedom of protest, and there were existing tools police could use. Standing in for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, James Meager said the bill would be a welcome relief to many MPs, officials, and other individuals who had been targeted. He said the bill was a balance of rights and freedoms. "The protection of New Zealanders' privacy is fundamentally important in our society, as is the ability to protest. The government upholds both of these values," he said. Meager said the public's right to protest was protected by the Bill of Rights Act, but demonstrations outside homes could impede on someone's right to privacy. "Unreasonable, disruptive intrusions into people's private spaces are simply unacceptable," Meager said. The government believed existing legislation did not clearly reflect the importance of privacy in the context of demonstrations, meaning police had difficulty in applying offences like disorderly behaviour. The offence would only apply if the protest was targeted at a specific person outside their private residence, meaning marches that passed by someone's house would not be covered. Time of day, duration, the demonstrators' actions, noise levels, and distance to the premises would also be factors in determining the offence. Despite Labour leader Chris Hipkins earlier expressing his concerns that protest had become personalised, Labour did not support the bill. Labour's Duncan Webb. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Its justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said the bill "chips away" at free speech rights, and New Zealand could not call itself a liberal democracy while passing legislation that prohibited demonstration. "The point of political action is to disrupt. It is not to be nice, it's not to be convenient. Protest is disruptive, that's what a protest is." Webb acknowledged other MPs have experienced people acting inappropriately outside their residences, but the legislation was targeted to suppress political action. "If that's your problem, the easy fix is actually to fix the offence of disorderly behaviour, and make it clear that disorder that flows into a private premise can in fact still amount to that offence." The Green Party also opposed the bill. MP Celia Wade-Brown said threats to people's safety or their families' safety were unacceptable, but the new offence had a disproportionate punishment. "Three months in prison, $2000 fine, this is not a parking ticket." Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi said if police felt they could not apply existing legislation to remove someone behaving unreasonably outside another's home, then police should "check their practice." Speaking in support of the bill, ACT's Todd Stephenson accepted there were two competing rights in the legislation, but the Select Committee phase would be a chance for a discussion about how the balance could be struck. "It's worthwhile at least going through the Select Committee process and uncovering what powers the police do or don't have currently, but they're saying they don't have sufficient powers." Casey Costello from New Zealand First said it was a "sad, sad indictment on our democracy" that the legislation was even needed. "We know we have politically motivated groups who will purposely release private residential addresses of elected officials, of businesspeople, in order to invoke an intimidatory approach to dealing with decisions." Costello disagreed it was a limitation on protesting, but a protection for people's privacy. "It is absolutely reasonable to say that we will ensure that voices can be heard, but my children, my mother, my family will not have to bear the price of the decisions or the public position that I hold," she said. The Justice Committee will now consider the bill, and will report back within four months.
