Cabinet considered limiting gang members' abuse in care redress
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Cabinet sought advice on limiting redress for gang members and serious criminals, but ultimately chose to treat gangs the same as any other survivor and create a new pathway for serious offenders.
Information obtained by RNZ reveals the government was advised against a "blanket exclusion" because it risks compromising trust in the integrity of the Crown's response to the Royal Commission into Abuse in care.
The advice described any proposal that would deny serious offenders or gang members access to the redress system would run "directly counter" to the Royal Commission's reports.
Abuse survivor and former gang member Feke Taito says it is "unconscionable" the government considered leaving them out at all: "It just stunned me, actually."
Minister in charge of the Crown's response Erica Stanford
announced the coalition's plan for survivor redress last month
, specifying a new process for claims from survivors who are also serious sexual and/or violent offenders who have been sentenced to five years or more in prison (high tariff offenders).
A spokesperson for Stanford told RNZ she sought the advice about gang members and serious offenders on behalf of ministers who wanted to "consider the matter" of limiting redress.
The spokesperson said Stanford accepted findings from the Royal Commission regarding the connection between abuse in care and subsequent gang membership.
A briefing paper from the Crown Response to the Abuse in Care inquiry was titled 'Redress options for high tariff offenders and gang members'.
It was addressed to Stanford, Lead Coordination Minister for the Crown Response; Simeon Brown, Minister of Health; and Louise Upston, Minister for Social Development and Employment, who also has responsibility for redress decisions under the Children's portfolio (transferred from Karen Chhour). Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith was also looped in.
In November last year, coalition members
would not say
whether gang members would be excluded or not.
The briefing - dated 3 April - said it provided initial advice and options on the "legal and operational implications" of policy changes that would "limit" high tariff offenders' and gang members' entitlement to redress payments under the system.
It recommended maintaining the status quo in which state claims agencies treat claimants "equally" and provide redress payments based on the "merits of their claim."
"Claimants receive and have free use of any redress payments due to them. An exception is prisoners who do not have an external bank account to be paid into."
It specified 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 and was not recommended by officials.
It also noted officials had not been able to identify any options for "imposing controls on access to redress" based only on someone's status as a gang member that were "operationally workable". This was also advised against.
It later explained the officials had 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 it said, but noted there would be issues with the comprehensiveness, accuracy and timeliness of that information. It also said the Privacy Commissioner was unlikely to be supportive of new legislation enabling that information to be shared.
The briefing explained the Royal Commission had recommended redress should be "open to all survivors" including those in prison or with a criminal record.
It stated the Royal Commission had pointed to the "high correlation" between abuse in care and high rates of criminal behaviour, imprisonment and the membership of gangs later on, and recommended that context be considered in the design of any new redress system.
"Accordingly, any proposal to deny high tariff offenders or gang members access to the redress system would run directly counter to the Royal Commission's reports," the briefing said.
"Moreover, it would likely compromise trust in the integrity of the Crown's response to the Royal Commission and whether the Crown has fully engaged with the Royal Commission's proceedings and the case studies and evidence set out in its reports."
The briefing referenced two findings from the Royal Commission, the "Pathways to Prison" and "Pathways to Gang Membership" through State-care.
"Previous research has found that one in five, and sometimes as many as one in three, individuals who went through social welfare residences during the Inquiry period went on to serve a criminal custodial sentence later in life," it said, and noted that experience was worse for Māori survivors.
"Many Māori survivors shared how their time in care introduced them to gangs and gang life.
"Joining was often in response to the violence, isolation and disconnection they experienced in care, including disconnection from their identity, culture, whānau, communities and society."
Fa'afete (Feke) Taito
is now the chairman of survivor-led organisation Te Rōpu Toiora.
He said he was stunned to learn the government had considered excluding gang members, but felt it confirmed what he thought the government was trying to do.
"Trying to suppress us at the margins, trying to drive us even further down.
"You know, the whole thing to me is unconscionable."
He said it read like the government was trying to prevent offenders with criminal records and gang members from receiving any type of redress.
"How can they do that?
"After they the Royal Commission inquiry clearly states the majority of these offenders and gang members, myself included, we joined and we connected with these gangs because of the abuse we suffered there, in state care, in these boys homes."
Taito said it made him distrust the government more, and felt like the government was looking for options of "getting out of having to pay or compensate" survivors the state itself had harmed.
He said this, along with the decision
not to set up an entirely new system for redress
- despite the prime minister promising to do so - showed he could not expect any justice from this government.
He was glad the advice from Crown officials told the government it couldn't go ahead with those options, and that the Crown Response Office engaged with survivors.
"Because it's nothing about us unless it's from us."
The briefing paper said the lead coordination minister for the government's response had commissioned advice on the matter for redress Ministers and the Minister of Justice.
