Woman charged after Oropi stabbing, court appearance today
A woman is due to appear in Tauranga District Court today following a stabbing in Oropi.
Police were called to an address on Oropi Rd at 10.50pm on Saturday following reports of a 'family harm-related assault', police said.
'One person sustained serious injuries and was transported to hospital.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Fund manager deepfake scam evidence criminals are ‘maturing'
Organised crime efforts to defraud New Zealanders are using increasingly clever technology while spending time and money familiarising themselves with New Zealand's investment landscape. Late last week, KiwiSaver provider Fisher Funds issued something of a public service announcement about a deep fake video of its founder Carmel Fisher doing the rounds on social media platforms.
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
The Crown's debt to society
Overview: – The state has admitted torture and abuse of children in state care. – It apologised in 2024. – But it is legally and financially dragging its feet in providing appropriate 'redress' to those tortured and abused. – A legal challenge begins next week. – Over three reports this week, Aaron Smale examines why the redress efforts are going sideways. Monday: The Ministry of Impunity Tuesday: The Crown's debt to society Wednesday: 'People need to step down or be removed' WARNING: This story contains descriptions of sexual assault and the photograph of a perpetrator from Hokio Beach School. When the final report from the Royal Commission was released mid last year, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon gave a press conference in which he gave a summary of the Government's response. During questions it was pointed out that the final report had a whole volume on the connection between welfare homes like Hokio and Kohitere and gangs and crime. Would this lead to the government rethinking its policies around gangs? Luxon's answer was essentially that 'gangs cause harm'. When it was further pointed out that the report was talking about children, he said 'I know what drives gangs' and walked off. Earlier this year the Government received a Cabinet paper from the Crown Response Office about the question of providing redress to victims of state abuse who were gang members and high-level offenders. The Cabinet paper was somewhat banal. Officials recommended Cabinet should note 'the status quo for state claims agencies to treat claimants equally and provide redress payments for abuse in care based on the merits of their claim.' The officials, which included Crown Response Office chief executive Rajesh Chhana and head of policy Rebecca Martin, went on to say that 'a blanket exclusion of high tariff offenders and/or gang members from the state redress system… would likely reduce trust in the integrity of the Crown's response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care and in the Care of the Faith-Based Institutions and is therefore not recommended. 'Officials have not be able to identify any options for imposing controls on access to redress purely on the basis of someone's status as a gang member are operationally workable and we do not recommend progressing this option.' Officials also pointed out to Cabinet that 'we have not been able to identify a solid basis for establishing whether someone is a gang member. Corrections holds some information on gang affiliation of the current prison population, although there will be issues with the comprehensiveness, accuracy and timeliness of this information.' So the Government that talks constantly about gangs can't even come up with a solid basis for identifying who is a gang member. But as was raised with Luxon in the press conference, the Royal Commission wrote a whole volume of its final report on the correlation between the violent crime committed against thousands of children by the state and many of those children ending up in prisons or gangs. That volume is titled Cauldron of Violence: Hokio Beach School and Kohitere Boys' Training Centre – A case study of the State's role in creating gangs and criminals In the report, the Royal Commission described in brutal terms the crimes committed against children who went on to fill gangs and the nation's prisons as adults. The following contains graphic detail from the commission report: 'Around one-third of registered survivors who spoke to the inquiry were from Hokio School and Kohitere Centre described sexual abuse from staff from the 1950s to the 1980s. 