Latest news with #abuseSurvivors
RNZ News
15 hours ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Cabinet considered limiting gang members' abuse in care redress
Lead Coordination Minister for the Crown Response Erica Stanford says she sought the advice about gang members on behalf of ministers who wanted to "consider the matter" of limiting 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.
RNZ News
16 hours ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Abuse in care: Cabinet considered limiting gang members' redress
Lead Coordination Minister for the Crown Response Erica Stanford says she sought the advice about gang members on behalf of ministers who wanted to "consider the matter" of limiting 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.
CNN
05-06-2025
- CNN
Between Combs and Weinstein, #MeToo is back in the hot seat. Its founder wants to highlight a few important things
At one point during Sean 'Diddy' Combs' federal criminal sex trafficking and racketeering trial, defense attorney Brian Steel asked a witness, who was testifying under a pseudonym, if she retained counsel in order to 'join the #MeToo money grab against Mr. Combs.' The question came during one of the three days the woman, referred to on the stand as 'Mia,' testified about multiple alleged instances of physical, emotional and sexual abuse by Combs. Though the question was sustained by the judge, the moment speaks to the movement that looms large over two high-profile cases that are taking place in courts mere blocks from one another in New York City. Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty to charges of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. Meanwhile, in a state court, disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein – whose initial fall from grace was the impetus for #MeToo going viral in 2017 – will soon face a verdict in his sex crimes retrial. Weinstein, 73, has also pleaded not guilty to all the charges. Empowering survivors was at the heart of the #MeToo movement that gained wide awareness as a hashtag in 2017, but it started more than a decade before that, when it was founded by survivor and activist Tarana Burke. CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister recently sat with Burke for 'Laura Coates Live' to discuss where the #MeToo movement stands now. #MeToo bills itself as 'a global, and survivor-led, movement against sexual violence,' according to its website. The founder of the movement stressed one vital point: outside of legal consequences within the justice system, most survivors of gender-based and intimate partner sexual assault or violence simply want to be acknowledged and believed. This conversation has been edited for clarity and condensed. CNN: This is obviously your life's work, but #MeToo came into the public forum in 2017. How are things different today than they were in 2017? TARANA BURKE: I think there's some significant differences. People have language now to talk about this thing that we couldn't talk about, at least publicly. After Me Too, survivors know that they can say, 'I had this experience.' Even if they don't want anything to happen – they're not trying to get anybody arrested, they're not trying to have some sort of remedy happen – but they can say out loud, 'This thing happened to me.' And it should be acknowledged. I think that we don't understand what it feels like to be acknowledged for something incredibly traumatic and painful that happened to you that you then swallowed, and that society tells you is your shame. There's a lot left to do. There's a lot left to happen, and I think sometimes people try to quantify it based on numbers of cases and who went to jail, but the real way to quantify it is about numbers of survivors and people who've been able to say, 'Me too,' and that that process has opened up something for them, something cathartic, something healing. I think people are also more knowledgeable about sexual violence in a way that we weren't before 2017. CNN: How important were the initial allegations against Harvey Weinstein symbolically for the movement? BURKE: It was huge. We actually would not be here without that happening, and I think it's fair to always acknowledge those survivors who came forward around Harvey Weinstein, because technically that's pre-#MeToo. There was no impetus from the public, there was no guarantee of what was going to happen to those women afterwards. Weinstein was one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, who could just like that take away somebody's career. So the bravery of those women should never be diminished. CNN: Weinstein's New York sex crimes conviction was overturned last year, and he is currently back on trial. What was your reaction when that conviction was overturned? BURKE: Surprise, but also not deep concern. This movement is not really about how many of these people can we get in jail; it's about upending the American justice system. We have to do something completely different. In reality, the conviction rate for sexual violence in this country is very, very low. So the act of getting a Harvey Weinstein in a courtroom is monumental. It really is. We cannot understate what it takes to get somebody as powerful as Diddy (Sean Combs) or Weinstein or R. Kelly or these various people into a courtroom, to get them past the different steps in that process. Getting to conviction though is a whole other feat by itself. CNN: Can you talk about how Cassie Ventura filed under the Adult Survivors Act and how that ultimately contributed to this criminal trial against Combs? (Ventura filed a civil suit against Combs, which was quickly settled.) BURKE: One of the things that I've heard almost consistently since #MeToo went viral is, 'When is this going to come to hip-hop?' There's been so many