Kilda. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. Church leaders are continuing to publicly apologize to survivors of abuse. The Presbyterian Church is the latest to address it in two public apology events. The first was in Dunedin at the weekend and the next is in Auckland this Saturday. It's the latest in a series of public apologies from church and public sector leaders after the Royal Commission of
an Inquiry into abuse in care. Over five years of investigations, the inquiry heard nearly three thousand survivor accounts of abuse and neglect. The more than one hundred and thirty recommendations focused on creating a new independence redress system, strengthening the care system, and holding institutions accountable. Today on the Front Page, lawyer Amanda Hill has represented abusing care survivors and it's with us to explain how the process is working and
how it's not. First off, Amanda, tell me how you think the redress scheme is going so far?
Well? I guess one of the challenges is that there's no single redress game. There are many different schemes some good, some bad, some ugly. There is a lot of talk and work her own redress, but there's a big gaping hole in the middle, and that's the government's decision not to proceed with the Royal Commission's key recommendations around independence game.
So if I were standing back and looking at the biggest, biggest problem with redress or or the biggest lack of progress, that would be the government decisions around that, and so everything else sort of pales in comparison to that. But I also acknowledged that there's organizations who are doing their best without that government support.
So if that independence scheme would have gone ahead, it would just be a blanket rule or a blanket thing across all of them. But at the moment, what we've got is different readress schemes for different institutions, and different whether they be state based or faith based.
Yes, So the idea behind the independent scheme, which the Royal Commission called was to provide a sort of a single scheme that dealt with abuse and state care, faith based care, schools, everything, and that they would be buying from faith based organizations so they'd become part of that scheme,
which meant that there was transparency, independence, accountability. Everyone knew what the rules were, but with the decision not to proceed with that, what the government's done is trying to even up as the various processes within government which are wildly inconsistent, and to trying to do a bit of work inside their own house, but leaving faith based organizations to forge your head on their own. So we still have lots of different things going on.
Has the horse bolted in that respect? Is it too late to put that in place now?
Not at all, Not at all. I think there will always be an opportunity for a single independent scheme, and the current situation in terms of state matters is very patchy, but there will always be an opportunity to bring and put it to me to a finally, so while we're pretty gutted with the decisions right now, there will always be work to try and bring that about.
What are some of the roadblocks that survivors are finding themselves up against.
There is still, i think a real lack of belief around the scale and nature of abuse and care. There is still real difficulty around access to records. Although there's been quite a lot of good work in that space, there is still a real lack of understanding of what
good redress looks like. And in New Zealand the compensation levels in particular punishingly low, and that's partly reflective of the role of acc which means that you can't sue for general or compensatory damages, but it is a really the approach is often superficial, not always understanding what the impact on survivors is, not understanding that abuse has lifelong impacts, and just sort of thinking that a few pass or something up and hand it over, that's done, whereas what
we know is that redress is a journey rather than an event.
Budget twenty twenty five saw seven hundred and seventy four million dollars put aside to improve the state abuse redress scheme.
Is that enough?
It's hard to tell because it really depends on where that money is going. There is a backlog of claims within the Administry of Social Development and Ministry of Education, so some of that is just about getting work done that hasn't been done yet. It's not necessarily about when I say improving, they may not making people work wait five years because that's the current wait time. And some of it is lifting up some compensation which has been very low, lifting them up to a slightly higher level.
So how that money is it has passed up is probably I don't have the information around what that's been applied to, but I know there have been top ups for some people who have resolved their claims, particularly with social development, that's been really good for them. But when your top up sort of only takes you to a reasonably low amount, that's still you know, when you stand back and look at the bigger pictures, it's still pretty hard. But there is I call it tinkering. I think a
lot of the work being done is tinkering. When you're trying to improve something that's so badly broken, you sort of go, well, what's the cost of just actually starting again?
And I mean one of the major questions to come out of the inquiry as well, I suppose, is how do you quantify someone's abuse?
And you can't. You can't. What you often hear from particularly organizations where abuse has been perpetrated, is no amount of money can fix this harm. But the end of that sentence really needs to be but we'll give it our best shot. And often that's not what's happening. And so this thing of amount of money can fix the harm means that they don't really put an effort and
to try you can't. There are some ways you can quantify, and so when you look at things like assessing perhaps someone's lost opportunity, lost wages, that the loss of potential earning scheme through ACC is one of those measures we look at. You know, have you been able to parents, have you been able to hold down a job? Do you have mental health, a drug, alcohol issues? Again, it hard to quantify, but it has been done. You look overseas and there are plenty of jurisdictions where it's been done.
So it's not like we're starting from scratch. There is a whole jurisprudence around us.
How is it for survivors being able to access their redress payments reliably? And you mentioned a five year wait time at the moment, why is it taking so long?