'In one incident at Kohitere Centre in the 1980s, a boy was showering when a staff member put a plastic bag over his head and raped him. Two survivors describe being anally penetrated with broom handles by staff in the secure wing of Kohitere Centre. Hokio School cook Michael Ansell, who sexually abused many boys at the residence, once tied a survivor to a coffee table and anally raped him, and at other times penetrated him with different objects. The rapes were rough and caused significant pain.' This was the same Michael Ansell who had convictions for sexual violence against children before he started working at Hokio. He would later be convicted for further offences. He was also the subject of allegations in a civil case referred to as the White case. The Crown withheld evidence about Ansell from the victim and his lawyers and strongly defended the case despite knowing of Ansell's previous convictions. Jason Epere was the youngest of four brothers who went through Lookout Point in Dunedin and then Kohitere in Levin. As adults they ended up in the Black Power and prison. Their story can be heard at: Ansell's crimes – and the crimes of numerous other perpetrators who worked for the state – would attract prison sentences in any other context. But those who were responsible for investigating and prosecuting them were instead covering up these crimes or simply neglecting to do their job of investigating them. But the decades-long paper trail of the Crown's response barely mentions these crimes. Instead it is mostly concerned with what it can get away with. The Government's discussion of whether to provide gang members and prisoners with a different form of redress follows this pattern. The Cabinet paper might have concluded that gang members and criminals should be treated the same in the redress, but the fact it was even raised showed a disconnect between the abuse the Government apologised for and the consequences for the victims. The Royal Commission's report on Hokio and Kohitere described a culture that was common amongst the state welfare institutions. The report stated: 'Hokio School and Kohitere Centre were not places of care. The State removed children and young people from their families and sent them to institutions where abuse of power, violence and racism were normalised. Survivors were brutally punished and blamed for behaviours often caused by trauma, learning difficulties, disabilities and by the very abuse they endured. Derelict buildings at the Kohitere Boys Training Centre in Levin. Kohitere and Hokio Beach School (also in Levin) were the subject of one whole volume of the Royal Commission's report on the connection between the violence of the state welfare institutions and gangs and incarceration. 'The 'no‑narking' culture and use of the kingpin system by staff to maintain control contributed to a culture of extreme violence. A lack of supervision, staff with military backgrounds, and inadequate vetting and recruitment processes all played a part in the abuse. Survivors were often seen as manipulative or lying and both survivors and staff were silenced and complaints of abuse covered up.' 'Some survivors described prison as better than Hokio School and Kohitere Centre. They were worse off when leaving than when they arrived. Some survivors told the inquiry the only thing they learned was how to be better criminals. The abuse they experienced has led to spiritual, physical, psychological, relationship, and inter‑generational impacts. Some survivors have spent most of their lives in jail or sought connection and support through gang membership with others who share similar experiences of abuse in care. 'Abuse in Hokio School and Kohitere Centre was systemic. From the top down there was little oversight, or accountability. Not for the State, the institutions, the staff, nor for perpetrators. Survivors' lives were profoundly altered by their time at Hokio School and Kohitere Centre.' Tough on crime? How do these statements from the Royal Commission square with the Government's policies on crime? On National's website it lays out its criminal justice policy saying: 'National will strengthen consequences for crime, increase support for victims, and ensure remand prisoners receive proper rehabilitation.' Does this include strengthening the consequences for the state that committed crimes against thousands of children? The website goes on to say gangs are growing faster than police, but is that because the state is better at producing gang members through its abuse of children in its custody than it is in recruiting police? 'National stands for a safer New Zealand, where criminals face appropriate consequences for their actions.' Does that include the enablers within the Crown who covered up for the crimes committed at Hokio, Kohitere and numerous other state institutions? Will the police investigate those who covered up these crimes for obstruction of justice and perverting the course of justice? National says it 'will introduce stronger sentences for convicted criminals, by limiting the ability of judges to reduce sentences, making gang membership an aggravating factor, restoring Three Strikes and ending taxpayer funding for cultural reports.' Does National consider these cultural reports – that they have derisively referred to as a cottage industry – are often the first time offenders disclose the abuse and trauma they suffered as children in state custody and getting rid of them silences victims, including gang members? Does National accept that suffering abuse as a child in state custody can cause life-long trauma and PTSD which often contributes to issues with addiction and mental health and should be a mitigating factor in