Public Service Commissioner Peter Hughes has told survivors of abuse in state care that what happened to them, should not have happened. Photo / Royal Commission
Public Service Commissioner Peter Hughes has told survivors of abuse in state care that what happened to them, should not have happened. Photo / Royal Commission
A senior public servant has apologised to state care abuse survivors for the way they were treated by government agencies responsible for handling their claims, including two brothers who were surveilled by private investigators.
Public Service Commissioner Peter Hughes, who was chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development whenthe survivors made their claims, today apologised unreservedly at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care's State Institutional Response.
"What happened to those who were abused in care, should not have happened. And I deeply regret that it did," Hughes said.
"I also acknowledge that in attempting to assess and settle those claims, we did not get everything right."
Hughes was giving evidence on the last day of a two-week hearing in Auckland where the Royal Commission examined the responses of state agencies to the abuse and neglect of children, young people and vulnerable adults.
He was the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) chief executive for 10 years between 2001 and 2010, and had oversight over abuse in state care claims.
In the inquiry's Redress report about Earl White's experience, the Royal Commission found that Crown Law and the Ministry of Social Development:
• Approached and conducted the case in a "win at all costs" manner, which was unnecessarily adversarial, legalistic, and aggressive;
• Instructed private investigators to seek personal information about the White brothers and other survivor witnesses in an overly broad way, which did not rule out surveillance;
• Failed to disclose an abusive staff member's conviction history, claiming legal privilege;
• Was late to disclose numerous relevant documents, disadvantaging the White brothers;
• Adopted flawed thinking about sexual abuse victims and survivors in cross-examining witnesses and assessing the case;
• Continued to minimise the Crown's moral responsibility and delayed making an ex-gratia payment to the Whites even after the High Court found that abuse had occurred;
• And sought court costs against the plaintiffs personally, despite them having no money to pay costs and it being a test case.
Hughes noted the Royal Commission found that Crown Law and MSD, through their actions and inactions, lost sight of the human beings at the centre of the claims and caused them further harm and distress.
"I accept the Commission's findings in relation to those cases in full. What happened to Mr [Keith] Wiffin, Mr Paul White and Mr Earl White, should not have happened," Hughes said.
"I apologised to each of them at the time for the failure of the state to protect them from abuse while in care, and for the further harm the Ministry of Social Development caused them in managing their claims. I repeat those apologies today.
"In addition, I sincerely and unreservedly apologise for the other failings identified subsequently by the Commission in its Redress report."
Like brothers Paul and Earl White, Keith Wiffin had to fight for redress for abuse he suffered while in state care. Photo / NZME
Earl White, not his real name, said Hughes' apology felt hollow and insincere given the ordeal he and his brother, along with thousands of other children and vulnerable people, had endured.
"To me it's just another insult again. That's not a proper apology," he told Open Justice.
"That's why it's still happening today, because all of those people that were involved, were part of a conspiracy to cheat victims of abuse in state care out of compensation and a proper apology," he claimed.
White said for him to consider it a sincere apology it would need to come from the Prime Minister or Governor-General.
A High Court case in 2007 found the White brothers had suffered abuse, including sexual abuse in Earl's case, and that the state had breached its duties to the pair.
It accepted, however, the Crown's defence under the Limitation Act 1950, namely that the lawsuit had been brought more than six years after the time period allowed by law.
He said after reforms in the 1980s, the focus was placed on accountability at the individual chief executive level and the system lost cohesion.
"The public service has not always worked together in the way that it should, and has not been joined up, as it should be, around children, young people and their families and communities."
Secondly, the public service workforce had not reflected the makeup of society, he said.
"And it has not fostered workplaces that are inclusive of all groups. If you are looking for an antidote to bias and prejudice in organisations and institutions, it is diverse and inclusive workforces."
Third, the public service had not always had the focus that it should on developing and maintaining capability to engage with Māori and to understand Māori perspectives, Hughes said.
