Care-Experienced Rangatahi Concerned Response To Royal Commission Won't Stop History Repeating
VOYCE Whakarongo Mai has been advocating for care experienced tamariki since 2017, and CEO Tracie Shipton says 99 recommendations are being considered further, and 23 have been declined.
'15 years is too long to wait for change'
There's relief that the government has released its full response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry's recommendations over abuse in state care, but care-experienced advocates say there needs to be more reassurance that the atrocities of the past won't be repeated.
The Royal Commission made 95 recommendations in its 2021 interim report, He Purapura Ora, He Māra Tipu from Redress to Puretumu Torowhānui and 138 in its final report in 2024, Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light.
207 of the recommendations were addressed to the crown, and as of May this year, just 85 of them have been accepted or partially accepted.
VOYCE – Whakarongo Mai has been advocating for care experienced tamariki since 2017, and CEO Tracie Shipton says 99 recommendations are being considered further, and 23 have been declined.
'We are pleased there was a Royal Commission of Inquiry and that the country acknowledged this collective shame with the national apology, but there needs to be a line in the sand.'
'Rangatahi bravely shared their experiences of abuse, harm and neglect in care post 1999, and also made recommendations in a group submission Korowai Aroha. Young people need assurances that this won't happen again.'
Shipton says VOYCE – Whakarongo Mai's priority is tamariki and rangatahi going through state care now, next year and into the future.
'Whilst we appreciate there is complexity to navigate in working through the recommendations, we also know that abuse in care didn't magically end in 1999. We are concerned that we are not cutting through all the red tape and bureaucracy to ensure our tamariki are safer now.'
'We know that the community has been awaiting this response from the government, we are still left wondering what real changes will result that will make tamariki safer now, because in 15 years those tamariki will be adults, so what's making them safer in the meantime?'
Care-experienced advocate Ihorangi Reweti Peters is gutted that all of the recommendations haven't been implemented.
'The government has yet again failed survivors of abuse in care and many young people are still being abused in care today.'
'We do not want to end up having another Royal Commission of Inquiry in 15 years time. They need to get it right now, they need to draw a line under this.'
Shipton is also questioning whether the learnings from the Royal Commission's final report are being considered when making wider policy and funding decisions, particulalry those decisions being made outside of the Royal Commission response work.
'We've just seen a huge contradiction in this year's budget with money allocated to improvements to the redress system and improvements to the safety of young people, but at the same time funds are being pumped into bootcamps and a facelift of youth justice facilities.'
Shipton says there's now a real opportunity to make meaningful change for the tamariki and rangatahi of Aotearoa.
'We've made a huge investment into the inquiry, survivors have shared the taonga of their lived experience and a huge level of analysis has been conducted by the Royal Commission. Let's not let that go to waste.'
'We all need to absorb the gravity of what has occurred under the 'care' of the state, and ensure we learn and commit to acting with urgency and making decisions that will keep our tamariki safe.'
ABOUT VOYCE:
We are VOYCE – Whakarongo Mai, which stands for Voice of the Young and Care Experienced – Listen to me. Established in 2017, we are an independent charity organisation that helps to advocate for the approximately 6000 children with care experience (children in foster or whanau care) in New Zealand.