sentencing? Does Corrections have any records on the numbers of adults in its custody that are victims of state abuse as children? National says it 'will provide more support for victims through increased funding for grants to support access to counselling, mental health services, or help with transport costs when attending court hearings.' Will this include those in prison who are victims of the types of crimes described by the Royal Commission? Will it provide this support to gang members who went through Hokio, Kohitere, Owairaka, Epuni, Weymouth, Lake Alice and other state institutions where they were victimised but no one was ever held accountable because of the Crown's decades-long refusal to take responsibility? Does Corrections or the police or mental health agencies actually know how many such victims there are? Does police surveillance, data gathering and profiling of individuals include their history in state custody as children? Luxon's response to whether the Government would revise how it viewed gang members was consistent with the logic that has played out over decades and was the subject of a Cabinet paper. In that logic the state looks at the children who are victims of its crimes and decides whether they are worthy of redress because of how they turned out as adults. In a perverse inversion of justice, the perpetrator continues to judge its victims without reference to its crimes against them. Hurry up and wait The group of victims constantly at the vanguard of fighting the Crown over decades for redress for what happened to them as children is made up of survivors of the Lake Alice adolescent unit. And successive governments have fought them on multiple fronts, knowing that many of the Lake Alice victims went through other state institutions and had also been abused there as well. Those successive governments have always found ways to avoid the full consequences of the Crown's abuse of children and expected victims to carry the cost. Late last year Luxon admitted what happened to the Lake Alice victims was torture, which was a breakthrough acknowledgement, albeit decades overdue. But in monetary terms the Government's offer of redress for that torture was no better than what was offered more than 20 years ago when the government was still trying to avoid that word. And the redress for victims of other institutions has barely shifted, whether that's in the dollar amounts compared with other countries, or the lack of independence and transparency of the process that victims have to go through. While redress in dollar figures can obscure the human reality of the trauma they represent, the dollar figures do provide a barometer alongside the legal and political framework they are worked out in. (Reader warning: many dollar figures are about to come up in this piece.) The Government has offered Lake Alice victims $150,000 with an option to go to arbitration but with very little room in the budget of $22 million to go significantly higher (an additional $8 million has since been announced partially to cover more victims coming forward than expected). Albie Epere talks to Erica Stanford, coordinating minister for redress for state abuse, on the day the Royal Commission's report was tabled in parliament. But the process itself does not line up with international standards for victims of torture and an application for a judicial review will be heard in August. The payout is specifically for electric shocks and paraldehyde injections as punishment, which met the standard of torture. The compensation does not include other abuse like rape and solitary confinement or recognition of the Crown's delay tactics and failure to properly investigate the crimes. The payout also raises questions about abuse in other institutions that qualified as torture. The amount should also be put in a longer context of how victims have been compensated – or not – over the past 30 years. In 2002, Treasury had budgeted $130 million for Lake Alice compensation. But victims of Lake Alice were paid out a total of $12 million which worked out around $60,000 each after legal fees were deducted. The payout from the Helen Clark government was accompanied by an apology from Clark that made no mention of torture, even though she'd publicly used the word to describe Lake Alice while in Opposition, and admitted no legal liability. Shortly after that, the government bailed out Air New Zealand with a package of $885 million. In 2007, the Government crushed victims' chances of obtaining redress through the courts by using statute of limitations and the ACC bar (the legal limit on a provision of a remedy for personal injury provided by ACC) to defeat a victim in court. Despite the court finding the victim had suffered abuse, including sexual abuse, in state custody, the Crown was found not liable. The main perpetrator in that case was Michael Ansell, the staff member at Hokio who had previous convictions before he started there and was subsequently convicted of sexual offences against children. The victim received an ex-gratia payment of $25,000. In 2010, the John Key government paid $1.77 billion to