Survivors Call Out MSD For Redress Inaction, Travel Chaos, And Deep Harm – One Week Before National Wānanga (Part One)
This isnt an isolated failure. NZCAST says its part of a larger pattern: a redress system that isnt working, and an agency that claims to care about survivors but wont even show up.
With less than a week to go before a national wānanga for survivors of state abuse in Christchurch, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has still not confirmed consistent travel support for those trying to attend. Many have been left waiting, others have been declined outright, and some have received offers so low they feel like an insult.
'It's heartbreaking,' says Karl Tauri, spokesperson for NZCAST – the New Zealand Collective of Abused in State Care. 'We've had survivors calling us in tears, unsure if they'll be able to attend. Some have said they don't want to live anymore. And what's MSD's response? Silence, deferral, or ten dollars for a 5-hour round trip.'
This isn't an isolated failure. NZCAST says it's part of a larger pattern: a redress system that isn't working, and an agency that claims to care about survivors but won't even show up.
Travel support that harms more than it helps
Survivors attending the upcoming Whare Tapu Wānanga in Christchurch (23–25 May) have reported:
Receiving no confirmation of travel support
Being told they're ineligible because their 'claim is closed'
Being offered as little as $10–$20 for multi-hour journeys
Hearing different rules depending on the person who answers the phone.
'This is redress?' Tauri asks. 'Survivors are retraumatised just trying to attend an event that could help them heal.'
Deaf survivors excluded
The situation is no better for Deaf survivors. MSD has refused to fund New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) interpreters for wānanga, redirecting organisers to Deaf Aotearoa who have no mandate or funding to cover redress-related events.
'This has left Deaf survivors completely shut out,' says Tauri. 'Or, again, the burden falls on us, a grassroots, unpaid organisation to try and find the money.'
Disability support that doesn't support
Survivors living with chronic pain, PTSD, or long-term illness are facing yet another barrier: the broken Disability Allowance system.
NZCAST reports survivors being forced to repeatedly prove their trauma by obtaining letters from GPs and specialists, a system over-stretched on its own, even when their conditions are permanent and well documented.
One mother cannot access basic allergy-safe food and unsubsidized medication for her and her children. They live with serious gluten and dairy allergies yet are denied support. 'She skips rent once a month just to feed her kids and buy her medication' says Tauri. 'What kind of system makes a woman choose between food and housing?'
Case management by postcode
In some parts of the country, Work and Income allows survivors to request dedicated case managers, a much needed and wanted advancement, so survivors don't have to relive their trauma with a new person every time.
In some regions, this request is refused. 'It's postcode-based discrimination,' says Tauri. 'The system you get depends entirely on where you live. That's not justice.'
No dignity in death
In one recent case, MSD refused to fund the headstone for a survivor's father, who was buried in an unmarked grave. He was a veteran of World War Two, and the only adult who supported and loved his daughter, before he passed away. Despite clear grounds for compassion and support, she has been left scrambling to piece together funding on a benefit.
'This was a man who stood by his daughter through everything,' says Tauri. 'And MSD told the whānau no. No help, no honour, no acknowledgment. That tells you exactly how broken this system is, when even the dead, a veteran at that don't get dignity.'
MSD: Present in some places, absent in others
Perhaps the most galling failure, NZCAST says, is MSD's refusal to attend the Christchurch wānanga, despite attending similar events in Wellington and Palmerston North.
'Christchurch has hundreds of MSD staff and multiple offices,' Tauri says. 'They claim it's due to 'conflicting commitments,' but the message survivors hear is: you're not important enough for us to show up. '
This matters, he says, because when MSD WINZ and Historic Claims does attend, it works. Survivors are able to connect with case managers, claims, ask questions, get real-time support, and rebuild trust with the public service.
NZCAST: Doing the work the Crown won't
NZCAST is running the entire three-day Christchurch gathering including food, accommodation, transport, wellness sessions, peer support, and facilitation entirely unfunded. The trust receives no Crown funding, and relies on community aroha, fundraising, and lived experience.
'We're holding people who are in crisis while MSD sends emails telling us to refer survivors to the website,' says Tauri. 'We are doing their job. Unpaid. And still doing it better.'