stories, allegations, rumors throughout the years about the misogyny that exists inside of hip-hop. I had a number of people tell (me) their personal stories, but when I would ask these women – most of the time Black women who were in the industry, some well-known – and say, 'Why don't you talk about it?' they would say, 'Oh, I would be completely canceled.' And that's the tide that has turned, and the significance of what Cassie did. The significance of that lookback law is that this was years after #MeToo. We were five years or more past the hashtag going viral. Black women and women of color, particularly in the music industry and hip-hop, had not had their moment – and I would submit still probably haven't had their moment. CNN: If Sean Combs is acquitted, what do you think happens with his power and standing in the industry? BURKE: You know, there's two separate parts of the power. There's the power of being a Diddy, Puffy, the public figure, but then there's always the power of money. If he walks away from this case by some miracle – or maybe not a miracle – we need to be talking about what we all witnessed together. You can't unring this bell. We all listened to Cassie. We all saw that video. We've heard this testimony that's not going anywhere. We sometimes have short memories though. One apology video, one great produced song, and (he could) start building (himself) back. I think we have to have a longer memory. So regardless of the outcomes of these trials, (I hope) that we have an institutional memory of what we saw. And don't doubt and don't gaslight yourself. Don't doubt your own eyes and ears. We saw that man beat that woman in that hotel. Whatever the reasons behind it, we saw what we saw. CNN: Are you concerned about the optics of the #MeToo movement right now in media and on social media? BURKE: It concerns me. You have young people who are graduating high school, even graduating college, that were very young when #MeToo went viral. So they have some understanding, they've grown up in a world with this language and with this sort of new understanding. But social media is really effective. And so when you start having people pick apart these things and say, 'This was a conspiracy,' that concerns me because whoever holds the narrative holds the key. And that is a really powerful place to sit when you have ability to shape narrative around a particular topic. The psychology behind survivorship is so complicated, and so complex that the average everyday person watching at home and giving their analysis cannot understand it unless they've actually been through it. And sometimes even when they've been through it, because each of us respond differently. CNN: What is next for the #MeToo movement? What work are you focused on now? BURKE: We're really focused on safety. I think that #MeToo has been really bogged down by this narrative that it's about going out and getting people, and we've forgotten the thread that most survivors want to protect other survivors. And so we are really focused on, what does it look like to end sexual violence? What does it look like to solve the issue of sexual violence, because this is a solvable issue. We deal with healing and action. A lot of that action is how do we keep more people from not from not having to say, 'Me too.'
CNN
05-06-2025
- CNN
Between Combs and Weinstein, #MeToo is back in the hot seat. Its founder wants to highlight a few important things
At one point during Sean 'Diddy' Combs' federal criminal sex trafficking and racketeering trial, defense attorney Brian Steel asked a witness, who was testifying under a pseudonym, if she retained counsel in order to 'join the #MeToo money grab against Mr. Combs.' The question came during one of the three days the woman, referred to on the stand as 'Mia,' testified about multiple alleged instances of physical, emotional and sexual abuse by Combs. Though the question was sustained by the judge, the moment speaks to the movement that looms large over two high-profile cases that are taking place in courts mere blocks from one another in New York City. Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty to charges of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. Meanwhile, in a state court, disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein – whose initial fall from grace was the impetus for #MeToo going viral in 2017 – will soon face a verdict in his sex crimes retrial. Weinstein, 73, has also pleaded not guilty to all the charges. Empowering survivors was at the heart of the #MeToo movement that gained wide awareness as a hashtag in 2017, but it started more than a decade before that, when it was founded by survivor and activist Tarana Burke. CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister recently sat with Burke for 'Laura Coates Live' to discuss where the #MeToo movement stands now. #MeToo bills itself as 'a global, and survivor-led, movement against sexual violence,' according to its website. The founder of the movement stressed one vital point: outside of legal consequences within the justice system, most survivors of gender-based and intimate partner sexual assault or violence simply want to be acknowledged and believed. This conversation has been edited for clarity and condensed. CNN: This is obviously your life's work, but #MeToo came into the public forum in 2017. How are things different today than they were in 2017? TARANA BURKE: I think there's some significant differences. People have language now to talk about this thing that we couldn't talk about, at least publicly. After Me Too, survivors know that they can say, 'I had this experience.' Even if they don't want anything to happen – they're not trying to get anybody arrested, they're not trying to have some sort of remedy happen – but they can say out loud, 'This thing