bail out South Canterbury Finance Investors. The finances of the current redress system The Royal Commission's redress report came out in 2021 and yet very little progress was made by Labour. Chris Hipkins acknowledged this unacceptable delay in his apology on behalf of the government of which he was part. The current National-led government, after similar delays, rushed to announce a redress process that many survivors are not happy with. The Minister in charge of the Crown response, Erica Stanford, announced the Government would spend $774 million on redress, which is obviously the big headline. But the detail is less clear and much of that detail is pending. The average payments would be increased by 50 percent and those who had already had a payout would get a top-up. While three quarters of a billion dollars is a significant sum of money, how much of that will actually reach the survivors? And who exactly will be managing that process and how? Beyond money, what will the redress look like? And how do those amounts compare with compensation paid out to victims in other countries? The answers to those questions make the figure look a little less impressive. To date, Crown lawyers and bureaucrats have made far more out of the misery caused by the state than the actual victims receive. Simon McPherson from the Ministry of Social Development gave evidence at the Royal Commission (which in itself has cost $190 million, mostly pocketed by lawyers and bureaucrats) that showed thousands of victims were getting less than half the amount the ministry spent on dealing with the claims of abuse. He said: 'From July 2007 to June 2019 the Ministry has spent approximately $76,922,972 on the resolution of Historic Claims. Approximately 39 percent ($30,220,698) of total expenditure has gone to claimants as settlement payments and 7 percent ($5,599,140) to legal aid to contribute to claimants' legal aid debt. The remaining funds (approximately $41 million, or 54 percent) have predominantly been spent on operational costs and external legal fees (including Crown Law fees).' These figures wouldn't have included all the costs the Crown incurred in the Lake Alice and White case litigation. In the litigation over the Lake Alice case in 2000, Treasury budgeted $130 million but paid out $12 million to victims, and many of those victims had legal fees skimmed off the payment. The victim in the White case in 2007 got an ex-gratia payment of $25,000. One of the Crown lawyers got $800,000. To add to the indignity, Justice Forrest Miller said in the judgment in that case that while he accepted the victim had been sexually assaulted at least 13 times, the abuse was embarrassing but not traumatic. Justice Miller is now on the Supreme Court. Cookie (Malcolm Nikora Cook) was put into state custody when was 18 months old and spent his whole childhood as a ward of the state. As an adult he has spent most of his life in prison or living on the streets. The level set for Lake Alice victims now of $22m is less in real terms than the payout in 2002. But this time round the Government has admitted what they experienced was torture. Again that amount includes lawyers fees and administration costs. But Lake Alice victims have always been fighting a Crown that considers their case to be the high water mark for all victims and wants to keep a cap on it. So everything else is going to be considerably lower. Telling victims of torture that what happened to them is only worth a penalty of $150,000 effectively tells everyone else that they're not going to get anything even close to that. The proposal from the current Government says the average redress payments to victims of state abuse will increase from $19,180 to $30,000, with a 50 percent top up for survivors who have already settled claims. Higher payments will be provided for the survivors who experienced the most egregious abuse. But the payout amounts the Government is proposing for victims of state abuse aren't consistent with payouts from state agencies in other circumstances or with the amounts that other countries and jurisdictions pay to victims of similar abuse. In December last year, a report by the Ombudsman on redress for state abuse said: 'The rates of payment are arbitrary and unreasonable. While the ministry appears to be adopting a generally consistent approach to the quantum of payments made, the underlying benchmarks for payments are low, the degree of harm to a claimant is not considered and there is no clear justification for the rates of payment when compared with some comparable international and domestic rates of payment.' Previous payment bands topped out around $50,000, so payments for the most serious abuse will now reach a maximum of around $75,000. Stanford's announcement said there would be higher amounts for exceptionally serious cases. How redress compares But New Zealand's maximum is effectively Australia's average. In Australia there are different redress systems in different states, particularly for Stolen Generations victims. But the national redress pays out up to A$150,000 for incidents of sexual abuse and an average of $76,000. Australia has also made changes to legislation that has made it less difficult for victims to take civil litigation. This has led to significant decisions with institutions responsible ordered by the courts to pay significant compensation. The Royal Commission gave examples of this: 'In 2023 Australian juries awarded abuse survivors compensation of AU$5.9 million and AU$3.3 million. In 2021 and in 2022, Australian courts ordered that abuse survivors be paid awards of AU$2,632,319 (NZ$2,823,328),144 AU$1,498,122 (NZ$1,606,747) and AU$1,908,647 (NZ$2,046,957). 