Clartly? One of the challenges will always be with the state processes is it is the state investigating itself? There is it's MSD looking at you know, did its own staff members cause harm? And there's not really any motivation to do that quickly. So there's been a dragging of feet over a long period of time, there have been multiple changes to processes. There's been so many different ways that redress has been administered, in some clunkier than others.
But really there's just not been the resourcing, the staffing, or the motivation to resolve claims quickly, and so they're built up because I think the state never realized or recognized just how many victims there were, whereas the Royal Commission was very clear that a huge number of people in state and based care were of use.
One name that comes to mind when thinking about the inquiries, of course, lake Alice. As of last month, Arenz reported one hundred and forty one people have been ruled eligible for the Lake Alice redress scheme, with one hundred and two of those opting to receive a one hundred and fifty thousand dollars payment. Some have decided to go to arbitration. Can you explain to us what that means?
Sure? I guess. The first thing to note, though, is that this Lake Alice process is limited to people who were in the Child in Adolescent unit run by Doc seven Leaks and who suffered ect in an unmodified format lecterer of shock therapy or the use of a drug called peraldehyde. So this is a very targeted group of people rather than the larger group of Lake Alice or
other psychiatric institutions. So it's a it's a microcosm really, and it came about because of the United Nations finding that what happened there was torture met the definition of torture. So it's the first thing. It's a smaller group the process for those people either, but there's a pathway. Effectively, arbitration doesn't mean something's failed. That means that they get to choose. And so the first pathway, as you say,
a payment of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. That's an expedite in payment, so that happens quite quickly, and that comes with an apology and some help with services
and things like that. If people want to take a more individual approach, they and those meetings have occurred now with an independent arbitrator who's a retired High Court judge, and that means that they get to meet someone and talk about their experiences and have a more personalized and tailored approach, which suits some survivors they want to go down that road. Others they and particularly this cohort. They're often sick, they're very old, they need the money for
whatever reason, and digging through those memories is hard. So this option of either a fairly fast approach recognizing that you meet the eligibility criteria, or the arbitration where you may receive a higher amount but you go through this process that provides it some tailored options for survivors.
And I understand the deadline for the expedited pathway is tomorrow, Tuesday, September thirtieth. What does this mean?
So my understanding is that because this was a time limited process and that was a decision made by Cabinet, that if someone hasn't registered with the Crown Response Unit by the thirtieth of September, then that payment won't be available to them. There's a couple of steps that need to be taken to be eligible for that scheme. So yes, there will come point where some people who haven't been involved in that process may miss out.
That doesn't seem fair at all.
It isn't fair to the people who have been involved in One of the challenges sometimes is that the expectation that survivors will put their hand up to go through this process and that they will have the ability to engage within this case government. There's been a lot of help given to survivors. Myself and other lawyers are appointed as panel lawyers, and there's been some really good support provided. But again they have to come to the scheme. The
scheme doesn't come to them. The state. They know the names of the people who are in the child adolescent unit, so there's no proactive reaching out to people. And that's
where the challenges lie. Because what we know is that some of the people from the Callis are some of the most damaged survivors that I've ever met, and they've suffered so much harm and their ability to engage with schemes to ring government is a scary thing when you've been harmed so badly, and to re engage with government and to put yourself in that position again is a really hard thing. So there are real challenges around that.
And so if people haven't come forward, of those who haven't come forward already as of tomorrow, is government kind of relieved of any responsibility.
That's a really good question, and that's a bit of an unknown to be honest, And I think if there is another cohort of survivors you know, the Minister may have to make some decisions there. Because this scheme is running for a particular time, I cannot have designated that time. The Arbat's job is is time limited. And what happens after that, I think it remains to be seen, But that may be a political decision more than anything else.
Today, I'm apologizing on behalf of the government to every everyone who suffered abuse, harm and neglect while in state care. To they make this apology to all survivors on behalf of my own and previous governments. You deserved so much better and I am deeply sorry that New Zealand did not do better by you. I am sorry that you were not believed when you came forward to report your abuse.
I am sorry that many bystanders, staff, volunteers and careers turned a blind eye and failed to stop or report abuse.
I see that the Presbyterian Church is publicly apologizing in Auckland this weekend. They did so on Dunedin last weekend, and I've noticed the church use the phrase holistic redress. Is that different to redress? Can you explain to me what that means?
Sure? I think and that often means different things to different organizations. So there's no single approach. But I guess when we talk about redress it responds to all of the harm rather than an element of redress is compensation. It's money, but redress can also means an apology. It also means making sure someone can access independent legal advice,
so often paying legal costs, counseling or other support. I know for for some schemes, access to facilitators to help you navigate your entitlements with ACC for example, ACC is an enormous barrier for survivors. It's incredibly difficult to navigate lifelong help with parenting or with all sorts of things. So when I talk about redress or healing being a journey rather than an event, that that's what I mean. As supply of services over time is really really important.
And so the holistic part of it could mean any range of things.