We exist to amplify the voices of these children and ensure that they are heard – so as to positively influence their individual care and to collectively affect change in the wider care system. VOYCE was co-designed by children with care experience for children with care experience.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
21-07-2025
- 1News
Pacific leaders insist on respect in memorial for unmarked graves
Porirua City Council is set to create a memorial for more than 1800 former patients of the local hospital buried in unmarked graves. But Pacific leaders are asking to be meaningfully involved in the process, including incorporating prayer, language, and ceremonial practices. More than 50 people gathered at Porirua Cemetery last month after the council's plans became public, many of whom were descendants of those buried without headstones. Daniel Chrisp, the Cemeteries manager, said it was encouraging to see families engaging with the project. Chrisp's team has placed 99 pegs to mark the graves of families who had come forward so far. One attendee told him that it was deeply moving to photograph the site where two relatives were buried. "It's fantastic that we've got to this point, having the descendants of those in unmarked graves encouraged to be involved," he said. ADVERTISEMENT "These plots represent mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children and other relatives, so it's important to a lot of people." The Porirua Lunatic Asylum, which later became Porirua Hospital, operated from 1887 until the 1990s. At its peak in the 1960s, it was one of Aotearoa New Zealand's largest hospitals, housing more than 2000 patients and staff. As part of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, the Government has established a national fund for headstones for unmarked graves. Up to $50,000 allocated to each council to finally recognise those buried without meaningful memorials. (Source: 1News) Porirua City Council applied for $200,000 to install a memorial that would list every known name. Criticism over lack of Pacific consultation Some Pacific community leaders said they were never consulted, despite Pacific people being among the deceased. ADVERTISEMENT Teurukura Tia Kekena, chairperson of the Porirua Cook Islands Association, said this was the first she had heard of the project and was concerned Pacific communities had not been included in conversations so far. "If there was any unmarked grave and the Porirua City Council is aware of the names, I would have thought they would have contacted the ethnic groups these people belonged to," she said. "From a Cook Islands point of view, we need to acknowledge these people. They need to be fully acknowledged." Kekena learned about the project only after being contacted by a reporter, despite the council's ongoing efforts to identify names and place markers for families who came forward. The council's application for funding was part of its response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry. Kekena said it was important how the council managed the memorial, adding that it mattered deeply for Cook Islands families and the wider Pacific community, especially those with relatives buried at the site. She believed a proper memorial should reflect Pacific values, particularly the importance of faith, family, and cultural protocol. Some pegs that mark the resting places of former patients buried in unmarked graves (Source: Local Democracy Reporting) ADVERTISEMENT "It's huge. It's connecting us to these people," she says. "Just thinking about it is getting me emotional. "Like I said, the Pākehā way of acknowledging is totally different from our way. When we acknowledge, when we go for an unveiling, it's about family. It's about family. It's about family honouring the person that had passed. "And we do it in a way that we have a service at the graveside with the orometua [minister] present. Yeah, unveil the stone by the family, by the immediate family, if there were any here at that time." She also underscored the connection between remembering the deceased and healing intergenerational trauma, particularly given the site's history with mental health. "It helps a lot. It's a way of healing the trauma. I don't know how these people came to be buried in an unmarked grave, but to me, it's like they were just put there and forgotten about. I wouldn't like to have my family buried in a place and be forgotten." Kekena urged the council to work closely with the Cook Islands community moving forward and said she would bring the matter back to her association to raise awareness and check possible connections between local families and the names identified. Yvonne Underhill‑Sem, a Cook Islands community leader and Professor of Pacific Studies at the University of Auckland, said the memorial had emotional significance, noting her personal connection to Whenua Tapu as a Porirua native. ADVERTISEMENT "In terms of our Pacific understandings of ancestry, everybody who passes away is still part of our whānau. The fact that we don't know who they are is unsettling," she says. "It would be a real relief to the families involved and to the generations that follow to have those graves named." Porirua councillors Izzy Ford and Moze Galo say the memorial must reflect Pacific values (Source: Local Democracy Reporting) Council response A Porirua City Council spokesperson said the council had been actively sharing the list