'The inquiry is aware of 16 other Australian cases since 2017 in which Australian courts ordered payments ranging from AU$230,000 (NZ$247,612) to over AU$3.5 million (NZ$3,768,083) to survivors of abuse. The majority of the awards were more than AU$800,000 ($NZ861,222). 'The types of loss for which compensation was awarded include pain and suffering, loss of past and future earnings, superannuation contributions, past and future medical expenses, and travel costs. Interest was added to the compensation awarded.' Canada and Ireland have set up compensation schemes that make New Zealand's offer to victims look pitiful by comparison. 'There was a higher maximum in the Canadian Independent Assessment Process for Indian Residential Schools for 'standard track claims' ($CA275,000 or NZ$315,000), and a considerably higher maximum in the 'complex track' where actual income loss could be proven (up to an additional $CA250,000 or NZD$287,000). 'In the Irish Residential Institutions redress scheme the maximum was €300,000 (NZ$488,000), with discretion to award more in exceptional cases. The amounts available in the Irish Residential Institutions redress scheme were set in 2002 and the individual assessment process amounts in 2007. Accordingly, higher amounts would be required today to provide similar value.' Recently in Los Angeles County officials approved a $4bn payout to settle nearly 7,000 claims of sexual abuse in juvenile facilities since 1959. Assuming most of that goes to the victims, that averages out at more than half a million dollars each. The Royal Commission estimated the financial costs over a lifetime for individuals and what this amounts to as a cost to the country as a whole: 'In addition to the profound individual and social costs to communities in Aotearoa New Zealand, the economic costs of abuse and neglect in care are very high. The average lifetime cost to the survivor of things that New Zealanders consider normal, day-to-day activities was estimated in 2020 to be approximately $857,000. 'Based on the estimated number of people abused and neglected in care between 1950 and 2019, the total cost is estimated to be between $96 billion and $217 billion. Of this the smallest proportion, up to $46.7 billion, is paid by the taxpayers of New Zealand. The largest cost, estimated at up to $172 billion, is borne by survivors. Abuse and neglect in care has financially affected survivors, families, hapū and iwi, communities and society as a whole. The ongoing associated intergenerational harm and trauma have contributed to social inequities as well as vast economic costs.' The High Level Design proposals that were put together by survivors were fairly conservative by comparison. They proposed a base payment of $10,000 should be paid to all victims and then a standard claim range between $30,000 to $400,000 per survivor. The design included a number of other rehabilitative measures for victims, something that is lacking in the Government's proposal to date. Someone who could be fighting harder for redress for victims of state abuse is the Leader of the Opposition. Chris Hipkins was awarded $5000 in compensation in 2009 for being arrested at a student protest on Parliament grounds in 1997 and spending a night in the cells. Some victims of state abuse are lucky to get $10-20,000 for spending years in welfare institutions where they were raped, beaten and spent weeks and months in solitary confinement. In a case in 2009, a caregiving contractor was ordered by the Human Rights Review Tribunal to pay $5,000 to a severely disabled person who was left on their own in a van for around an hour and was found by police in a distressed state. However, an institution like Kimberley in Levin that accommodated severely disabled people was found by the Royal Commission to have abused and mistreated patients for years. 