Abuse in care survivors vow to fight on after government opts against new compensation scheme
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Minister Erica Stanford.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Abuse in care survivors have described the government's changes to the redress system as an insult, a broken promise and a kick in the guts.
The government will not be setting up a new compensation scheme for survivors, as Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had indicated at November's apology to survivors and as the Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry had recommended.
Instead, $774 million would be spent improving the existing system and to make changes to New Zealand's care system.
Average payments to survivors would rise from about $19,000 to $30,000 and previously settled claims could be topped up by 50 percent. However, those who had suffered abuse at the hands of faith-based organisations or other non-state providers were excluded from the scheme.
Survivors had consistently called for the Royal Commission's recommendations to be actioned, including the establishment of an independent, survivor-led and survivor-informed redress system for all those who suffered abuse in the past, present and into the future, whether it was committed at the hands of the state or faith-based institutions.
Keith Wiffin, 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 the work of the design group and the government's ultimate announcement bore no similarity.
"They are poles apart," Wiffin said.
"Today's announcement is essentially a miniscule amount of topping up a thoroughly rotten process, governed by the very same people who have always opposed us and disrespected us."
The key aspect of the group's scheme and the Royal Commission's recommendation was its independence from the Crown and the government departments responsible for abuse and the failure to protect children and vulnerable people.
"This should've been a day when we were celebrating something meaningful . . . like we celebrated after the apology. We should have been celebrating the implementation of that scheme in some form," Wiffin said.
Annabel Ahuriri-Driscoll, who was co-chair of the design group, said the government's increased payments to survivors were still well short of those offered in comparable schemes overseas.
"What's been proposed, not only has it appeared to take very little heed of what survivors were advising, but it also don't match the scale of the abuse and harm," Ahuriri-Driscoll said.
"That's the key feeling.
"The payments proposed are still considerably lower than other jurisdictions, which is really disappointing."
In Canada, Indian Residential Schools settlements averaged about $100,000. In Ireland, it was about the same.
In Australia, the National Redress Scheme payments averaged about $84,000. But in recent years those who had sought justice through the courts in Australia had received hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars in compensation.
Darryl Smith, who was abused in state and church care facilities from the age of 7, said he saw the government's Lead Minister Erica Stanford less than a fortnight ago at his investiture ceremony for his King's Service Medal for services to survivors of abuse care.
She promised he would be surprised by the redress announcement, but he did not expect it would be an unpleasant surprise, Smith said.
"To Erica Stanford and to the Prime Minister and to all the National government, resign immediately," Smith told RNZ following today's announcement.
"What you have done is offensive to survivors, offensive to the people of this country, and offensive to survivors around the world."
Survivors were also outraged the government was picking and choosing who redress applied to, with survivors of abuse in faith-based institutions, and those whose claims sat with school boards or other non-state providers excluded.
Ihorangi Reweti-Peters, who was uplifted by Oranga Tamariki when he was 7-months-old, said it was the wrong approach.
"All survivors should be treated equally and they should all have an opportunity to apply for redress and get redress via a single redress system, but, again, it's another broken promise," he said.
Terry Kingi, who was abused by the church and in state care facilities from a young age, said he was angry and gutted at the government's decision.
"For us survivors, especially those in the 60 and 70 age groups, this is a total kick in the guts and has virtually made the apology of last November a total waste of time," he said.
