Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill

Second Reading Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (19:45): I move, That the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill be now read a second time. The Government is committed to supporting survivors of abuse and neglect through a range of initiatives to improve the State redress system. While we can never undo the harm of the past that they have experienced, we are committed to meaningful change to address the wrongs of the past and ensure that they are not repeated. In May last year, the Government announced an investment of $533 million over four years to improve the State redress system for survivors. As this bill is about the redress system for survivors of abuse in State care, I want to take this opportunity to highlight some of what we have achieved over the last 12 months. Improvements have included an increase in settlement payments, the delivery of top-up payments, and the development of a clear, consistent, timely, and fair approach to payments. The average redress payment was increased by 50 percent, from $19,180 to $30,000. We’ve also introduced top-up payments to survivors with settled claims to ensure consistency, and increased payments for new claimants. As of 5 May, a total of $24 million has been paid, to 2,130 survivors for top-ups, an average amount of $11,671 per survivor. A common payment framework has been implemented that ensures survivors receive a settlement payment that reflects the severity and the frequency of the abuse and neglect they experienced, irrespective of where they were in care or the abuse or the neglect that occurred. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen trust and confidence in the redress system. I want to thank the 168 individuals and organisations who submitted on the bill, including 35 who made oral submissions. Submitters included survivors, survivor advocacy groups, legal representatives, and community organisations. These submissions demonstrated care and concern about how the State responds to survivors who have experienced abuse and neglect in State care, and I want to specifically acknowledge the survivors of abuse and care who submitted. Thank you for your courage and your willingness to be part of this process. I also want to thank the members of the Social Services and Community Committee for their careful examination of the bill and recommendations to strengthen and improve it. I know that many of the submissions you considered would have covered some very confronting and difficult ground. Thank you for the care and sensitivity you have shown, especially to survivors of abuse in care. The bill introduces a new process for survivors with certain serious violent and/or sexual offences who have been sentenced to five years or more in prison for that offence. This process will be overseen by an independent decision-maker, known as the redress officer, to determine if making a redress payment to a serious offender would not bring the scheme into disrepute. The bill also supports more meaningful personal apologies to be made by the State redress agencies to survivors by specifying that an apology cannot be used in subsequent litigation. This responds to the desire for many survivors to receive more fulsome and specific apologies than agencies are currently able to offer because the standard for abuse to be taken into account as part of the redress process is different to a court or litigation - type process. It is the Government’s intention that apologies should acknowledge and take responsibility for the harm experienced by survivors and should include tangible actions that have been or will be taken to prevent similar harm occurring again. The committee recommended that the bill pass, and recommended several amendments. The amendments strengthen and refine the procedural steps set out in the bill. The proposal in the bill that generated the most feedback from submitters was the presumption against the payment of financial redress to serious offenders who have been sentenced to five or more years for that offence. Many submitters were concerned that this proposal ignored the connection between abuse in care and offending later in life or that it diminished the level of responsibility the State has for abuse in care survivors. This aspect of the bill is in no way intended to diminish the abuse and neglect survivors suffered. Instead, its intention is to protect the integrity of the State redress system by ensuring a payment of financial redress to a serious violent or sexual offender does not bring the system into disrepute, and it is a similar provision in other countries as part of their redress scheme. It is expected that the provision will impact a very small number of people. Of the survivors that have completed the declaration - criminal record checking process to date, less than 2 percent have been identified as being in the scope of the provision. All survivors within the scope of presumption will still have access to other forms of redress such as an apology, access to care records, or wellbeing support. They may also apply to the redress officer to have this presumption overturned, and in other countries that happens in many occasions. It is also expected that many survivors who apply to have the presumption overturned will ultimately be awarded financial redress on the basis that doing so would not bring the system into disrepute or adversely affect public confidence in the redress system. Two changes have been made to clarify the scope of the bill. A new clause provides the bill does not apply to redress for torture, recognising the response to torture is a separate process relating to New Zealand’s obligations under the convention against torture. Abuse in State care claims relating to the Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital Child and Adolescent Unit have also been excluded from the scope of the bill to preserve the long-established separate process for those claims. Improvements have been made to the redress officer appointment process. These include specified appointment length, allowing their removal in cases of incapacity or inability to perform their role, ensuring their independence from redress agencies, and allowing the Minister to appoint an alternative redress officer where the redress officer is not able to act. The competencies required for the redress officer have also been strengthened to require them to understand the impact of abuse and neglect in care on survivors, as well as having the ability to work effectively with people from diverse cultures and backgrounds. Several submitters raised the concern that the offence provisions in the bill would act retrospectively. The bill has been amended to remove the retrospective application of the offenses, consistent with good lawmaking principles. The decision-making framework in the bill has been refined to ensure that it is clear and consistent with natural justice requirements. These changes clarify the test to overturn the presumption, clarify the weighting of factors considered by the redress officer, ensures the right of the applicant to make submissions, and requires the redress officer to communicate their decisions in writing with reasons. The redress officer can also now consider more than one reapplication by a serious offender to overturn the presumption against financial redress. This would be where there has been a change of circumstances that could reasonably be expected to change the outcome of a previous decision to not award financial redress. The committee also recommended changes to protect survivors’ personal information. Redress agencies will be required to disclose any information obtained as part of the criminal record check if the survivor is not a serious offender. The bill also provides, for the avoidance of doubt, that criminal record information must not be used in relation to any assessment of a survivor’s redress claim. Two Amendment Papers at the committee of the whole House stage to make further changes to the bill have also been released. The first, Amendment Paper 569, gives effect to the Government’s recent decisions around redress for abuse in State mental health facilities. As I previously announced, the Government