'Survivors of the Kimberley Centre suffered severe and chronic abuse, including neglect, in many different forms during the Inquiry period. Sexual abuse was severe and painful. Physical abuse was normalised. Survivors were psychologically and verbally abused by staff. Neglect was pervasive, meaning neglect of children, young people and adults was experienced across all life domains including psychological and emotional neglect, and physical, cultural, medical, nutritional and educational neglect.' The report said 'neglect was universal at the Kimberley Centre.' Rangi Wickliffe went through a number of welfare institutions and also Lake Alice as a child. He has spent most of his adult life, from the age of 14, in prison. His story and the story of Lake Alice can be heard at: A further problem is how the payments to victims of state abuse are legally classified by the Crown – ex gratia, or a gift. In a paper by Crown Law giving guidance to government lawyers on ex-gratia: 'They are defined … as a payment made without the giver recognising any liability or legal obligation; the payment is made out of goodwill or a sense of moral obligation.' The guidance adds: 'There can only be a 'liability' if a legitimate legal claim could be established on the facts.' The guidance says if the facts can be proved and a legitimate legal claim for a monetary award could be established, then 'an ex gratia payment is not available. You will be advising your department about processing the matter as a legal claim instead.' Which raises questions about why ex gratia payments are being used in the Lake Alice case and a number of others. The facts have clearly been established by the Royal Commission – and the Crown itself formally stated in Malcolm Richards' case at the UN that it didn't dispute the facts. And laws were clearly broken. So does the Government admit legal liability or not regarding Lake Alice? The Royal Commission has recommended getting rid of the statute of limitations and ACC bar for victims who want to take their cases to court. If these barriers were removed, the Crown would face the full brunt of the consequences for its actions. Successive governments have tried to outdo one another when it comes to 'getting tough on crime' where the state gets to inflict punishment on perpetrators of crime. So why not these crimes? Why not this perpetrator, the state? Why is it that the Crown can commit crimes against hundreds of thousands of children in its custody and suddenly politicians are mute about harsher penalties? Individuals that commit multiple rapes or serious violence against children get years in jail. But an institution that is responsible for thousands of such crimes and the cover-up of those crimes and the individuals who were involved face no significant consequences. The Crimes of Torture Act has provision to prosecute officials for being an accessory after the fact to torture. So why haven't various bureaucrats, lawyers and ministers been investigated for this crime? A group of Lake Alice victims made a criminal complaint on this basis. Immunity for prosecution only extends to government employees if they are carrying out their actions in good faith in the execution of their duties. Did their duties include protecting criminals and covering up crimes. Were these actions done in good faith? Avoiding legal liability was always the Crown's imperative, even when it knew the thousands of allegations were likely true and that they could be proven. But even where the allegations were proven, as in the test case of the White case, the Crown escaped liability by using the statute of limitations and the remedy supposedly provided by ACC. The court decision created a legal barrier to victims of sexual abuse that prevents them from obtaining compensation through the courts because the harm is covered by the ACC compensations scheme. When ACC is not the answer But many victims, including one of the victims in the White case, have found ACC to be every bit as unhelpful and bureaucratic as MSD and Ministry of Health in providing redress. When Earl White tried to access help from ACC, his experience of ACC's processes was like another form of abuse and made him 'feel victimised all over again. I felt the same way I did when I got the court judgment, and suffered further depression for several months.' But court cases involving ACC last year could have massive implications for victims of state abuse. A large chunk of the liability the Crown has been avoiding has now landed on the Crown through legal cases in the courts, court cases the Crown has been going to great lengths to avoid when it comes to the state's abuse of children. And the Royal Commission has recommended the Crown make it easier for victims to sue the Crown for abuse they suffered when they were in the custody of the state. One of the cases was about ACC's obligations to victims of Lake Alice, and the court found the torture those victims suffered should qualify as personal injury under ACC. The court decision said: 'The evidence shows the ECT administered at Lake Alice was not anything like treatment, it was ECT torture. … this Court determines the injuries suffered by M, are in the nature of ECT torture administered at Lake Alice in 1975 as personal injury under the Act. 