What NZCAST is calling for:
A consistent national travel support policy for all survivors, open claim or not
NZSL interpreter funding for all Crown-linked survivor events
A trauma-informed Disability Allowance process that stops punishing people
Equal access to case managers, no matter the postcode
A survivor-led inter-agency wellbeing and redress taskforce
Proper funding for survivor-led groups who are carrying the system's failures
Implentation of the recommendations provided by the Royal Commission.
'We're not asking for favours. We're asking for justice.'
At the heart of it, Tauri says, is a simple truth: redress is not money. Redress is showing up. It's access. It's care.
'MSD says it supports survivors, but survivors are not feeling supported. They're exhausted. They're retraumatized. And they're being left behind.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
15-07-2025
- Scoop
Getting More Kiwis Into Jobs
Hon Louise Upston Minister for Social Development and Employment Jobseeker beneficiaries will be the focus of the Government's employment programmes over the next three years, says Minister Louise Upston. Minister Upston has welcomed an updated Ministry of Social Development employment investment strategy which runs through to June 2028, describing it as overdue. 'Prioritising beneficiaries into jobs should always be the employment focus for MSD but unfortunately that hasn't always been the case,' Louise Upston says. 'This updated strategy makes it crystal clear MSD needs to be consistently focused on the job seekers already on benefits and getting them sorted first because that's where they can make the most impact. 'I've also instructed MSD that it needs to work in more targeted ways, particularly when it comes to young people. 'That's important because recent forecasts show that people under the age of 25 on Jobseeker Support are estimated to spend an average of 18 or more years on a benefit over their lifetimes - 49 per cent longer than in 2017. 'This is a human tragedy. We need to focus on the potential of one of New Zealand's most powerful assets - our young people - and get them straight into first jobs. 'Frontline MSD staff do work hard in this area, and I know case managers working directly with clients is where MSD can make a real difference. This strategy reinforces that approach. 'Employment case management is important and should also be straightforward and practical. It can include something as simple as helping someone get an up-to-date CV, through to passing a driver licence. 'The Government continues to support MSD's frontline staff - this year, Budget 2025 invested in retaining 490 frontline staff to help deliver vital employment services. 'Preventing young people getting stuck on a benefit will also be vitally important as we go on. Already in this term, we've introduced a new phone-based employment case management service which includes 6,000 18-24-year-old clients, we've got 2,100 more places for young people to get community job coaching, more regular work seminars, and a traffic light system to help them stay on track with their obligations. 'And just in the past weeks, MSD has kicked off a series of regional employment events, bringing together employers, providers and community organisations focused on a common goal – getting people into work. 'I'm also attending those events and hearing first-hand what's needed to support employers, and job seekers. Our Government is determined to get Kiwis into jobs, grow New Zealand businesses, and grow the economy.'
Newsroom
14-07-2025
- Newsroom
Going it alone – how not to prepare for climate change
Comment: The Report of the Independent Reference Group on Climate Adaptation was published on Wednesday. Mercifully, the report is short. But it is certainly not sweet. Indeed, it constitutes one of the most philosophically misguided, morally questionable, administratively inept, and politically naïve documents I have read in many years. This is a great pity, because the relevant policy issues are vitally important and require robust, serious, principled analysis. Confronted with the growing impacts and unprecedented long-term risks of climate change, not least accelerating sea level rise and more severe flooding, the group has a simple policy remedy: beyond 2045, the central government, and presumably also local authorities, should stop all property buyouts for climate-related disasters. This approach would apply not only to those negatively affected by such disasters but also to those at high risk of future damaging events. In effect, the report recommends that the government should inform all those with properties at risk from climate-related disasters: From 2045, you are on your own. There will be no financial assistance for you to relocate your home or business to a safer location, let alone to relocate your community, town or suburb, regardless of the seriousness of the risk you face and irrespective of your financial circumstances. If you cannot afford to move, well, sorry, bad luck. You will need to face the consequences on your own. But you can apply to MSD for a hardship grant. In the meantime, over the next 20 years, the report recommends government provide property owners with reliable and consistent risk information, improve land-use planning to minimise future risks, and gradually reduce financial assistance for property buy-outs. The manner and rate at which such assistance should be reduced is not discussed. Equally, the report ignores the