of names with the public and encouraged all communities, including Pacific groups, genealogists, and local iwi, to help spread the word. So far, 99 families have come forward. "We would encourage any networks such as Pacific, genealogists and local iwi to share the list around for members of the public to get in touch," the spokesperson says. The list of names was available on the council's website and includes both a downloadable file and a searchable online tool here. ADVERTISEMENT Porirua councillors Izzy Ford and Moze Galo, two of the three Pacific members on the council, said Pacific families must be central to the memorial process. Ford said burial sites carry deep cultural weight for Pacific communities. "We know that burial sites are more than just places of rest, they are sacred spaces that hold our stories, our ancestry and dignity – they are our connection to those who came before us." She said public notices and websites were not enough. "If we are serious about finding the families of those buried in unmarked graves here in Porirua, we have to go beyond public notices and websites." Ford said government funding would be limited, and the council must work with trusted Pacific networks to reach families. "It means partnering with groups who carry trust in our community... Pacific churches, elders, and organisations, communicating in our languages through Pacific radio, social media, community events, churches, and health providers." Galo agreed and said the memorial must reflect Pacific values in both design and feeling. "It should feel warm, colourful, spiritual, and welcoming. Include Pacific designs, carvings, and symbols... there should be room for prayer, music, and quiet reflection," he says. ADVERTISEMENT "Being seen and heard brings healing, honour, and helps restore our connection to our ancestors. It reminds our families that we belong, that our history matters, and that our voice is valued in this space." Galo said the work must also continue beyond the unveiling. "Community involvement shouldn't stop after the memorial is built, we should have a role in how it's maintained and used in the future. "These were real people, with families, love, and lives that mattered. Some were buried without names, without ceremony, and that left a deep pain. Honouring them now is a step toward healing, and a way of saying, you were never forgotten." Members of the public who recognised a family name on the list were encouraged to get in touch by emailing: cemeteries@ Local Democracy Reporting is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
The Spinoff
13-07-2025
- The Spinoff
Counting the true toll of the Covid-19 pandemic in New Zealand
As the Royal Commission of Inquiry into New Zealand's Covid-19 response continues, modelling expert Michael Plank presents a new study on the country's excess mortality rate. How many people died because of the Covid-19 pandemic in New Zealand? It sounds like a simple question, but the answer depends on more than just counting reported Covid-19 deaths. My colleagues and I recently published a study in the International Journal of Epidemiology looking at excess mortality – the number of deaths above what we would have expected if there hadn't been a pandemic. Excess mortality helps us to measure the overall impact of the pandemic, not just from Covid-19 itself but also from things like delayed medical care or the side effects of lockdowns. And because it's based on the total number of deaths from any cause, it doesn't depend on how the cause of death was determined, nor whether the death was recorded as being due to Covid-19 or not. Many people will have seen the Our World in Data Covid-19 dashboard, which allows users to compare excess mortality between countries. This dashboard shows that New Zealand's total excess mortality up to the end of 2023 was less than 1%. In other words, the number of deaths during the pandemic was less than 1% higher than expected. But not everyone agrees with this conclusion. A 2024 study by John Gibson argued that the excess mortality in New Zealand was actually much higher than this. Our World in Data's method missed a crucial factor: New Zealand's population growth ground to a halt in 2020 due to pandemic travel restrictions. With fewer people in the country, Gibson claimed, we should have expected fewer deaths; so the excess mortality was actually higher. We wanted to know if this was really true. Could the Our World in Data dashboard be inadvertently hiding a swathe of excess deaths in New Zealand? To answer this question, we built a statistical model that estimated trends in the death rate in different age groups over time. We then used this model to calculate how many deaths would have been expected if the pandemic had never happened and pre-pandemic trends had simply continued. Our model accounts for changes in population size and ageing to ensure a fair comparison. We looked at excess mortality up to the end of 2023 because we wanted to include the period after New Zealand's elimination strategy ended and the virus became widespread. Was New Zealand's pandemic death toll higher than reported? The answer from our work is a resounding 'no'. We estimated the total number of deaths between 2020 and 2023 was somewhere between 2% higher than expected and 0.8% lower. In other words, we can't be confident that more people died during the pandemic than would have died anyway. We can be confident