'The Court reiterates … that it is one thing to recognise M as a survivor of the atrocities at Lake Alice, it is also fair to recognise that not enough has been done to provide the kinds of support and redress required, both to him or in relation to the other survivors of Lake Alice.' The court's use of the term 'torture' in that judgment creates a precedent that is monumental and the ramifications are yet to play out. But another legal case unrelated to state abuse could well have implications for victims of state abuse and it has forced ACC to increase its budget by $3.6 billion. ACC was taken to court in a case of a woman who was sexually abused by family members as a child and severely damaged psychologically, which impaired her ability to work. The issue that was being decided was whether ACC should compensate her for loss of potential earnings from the time she was abused, or when she first presented at ACC. ACC had been operating on the basis that the compensation only started when the victim walked in their door seeking help. Last year the court found it should be from the time the abuse occurred. The court said: 'For most of her childhood and adolescence a girl, TN, is the victim of severe and protracted sexual abuse. She is instructed to 'shut up' about the abuse. She is not permitted to visit medical professionals unaccompanied. She falls pregnant following a rape in her home. Many years later, as an adult, she is diagnosed as having mental injury resulting from her abuse as a child. 'ACC contends that, although TN's injuries were caused by childhood sexual abuse, her injuries are deemed to have been 'suffered' when she was an adult because it was not until then that she first received treatment for her mental injury. Consequently she was not eligible for LOPE compensation.' The High Court judgment said ACC's interpretation that the victim was not eligible: 'because the person did not seek treatment before they were 18 years of age is not only not consistent with Parliament's purpose, but is directly contrary to it. This would be to re-introduce the very kind of time limitation that Parliament had regarded as unreasonable for those suffering mental injury from sexual abuse as a child.' Ironically, this time limitation was one of the tactics the Crown used in the White case, arguing the victim was outside the timeframe to report the abuse he'd suffered in state welfare institutions. The Crown also argued compensation was supposedly available through ACC. But how the ACC case applies to victims who were sexually abused while in the custody of the state is unclear. Given the consequences for the victim in this particular case are very similar to victims of sexual abuse in state custody, it's not unreasonable to conclude this decision would apply to those victims as well. As a result of the decision in the sexual abuse case, ACC had to change its calculations in its annual report to account for the necessary increase in its budget to cover the implications of the decisions. Those changes amounted to more than $3.6 billion. (The annual report refers to two cases). 'ACC is working to gain a thorough understanding of the rulings and impacts, so the legal decision can be implemented appropriately. 'The estimated provisions for policy changes following the outcomes of the two Court of Appeal rulings have been recognised in the June 2024 valuation of the OCL. These OCL (Outstanding Claims Liability) impacts are expected to be greater than $3.6 billion.' Decisions about how they are implemented would have to consider that the Royal Commission had a bit to say about ACC, particularly in how it related to redress. While the commission has laid out an elaborate plan for a redress scheme, it also gave a more modest option that changes could be made to the ACC legislation so that redress for state abuse victims could be covered by ACC. Where does the buck stop? But Willis has signalled the Government is considering changing the law to head off the liability the court decision has created for ACC. Will the government overturn a court decision so it can save some money the court has found should be paid out to victims of the state's crimes? Does she believe the current government is responsible for the country's debt to victims incurred by previous governments? Is she willing to default on the debt to victims and society because it happened under previous governments? There have been children that have been abused in the state's custody on this Government's watch – last year more than 500 children in the custody of the state were abused. Is that this Government's legal and financial responsibility? Is the next government absolved of that responsibility and at what point? Various Crown officials and ministers have ignored the rule of law over decades which has transferred the cost to the victims. Will the Minister of Finance include that in her calculations? What about the costs to New Zealand society at large, such as the large number of victims ending up in prison, a cost that stretches into the billions each year? Or those crippled by mental health issues because of the abuse? What about the cost to our international reputation of not upholding international conventions that we proudly ratify and quietly ignore, but keep getting called out on? Has Willis calculated any of those costs? Has she weighed the greatest cost of all – the emotional, psychological, physical, financial, intergenerational cost to thousands of victims of the state's abuse when they were children in the custody of the state? Or does Willis believe that the current Government only inherits the power of the Crown and not its responsibilities?