has extended the State redress system scheme to include claims of abuse in State mental health facilities from 1 July 1993 to 30 June 2022. This is known as “Charlotte’s change”, and it will result in redress being available to more survivors of abuse in State mental health care. Previously, the State redress system covered claims for abuse in mental health inpatient settings up to 30 June 1993. After that point, responsibility for these claims sat with many different organisations. Responsibilities for these claims were transferred to Health New Zealand after it was created as a Crown entity on 1 July 2022, but Health New Zealand does not have a formal consistent redress process in place to manage or respond to historic claims. Survivors of abuse are not responsible for it, nor should they carry the burden of a health system restructure or structural reforms or the way that the Government organises itself, and the person who is abused in mental health inpatient care should have the same ability to access redress as if it happened in 1988 or 2018, and I want to acknowledge the bravery of Charlotte and other survivors who fought for many years, through many processes and dead ends, to have the abuse they experienced in State mental health care settings since 1993 acknowledged. And the redress system expanded so that their claims can be responded to. A second Amendment Paper—581—will amend the bill to respond to situations where survivors have a terminal illness or die before their claim is resolved. The Government has agreed that the redress officer will have the discretion to exempt a survivor from the serious offender process if they have a terminal illness with a prognosis of less than six months. This approach ensures survivors are not unfairly disadvantaged or delayed by the procedural requirements associated with the serious offenders process. They’ll also ensure terminally ill survivors have an opportunity to settle their affairs before they die. Finally, the bill will be amended to confirm that families and estates of survivors can continue with claims through the serious offenders process if a survivor dies after registering a claim. This aligns with how redress agencies respond to claims from survivors who are not serious offenders. I commend the bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (19:55): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour remains clear about this bill. We oppose it. We appreciate the work that the Social Services and Community Committee has done to make some improvements to the bill, and the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions for recent announcements which we support. But the fact remains that the bill is unwelcome and ill-conceived—92 percent of the submissions to the select committee were opposed to this bill. The bill goes against the recommendations of the royal commission—the explicit recommendations of the royal commission—and it goes against them in many ways. First, I want to point out that there was no meaningful survivor involvement in the development of this bill. This bill was not developed with the active involvement of survivors. The royal commission was clear that survivors wanted to be involved in the process of any redress and to be able to have confidence that redress was appropriate for survivors’ holistic needs. If survivors had been involved in the development of this bill, I am confident that we would not be using up valuable time of this House to discuss it today. It does not provide restoration or healing. The royal commission roundtable on redress highlighted that as well as being survivor led, restoration and healing should be central to any redress scheme—restoration and healing for survivors, their whānau, and communities. This bill, grandly titled the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill does nothing to advance restoration and healing. It denies the evidence between childhood harm and later criminal behaviour. In fact, the bill singles out for different treatment a group of survivors that the royal commission explicitly said should receive redress—full redress; not just bits of it that the State that abused them thinks that they should be eligible for. It is worthwhile quoting the royal commission on this. They stated, “we consider there should continue to be no exclusion for serious offenders or any extra criteria for them to meet. A large number of those in prison have been in care and the tūkino they suffered may have contributed to their offending. Most are Māori, and they and their whānau are likely to be among those most in need of help through the scheme.” The evidence is robust regarding the relationship between childhood harm and trauma and criminal offending later in life. In its report—under “Pathway to imprisonment”—the royal commission found that imprisonment rates were high for survivors of abuse and neglect in care. Previous research found that one in five and up to one in three individuals who resided in social welfare institutions during the inquiry period served a criminal custodial sentence later in life. The experience was worse for those Māori survivors, who were disproportionately put into social welfare institutions and prison. And that is also noted in the Cabinet paper. An example here is the notorious Whakapakari programme, where children were sent away to Aotea Island, isolated from everyone and everything they knew, and they experienced the most hideous abuse and trauma. The royal commission found that 100 percent of children placed in the Whakapakiri programme by Child, Youth and Family Services ended up in the adult justice system. Survivors who have been sentenced for crimes have experienced this punishment. They do not need to be punished further by being presumptively excluded from financial redress. This bill also disregards the high-level design group’s work. I’d like to remind us all in this House of the phenomenal work that the redress high-level design group did to put forward a thorough and considered proposal on what a redress system could look like. This group was made up of survivors, of advocates, and of experts, acting on the need for a redress system to be designed by and for survivors. This group was supported by a representative advisory committee. The high-level design group’s proposal echoed the royal commission’s recommendations that survivors with a criminal record who were in prison should be eligible for full redress, so, again, this bill flies in the face of what anyone thinks is the right thing to do. I would note that after 20 years of financial payments, no sign of public concern has been raised. The bill is a reflection of the cynical and misguided views of the Government towards survivors. It is not necessary. The State has been providing financial redress for survivors, including survivors who have convictions for serious and violent offences, for 20 years. There has been no concern from the public about this. There is no need for a presumption against survivors who have sentences for serious and violent offences. The State breached the rights of children and at-risk adults in the State’s supposed care. These breaches must be addressed through redress from the State, including the option of financial redress. There are a couple of other provisions in the bill that I want to speak to. In terms of the apologies, the bill has provisions in there that relate to the apologies, but they too are flawed and unnecessary. As expert submitters highlighted, the State redress scheme apologies are based on settlement conditions that prevent further civil proceedings. Survivors want and need apologies to them to be meaningful and genuine, otherwise they are not a proper apology, yet by legislating away any liability or fault, the apology immediately becomes insincere. This will mean that survivors continue to receive apologies that have no meaning and, therefore, do not help restore or heal their mana. I note that the Minister has two amendments to the bill, which we will consider further in the committee of the whole House stage. Like the Minister, I would like to acknowledge Charlotte, whose story of abuse in mental health settings and her battle for redress led the Minister to put forward one of these amendments. Before closing, I do want to highlight that Labour will be putting forward a number of amendments to this bill that I sincerely hope will be given full consideration during the committee of the whole House stage. In closing, the point I’d like to make is that survivors deserve more than this. They should have been consulted and involved in the development of this redress bill. They deserve what they have been asking for, and that is a redress scheme that works for them—one where they don’t have to prove themselves to agencies that abuse them, and one where they are not excluded and then required to jump through hoops to prove they are worthy of redress. I quote from the high-level design group’s report of their vision for a survivor-led redress system “that supports the reclamation of survivor mana, healing, and justice”. This bill is not a redress system. It is a bill to presumptively exclude and make life harder for survivors who have likely experienced some of the most severe abuse and trauma. It is not the right thing to do. We do not support this bill. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (20:04): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki to speak to this bill. I echo many of the whakaaro shared by the Hon Willow-Jean Prime before me. I just want to state for the record: you know, this is not a bill that is just addressing the way that a system has been set up. This is a bill that was meant to be an attempt at addressing and acknowledging and owning the pain and the abuse and the torture and the harassment and the violence endured by hundreds of thousands of tamariki in Aotearoa at the hands of the State. That’s something that we all have to own in this room, because we are all part of that same State. We can see that even in the way that that harm has been addressed and acknowledged is further perpetuating more harm, rather than bringing this dark era in the history of this country to an end. I want to begin by acknowledging some of the advocates—just a small number of many advocates and survivors and mōrehu that have been such an important part of this journey. In particular, I want to acknowledge Denise Caltaux, Eugene Ryder, Dr Rawiri Waretini-Karena, Mike Sansom, and Kenneth Clearwater. Those are just a few people who have been in touch with many of us in this House to let us know how we can make sure that the State implements all of the recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry. I wanted to also add my thanks to the select committee for their diligent work on this bill and trying to improve it, and I also wanted to acknowledge my colleague Kahurangi Carter, who’s been leading this work for the Greens. I want to quote the Prime Minister, because it was him who stood up on 12 November 2024 and offered the official apology on behalf of the State. In it, he offered “a formal and unreserved apology”—a formal and unreserved apology. Now, to me, an “unreserved apology” means an apology without conditions, but what this redress system and what this bill shows us is a system that is completely conditional. It’s completely premised on the condition that survivors meet a certain standard in order to have full redress for the pain and the abuse that they endured. But it also raises some questions about the intent of the State. Is this really about acknowledging the harm that was caused by the State, or is this about covering the Crown’s self or covering the Crown’s liability by effectively diminishing the claims—by saying that if you accept this apology and if you accept this redress, you will never be able to use that evidence, your experience, in a court ever again? That really reminds me of one of the royal commission of inquiry’s findings, and that was that throughout the process of the royal commission of inquiry, the Crown’s goal was to “discourage other claimants and limit its liability for abuse in care.”. I can’t help but think that that’s the purpose of this bill. It’s completely cynical. It’s not about remorse, and it’s not about victims—and for a Government that laments about how much they care about victims, I can’t believe how much victims have been completely disregarded in the creation of this redress system, because the royal commission of inquiry recommended a single redress system that was victim focused and trauma informed. This is not a single redress system. This is a two-tiered redress system where, if you have committed a serious violent or sexual crime, you are not permitted to financial redress. You are not permitted to the full redress for the abuse that you endured. The reason given is that it compromises the integrity of the redress system. As my colleague Willow-Jean said—and this is in the Labour Party’s differing view—there are other payments that survivors receive within our financial system, and they don’t require knowing whether someone has committed certain types of crimes or not. I think the principle for us is that you’ve got children who were sexually and physically and mentally abused while their brain was developing. The royal commission of inquiry made a point that violence was normalised and institutionalised throughout these kids’ upbringings, so why are we surprised that when these kids go into the real world, they think that violence is acceptable? It’s because it was taught to them. It wasn’t taught to them by their family or by their parents. It was taught to them by us—by the State. That’s the grand hypocrisy in this bill—that you’re penalising people who learned patterns of violence and who were taught those methods of violence by the State. That’s the grand hypocrisy of it all. The other point that the royal commission of inquiry really emphasised is that a lot of these kids were disabled. A lot of these kids had conditions like fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. If you’ve been into a prison in New Zealand, you’ll understand that a lot of the people who are incarcerated suffer from mental or genetic disorders like fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which impairs their ability to make judgments. It impairs their ability to not be peer pressured into violent behaviour because they have the mental faculties of toddlers or children in some cases. It just feels like this bill has been designed completely devoid of the reality of these kids, because you have to think about them as children and you have to think about how sensitive and fragile and gentle our brains are when we are kids and how all of the things that adults do to us will inform the way that we behave, the way that we interact with the world, and the way that we interact with each other. That’s the most disappointing thing about this bill. Now, again, I tautoko all those points that I can’t perceive this bill as anything other than cynical. To me, this bill is about the State wiping their hands and feeling like they’re never going to have to talk about this again and they’re never going to have to address survivors again because they’ve done their job, but they haven’t, because they’ve ripped off survivors in the way that they’ve designed this bill. As I said at the beginning, in an apology, you apologise without conditions. If you are truly sorry or truly remorseful for your actions, you give that apology regardless of the way it might be received or regardless of what risk it poses to you in the future. If your apology is contingent upon what might happen to you in the future and that you might actually be held to account for the things that you were responsible for, then that apology doesn’t mean anything at all. The other thing that we are really concerned about what this bill is that it excludes deceased survivors. We know, after hearing from survivors over the last couple of years and, indeed, in the royal commission of inquiry, that many survivors have passed on. In fact, many of those survivors took their own lives. We also have some research here from the New Zealand Medical Journal that says that childhood trauma actually limits someone’s life expectancy, so many of the survivors are suffering from debilitating health conditions, disabilities, and shorter life expectancies due to the way that they were treated as kids. Now, to end this all, I really want to emphasise that this isn’t good enough. Not only is it