happened to me.' And it should be acknowledged. I think that we don't understand what it feels like to be acknowledged for something incredibly traumatic and painful that happened to you that you then swallowed, and that society tells you is your shame. There's a lot left to do. There's a lot left to happen, and I think sometimes people try to quantify it based on numbers of cases and who went to jail, but the real way to quantify it is about numbers of survivors and people who've been able to say, 'Me too,' and that that process has opened up something for them, something cathartic, something healing. I think people are also more knowledgeable about sexual violence in a way that we weren't before 2017. CNN: How important were the initial allegations against Harvey Weinstein symbolically for the movement? BURKE: It was huge. We actually would not be here without that happening, and I think it's fair to always acknowledge those survivors who came forward around Harvey Weinstein, because technically that's pre-#MeToo. There was no impetus from the public, there was no guarantee of what was going to happen to those women afterwards. Weinstein was one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, who could just like that take away somebody's career. So the bravery of those women should never be diminished. CNN: Weinstein's New York sex crimes conviction was overturned last year, and he is currently back on trial. What was your reaction when that conviction was overturned? BURKE: Surprise, but also not deep concern. This movement is not really about how many of these people can we get in jail; it's about upending the American justice system. We have to do something completely different. In reality, the conviction rate for sexual violence in this country is very, very low. So the act of getting a Harvey Weinstein in a courtroom is monumental. It really is. We cannot understate what it takes to get somebody as powerful as Diddy (Sean Combs) or Weinstein or R. Kelly or these various people into a courtroom, to get them past the different steps in that process. Getting to conviction though is a whole other feat by itself. CNN: Can you talk about how Cassie Ventura filed under the Adult Survivors Act and how that ultimately contributed to this criminal trial against Combs? (Ventura filed a civil suit against Combs, which was quickly settled.) BURKE: One of the things that I've heard almost consistently since #MeToo went viral is, 'When is this going to come to hip-hop?' There's been so many stories, allegations, rumors throughout the years about the misogyny that exists inside of hip-hop. I had a number of people tell (me) their personal stories, but when I would ask these women – most of the time Black women who were in the industry, some well-known – and say, 'Why don't you talk about it?' they would say, 'Oh, I would be completely canceled.' And that's the tide that has turned, and the significance of what Cassie did. The significance of that lookback law is that this was years after #MeToo. We were five years or more past the hashtag going viral. Black women and women of color, particularly in the music industry and hip-hop, had not had their moment – and I would submit still probably haven't had their moment. CNN: If Sean Combs is acquitted, what do you think happens with his power and standing in the industry? BURKE: You know, there's two separate parts of the power. There's the power of being a Diddy, Puffy, the public figure, but then there's always the power of money. If he walks away from this case by some miracle – or maybe not a miracle – we need to be talking about what we all witnessed together. You can't unring this bell. We all listened to Cassie. We all saw that video. We've heard this testimony that's not going anywhere. We sometimes have short memories though. One apology video, one great produced song, and (he could) start building (himself) back. I think we have to have a longer memory. So regardless of the outcomes of these trials, (I hope) that we have an institutional memory of what we saw. And don't doubt and don't gaslight yourself. Don't doubt your own eyes and ears. We saw that man beat that woman in that hotel. Whatever the reasons behind it, we saw what we saw. CNN: Are you concerned about the optics of the #MeToo movement right now in media and on social media? BURKE: It concerns me. You have young people who are graduating high school, even graduating college, that were very young when #MeToo went viral. So they have some understanding, they've grown up in a world with this language and with this sort of new understanding. But social media is really effective. And so when you start having people pick apart these things and say, 'This was a conspiracy,' that concerns me because whoever holds the narrative holds the key. And that is a really powerful place to sit when you have ability to shape narrative around a particular topic. The psychology behind survivorship is so complicated, and so complex that the average everyday person watching at home and giving their analysis cannot understand it unless they've actually been through it. And sometimes even when they've been through it, because each of us respond differently. CNN: What is next for the #MeToo movement? What work are you focused on now? BURKE: We're really focused on safety. I think that #MeToo has been really bogged down by this narrative that it's about going out and getting people, and we've forgotten the thread that most survivors want to protect other survivors. And so we are really focused on, what does it look like to end sexual violence? What does it look like to solve the issue of sexual violence, because this is a solvable issue. We deal with healing and action. A lot of that action is how do we keep more people from not from not having to say, 'Me too.'