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Marlborough teen was eating, drinking and using his phone before fatal tractor crash
Queen Charlotte Drive. Photo: Screenshot / Google Maps A teenager who died after crashing a tractor was eating, drinking and using his phone before the vehicle left the road. Trenton Karl Jones, 18, died from severe head and neck injuries after the tractor he was driving crashed through a barrier and rolled down a steep bank on Queen Charlotte Drive near Cullen's Point in the Marlborough Sounds on 21 October 2021. In findings released on Tuesday, Coroner Rachael Schmidt-McCleave said the 18-year-old's death was entirely preventable. But she did recommend Marlborough District Council should install a metal barrier at the site to prevent similar deaths in future. "Had [Jones] been fully focussed on driving the tractor, and had he not been distracted by eating, drinking and messaging on his phone, he is likely to have been able to take evasive action to avoid crashing down the bank, or to safely negotiate the curve in the first place," the coroner said. Jones grew up in Tapawera, south of Nelson, and moved to Linkwater in 2020 to work for Leslie Bros Contracting. Paul Leslie, one of the owners, said Jones showed up to work early every day and was a "good little fella", who was "good on machinery" and "great with numbers". The morning of his death, Jones and Leslie had travelled to Canvastown where a paddock needed ploughing. The tractor was on site and Leslie watched Jones do pre-start checks on the tractor before leaving him to complete the work with the understanding he would drive the tractor back to the business' premises in Linkwater once it was done. Later that morning, Jones was driving the tractor back to Linkwater on a winding section of Queen Charlotte Drive in Havelock, when he failed to negotiate a right-hand bend, crashed through a wooden barrier and rolled down a steep bank on the left-hand side of the road. At the time of the accident, it was sunny and the road was dry, well-marked and in fair condition. The tractor did not have any mechanical faults. Coroner Rachael Schmidt-McCleave. Photo: RNZ / Nate McKinnon An investigation by the Tasman Police Serious Crash Unit found remnants of an ice cream, sausage roll and coffee inside the overturned tractor, while analysis of Jones' phone data showed he had been using Snapchat while driving, though he had placed his phone back into his chest pocket before the crash. Jones was likely distracted by eating, drinking and messaging on Snapchat as he negotiated the bend in the road, causing the tractor to crash through the barrier and down the bank, Schmidt-McCleave said. The senior constable who oversaw the crash investigation said Jones had not been wearing his seatbelt and, if he had, he "more than likely would have survived". Schmidt-McCleave said given the injuries described in the post-mortem, she did not have enough evidence to reach that conclusion. The crash investigator also said the wooden sightline barrier was not sufficient to prevent the tractor from crashing through and had there been a metal or wire barrier at the curve in the road, it might have kept the tractor on the road and prevented the crash. He recommended Marlborough Roads should consider installing one. Marlborough District Council and the district's roading office, Marlborough Roads, advised the coroner it managed a roading network approximately 1500 kilometres long, much of it rural and mountainous, with around 250 sight rails in the region to delineate the road next to steep drop-offs. The council said it would be challenging to install a metal barrier at the site of the crash due to the steep terrain, as the deep anchoring required for barrier posts would be difficult. It deemed its current approach to road safety was adequate, including the use of sight rails, signage, line marking and appropriate speed management. Schmidt-McCleave recommended Marlborough District Council further consider installing a metal or wire rope barrier at the crash site and on similar bends on Queen Charlotte Drive, in order to reduce the chances of further deaths occurring in similar circumstances. The coroner also endorsed the Transport Agency's recommendations on driver distraction, which included encouraging motorists to turn their phone off when driving or using 'do not disturb' mode, and taking regular breaks rather than eating, drinking or smoking while driving. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
