Former Justice Minister Judith Collins refuses to apologise to Lake Alice survivor
Photo:
RNZ/Jimmy Ellingham
A senior government minister has refused to apologise to a Lake Alice abuse survivor for telling the United Nations more than 10 years ago that there was no state torture in New Zealand.
Then-Justice Minister Judith Collins made the comments in 2014, a decade before the government first used the word 'torture' in relation to the Lake Alice child and adolescent unit in the 1970s.
She said she was acting on UN reports from the time.
The government now says that children and young people who suffered electric shocks or painful paralysing injections at the Rangitīkei institution are eligible for redress, because they were tortured.
Included in that is the
offer of $150,000 rapid redress payments
, which Levin woman Karilyn Wildbore has decided to take up.
In March, she also asked for her compensation to include an apology from Collins, now Attorney-General and Minister of Defence, for her 2014 comments.
When questioned about New Zealand's obligations under UN conventions, particularly from the Iranian delegate, Collins said: "In response to Iran, I can advise that there is no state torture in New Zealand."
In a letter to Wildbore this week, Collins said she would not apologise for the comments.
"My response to Iran's remarks reflected the findings of the United Nations subcommittee on the prevention of torture, which had visited New Zealand in April 2013.
"In its report, provided to New Zealand in November 2013, the subcommittee found 'no evidence of torture or physical ill-treatment' in places of detention in New Zealand."
Collins said she acknowledged the experiences of Wildbore and others at the Lake Alice unit.
"However, I don't believe that what I told the UPR [universal periodic review] in 2014, in response to a remark from Iran, was wrong.
"As such, I am unable to provide the apology Ms Wildbore has requested."
Wildbore said she was not surprised.
"Denial's the name of the game at the moment," she said. "No matter what you do, people don't want to be responsible."
Wildbore said Collins should have known about what had happened at Lake Alice, especially since the first compensation payments were made more than a decade before 2014.
Only last year, the government began using the word 'torture' to describe the unit's treatment of children and young people, under lead psychiatrist Dr Selwyn Leeks.
The $150,000 rapid payments are part of a $22.68 million package for Lake Alice Survivors announced late last year.
Survivors who received electric shocks or paralysing injections could either opt for these payments or head to arbitration.
Collins' office was contacted for comment.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
43 minutes ago
- RNZ News
National pins re-election hopes on economy
Christopher Luxon is busy trying to convince people that National, not Labour, is the steady hand on the tiller amid choppy global waters. Photo: RNZ / Nick Monro Analysis: Saturday's National Party conference set out an early 2026 challenge to voters - stick with what we've got or risk it on who-knows-what. It's a line National used successfully in 2014 (remember Eminem-esque?), but that was a different National, and a different looking government. At roughly the same point in that electoral cycle, National was polling in the late forties. National in 2025 is struggling to get past the early thirties. Labour has emerged as the party New Zealanders think has the best handle on the cost of living, according to the Ipsos Issues Monitor. Of course, there is a long way to go yet. The prime minister knows this, and is counting on sunnier economic fortunes this time next year. But to borrow a well-worn Christopher Luxon phrase, the cost of living is the barnacle that won't get off the boat, and Luxon spent his speech - and much of the week leading up to it - trying to convince people that National, not Labour, is the steady hand on the tiller amid choppy global waters. The government is at pains to say it can't control global events, although it spent a lot of time criticising the previous government for blaming global events. The Trump administration's increased tariffs landed like a lead balloon on Friday, and prompted some late additions to the conference's run sheet. In his speech, Luxon acknowledged the tariffs, but said New Zealand can't just "batten down the hatch" and hope for the best. Trade minister Todd McClay took some time out of his rurals session to say he's already spoken to his US trade counterpart, and dispatched top trade diplomat Vangelis Vitalis to Washington. McClay will follow in the coming weeks. Domestically, National is still blaming the previous government for the economic conditions it inherited, and pitching that it needs a second term to truly sort it out. The party's putting a stake in the ground and saying next year's election will be all about the economy. Last Monday's 10-minute sermon from the podium , which set out the steps National had taken to address the cost of living, was a harbinger of what was to come at the weekend. Inside the cavernous National Air Force Museum, Luxon told media New Zealanders would have a "very simple choice" at the next election: "Do you trust the guys that actually crashed the economy and have no plan, or do you trust the guys in the government that's actually inherited a mess and is sorting it out and is making progress before that election?" Luxon did not mention the other "guys in the government" on Saturday. That's not unusual. This was, after all, a National Party event, full of National Party stump speeches. The party's deputy Nicola Willis, however, gave Luxon a shout-out for the "energy" it takes to keep Winston Peters and David Seymour under control. While joking he was targeting 100 percent of the vote in 2026, Luxon said after his speech that it was natural to disagree with his coalition partners, but they were aligned on the things that mattered. National leader Christopher Luxon speaks at the party's annual conference. Photo: RNZ / Giles Dexter National party supporters that RNZ spoke to were largely happy with how things were going, and how Luxon was keeping things in line. "We are very co-ordinated, very co-ordinated. We respect each other's policies and respect each other's decisions," said one member. "They're very aggressive people that he's in Parliament with, but he's handled it extremely well," said another. "It's like you're the mother in the house, and you have to herd two cats, who do co-operate sometimes, and other times they've got other agendas. From a managerial point of view, I think he's doing excellently in the light of the type of political system we've got." Some expressed wariness of what Peters would do next year, others sung from Luxon's songsheet that this was the maturity of MMP on display. "It's taking some managing, but it's all good. It's what MMP is about." "Everybody's looking at next year's election again, and obviously they want to get back in. So there's a bit of leverage, and nobody's got more experience at that than Winston." They were also convinced the country was going in the right direction, and that Luxon was the right person to steer it there. "We're starting to turn the corner. The last 18 months has been the clean-up job, and we're actually getting ready to turn the tank around now." "It just takes time, and people have got to be patient. They're doing everything that they possibly can, it's just a timing issue. Everybody's impatient." National's membership thinks the polls will firm in their favour as the public look more critically at the alternative. A Labour Party bereft of policy, juggling the niche demands of the more extreme Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Luxon wants the country to "say yes" to more. More mining, more infrastructure, more housing, more tourism, more growth. Opening up more concessions on Department of Conservation land, and charging international visitors to visit some DOC sites is part of that "say yes" strategy. Twenty to forty dollars is not a large sum to fork out for people who have paid thousands to come here, and it adds $62m to the conservation estate that New Zealanders won't have to pay for. There are still some implementation issues to work through. It remains to be seen whether New Zealanders will have to take a passport or bank statement to Cathedral Cove to get out of a fee. It's a small change, and one the government did not campaign or consult the public on, or put in its latest quarterly plan. There will be more to come as parties start to differentiate themselves and sound the election battle drums. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Prominent figure with name supression set to reappear in court
Photo: RNZ / Dan Cook A prominent New Zealander is set to reappear in court on Monday. RNZ earlier revealed a prominent New Zealander had been arrested . After being made aware of the man's arrest, RNZ approached the Wellington District Court to see if there were any suppression orders and when he would be appearing in court. In response, a registrar said the man faced eight charges, all of which are category three offences meaning the offence is punishable by imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for two years or more. However, an application had been granted prohibiting media from being able to report the man's name, identifying particulars as well as the nature of the charges he faced before his first appearance. The man appeared in the Wellington District Court via audio visual link on 3 July. Media opposed the suppression orders. However, the defendant's lawyers asked for the orders to continue on an interim basis until their next appearance. Judge David Laurenson agreed to continue the orders. The man was remanded on bail without plea until his next appearance on Monday. Under the Criminal Procedure Act a court may make an order forbidding publication of the name of a person who is charged with an offence if the court is satisfied publication would be likely to result in eight different outcomes including causing extreme hardship and creating a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial. The fact a defendant is well known does not, of itself, mean that publication of his or her name will result in extreme hardship. At first appearance a defendant only needs to advance an "arguable case" that one of the eight grounds applies. The only section in the Criminal Procedure Act that permits suppression of the charges is section 199C, which permits suppression of "trial-related information" where the court is satisfied publication of that information is likely to create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial. Trial-related information includes "any other specific information in relation to any trial". Where an interim order is made under section 199C it only lasts until the defendant's next court appearance. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Russian adoptee's PTSD claim denied by ACC over residency rules
