A national remembrance day for survivors of abuse in care will be held on November 12 next year.
Stephen Winter is an associate professor in political theory at the University of Auckland. He worked on the High-Level Redress Design Working Group in 2023.
OPINION
When Prime Minister Christopher Luxon stood in Parliament to apologise to survivors of abuse in care, his words were among manyfine speeches made by Government officials and survivors that day.
But to understand what is really happening, we now need to set those words alongside what the Government has – and has not – been doing.
The apology arose from a recommendation in the Abuse in Care Royal Commission’s 2021 report on redress. At the time, the government announced it would launch a comprehensive redress system in mid-2023. That did not happen.
Then, in July this year, Luxon told the nation to expect a substantial redress programme before the end of 2024. That will not happen, and his apology on November 12 did not restate that commitment.
Survivors must lead
The apology was an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate a commitment to action. It was also an opportunity for survivors to participate in redress.
Originally, representative survivors were to respond in the debating chamber to Luxon’s speech, but the Government decided to do things differently. Survivors would instead speak in the Beehive before the apology.
As they could not respond directly to the apology itself, they spoke about their shared struggles, hopes and fears. Although the time they each had to speak was cut from 10 to five minutes and Luxon was not in the room, they laid down a clear challenge.
Government action to date has been inadequate, they said. Proper redress must acknowledge past and ongoing injuries. And it must implement the transformative changes needed to prevent systemic abuse in care.
As survivor Keith Wiffin said, adequate redress requires “direct involvement and leadership from survivors”. Overall, there needs to be partnership between survivors and the Crown, and between Māori and tauiwi (non-Māori).
Survivors are owed substantial redress for their injuries. Moreover, only the Crown has the power and resources needed to stop future systemic abuse in care. But survivors say the consultation model is broken.
A seemingly perpetual consultation process – in which the Government asks survivors about its proposals, and survivors wait for yet another Cabinet paper – not only creates delays, but is also disempowering.
As survivor Tu Chapman said, the state has “continued to divide us survivors by picking and choosing when you want our insights and when you want us involved”.
The Government, Chapman added, should “give us what we need, so we can contribute. We, the mōrehu [survivors], have the answers”.
Abuse in care survivor Keith Wiffin says adequate redress requires 'direct involvement and leadership from survivors'.
Questions of redress
The Prime Minister has now said the Government intends to have a new redress system in place in 2025. But we also need to look at what wasn’t said in the apology.
He did not commit to any of the Royal Commission’s central recommendations on redress. Those included addressing survivors’ needs and claims holistically, the process being independent of offending institutions, embracing te ao Māori, including survivors of faith-based care, and being survivor-led.
Those are significant absences. The responsible minister, Erica Stanford, instead announced the Government is “working towards introducing a new streamlined redress system next year”. This is not something survivors have been specifically requesting.
Some have speculated the redevelopment of ACC’s Integrated Services for Sensitive Claims might be an option the Government is considering. This currently offers sexual assault survivors quicker access to an expanded range of social, economic, vocational, clinical and therapeutic services. But that is a long way from what the Royal Commission recommended.
Perpetrators and unmarked graves
Elsewhere, the apology itself offered few specific commitments. Luxon announced the Government would seek to remove public memorials and other honours for those who are “proven perpetrators”.
What this means is unclear. Many abusers are dead; others are too old to be brought to trial. At present, there may be no mechanism to rescind honours posthumously, leaving alleged serial abusers such as Louise Miles undisturbed.
Luxon also committed to investigating unmarked graves. The Royal Commission identified the potential for unmarked graves at several large institutions and recommended an independent body investigate those sites.
How that will work is unknown, but it should include identifying who is buried, enable the return of remains to relatives where appropriate, and otherwise recognise these sites as cemeteries.
Finally, we need to watch what the Government is doing at the same time as it responds to the abuse in care report.
As others have noted, the introduction of military-style boot camps for young offenders risks a return to a system the Royal Commission condemned as a breeding ground for abuse. The Government is also defunding community-based social services, risking another generation entering what has been called the “care-to-prison pipeline”.
And we have seen the end of a digitisation programme designed to facilitate access to survivors’ care records that would underpin the work of a comprehensive redress programme.
In his apology, Luxon announced November 12 next year will be a national remembrance day for survivors of abuse in care. Perhaps it should become an annual commemoration day, a perpetual reminder of the horrors endured by so many and an impetus for improvement.
When the date rolls around next year, we can expect more fine official sentiments. But without real action, Wiffin’s words on the day of the apology will still hold true: we’ve heard those words from the state before, and they are meaningless because they have not resulted in change or progress.
The author acknowledges the contribution of Filipo Katavake-McGrath to the writing of this article.