that the number of deaths was no more than 2% higher than expected. In 2020, the number of deaths was unusually low, mainly because border closures and lockdowns inadvertently wiped out influenza as well as Covid-19. In 2022 and 2023, deaths increased as Covid-19 became widespread. The timing of excess deaths matched very closely with reported Covid-19 deaths, with the highest death rates occurring during the biggest Covid-19 waves of 2022. This suggests that the virus itself was the main driver, rather than indirect factors. Overall, New Zealand's estimated excess mortality of less than 2% is far lower than that in countries like the United Kingdom (10%) or United States (11%) over the same period. And although our study only covered the period up to the end of 2023, the overall age-standardised mortality rate in 2024 was below pre-pandemic levels. This shows that there is no mystery factor causing large numbers of unexplained deaths. Reported Covid-19 deaths appear be an accurate measure of the pandemic's death toll. So why the controversy? Gibson was right that New Zealand's population growth stalled during the pandemic. But that's only part of the story. Most deaths happen in older people, and this part of the population continued to grow during the pandemic. So, even though total population growth slowed, the number of elderly people – the group at highest risk of dying – still increased as expected. In other words, New Zealand's ageing population was a more important driver of the expected number of deaths than the number of immigrants, who tend to be relatively young. Why does this matter? The next pandemic is a question of when, not if. If we are to respond better to future pandemics, it's essential that we understand the full impact of our response to Covid-19. Some critics argue that New Zealand's elimination strategy just delayed the inevitable. Deaths that were prevented in 2020 and 2021 – the argument goes – were simply delayed until 2022 or 2023, when the virus became widespread. But the data tell a different story. Our response bought time for people to get vaccinated before they were exposed to the virus. And that massively reduced the fatality risk. New Zealand's response was far from perfect, and there were undoubtedly harms as a result of lockdowns and other measures that are not reflected in mortality statistics. But there can be no doubt that the response saved thousands of lives compared with the alternatives. Michael Plank led a group of researchers who were commissioned by the New Zealand government to provide modelling in support of the response to Covid-19 between 2020 and 2023.
RNZ News
12-07-2025
- RNZ News
Mediawatch: Pandemic probe media focus flipped to politicians
Representatives of pressure group Voice of Freedom addressing the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 response, last Thursday. Photo: Royal Commission livestream "It's the big one. The inquiry into the Covid response kicks off this morning. It looks at lockdowns. It looks at all of the things you hated most," Ryan Bridge told viewers of NZME's streaming show Herald Now last Monday morning . But the public hearings which ran all week turned out not to be such a 'big one' for the media. "I saw the Covid inquiry in the news this morning and I just thought: how long does this have to go on for?" an exasperated Lara Greaves - an associate professor in politics - told Bridge later in the same show. She's not the only one who feels that way. But the hearings were barely in the news after they got under way on Monday. On Tuesday the inquiry was well down the running order in morning and evening news shows, long after coverage of the mushroom poisoning trial in Australia. On Wednesday the possibility of moa being regenerated with the backing of Sir Peter Jackson was a bigger story for most outlets. There was a little more coverage on Thursday when anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown groups appeared, ahead of anti-conspiracy theory group FACT and immunologist Professor Graeme LeGros later on. But by the time they wrapped up on Friday the hearings had virtually vanished from bulletins. And what was said over the five days generated less coverage than questions about whether politicians would appear at hearings in future. As for "the things you hated most" - people hated different things. Asthmatic Annie Collins told the inquiry on the first day she thought lockdowns worked and saved lives, and vaccine misinformation online was the real problem. "I think that was a major flaw in our system. All those social media streams should have been blocked. They were disgusting and they were basically lies," she said. Shutting down social media channels was out of scope for this inquiry, but the chairman Grant Illingworth KC told Ryan Bridge on Monday the big decisions made at the time were certainly not. Employment relations and safety manager Paul Jarvie and Heart of the City chief executive Viv Beck. Photo: Screengrab / Covid 19 Inquiry When the Herald Now host pressed the chairman about getting the big political decision-makers in front of the inquiry he said they would be invited to come and give evidence at a second set of hearings next month. When asked if former PM Jacinda Ardern would be one of them, Illingworth replied: "There are issues in relation to our powers when people are out of the country. If she's in the country, we will consider her position." He