By Shannon Pitman, Open Justice reporter of The young man began to suffer PTSD brought on by abuse he suffered as a child in Russia. Photo: Unsplash A Russian child who was adopted by New Zealanders and suffered physical abuse in his home country has had his claim for PTSD as an adult declined. Despite a High Court and District Court ruling that the man was eligible for mental health cover, the Court of Appeal overturned their rulings, stating he was not entitled to cover for a mental injury, because the physical assault occurred when he was not a New Zealand resident. The man, whose name is suppressed, was born in Russia in August 2001 and arrived in New Zealand as a three-year-old. Twenty years later, while living here as a New Zealand citizen, he was diagnosed with PTSD, stemming from abuse he suffered before arriving. ACC declined his claim for mental injury cover, stating the physical injury had occurred when he was not a New Zealand resident and therefore he was not entitled to compensation. Under the Accident Compensation Act 2001, for mental injury to be covered, it must arise out of a physical injury, or be caused by certain criminal acts or a workplace incident. The man challenged ACC's decision, which was overturned by the District Court and - on appeal from ACC - the High Court, which found his mental injury was suffered in New Zealand and therefore he was eligible for cover. ACC took the case to the Court of Appeal, which had the task of determining where the physical injury occurred that triggered the mental injury. The man's lawyers, Beatrix Woodhouse and Mathew McKillop, argued the PTSD diagnosis in 2019 marked the point at which the mental injury was suffered, and because he was living in New Zealand, this qualified him for cover. The lawyers submitted that, although the act specified a physical injury must match the mental injury, it did not specify a location. The Court of Appeal determined that how the personal injury was caused was critical. "Causation is the primary consideration," the court said in its recently released decision. "A mental injury which has arisen because of a physical injury may well be latent - the date the mental injury is triggered or the symptoms manifest is no doubt dependent on a variety of circumstances," . "But it is the physical injury which is the root of the mental injury. It is therefore the date and, in our view, the location of that physical injury which is the key to whether cover is available under the Act." New Zealand's Court of Appeal is the last avenue to appeal ACC decisions. Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King The Court of Appeal determined the High Court and District Court erred in their decision-making, as the man was not a resident of New Zealand at the time of the abuse and, therefore, was not covered for ACC. "The Act cannot be interpreted as intending to provide cover for injuries caused overseas to people who are not ordinarily resident in New Zealand. Such an approach would mean the scheme was required to fund the consequences of events outside its jurisdiction and over which it could have no influence. "In our view, it is clear that Parliament intended to provide cover for mental injuries suffered because of physical injuries where the causative physical injuries occurred in New Zealand or, if suffered outside New Zealand, when the person was ordinarily resident in New Zealand when the cause occurred." The parents of the man released a statement to NZME to the effect that they believed the decision was deeply unfair to their son. "He is a New Zealander, adopted by New Zealanders under New Zealand law, and has known no other home," the statement said. "The Adoption Act is clear that an adoptee is to be treated as our natural-born child in every respect. "Yet, due to an injury that occurred before his adoption, he is now denied ACC-funded treatment for a condition that only manifested later in life." Their lawyer, Beatrix Woodhouse, said the Court of Appeal was the end of the road for all ACC claims. "Therefore, this decision represents the definitive legal position on this issue," she said. "It sets a precedent for other cases with comparable facts." ACC deputy chief executive for corporate and finance Stewart McRobie told NZME the organisation was seeking clarification of the law and acknowledged the Court of Appeal's decision. "We also acknowledge the impact of the decision on the claimant, and empathise with them and their family." * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