A spokesperson for Stanford said gang members weren't treated differently to any other survivor in regard to seeking redress and that will continue to be the case.
However, there will be a "new pathway" for new claims from serious violent and/or sexual offenders sentenced to five years or more in prison. That was decided after further advice from officials which highlighted "similar regimes" in Scotland and Australia.
That information should be proactively released by Cabinet this week.
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
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
Minnie Deans, 130 years later
130 years ago today, Minnie Dean became the first (and only) woman to be executed for murder in New Zealand. Found guilty by the Supreme Court in Invercargill in 1895 for the murder of one-year-old Dorothy Carter, Dean was hanged just two months later. But what does New Zealand think now? Was Minnie Dean really guilty? Did she deserve the fate she got? Emile Donovan consults the experts: he is joined by Grant Morris, a legal historian at Victoria University of Wellington, to explore these questions and more. To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
RNZ News
7 hours ago
- RNZ News
Gordon Hieatt strangled his girlfriend and lived with her body for a month, now he's getting parole
Gordon Hieatt. Photo: Open Justice/NZME/Natalie Slade Warning: This story contains distressing content which some people may find upsetting. A man who strangled his girlfriend to death and lived in the same flat as her decaying corpse for nearly a month is to be released from jail. Gordon Hieatt murdered his girlfriend, Nuttidar Vaikaew, at her flat in the Auckland suburb of Western Springs in 2009. He lived with her corpse for close to a month before police found her in a bed at the back of the flat. A fan had been pointed at her body in an attempt to disguise the smell. Hieatt appeared before the New Zealand Parole Board for the first time in 2020 after becoming eligible for early release. Today he was told he will be released on October 7. The former computer programmer had been hoping to get back up to speed with advances in the industry before starting to apply for jobs, but concerns were raised about his well-being with suggestions he stick to menial tasks following his release. He had earlier made it clear to the board he hoped to become a computer programmer again, despite saying his obsession with his work was the "root" of his offending. During today's hearing, he said he had been involved in a software project which he thought would turn into a business. "I do get focused, it can be problematic if I am working on my own." He also said he had concerns about stressors, finances and "not being successful". Family members said they had reconnected with Hieatt during his incarceration, one had concerns about the impact of the internet on his mental health, suggesting it would be beneficial for Hieatt to be involved in menial tasks, not in information technology (IT) upon his release. "We want to temper expectations of earning responsibilities." Panel convenor Annabel Markham told Hieatt she struggled to see the connection with what he did to Vaikaew. She asked Hieatt what had led him to that "extreme level of violence". He paused for a bit before saying he felt he was under attack at the time. "The pressure just built up." Markham said she still thought there was rage, anger, jealousy and resentment. Hieatt told the board he had done work to address his emotions and how to deal with them. According to Justice John Priestley's sentencing notes from 2011, Hieatt and Vaikaew, who was a sex worker, had got into an argument about how much rent he was to pay and him having to leave the flat when she had clients around. Hieatt, who had been in an on-again, off-again relationship with Vaikaew for several years, admitted during the trial he had strangled her, but said he didn't intend to kill her. She attempted to escape at one point during the argument, which had become physical, only for Hieatt to seize her and pin her down on her bed, where he attempted to gag her with masking tape. Hieatt told one report writer he believed Vaikaew had goaded him into killing her, and thought she made the plan when he wouldn't pay her rental bills. The judge ordered him to serve a minimum of 11 years before he could be eligible for parole. Today he said, that while having the skills to deal with his emotions, it was in that instance that it had got to the point where he "painted himself into a corner". Hieatt had told the court that after her death he washed her body with a cloth, wiping blood from her mouth, nose and eyes before spending the night in bed with her body. It was Vaikaew's landlord, Ray Goffin, who called the police after realising something was wrong when he came around to collect the rent, reporting piles of flies in the flat. Today the board told Hieatt there appeared to be a pattern of behaviour with prostitutes prior to the murder. Hieatt said two of his six girlfriends had been prostitutes. When asked if he had a problem with Vaikaew's work, he said no, but that "it was just her character". "I should have known better. I'm not supposed to speak ill of the dead, but that's how she was." Markham reminded Hieatt he had committed the "ultimate abuse". "I allowed it to go on rather than dealing with it in a constructive way," he said of the relationship with Vaikaew. The board heard Hieatt had undertaken a release-to-work programme which was proceeding well. He was living in shared accommodation and the release-to-work programme would continue after his release. He was asked what he would do once a spell of supported accommodation came to an end following his release. Hieatt said he would probably opt to share accommodation with others to keep costs down. Probation said there would be a liaison to assist Hieatt with accommodation options and support with other government agencies. Corrections reported he had been compliant and had a good work ethic. Hieatt will appear for a monitoring hearing in February 2026. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
The House: Bills this week