issue of whether the same approach should apply to all natural disaster risks, including seismic events. But politically, it would be hard for a government to justify buying out properties negatively impacted by a major earthquake, as in Christchurch during 2011-12, but then refuse to purchase the same properties impacted by coastal inundation. If so, then after 2045, there would be no repeat anywhere in the country of red-zone buyouts. The group's advice raises numerous issues – moral, administrative, legal, political, economic, and much else. Here, only a few can be considered. Three reasons appear to underpin the group's proposal to end all disaster-related property buyouts: first, faced with rising climate-related risks, they will become unaffordable; second, buyouts are unfair; and third, the prospect of a buyout can encourage risky decisions and bad investments. But each of these arguments is problematic. To start with, the Report provides no evidence that New Zealand will reach a point in the future beyond which moving people and their properties out of harm's way will be unaffordable, regardless of who pays. Hence, the core policy issue is not whether relocations are affordable, but who pays. Essentially, that is a moral or political issue, not an economic or technical one. Regarding the possible fiscal cost of buyouts: fundamentally, this will depend on the compensatory framework – that is, who is eligible and for how much. The Expert Working Group on Managed Retreat, of which I was a member, recommended to the government in 2023 that any compensation for homeowners should be capped and restricted to principal places of residence. Holiday cottages and other second or third homes should not be eligible. Such arrangements would significantly reduce the fiscal costs of planned relocation. But there is another critical point: in an interdependent world, not providing buyouts will impose fiscal costs. Those lacking the resources to move their homes and businesses out of harm's way will face ever more disrupted lives, with adverse health-related and employment-related impacts. Also, more people will need to be rescued more often – assuming the country continues to value and protect human life. Moreover, if all relocations forced by climate change or seismic events are unplanned and haphazard, then any kind of sensible land-use planning or infrastructure investment will be much harder. All these things will impose fiscal costs – and costs on ratepayers. Regarding fairness or equity: this week's Independent Reference Group report prioritises the so-called 'beneficiary-pays principle': those who benefit most from something should pay the most. Unfortunately, the report largely ignores other morally relevant principles of fairness, such as meeting basic human needs, protecting individual rights or applying the polluter pays principle and the ability-to-pay principle. Similarly, the report overlooks the critical role of risk pooling or risk solidarity in the face of unprecedented and often uninsurable risks. Proper consideration of the full range of ethical principles would point to different conclusions from those advocated by the Independent Reference Group. Aside from this, the beneficiary-pays principle is often irrelevant or hard to apply. When a town like Westport needs to be relocated because it cannot feasibly or cost-effectively be protected from sea level rise, who are the beneficiaries? Most of those forced to relocate will doubtless regard themselves as victims, not beneficiaries. And politicians who suggest otherwise are unlikely to receive much support. To be sure, the prospect of buyouts in the context of natural disasters might encourage unwise investments. That is why any compensatory framework to assist with climate change adaptation must be part of an integrated policy framework, one that is well designed to reduce future risks and minimise moral hazard. Finally, this week's report ignores time inconsistency and policy credibility. Suppose a government at some point endorses the idea that beyond 2045 there will be no buyouts in response to natural disasters. Would that be a credible policy in a parliamentary democracy – or even in a dictatorship? Would citizens believe it? And what happens at the 2044 general election when tens of thousands of property owners, if not more, are faced, in the context of ever-increasing climate-related impacts, with the prospect of potentially uninsurable and worthless homes in 2045 or sometime later? And which political parties will campaign on the slogan: 'Next year you will be on your own'? Viewed from 2044, the Independent Reference Group's recommendations in 2025 will look breathtakingly naïve. That means they also lack political wisdom today. We need a long-term policy framework for climate change adaptation that is credible, cost-effective and tolerably fair to all citizens. Above all, it must recognise the state's fundamental moral duty to protect the public interest and enable effective risk solidarity in the face of unpredictable, unwanted and unprecedented disasters.
NZ Herald
11-07-2025
- NZ Herald
Staff in ‘critical' Ministry of Social Development tech team to be culled
Consultation is under way that could result in dozens of tech staff at the Ministry of Social Development losing their jobs. 'This is a huge upheaval for a critical team at MSD that supports the services thousands of New Zealanders rely on every day,' Public Service Association (PSA) national secretary
