Te Pāti Māori MP, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi speaking in the House. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
Last Friday, the government announced next week's budget will "invest" $774 million into the existing redress system for survivors of abuse in state care.
This is instead of introducing a new independent redress system, as recommended in the final report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry, and undertaken by the Prime Minister.
During the official apology to survivors in Parliament last November, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said, "Many of you, understandably, do not want to engage with the current redress system. Some parts of it are 20 years old and it can take up to five years for your claims to be addressed… But I want to assure you today that it is our intention to have a new single redress system operating next year."
Following Friday's announcement, criticism of the government's u-turn came from a number of survivors, as well as from the Opposition.
That criticism continued into Parliament this week, in the form of an urgent debate requested by Labour's Willow Jean-Prime, and accepted by the Speaker.
Labour MP, Willow-Jean Prime speaking in the Urgent Debate. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
An urgent debate can be requested by an Opposition MP when a pressing matter of public importance falls within ministerial responsibility, and is judged by the Speaker as serious enough to demand the House's attention.
As requester, Prime was first up in the urgent debate, and spoke on behalf of some of the survivors that were disappointed with the government's announcement.
"'Soul destroying' is how one survivor responded to the government's shameful redress announcement on Friday.
"The hundreds of thousands of people who survived abuse in care have a right to feel disappointment and hurt due to this announcement.
"The final report from the royal commission was clear: survivors wanted an independent redress system. Funnelling more money into systems that have harmed them in the past is, without question, the wrong call."
Minister responsible for the government response to abuse in state care Erica Stanford was the first government MP to respond to Prime, outlining why exactly the government had changed its mind.
"The government and cabinet had to make a call on whether or not we went with something like that-highly complex, very expensive, would take a long time, and may not get us the outcomes that we expect.
"…The other option in front of us was - here are some things that we can do now in moving the system towards that end goal. It may well be that in the future we move to an independent system, but here is what we can do now, we can do quickly, we can get in place so that we can prioritise that certainty and surety for survivors and also make those additional top-up payments and create equity across the system."
National Party MP, Erica Stanford speaking in the House. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
Stanford also pointed the finger back across the aisle at Labour, who she argued were guilty of inaction while they were in government.
"It is all very rich for the member to stand up and say that the current system is not appropriate when the previous government did exactly the same thing after receiving the Royal Commission-designed report, which stated exactly the things they're talking about today.
"They had time, if they wanted to, to do something. They chose to do absolutely nothing. Then they chose to put a design group in place to kick the can down the road.
"We are investing $774 million. We are creating certainty and surety for survivors, which is far, far more than the previous government ever did."
The Green's Kahurangi Carter, who had spoken to survivors over the weekend, didn't hold back at her criticism of the figure announced by the government, saying the $774 million dollars was "woefully insignificant".
Green MP, Kahurangi Carter speaking in the Urgent Debate. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
"It fails to meet the scale of harm done to these survivors, these children, and is well below the international standards for compensation.
"It is tokenistic, it is disrespectful, and it is not enough to make up for the trauma and suffering that these survivors experienced and the generational trauma that continues today."
New Zealand First's Casey Costello, like Stanford, predictably defended the government's decision, suggesting that there is no perfect solution.
In response to criticism from across the aisle, she pleaded that this was an issue that shouldn't be politicised.
Casey Costello (file photo). Photo: VNP/Louis Collins
"I think it is really important that we do not use this as a political football to kick around this House, using those very voices that we need to be listening to, and we actually look at how we can make these decisions reflective of the voices that you're hearing and how we can continue to develop a process.
"As the Minister has outlined, we are not at an end point; we are on a journey. But what this government had to do was make some decisions about a pathway forward. They had been waiting long enough. Is it the perfect solution? We will not know, because every single person, as I said, has their own expectations and their own harms to heal."
Te Pāti Māori's Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, took issue with Costello's political football comment, saying debating these issues were what they were there to do on behalf of their constitutions.
"$744 million split across 200,000 survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care equates to only $30,000 each. That's your total compensation for State-sanctioned abuse-'Sorry about it'-that has completely derailed the lives of survivors and, in actual fact, derailed the lives of generations following.
"That inquiry was meant to be a turning point of transformational change, but this coalition government has chosen to continue the legacy of abuse.
"To say, as well-I was listening to it again-to not turn this into a political football; let me say that there are many, many a whānau and family member that are saying, 'Get into that House, and make this discussion'.
"Whether it's, you know, a political football-I mean, I don't even understand that idea.
"Everything that we do in this House and say in this House has to carry some power and importance so that our family do go, 'Yeah, Meno, you're saying what we need you to say, so don't back off saying it, whether it's a political point or not: make our voice heard in this House.'"
- RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