RNZ News
14-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Urgent debate on redress for abuse in state care
Te Pāti Māori MP, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi speaking in the House. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Last Friday, the government announced next week's budget will "invest" $774 million into the existing redress system for survivors of abuse in state care. This is instead of introducing a new independent redress system, as recommended in the final report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry, and undertaken by the Prime Minister. During the official apology to survivors in Parliament last November, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said, "Many of you, understandably, do not want to engage with the current redress system. Some parts of it are 20 years old and it can take up to five years for your claims to be addressed… But I want to assure you today that it is our intention to have a new single redress system operating next year." Following Friday's announcement, criticism of the government's u-turn came from a number of survivors, as well as from the Opposition. That criticism continued into Parliament this week, in the form of an urgent debate requested by Labour's Willow Jean-Prime, and accepted by the Speaker. Labour MP, Willow-Jean Prime speaking in the Urgent Debate. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith An urgent debate can be requested by an Opposition MP when a pressing matter of public importance falls within ministerial responsibility, and is judged by the Speaker as serious enough to demand the House's attention. As requester, Prime was first up in the urgent debate, and spoke on behalf of some of the survivors that were disappointed with the government's announcement. "'Soul destroying' is how one survivor responded to the government's shameful redress announcement on Friday. "The hundreds of thousands of people who survived abuse in care have a right to feel disappointment and hurt due to this announcement. "The final report from the royal commission was clear: survivors wanted an independent redress system. Funnelling more money into systems that have harmed them in the past is, without question, the wrong call." Minister responsible for the government response to abuse in state care Erica Stanford was the first government MP to respond to Prime, outlining why exactly the government had changed its mind. "The government and cabinet had to make a call on whether or not we went with something like that-highly complex, very expensive, would take a long time, and may not get us the outcomes that we expect. "…The other option in front of us was - here are some things that we can do now in moving the system towards that end goal. It may well be that in the future we move to an independent system, but here is what we can do now, we can do quickly, we can get in place so that we can prioritise that certainty and surety for survivors and also make those additional top-up payments and create equity across the system." National Party MP, Erica Stanford speaking in the House. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Stanford also pointed the finger back across the aisle at Labour, who she argued were guilty of inaction while they were in government. "It is all very rich for the member to stand up and say that the current system is not appropriate when the previous government did exactly the same thing after receiving the Royal Commission-designed report, which stated exactly the things they're talking about today. "They had time, if they wanted to, to do something. They chose to do absolutely nothing. Then they chose to put a design group in place to kick the can down the road. "We are investing $774 million. We are creating certainty and surety for survivors, which is far, far more than the previous government ever did." The Green's Kahurangi Carter, who had spoken to survivors over the weekend, didn't hold back at her criticism of the figure announced by the government, saying the $774 million dollars was "woefully insignificant". Green MP, Kahurangi Carter speaking in the Urgent Debate. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith "It fails to meet the scale of harm done to these survivors, these children, and is well below the international standards for compensation. "It is tokenistic, it is disrespectful, and it is not enough to make up for the trauma and suffering that these survivors experienced and the generational trauma that continues today." New Zealand First's Casey Costello, like Stanford, predictably defended the government's decision, suggesting that there is no perfect solution. In response to criticism from across the aisle, she pleaded that this was an issue that shouldn't be politicised. Casey Costello (file photo). Photo: VNP/Louis Collins "I think it is really important that we do not use this as a political football to kick around this House, using those very voices that we need to be listening to, and we actually look at how we can make these decisions reflective of the voices that you're hearing and how we can continue to develop a process. "As the Minister has outlined, we are not at an end point; we are on a journey. But what this government had to do was make some decisions about a pathway forward. They had been waiting long enough. Is it the perfect solution? We will not know, because every single person, as I said, has their own expectations and their own harms to heal." Te Pāti Māori's Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, took issue with Costello's political football comment, saying debating these issues were what they were there to do on behalf of their constitutions. "$744 million split across 200,000 survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care equates to only $30,000 each. That's your total compensation for State-sanctioned abuse-'Sorry about it'-that has completely derailed the lives of survivors and, in actual fact, derailed the lives of generations following. "That inquiry was meant to be a turning point of transformational change, but this coalition government has chosen to continue the legacy of abuse. "To say, as well-I was listening to it again-to not turn this into a political football; let me say that there are many, many a whānau and family member that are saying, 'Get into that House, and make this discussion'. "Whether it's, you know, a political football-I mean, I don't even understand that idea. "Everything that we do in this House and say in this House has to carry some power and importance so that our family do go, 'Yeah, Meno, you're saying what we need you to say, so don't back off saying it, whether it's a political point or not: make our voice heard in this House.'" - RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