Survivors told RNZ today did not mark the end of their fight, but simply the start of another one.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags

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

RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Taxpayer to foot the bill for cancer drugs for private patients
Taxpayers will soon begin footing the bill for newly-funded cancer medicines administered in private facilities for 12 months, under the so-called "transitional access" arrangement. Photo: 123RF The government's decision to let private patients have publicly-funded cancer drugs is a waste of taxpayers' money, and could even make wait times worse, the Labour Party is warning. From 1 July, taxpayers will begin covering the cost of newly-funded cancer medicines administered in private facilities for 12 months, under the so-called "transitional access" arrangement. In a testy exchange with the Associate Health Minister David Seymour at Wednesday's health select committee, Labour Party spokesperson Dr Ayesha Verrall pointed out the vast majority of New Zealanders did not have private health insurance. "Wouldn't this money have been better spent on hiring oncologists in the public system so that people can get free care there?" Under the current framework, insurers already picked up the tab for any new medicines that Pharmac funded, so the change did not actually benefit patients in most cases, she said. "So this money that you are spending on this is achieving almost nothing in terms of access, it's just a subsidy for insurers." However, Seymour disagreed, saying one should not underestimate the "inconvenience" of having to shift facilities mid-treatment, and people "should not be disadvantaged by the fact that they have taken precaution of having private insurance". "When you're getting treated for cancer, you just don't want any more problems in your life or inconveniences in your life, you just want to get through it." He dismissed Labour's characterisation of the change as "subsidising private insurers". "Insurers don't have any money other than what's paid to them by the patients," he said. "So ultimately this is also a subsidy for the patients, who are also taxpayers who are entitled to public funding in this country.... "You can always say we could do more if we were prepared to exclude some New Zealanders from care in the public system." "Everyone is entitled to care in the public system," Verrall responded. Private patients who were not covered by insurance would still have to pay "infusion" costs to have the medicines administered. Pharmac chair Paula Bennett said the drug-funding agency had been contacted by patients who were in private care and had insurance before Pharmac started funding more cancer medicines. "One man was eligible for four treatments but actually needed 12 and he was going to have to move into the public system to receive the other eight. "The thought of having to change oncologist just to get access to the extra eight treatments that he desperately needed was incredibly stressful." According to correspondence between officials and the minister's office, which was released to the Labour Party under the Official Information Act, the plan was initially going to be announced in April. Seymour was unable to say why the announcement had not gone ahead as planned. Talking points provided to the minister ahead of the Cabinet discussion on 2 April noted no additional funding was being sought for the proposal, but instead Pharmac would "make some trade-offs within the medicines budget" to fund it. "Numbers of patients that will benefit from transitional access may well be small (likely less than 10 per medicine) but over time this policy will reach patients at a critical time." In a statement to RNZ, Pharmac director strategy, policy, and performance Michael Johnson said the rule change applied "only to newly funded cancer medicines (medicines funded after 1 July 2025). "The number of patients expected to benefit from this change will depend on what cancer treatments are funded in the future. " Labour's Ayesha Verrall said doctors working in the public system feared shifting more resources into the private system would further increase inequities and wait times for patients who could not afford private care. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Police Minister's office blames Labour government for police recruit exemptions
Police Minister Mark Mitchell and Police Commissioner Richard Chambers fronted a scrutiny hearing this week. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone The Police Minister's office says the use of discretion over police college recruits who had not passed a literacy test was introduced in 2018 under the Labour government. It comes after the minister Mark Mitchell and Police Commissioner Richard Chambers were challenged over revelations an Assistant Commissioner personally signed off at least two exemptions from recruitment standards. It follows statements from Chambers and Mitchell at a select committee at Parliament this week that there were never any specific orders to drop standards, and that the current administration has been clear what the expectations are. Chambers reportedly knew of the approvals when he told the hearing no one in the executive had said applying discretion was allowed. In a statement, Mitchell's office said a draft report showed "that for the delivery of the 1800 new police target, a discretionary pass was introduced where the literacy assessment standards were not met, which has since become common practice". "This does raise questions about political pressure. "We have made very clear on discovering this practice that it does not meet our expectations and Police have responded quickly with the Commissioner directing that the practice be ended. "Labour should be upfront with New Zealanders about the mess they created in order to deliver their well overdue and incomplete 1800 new police target, instead of trying to blame this Government that had to come in and clean it up." Police in a written statement confirmed Assistant Commissioner Jill Rogers gave at least two approvals in the past year, and records were being checked to see if there were more. "As is already accepted, there had been a practice of discretion applied to some applicants to Police College in relation to the Physical Appraisal Test (PAT)," the statement said. "Assistant Commissioner Jill Rogers can recall two occasions in the last year where she gave approval to be applied to two applicants. There was no directive, instruction, or request issued in relation to this. We are searching available documentation to confirm this number. "As with other recruits, those two candidates went on to pass all the tests required to graduate as constables. "The Commissioner has made it very clear no more discretion is to be applied, and that is in place now. "He has discussed the standards with his Police Executive, and emphasised his very clear expectation that standards will not be dropped for entry to Police College." Police also confirmed Chambers was told in April about Rogers' approvals - the same month concerns about recruits being admitted for training despite failing physical testing was made public . Chambers told reporters this week the decisions had been made by "decision makers" involved in the recruitment process and some others at the Police College, but from now on any decisions of "that importance" would sit with him. Asked whether it was members of the Police Executive who drilled into those decision-makers that using discretion was okay, he said "not that I'm aware of, no". The government committed in its coalition agreements to recruiting 500 more police officers by November - but seems unlikely to meet that target . Labour's Police spokesperson Ginny Andersen said the revelations Rogers was involved raised serious questions about whether political pressure had been applied to the Police College to deliver on that promise. "It's pretty clear that people at the Police College themselves don't make these types of decisions, there's a hierarchy in police. "There's been a clear pattern here of recruits not meeting standards and when the government has promised 500 more police it's pretty clear that pressure has been applied to the college and that's not right. "They've delivered around 30 of 500, and they have until November. It's pretty clear they've failed." She said the minister had not been upfront about the matter with New Zealanders when he fronted at the select committee. "He was asked if there was any direction or intervention from the police executive to the college, and he said that there was not to his knowledge. He may wish to revise those words in light of the information that's come to hand. "This really causes concern whether it might undermine integrity of police." RNZ has sought further comment from Andersen.

RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Assistant Police Commissioner signed off on two exemptions from recruitment standards
Police Minister Mark Mitchell and Police Commissioner Richard Chambers fronted a scrutiny hearing this week. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone The Police Minister's office says the use of discretion over police college recruits who had not passed a literacy test was introduced in 2018 under the Labour government. It comes after the minister Mark Mitchell and Police Commissioner Richard Chambers were challenged over revelations an Assistant Commissioner personally signed off at least two exemptions from recruitment standards. It follows statements from Chambers and Mitchell at a select committee at Parliament this week that there were never any specific orders to drop standards, and that the current administration has been clear what the expectations are. Chambers reportedly knew of the approvals when he told the hearing no one in the executive had said applying discretion was allowed. In a statement, Mitchell's office said a draft report showed "that for the delivery of the 1800 new police target, a discretionary pass was introduced where the literacy assessment standards were not met, which has since become common practice". "This does raise questions about political pressure. "We have made very clear on discovering this practice that it does not meet our expectations and Police have responded quickly with the Commissioner directing that the practice be ended. "Labour should be upfront with New Zealanders about the mess they created in order to deliver their well overdue and incomplete 1800 new police target, instead of trying to blame this Government that had to come in and clean it up." Police in a written statement confirmed Assistant Commissioner Jill Rogers gave at least two approvals in the past year, and records were being checked to see if there were more. "As is already accepted, there had been a practice of discretion applied to some applicants to Police College in relation to the Physical Appraisal Test (PAT)," the statement said. "Assistant Commissioner Jill Rogers can recall two occasions in the last year where she gave approval to be applied to two applicants. There was no directive, instruction, or request issued in relation to this. We are searching available documentation to confirm this number. "As with other recruits, those two candidates went on to pass all the tests required to graduate as constables. "The Commissioner has made it very clear no more discretion is to be applied, and that is in place now. "He has discussed the standards with his Police Executive, and emphasised his very clear expectation that standards will not be dropped for entry to Police College." Police also confirmed Chambers was told in April about Rogers' approvals - the same month concerns about recruits being admitted for training despite failing physical testing was made public . Chambers told reporters this week the decisions had been made by "decision makers" involved in the recruitment process and some others at the Police College, but from now on any decisions of "that importance" would sit with him. Asked whether it was members of the Police Executive who drilled into those decision-makers that using discretion was okay, he said "not that I'm aware of, no". The government committed in its coalition agreements to recruiting 500 more police officers by November - but seems unlikely to meet that target . Labour's Police spokesperson Ginny Andersen said the revelations Rogers was involved raised serious questions about whether political pressure had been applied to the Police College to deliver on that promise. "It's pretty clear that people at the Police College themselves don't make these types of decisions, there's a hierarchy in police. "There's been a clear pattern here of recruits not meeting standards and when the government has promised 500 more police it's pretty clear that pressure has been applied to the college and that's not right. "They've delivered around 30 of 500, and they have until November. It's pretty clear they've failed." She said the minister had not been upfront about the matter with New Zealanders when he fronted at the select committee. "He was asked if there was any direction or intervention from the police executive to the college, and he said that there was not to his knowledge. He may wish to revise those words in light of the information that's come to hand. "This really causes concern whether it might undermine integrity of police." RNZ has sought further comment from Andersen.