not good enough because of the way that it’s been designed and the way that it totally echoes concerns that the royal commission outlined in terms of the State motivations behind this redress system, I also want to say it means nothing when you have a Government who continue to facilitate the abuse of children and continue to ignore evidence that the boot camps that they’re currently trialling—and that were a complete failure in their first pilot—will be another complete failure. They have ignored experts, children themselves, advocates, survivors of abuse in State care who have said that boot camps don’t work, and they continue to do them. Now, they’ve introduced the Policing Amendment Bill, which means that police will be able to pull up kids on the road, take their photos, take their fingerprints, and have that on record, creating, again, generational cycles of harm. Again, for a Government that says that they care about victims, this bill shows that you couldn’t care less about victims and their real experiences, lives, and trauma. LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (20:14): I rise in support of this bill. I was part of the Social Services and Community Committee that heard these submissions, so, firstly, I just want to say thank you to all of those survivors that very bravely came forward to tell us their stories. I know that that must be really challenging and really difficult. I think the Minister outlined the changes that the select committee has landed on and what they actually mean, so I’m not going to go through all those, but what I will say, listening to the debates from the Opposition, is I’m challenging you. Will you change this? Will you do better if you’re in Government? I seriously, actually, question that and the ability to do that and how you’ll pay for it. That is always going to be a real challenge of any Government that is in position at any point in time, and this is a starting point. There could be more that could come out from this. I think the other thing I really want to point out is that there may not be financial redress for those that go on to commit serious crimes and harm a lot more victims than just themselves, but there is actually supports in place and other services and accessible things that they can actually access as well. It’s not an apology and that’s it; there are other things that are in place here. Talking to somebody who is a survivor, in this situation and about this bill, about what they feel, they said that they would be really, really hurt and unhappy if their abuser who was abused in State care was to get some kind of financial redress. There is always, always two sides to the story, and I think we should always remember that. I commend this bill to the House. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs) (20:15): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill. I, firstly, acknowledge the trauma and the challenges that have faced so many people who are innocent and adversely impacted by a State that did not provide the level of support and care. This is a complex and emotive issue, and I acknowledge that. This is a challenging process, but I think that we have to ensure that, in our expression of emotion, we are not losing sight of the reality of the complexity of the system we’re trying to introduce. We’re trying to optimise the system and deliver something that is workable, that is sustainable, and that is meeting, as much as it can, the needs of those individuals. Now, when there are statements made in this House that a person who has been convicted of serious, violent offending cannot get redress, that is just not true. That is not what this bill is saying. There is a different process. There is a different system in place that is fair and reasonable to ensure, as has been said repeatedly, that the integrity of the system is retained. The apologies that have been referred to as being “worth nothing” are not worth nothing. All of this work has been built around the fact that the State has acknowledged and will continue to acknowledge and deliver support as is needed. This is not an easy solution for anyone. There is much that has been achieved already in the delivering and improvement of the redress system and in ensuring that it is run effectively and properly. There are great people with huge heart, compassion, and empathy that are driving this system, and that is not to be discredited by a piece of legislation where we debate in the House and discredit the entire system. That is unfair to those that are working so hard to rectify the damage that has been caused to so many. This bill is an important step forward in clarifying systems and creating clarity. This does create some support in the urgent solutions around those that pass away after lodging their claims, and it is going to be debated in the committee of the whole House. This is not an easy solution, but it is not a time where this House should be debating and throwing across the House that one side cares more than another. We all care. We all hung our heads in shame when this apology was issued, and we meant it sincerely. What we have to do is deliver practical solutions with a sustainable system that will continue to meet the needs of those that have been harmed, and that’s what this bill is working towards. It is not the only solution, and it is not the end solution. It is working towards ensuring that we have a good and stable system to meet the needs of those that have been harmed. Therefore, on behalf of New Zealand First, I commend the bill to the House. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (20:19): Tēnā tātou. Otirā kei te mihi ki ngā mōrehu i tūkinohia e te Kāwanatanga me ōna tari katoa, ngā hāhi i tūkinohia e ngā tāngata, ngā mōrehu e ora tonu i tēnei rā, me te hunga kāre i konei ki te rongo i ngā kōrero kua whiua ki roto i te Whare nei. Kei te tangi tonu i runga i te āhuatanga o tēnei o ngā kaupapa kei mua i a tātou. [Greetings to us all. However, I acknowledge the survivors that suffered abuse by the Government and all of its agencies; the faithful that were abused by people, the survivors that are alive today, and those who are not here to hear the statements expressed in this House. I continue to grieve due to the nature of this topic that is before us.] I want to acknowledge all survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care. All survivors deserve redress for the hell that the State and the church put them through. We would be supporting this bill if it delivered redress to all survivors, but it does not. This bill will exclude all serious offenders from receiving redress for the abuse they suffered at the hands of the State, and it will provide legal protection for the State agencies that enabled this abuse. There is nothing more unjust than a system designed to punish survivors and protect perpetrators, but, somehow, this is exactly what we’ve ended up with. It’s been seven years since the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care was established. Their final report, Whanaketia—through pain and trauma, from darkness to light, found that 200,000 people were abused in care between 1950 and 1999, and the report suggested 138 recommendations to provide justice to survivors to ensure that this abuse never happens again. It’s almost two years on from the release of this report, and the Government has yet to implement any significant reforms to the child protection system, and, now, they have decided that the best course of action—the best course of action—is to punish survivors and tell them that they are not worthy of redress or reparation. This bill goes to the heart of the justice system of this Government’s tough on crime agenda. Now, I understand why they are so blind to the drivers of crime; they can’t even see when those drivers are the very institutions they control. We cannot forget that it was the State who inflicted this trauma. Exposure to childhood trauma is one of the leading drivers of adult offending. If our redress and justice system does not recognise this, the Government will continue to enable a cycle of abuse and incarceration that will impact our mokopuna for generations to come. We must be the circuit breaker. The Government must amend this bill to provide redress to all survivors. If the threshold is torture, what does that look like? What is the threshold in regards to torture? If somebody is abused in State care—sexually abused, physically abused, and mentally abused—and that has worked towards the outcome of where that person is today, then what is the threshold? The low bar that this Government is setting through this particular bill is torture. Can somebody explain to me what that low bar is? What does torture look like? Today, I am reaffirming Te Pāti Māori’s commitment to survivors and to our mokopuna currently incarcerated by the State. We will implement all 138 recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care. We will end the State care of mokopuna Māori. We will establish an independent mokopuna Māori authority, and we will empower the rights of mokopuna in legislation. Te Pāti Māori absolutely opposes this bill. Kia ora tātou. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:23): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also oppose the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill at its second reading. The apology and this bill should have been a moment for the victims of State abuse to have closure, for them and their whānau to move on with their lives, but this bill is antithetic to the very purpose that this bill suggests, and this sullies the apology that we have seen in 2024. As part of the select committee process, I want to acknowledge the bravery of all of the submitters who came forth to tell the committee, as part of the royal commission of inquiry process, their experiences. I want to acknowledge those who have been harmed by the State—those who are Māori, Pasifika, the rainbow communities, and the disabled communities. I accept the fact that, as members of Parliament, we are expected to read on a bill, because that bill gives tangible effect to what we’ll be seeing out there in Aotearoa, but I also want to take a moment and remind people of the heinous acts that have been conducted on these innocent people by the State. For a moment, I want everyone in this House to put themselves in the shoes of those victims. The royal commission of inquiry shared some of those experiences where survivors said, “I peeked through the window and cried for my parents.”, “The staff made it clear that islanders didn’t belong to this world.”, and “The examination told me that adults had rights to my body.” These are the experiences of the survivors, and the Government, through this bill, has sullied those experiences and what people have asked. The ask is simple. For this bill and for the redress to be in line with the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry. What I have seen through the select committee stage is that, as the bill was put together, it lacked meaningful consultation with, and involvement of, the survivors. The survivors are reasonable. They know what the State is able to provide. They know what is needed. They know sometimes the time it takes for certain things to happen. They’re not asking for the world. They’re just asking for them and their families to be able to regain and reclaim their mana, and to regain and reclaim their culture and their place within our world. This bill—the process that has been proposed by this bill—has failed them yet again. This bill and the system that is being proposed is looking to retraumatise these victims by asking them to go to the same people who have abused them in the first place. This is not about money; this is not about funding; this is about doing what is right. They have asked for the establishment of an independent survivor-led redress system. They have asked for the process of applying for financial redress to not be punitive. They have asked that everyone be considered as a part of this process, including some of the deceased survivors. These are reasonable asks by the survivors. Again, I want to acknowledge and thank the survivors for coming forward because it is not easy for them. It is easy for us as parliamentarians to maybe debate on something like this, but we forget who is at the centre of all of this, and that is the victims. Their ask is simple. Adopt the full recommendation of the royal commission of inquiry. That is what the victims want, not empty words and not thoughts and prayers from this Government. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (20:28): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill in its second reading. I just want to start by acknowledging all of the survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care who may be watching this or may watch it later, and I acknowledge and deeply empathise with them. The apology in State care was a big moment, and I’ve heard from many, not only in New Zealand but also around the world, who heard that, and it affected them deeply. It’s an important moment, and this is another step forwards in realising what needs to follow from it, but there’s more to do. Just on this bill, it provides a redress scheme operated by a State agency, which is to recognise a person’s experience of abuse in care, to offer an alternative to litigation, to provide for redress for abuse in care, including a financial payment and apology, and counselling, or other wellbeing support. This is a matter that is very delicate and deserves careful examination. It has been a little disappointing to hear from the Opposition that they have been focusing on the 2 percent who have a slightly more stringent process; 98 percent will not. Ninety-eight percent of victims of abuse in care will not have that more stringent process. What is that more stringent process, and why is it there? It is not to minimise the trauma that those people experienced when they were children, when they should have been cared for, and when they should have been safe in the care of the State or in the care of a faith-based institution. They experienced trauma that should not have happened, and it should never happen again. There is a little issue, though, that we cannot ignore. Some of them regrettably went on to commit serious harm to others, and that’s what the 2 percent who come under the more stringent process is about—2 percent. Like I say, it’s not to minimise their experience, it’s not to minimise the trauma they went through, and it is not to take away the fact that people who have crimes committed against them as children which can traumatise them and can be a contributing factor to them traumatising others, but it’s to ensure that we keep the confidence of New Zealanders that this is a scheme that recognises harm done to all in different phases. We have a more stringent process. If someone has committed a serious violent or sexual offence—and these are very serious violent or sexual offences—and they have continued to five or more years in prison, then this more stringent process will apply to them. I’ve spent years—a decade—working in courts across this country, and I’m well aware it is difficult to get a sentence of five or more years in prison for many offences. That is a very serious offence. I hear Mr Bennett. who I don’t think quite, maybe, has the same experience in the court system— Glen Bennett: I have indeed. JOSEPH MOONEY: Well, I’ve worked as a defence lawyer across Manukau District Court, the Auckland District Court, Tauranga District Court, the Christchurch District Court, the Invercargill District Court, Dunedin District Court, Queenstown District Court, Gore District Court, and Alexandra District Court, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal. I’ve done many, many judge-alone trials and many jury trials. I’ve been a mental health advocate, a youth advocate. I know this extremely well, Mr Bennett. To get five or more years’ imprisonment is for very serious offending, so to ensure that we retain confidence in the system, from all New Zealanders, and that everyone believes this is a fair and appropriate system, there is a more stringent process that will apply for the 2 percent who have committed a serious violent or sexual offence and have been sentenced to five or more years in prison. It does not mean they cannot get redress. It just means that there is a more robust process to assess their application. This is an important step forward. It is not taking away anything from anyone and from their experience of harm that they should not have experienced. This is about maintaining faith in the system from all New Zealanders, which is critical to ensuring that this is an enduring process. We want to ensure that we have a process that properly acknowledges, properly redresses, and ensures that all people can be confident that we have got this right for all. I am confident that this is a bill that has done that, so thank you. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (20:34): Thank you. I work with Joseph Mooney on the Social Services and Community Committee, and I have a very different view of this matter, and I want to speak respectfully because he is right; he has been a lawyer in those systems. My friend Glen Bennett has looked after many children who have been affected by trauma. I think that both of those are perspectives that are important. I think there’s a wide Sargasso Sea between the Labour Party and the National Party on this one, and I want to explain why. The first thing that I want to say is I don’t think this is a grown-up response. We have people in this country who were abused in State care, and we are the guardians of that in this place. I find it really hard to listen to people acknowledging the trauma and talking about apologies. Actually, that’s what we’re taught to do in media training—acknowledge the trauma, talk to the thing, acknowledge it, then move on, and do exactly what we feel like. That’s a cynical approach, and I don’t expect that in this place. I don’t want it in this place. In this situation, acknowledging the trauma and apologising is something that requires us to enter wholeheartedly because people were seriously damaged, systematically. One of the things that we have seen, even in this very system and in this very process, is a tendency for institutions to minimise their responsibility. We had an issue recently where we had people saying that when they took these cases to court, they were put to the test and the Crown lawyers said, “That was our job. We had to minimise.” This piece of legislation is also minimising. It’s not paying people what they would get for the harm done to them. It’s limiting the liability. While that might need to be done for the reasons that we just simply haven’t got enough money and we cannot, cannot ever have money actually redress this kind of harm, because it just will never be enough, we need to, first of all, acknowledge what we are doing honestly, which is we are putting a piece of legislation through that means that people will not be able to sue. Somebody who has been traumatised and who has been hurt severely by the State is no longer allowed to take a court action. This is what they must do. They must go through this process, which will have a limit on it. The cheque will be limited, and they are expected to accept the apology that this piece of legislation gives, which is a limited one. What we have here with this 2 percent and why it’s so important, Mr Mooney, to us is that this 2 percent are likely to be, actually, the most damaged. What we’re saying to them is, “We apologise, but.” We’re not saying, “We accept that the State hurt you and it actually destroyed a lot of your life.” We’re not doing that; we’re saying, “Nah, we’re not doing that today. We are just going to stop short of that. We will not be apologising fully.” Now, I looked up a definition of “apologising” etc., and I got a sort of psychological definition, and it said that we need to own our actions when we have done something wrong, then we need to experience genuine remorse, and then we need to make reparations—this is the kicker—without shifting blame and excuses. We must fully accept our responsibility, and that’s got no causal connection with what that person did next. I am never going to say it’s OK for somebody to victimise someone else, but it’s got no causal connection for us, because we as a State and we as a society need to say that what we were involved in was actually evil, it was wrong, and it hurt someone, and it doesn’t actually matter what happened next. We must take responsibility. That’s why the royal commission actually made that point. It needed to be one system. It needed to wholeheartedly address the abuse that had happened. That’s what it had to do. That is a mature response from a mature society. Now, the second part of that—there is another part of that—is that we are in a situation now where we have a group of people who will not be compensated in that way, and guess who’s keeping the money! Where do you think it’s going? I suggested at the select committee that, perhaps, we could look at some sort of compromise where it went to the victims of the next crime, but, no, apparently not. It couldn’t do that. It was far too complicated, so, actually, the State is keeping the money. That’s what’s happening. I can tell you that we had people coming in in the submission process who were in utter despair, because this undermines the very principle of the thing. We had one man who came in, and he was really upset because we had moved very fast on the later additions, and you could just tell he just had absolutely no trust whatsoever. That’s what we do. We’ve left people in despair when we could have made good. We might not have given everything, but we needed to give the essentials, and the essentials including no excuses and no shifting blame. We had an issue, that gets talked about a bit, about the connection between the person being abused and criminal behaviour next. Often, I think, on this side of the House, we feel like we’re being told this is somehow woke and that this is not real and that we should be grown up and accept people are responsible for their own actions. Well, I don’t think those two things go together. I think people are responsible for what they do, but I don’t think any intelligent human being can ignore the correlation between the abuse people suffer in childhood and the fact they end up in prison. It’s absolutely overwhelming. About 98 percent of people in our prisons have been abused. The first thing we need to do, if we are going to fix what is a sick society, is we need to acknowledge that. Instead, today, we put our hands over our ears again, and we say there are angels and there are demons and demons don’t get paid out. We won’t give them the money. We’ve turned this into something where we’re so afraid of our own shadows that we are saying that the public won’t understand this, and our reason for not giving them the money—our reason for not giving someone who’s been viciously abused the same money as someone else who’s been viciously abused—is because it wouldn’t go down well with the public and that it would bring the system into disrepute. That’s what we are saying. Well, I don’t believe it would bring the system into disrepute. I think that the system would be stronger and our society would be stronger if we were prepared to accept responsibility for the actions of a State that were utterly criminal. I think that would be the thing that would raise us in the eyes of the public, because our public are real human beings and they know people who have been hurt and they’re part of this. This is really important. It’s not a case where I accept that there is such a test. I think it’s a ridiculous test. I think, if we want a system with integrity, we need to start treating all people who were abused by the State in the same way and give them all the same respect. That does not mean not acknowledging—in fact, it actually means acknowledging—that people who are abused are in our prisons. Our prisons are full of them. That is why I cannot support this piece of legislation. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (20:44): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, to begin with, can I acknowledge all of those survivors and the families and the folk who presented to the select committee. I want to also thank the select committee—the Social Services and Community Committee—for the work on this bill, and the contributions from my colleague Joseph Mooney and from Casey Costello, particularly in their measured response to how this is playing out in the House. I had just arrived at the select committee when they begin debating the departmental report, and I know the effort and commitment that went into this. The horrific and traumatic accounts from the submitters, many of them as survivors or their families and friends, weighed heavily on committee members, but nothing is as heavy as the circumstances that brought us to this point and what the victims and survivors endured themselves. They have fought so hard for this redress and for this moment in time. I think, just to get back to the bill, the bill will ensure some clarity to continue in the process and recognise a person’s abuse in State care, as well as offering an alternative to litigation if they so choose, including one of three options: the financial payment, an apology, or counselling or other support, as appropriate. It will also address a number of other issues that were brought through. I understand that a couple of amendments will be made by the Minister to the bill from the select committee process, but I think, largely, this is an important step to provide clarity and a way forward to continue that conversation and to reach an end for some of these people who have endured so much over such a long time. I’m sure this will be a debate that will continue for years ahead—there is still so much passion around this topic and this particular issue—but in order to keep us moving, I commend the bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call. I call Ingrid Leary. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (20:46): Thanks, Madam Speaker. When I rise tonight, I’m thinking of Fa‘amoana John Luafutu from The White Guitar, a film made by my dear friend Nina Nawalowalo that I saw in Dunedin and pretty much cried all the way through. It was a harrowing story of a young Pasifika boy whose parents had come over from Samoa to New Zealand for the good life, who was bullied at school, and who was excluded and isolated at school through some language issues and through the dominant culture at the school and then taken into State care under the most ridiculously slim reasons, for very minor transgressions, and ended up going into the Ōwairaka Boys’ Home and then to the Kohitere Boys’ Training Centre, where he suffered horrific abuse, and where he suffered isolation and cruelty, was exposed to violence, was secluded, and suffered all kinds of mental distress; who suffered mental health issues; who came out and had to find his way in the world—a highly intelligent man with huge ability in the arts, who at some point got involved with a gang and, towards the later years of his life, contributed to one of New Zealand’s most musical families and who was awarded an MNZM in 2023 for his contributions to art and to the abuse in State care process. I think of him, and I think of people like Ken Clearwater and others, and I apologise to him tonight, because I think this bill makes a mockery of the apology and the redress process that they have staked so much hope and optimism in. I note, when I listened to the speeches, that Erica Stanford spoke very quietly; I don’t believe she is proud of this bill. I don’t believe that she thinks this is the right thing to do, because she knows that this is not about strengthening the integrity of the system and ensuring it doesn’t get into disrepute. This is actually doing the opposite. This is bringing the entire redress system into disrepute. It is making people who have experienced huge levels of abuse jump through hoops. It fails to treat the abuse that they suffered in a way that is consistent with the rest of the system. As my colleague Helen White said, the nexus of what they went on to do should be treated differently, but by carving out this 2 percent, it fails the whole system. When we look at what the royal commission wanted, it said it wanted an independent system. Well, these people, these survivors, were not even consulted. How does the system have integrity when it is about them but without them? There is no integrity. They were not consulted. That is a failure in this bill. They shared their pain, they shared their personal stories, and yet they were not included in the solutions. They were promised redress, and yet some of them will not get the redress. The risk here is that future royal commissions that rely on witness accounts and that rely on the bravery of those survivors will not have people stepping forward, because they will no longer trust the system. They asked for a trauma-informed system. Well, this is not trauma informed at all. This is punitive. They asked for it to be inclusive and holistic, and yet this segregates out victims of abuse and says some victims are more worthy than other victims. How does that stand? And if you look at the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report, on page 60, which looks at the human rights implications, it is heavily redacted, but, basically, this defies what we need to be doing to meet our human rights commitments, and that is why the Government doesn’t want us to see the New Zealand Bill of Rights advice that it received. I am apologising tonight to all the victims of abuse in State care and religious care because the redress system that should have had integrity, that should have had independence, that should have consulted them, and that should have treated them with respect and as one group has now failed them, is dividing them, conquering them, and saying there are good people and unworthy people, and it is bringing the whole system into disrepute. It is failing them. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (20:51): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that I’ve been given an opportunity to add my kōrero to the second reading of the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill. I’m not a part of the Social Services and Community Committee, but I do commend that committee for dealing with subject matter that is horrific and extremely confrontational. It’s hard to accept that it happened in our beautiful country of Aotearoa New Zealand. Given the delicacy and the profoundness of the subject matter, it pains me to hear some of the contributions from across the House that, in my opinion, skate very close to the boundaries of politicking. I acknowledge there are different, strong views, and I appreciate that the strong views—I’m hoping—come from a very honourable place, but no legislation in this area is ever going to be perfect. This area, as I said, is a confronting area where no amount of Government contribution and redress will actually ever diminish the pain and the suffering—which, as we’ve heard, is intergenerational. This bill is a step towards creating a clearer, a more transparent, and a more consistent redress system. What we’ve heard from the chair of the committee is quite compelling—what we’re hearing in a lot of the harsh words from the other side of the House relates to 2 percent of victims. They’re still victims, but they themselves have found themselves by their actions in a situation where they are perpetrators of serious violent and sexual crime. We’re not talking about jaywalking; we’re not talking about graffiti; we’re talking about serious sexual and violent crime, and we hear this often: two wrongs don’t make a right. Please, let’s approach this more respectfully. We’re all trying our best. I commend this bill. GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (20:53): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. As I rise to reflect on this piece of legislation, I don’t know people’s personal stories in this House, but I imagine it feels a little bit like we are talking about a group of people that aren’t in the room. That, actually, is hard. That is one of the challenges of the Westminster system where we stand in this place and we pass judgment. We have our ideas, we have our thoughts or our political ideologies, and they come into this place. At the start of my contribution, I, as others have, really want to acknowledge survivors—those still living and those who have passed on. I want to acknowledge their families and the generational trauma—the hurt, the harm—that they have experienced. As you look at the system of State and faith-based care, we pause and acknowledge the physical abuse; we acknowledge the sexual abuse; we acknowledge the emotional abuse, the torture, and the neglect, which no human—no matter