Neil Sands
Excluding survivors of abuse in care from a multi-million-dollar government redress system if they have committed serious crimes discriminates against people whose offending was shaped by years of victimisation at the hands of the state, representatives from The Law Association (TLANZ) have told a parliamentary select committee.
The Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill is a central part of the government’s $533 million response to the findings of the Royal Commission into abuse in care. The inquiry resulted in an apology to survivors from Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and official acknowledgement that treatment of children at the notorious Lake Alice mental health facility amounted to torture.
Hannah Kim, co-convenor of TLANZ’s Parole & Prisoner Rights Law Committee, questioned the need for the presumption against financial redress.
“The true intent of the bill appears to be to make it more difficult, and this means practically as well as emotionally and psychologically, for survivors to seek redress if they fit in the category of violent and/or sexual offenders, as described within the bill,” she told Parliament’s Social Services and Community Select Committee.
“If this is indeed the true intent of the bill, our committee fundamentally opposes it. The bill also fails to endorse years of research conducted and talked about at the Royal Commission of inquiry into abuse and care, and ignores its findings.”
The bill covers redress schemes being set up by state agencies, but not to claims against faith-based institutions, school boards or other non-state bodies.
The government has included a presumption against paying compensation to any survivor convicted of a violent or sexual crime attracting a sentence of five years or more.
Erica Stanford, the minister responsible for the government’s Royal Commission response, told Parliament in October that the measure was needed. “This government thinks it’s really important to maintain public confidence in this scheme,” she said.
The presumption against financial redress for serious offenders can be overturned by an independent arbiter known as a redress officer who must be a retired judge, King’s Counsel or lawyer with at least seven years’ standing. But the default position is no payout.
‘Fundamentally opposed’
In its written submission, Kim’s committee said placing additional hurdles on such survivors was effectively a secondary punishment for their offending, which research showed likely resulted directly from their treatment in the care of the state while they were children.
In her oral submission, Kim said one sub-set of survivors should not be discriminated against because of their criminal record, citing an opinion poll showing “the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders want the state to do the right thing”.
“The bill should be about correcting a wrong [and] accepting accountability, thereby restoring people’s mana and dignity, so they can have a better future, not about requiring survivors to pass the character case,” she said.
Kate McKay, co-convenor of TLANZ’s Mental Health & Disability Law Committee, said the redress process could trigger painful memories for survivors of the lack of control they had while under state care early in their lives.
“[They] have very little self-determination in the process,” she said. “It’s incredibly disempowering and significantly deviates from the trauma-informed system that the Royal Commission recommended, one that is absolutely necessary to adequately support and compensate survivors.”
Kim criticised the government tough-on-crime law reform agenda.
“This is not the first time our committee is making submissions before a select committee opposing law reform under this government,” she said. “Every time we do, I’m amazed at the lack of understanding, or inability to understand, the concept of victim and offenders.
“There isn’t always a clear line between victim and an offender. One day, I’ll have a client who’s charged with an offence and appear as a defendant. The next day, the same client will come as a victim or victim’s family [needing] support. The line between victims and offenders are very much blurred.”
The select committee is due to report on the bill by 23 March 2026.
0 Comments