Debating Chamber in Parliament Photo: RNZ / Diego Opatowski After a week off, MPs are back in the capital for a two-week sitting block, in which a smorgasbord of bills are scheduled to be debated. To make up time, there is another extended sitting on Thursday morning from 9 am (earlier than the normal 2pm start). Parliament's agenda this week is a hodgepodge of bills at different stages in their legislative journey. Let's start with the new bills. The first bit of Government business up for the week is the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill, which the House got its first go at debating last week, before the first reading was interrupted with five speeches still remaining. Regulatory Systems Amendment Bills are omnibus bills, which means they amend a suite of relevant legislation rather than just a single Act. They are a way for government agencies (in this case, Internal Affairs) to make small technical changes to regulatory systems that those agencies oversee. For Internal Affairs, these include things like gambling; births, deaths and marriages; and censorship of objective material. The bill has the tentative support of the opposition Labour and Green parties, with Te Pāti Māori yet to speak on the bill. The Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill aims to discourage road users from participating in, as the name of the bill suggests, 'antisocial' conduct while operating a vehicle. This could include intimidating convoys, boy-racer meet-ups, fleeing from police, or dirt-bike gatherings, which are apparently becoming more common. Tuesday's first reading is the first chance the public gets to hear what MPs have to say about it. The final first reading of the week is the Constitution Amendment Bill, which is the less contentious bill relating to elections in recent weeks. This bill follows a recommendation from both the Electoral Commission and the Justice Committee (from their inquiry into the 2023 General Election), to remove the '28 day rule' - the period in which Ministers of the Crown can continue to remain in office even after they cease to be MPs (at the close of polling day). In the unlikely event of a delayed return of the writ (the official election results), this change would allow continuity of Government. The Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill is back in the House after being examined by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for just shy of three months. It seeks to simplify the process whereby the Crown, local authorities, and network utility operators acquire land for 'critical' infrastructure projects that fall under either Schedule 2 of the Fast-Track Approvals Act 2024, or the list of Roads of National Significance. During the first reading, Labour cautiously lent its support to the Bill, while the Greens and Te Pāti Māori voted against it, citing concerns about Māori and other land owners potentially having fewer rights to appeal an acquisition. The Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is an omnibus bill that intends to improve the collection of revenue from goods crossing our borders. It would replace the current fee-based regime with a levy payment system. Customs Minister Casey Costello said the change would "provide a more balanced approach that reflects the risks and costs that classes of levy payers create". Being quite an esoteric, technical change, it's relatively uncontroversial. The second reading debate of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill will pick up from where it left off, with nine speeches remaining. The bill addresses gaps in criminal law concerning foreign interference intended to harm New Zealand. Spy novel ideas like treason, and inciting mutiny or espionage-all on behalf of foreign actors-would be introduced as new offences. Only the Green Party voted against the Bill at its first reading, although Te Pāti Māori were absent for the vote. The Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill is the second of the government's three-phased approach to replacing the Resource Management Act. This Bill would make changes in the areas of infrastructure and energy, housing growth, farming and the primary sector, natural hazards and emergencies, seeking to streamline consenting and investment. Wellingtonians in particular may also be interested to hear that it streamlines the listing and delisting of heritage buildings. In fact, the Minister in Charge of the Bill, Chris Bishop, said an amendment paper would be put forward during the committee stage this week that would specifically make the demolition of the Gordon Wilson Flats on The Terrace a permitted activity. While the RMA was well-intentioned, most MPs agree that over time it became unfit for purpose. Opinion diverges over what to replace it with (this being the second attempt in two Parliaments). Labour supported this bill to committee, albeit with reservations. The Greens and Te Pāti Māori reckon this isn't the right approach to RMA reform - expect opposition filibustering practitioners to try and drag this one out. The Local Government (Water Services) Amendment Bill will resume its committee stage this week. The Bill is part of the scrapping of the sixth Labour Government's Three Waters policy, and sets up a new regulatory framework for water services delivery. All three opposition parties are against the bill, with the House still yet to debate parts 4 and 5. Interestingly, the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill is collaborative in that it was introduced by the previous government, and continued by the current one. It aims to promote the restoration of the Hauraki Gulf, which has been facing recent ecological decline. Te Pāti Māori did not support the Bill at its second reading. The Privacy Amendment Bill reaches the end of its legislative journey on Thursday, with nine speeches to go in its third and final reading. It has unanimous support. It seeks to improve public transparency regarding the gathering of private information, notably requiring agencies to notify someone when it collects their personal information indirectly. The Leader of the House's office also intends to get to the third reading of the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill this week following Tuesday evening's committee stage, which they hope will be completed before the House adjourns. RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, its legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