how old, let alone how young—should ever have to experience, but we’re here because of the wrongs of the past and to look at how we move forward to right some of those wrongs. I want to begin by talking a little bit about attachment. Many people in this House will know about attachment in the early years and how crucial they are for a child and for a baby’s life. Their first 2,000 days set them up for life. If you don’t have the connection, the safety, the security, the love, and the nurture, then it creates huge challenges. As we look at abuse in State and faith-based care, we look at the forms of deep emotional bonds that weren’t made, being passed potentially from caregiver to caregiver or from institution to institution, and we know that those early relationships teach a child whether the world is safe or whether the world is dangerous and whether a person is safe or whether a person is dangerous. When they move around caregivers and institutions, that is broken down, and children don’t get that sense of belonging and that sense of safety. Why does this matter and why am I bringing it up at the start of this contribution? It’s to acknowledge that their challenges of attachment were broken because of this place and because of faith-based institutions that did not look out and care for these children. When these bonds are broken, it can lead to long, life-lasting implications when it comes to emotional development, to social development, to managing anger, and to managing emotions—even managing noises is another thing. I start there, and then I want to move to Mother’s Day, just on Sunday. I was one of the lucky ones who has a mother, and I was able to take her out for lunch. During lunch, we talked about many a thing, but somehow some reminiscing came up from my mother around her days of living and working in Porirua, just down the road. This was 1969 or, maybe, 1970 or 1971. Somehow, she’d started talking about Porirua Hospital. In her line of work, she had the opportunity to go to Porirua Hospital. She explained, in detail, walking down these long corridors in Porirua Hospital where the people that we’re talking about tonight were kept and incarcerated. They were there for medical reasons or for welfare reasons or for health reasons, but, actually, she talked about the first time that she went there and about this long, narrow, corridor—you know, very sterile—and all of these doors that were running down the corridor and all these small windows and the fright that she got when someone would suddenly appear in front of a window. They would suddenly see and hear a human coming down the hallway, and, suddenly, they’d want to see who it was. She talked about the fact that, being the Salvation Army—I mean, music’s a big part of that—they would play some music down in the common room down the end and how they would change the situation in terms of that music, which is a universal language that all people can understand. As I was listening tonight and reflecting on this piece of legislation, I was thinking about that long corridor that my mother used to walk down and the people that she used to interact with who relate specifically to this piece of legislation, and the lack of attachment that they have, which has lasted their lifetimes. I’m sure research would show that that can continue into the next generation and beyond, unless something is done. Now, we look at the redress that we are debating. We look at the experience that a survivor has, and it’s not normally until they become adults that they start to look at the long-term impacts of their care in the situation. In the royal commission, in terms of their findings, they talk about how abuse affected survivors’ behaviour, mental health, physical health, personal relationships, education, employment, and finances. This is from the royal commission. This then showed up in aggression, anger, alcohol and drug use, suicidal thoughts and attempts, poor education, poor job prospects, little financial security, more physical injuries, and criminal behaviours. Now, we hear, as we’ve been discussing this evening, that it’s about the victims. We don’t want anybody to harm somebody. That is not a thing that we would ever condone, but when you listen to that list that the royal commission had in their report and if you think about attachment and what it means for a young person to have not had that, to not understand who they can trust or who they should fear or what is acceptable and what isn’t acceptable, we come to this place where we must find a way through this. We’ve discussed percentages tonight. We’ve heard people talking about those numbers, and I get it, but an apology is an apology—an apology is an apology—and an apology should come with action, and it shouldn’t just be action just for 98 percent of survivors. It shouldn’t just be for the 98 percent of people that we apologise to. It should be for the full 100 percent of those we have apologised to. That’s why Labour does not support this legislation. Now, I want to continue that there is a link—and it’s a proven link—between childhood abuse and criminal behaviour. I’m sure everyone understands that. The inquiry highlighted the pathways of criminality in prison for survivors, noting that survivors are more likely to engage in criminal behaviour precisely because of the abuse they have suffered. The Care to Custody: Incarceration Rates Research Report also found that people who have been in State residential care were usually about five to nine times more likely to be incarcerated than people that have not been in care. Now, I want us, as a Parliament, to do the right thing. I want us to get this right, but that does take courage, and saying sorry and apologising is about, actually, stepping up. I hope, as we discuss this and as we continue, that Government MPs—and I hope that church leaders around the country—listen in and really pay attention to the facts that, yes, this is costly. It is costly to our bank balances. It is costly to the decisions that are made in this place, but I want us to remember how costly it has been for the survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care. We must do what is right. An apology should be an apology, and it should be doing what is right for everybody. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (21:04): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill in its second reading. I want to acknowledge, as everybody else has, the survivors and the incredible amount of weight of their own experiences that they’ve had to carry for far too long. During this whole process and during the inquiry and the commission and this, there was such an incredible amount of courage in speaking out that was shown by survivors. This bill really matters because it is providing a clear and consistent and fair way for survivors to get an apology and to get financial or other redress, including counselling or other wellbeing things. It’s very important that this is done in a sensitive way where some people, if they were given an automatic financial contribution where they themselves have become extreme violent and sexual predators and perpetrators who have ended up in prison, giving them an automatic payment, as is given to other survivors, would be inherently unfair. This is a way that those cases can be considered by a redress officer who is independent. They can make those assessments, which will be extremely complex and in very small numbers. This is not disallowing those people; it’s just making it so it’s not an automatic allowance. I want to assure people that we’re not creating a system where we’re judging some people as worthy and others not; we are simply stating that it would be manifestly and potentially unjust and horrific for the victims of those people if they were to find out that their perpetrators had been given an automatic payment of money. It would be manifestly unjust. This is not the end of the work, there is more to be done, and I acknowledge that this is not perfect, but this is one more step, and it’s a system that is fairer, clearer, and more respectful of survivors. I commend the bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee by majority be agreed to. Amendments agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time.