For the last couple of weeks, I have been attempting to secure an interview with Solicitor-General Una Jagose to address the appalling tactics used by Crown Law under her leadership against victims of state abuse seeking compensation.
She has given an apology on behalf of Crown Law,but what about her accountability for those actions as Solicitor-General?
One of the key reasons I wish to speak with her is to seek assurance that effective policies and procedures have been established to ensure victims of abuse are heard and that appropriate remedies are put in place. Unfortunately, I believe there is still significant work to be done in this area.
It concerns me that individuals detained under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act may have less protection than those within the criminal justice system, where a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for a conviction.
This situation underscores the urgent need for reforms to ensure that all individuals, regardless of their circumstances, receive the protection and support they deserve.
At every stage of the back-and-forth between myself and the Solicitor-General’s PR team, the Wellington bureaucracy has done everything in its power to prevent the interview from taking place.
They have claimed that the Solicitor-General has given her speech and apology and that there is no need to engage with Māori media because those speeches are available online. As if a one-and-done statement suffices for all the harm done.
New Zealand, I refuse to accept that.
I want to understand how sincere the state apology to the victims of abuse in state care by the Solicitor-General can be when she oversaw appalling tactics used to undermine, revictimise and denigrate survivors.
The state knew it had abused these children and its lawyers did everything to deny justice in case it cost us too much money. What sort of country makes value judgments based on such venal logic?
How can any of us hold our heads up knowing the state hired private detectives to undermine survivors in court by besmirching their reputations?
Why has the state knowingly abused its power against those they have already harmed? The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care investigated the Crown’s litigation strategy and described the Crown’s legal conduct as going beyond mere neutral defence of claims.
Survivors attended Parliament for the presentation of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care report. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The Royal Commission accused the strategy of “causing long, avoidable delays and failing to keep claimants adequately informed of the progress of their cases”. They cross-examined witnesses to suggest that survivors should have, as children, disclosed abuse at the time it happened or somehow avoided it. They failed to disclose relevant information damaging to the Crown’s case − suggesting survivors were lying and colluding, even when they knew the survivors had been abused.
Going after the victims for personal legal costs was despicable.
This isn’t old news. It was the concerted strategy under the current Solicitor-General. It’s one thing for leaders of organisations to apologise on behalf of their organisations’ actions decades ago and promise to do better.
But, in this case, there’s not just responsibility − there’s blame. This Solicitor-General, her strategy and her team inflicted more trauma on the victims of state abuse in the name of saving the Crown money.
The Solicitor-General used disgraceful tactics against our people, and it is part of the social contract between unelected officials such as her and us as the people that these officials be accessible to those they govern.
We have decided to complain directly to the State Services Commissioner over this refusal by the Solicitor-General to participate in an interview, and I will continue to call for her to appear because what the state did to so many of our whānau in state care demands more accountability than a half-hearted apology.
The damage done by abuse in state care still radiates through our communities.
The state cannot abuse an estimated 200,000 of our children, cause massive social carnage, wage a legal war against survivors − and then refuse to face accountability from the media when challenged.
An empty apology isn’t good enough − we need to be able to ask why.