would not reveal details of specific communications, but he did say "those things are being worked through" and that "we will be fair, open and transparent at the appropriate time." That response was misinterpreted by many in the media as meaning Jacinda Ardern had been asked to attend - and either had not yet responded or that the chair would not say if she had or not. RNZ amended its reporting to make it clear the Commission said no decision had yet been made about who would appear at the August hearings. But Ryan Bridge continued to press for Ardern's appearance on Herald Now and Newstalk ZB. David Seymour - appearing as the acting PM - told Ryan Bridge the former PM should front up to answer questions about "the most significant political and economic event of this century so far." But Seymour was also at pains to point out that the inquiry is independent, and would make its own decision. That was the reason Labour leader Chris Hipkins - health minister during the period covered by the inquiry - gave on Morning Report the next day for not giving a view on Ardern's attendance. Hipkins also dodged a question about whether he'd discussed the issue with Jacinda Ardern herself. On Herald Now on Tuesday, Chris Hipkins confirmed he was cooperating with the inquiry, but equivocated on whether he himself would appear before it in August. He also made it clear he really didn't fancy what he thought had become a political process. "The terms of reference specifically exclude decisions made when New Zealand First were part of the government. So I think that the terms of reference have been deliberately constructed to achieve a particular outcome, particularly around providing a platform for those who have conspiracy theorists' views," he said. NZ First demanded the inquiry when forming the coalition government in 2023. The party even invoked 'agree to disagree' provisions in that agreement when National persisted with the first Royal Commission the Labour government had already launched. The second phase opened this week with new commissioners and expanded terms of reference, which meant that fringe voices opposed to the vaccine mandates, and in some cases the vaccine itself, would be heard this time and heard but not cross examined. "It seems to have been specifically written into the terms of reference that they get maximum airtime," Hipkins told Herald Now , adding that some of those given a platform had inspired the occupation of Parliament in 2022, where platforms for gallows were built - including one with his own name on it. One of the groups that prompted the occupation was the anti-vaccine, anti-lockdown group Voices for Freedom. The group's Facebook page was taken offline in 2021 for what the platform said was "misinformation that could cause physical harm." "You seriously expect the people of New Zealand to accept that deaths being reported internationally (in 2020) were not genuinely from Covid?" Grant Illingworth KC asked them on Thursday. "We're not disputing that there were deaths. We're simply saying that it gets very complex, especially when people are being funded in order to tick a box to say that a death was caused by Covid," VFF co-founder Claire Deeks replied. Voices for Freedom is also promoting a Face the Music campaign pressing the inquiry's commissioners to summon Jacinda Ardern and others and "hold them accountable for their COVID abuse." Their online petition depicts Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Sir Ashley Bloomfield all shoulder-to-shoulder in a courtroom dock. It's not exactly in tune with the evidence-gathering and non-adversarial approach of this Royal Commission's mandate. But others in the media weighed in behind the idea. "It is actually bizarre that we are having a Covid inquiry without Dame Jacinda's participation. She owes it to Kiwis to front up," Stuff's 'good news' correspondent Patrick Gower declared on Wednesday. That was triggered by Sir Ian Taylor's open letter to Jacinda Ardern last weekend - also published by Stuff - accusing Ardern of turning her back on the nation of five million for "a waka for one." But the same day The Post had reported a spokesperson for Dame Jacinda Ardern said she would provide evidence to the Covid-19 inquiry if asked - and "discussions were ongoing about the best way for it to occur." "Fact: Ardern has agreed to give evidence to phase two of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Government's response to Covid-19," The Herald's Fran O'Sullivan stated bluntly this weekend. "There is room to examine all of this dispassionately - not try to (figuratively) hang her again as the more deranged attempted when they wheeled out their noose on Parliament's grounds." For all the urging in the media, the story has actually been the same since March when the inquiry issued a minute , making it clear it could not take a legalistic or adversarial approach. "The commissioners expect that individuals will be prepared to attend interviews with them and or officers of the inquiry on a voluntary basis," the minute stated, regarding interviews with decision makers. "The interviews may be conducted online or in person, recorded and may be transcribed for the public record." In the end opinions about a point that was mostly moot overshadowed the coverage of what the commissioners were actually told in five days of public, livestreamed hearings. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