Yes, yeah, whatever, And this is what a good redress responds to the survivor in front of view, That responds to their needs and what they want, and it's a conversation rather than going here's your money, see you later, you're done. There is much more to be gained through holistic redress than a fairly transactional approach.
Have any other faiths set up their own redress process and if so, what do they look like? How do they compare?
Different churches or faith based organizations have different processes and have for many years. The Salvation Army has had a process so many years and that was often run one person out of the Salvation Army. Again, those challenges of investigating your own people and the lack of independence there during the Royal Commission. It caused some organizations to give themselves a hard block and to revise what they were doing.
Some have done that better than others, but so every organization has a different approach, and it's often in a state of flux. So it's changing a great deal when I think a lot of organizations were waiting for the final report of the Royal Commission Fanikia, which was a shot last year and to took a lot out of that, but lots of them were waiting for the state to implement an independent scheme and just had gone, right, we'll
hang in there until this is going to happen. And now without that, I think they are looking at their own schemes and making steps. That is a wide range of responses and wide range of schemes.
How does the redress compare between state based and faith based? Is it better on either side or do both sides have kind of positives and negatives?
It varies wildly, And this is what I mean about the lack of consistency. You know, there are some organizations that sort of don't easily fit. So when I think about really good redress schemes, you look at something like
deal With. Deal With School up in Auckland, there was an independent inquiry and discovered in a culture of sexual abuse at the school over many years, an extraordinary number of boys in the school sexually abused over a long period of time, and deal With instituted a process that
was independent of the school. And nothing's perfect, but it was a pretty good process and the compensation paid by deal Worth was far and away above anything that the state had ever Often at the other end, some Catholic orders very very limited redress, almost grudging, I think it is probably a word to use, and other organizations not engaging at all. So it's hard to compare because they're
so different. But to give you an example, someone who had experienced sexual abuse a deal Worth could receive compensation of so two hundred thousand dollars. Someone in state care who had experienced the same abuse and potentially abuse for a longer period of time might get thirty or forty thousand dollars. That's what that difference looks like.
In terms of these institutions, I'm sure, and you've spoken to a lot of survivors as well. Does it feel like if we pay this person this lump sum, this will all go.
I think it feels like that to some organizations. But I think what I've seen over time is that when people and often I've seen this and people coming and new to some organizations, when they meet survivors and they see them face to face and they hear what happened to them, and they hear what their adult life has been like, and that you know, a lot of my clients have huge challenges as adults and they see this person in front of them, and sometimes, you know, survivors
will bring photos of what they were like when they were kids. And that's really impactful for organizations because it's real easy to see this person in front of you as someone who is a challenge to how you do things, and lots of organizations want to be organizations that are doing great things in the community that are helpful, they
are doing the right thing, they're morally upright. And to have this person saying you're yourself hurt me and your organization never stepped into help or even worse, in terms of some of the Catholic organizations, you're you and you move the priests to somewhere else. And that is really hard for organizations to hear. But some of them have, to their credit, recognized that you can't just package it up and send it on its way, and that you have to be more accountable. And that's to their credit.
But I think we've got quite a long way to go.
And in terms of public apologies, I suppose different survivors will feel different things about public apologies, but what are some of the thoughts and feelings that you've heard from survivors about them.
We also, keele, survivors are not a homogeneous group, and in your right, it means different things to different people.
And I think when I think back to the apology delivered in Parliament, and I was at Parliament for that, and there was a range of emotions from people feeling like a sort of release them from a lot of the hurt the fucking mar in my mind, that they've been caring for years, that they felt that that sort of brought that to an end for them in a way, and others perhaps a bit more cynical, perhaps going right, Well,
an apology is empty without meaningful action with it. And at that point the government will say we're looking at readress, we're looking at what we can do. But there wasn't anything concrete with the apology. And I think people have been let down by those organizations so often just wanted to sort of go okay, well you said sorry, Now what does that look like? So yeah, the full range of responses there.
And lastly, Amanda, if you could change one thing tomorrow without any no qualms about money or legal processes or laws or legislation or time or anything, what would it be.
I would implement the Royal Commission's recommendations to bring in a single independent scheme. It would bring in all of the different organizations into under one roof. It would mean that's if IRIS didn't have to go to three or four different organizations because they were replaced in different places
as kids. I would make sure it was consistent and transparent and accountable and there was a one stop place where people could go and if we have it all there, The Royal Commission has presented this and we just need to implement it.
Why isn't it happening?
Political will? I think, isn't there? There is some work happening, But like I say, it is picking low hanging fruit. It is tinkering. It's not acknowledging that the state. And someone said this. I think it was a High court judge that this many years ago. The abuser cannot be the save yet you cannot fix your own house. It has to be taken out of the organizations dealt with independently.
Thanks for joining us, Amanda.
No problem, think you everything.
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzadherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Jane Ye and Richard Martin, who is also our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.