Latest news with #AbuseinCare
Scoop
21-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Scoop
Abuse In Care Survivors Campaign Wins Global Gold Award In London
Press Release – Stuff Abuse in Care – Shattering The Shadows, a Stuff Group content series directed by the survivor advisory group of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, won best Political Programme over entries from international organisations such as … A groundbreaking content series telling the stories of survivors of one of the country's most shameful periods has been awarded a Gold award at the global Native Advertising Awards in London. Abuse in Care – Shattering The Shadows, a Stuff Group content series directed by the survivor advisory group of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, won best Political Programme over entries from international organisations such as the EU. The campaign told the stories of just six of the estimated 200,000 children and young people who were abused while in the care of State and faith-based organisations between 1950 and 1999. With a focus on healing and hope, these heartwrenching accounts of lives devastated by abuse were created and curated by Stuff's Commercial Content team, led by Content Director Simon Smith. Tu Chapman, one of the Survivor Advisory Group Experts said the award was a wonderful acknowledgement of what was a very powerful content series. 'Our (survivors) fight for justice continues,' she said. 'Thank you to Stuff for elevating our voices.' Stuff Group's Commercial Content team also won two bronze awards on the night, for an innovative campaign for Triton Hearing, Get Amongst It, which prompted Kiwis to experience how loss feels through gamification and other channels, including print. Smith, who was in London to receive the awards, said the Shattering the Shadows acknowledgement was particularly poignant. 'We spend our days creating content that moves and engages our large audiences at Stuff and being able to do this for those who spoke out at the Royal Commission of Inquiry was very special,' he said. 'We strive always to create campaigns that resonate through storytelling in all its forms. Sometimes it is the beauty of carefully crafted words and images. Sometimes it is brand-new digital ways to connect. All of this was awarded at the Native Advertising Awards this year, among some of the largest and best media brands in the world.' About Stuff Group Proudly independent and New Zealand-owned, Stuff connects with around 3.4 million Kiwis every month across its major businesses, delivering quality news, content and experiences that help make Aotearoa a better place. Stuff Digital has unrivalled reach across the nation through number one news website and homegrown social network Neighbourly. Stuff Masthead Publishing connects with audiences through subscriber-led digital and printed metropolitan, regional and community publications, as well as a range of much-loved consumer magazines. Stuff Brand Connections arms advertisers and partners with a comprehensive range of cross-media advertising and Stuff Events solutions. Find out more at
Scoop
21-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Scoop
Abuse In Care Survivors Campaign Wins Global Gold Award In London
Press Release – Stuff Abuse in Care – Shattering The Shadows, a Stuff Group content series directed by the survivor advisory group of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, won best Political Programme over entries from international organisations such as … A groundbreaking content series telling the stories of survivors of one of the country's most shameful periods has been awarded a Gold award at the global Native Advertising Awards in London. Abuse in Care – Shattering The Shadows, a Stuff Group content series directed by the survivor advisory group of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, won best Political Programme over entries from international organisations such as the EU. The campaign told the stories of just six of the estimated 200,000 children and young people who were abused while in the care of State and faith-based organisations between 1950 and 1999. With a focus on healing and hope, these heartwrenching accounts of lives devastated by abuse were created and curated by Stuff's Commercial Content team, led by Content Director Simon Smith. Tu Chapman, one of the Survivor Advisory Group Experts said the award was a wonderful acknowledgement of what was a very powerful content series. 'Our (survivors) fight for justice continues,' she said. 'Thank you to Stuff for elevating our voices.' Stuff Group's Commercial Content team also won two bronze awards on the night, for an innovative campaign for Triton Hearing, Get Amongst It, which prompted Kiwis to experience how loss feels through gamification and other channels, including print. Smith, who was in London to receive the awards, said the Shattering the Shadows acknowledgement was particularly poignant. 'We spend our days creating content that moves and engages our large audiences at Stuff and being able to do this for those who spoke out at the Royal Commission of Inquiry was very special,' he said. 'We strive always to create campaigns that resonate through storytelling in all its forms. Sometimes it is the beauty of carefully crafted words and images. Sometimes it is brand-new digital ways to connect. All of this was awarded at the Native Advertising Awards this year, among some of the largest and best media brands in the world.' About Stuff Group Proudly independent and New Zealand-owned, Stuff connects with around 3.4 million Kiwis every month across its major businesses, delivering quality news, content and experiences that help make Aotearoa a better place. Stuff Digital has unrivalled reach across the nation through number one news website and homegrown social network Neighbourly. Stuff Masthead Publishing connects with audiences through subscriber-led digital and printed metropolitan, regional and community publications, as well as a range of much-loved consumer magazines. Stuff Brand Connections arms advertisers and partners with a comprehensive range of cross-media advertising and Stuff Events solutions. Find out more at
Scoop
21-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Scoop
Abuse In Care Survivors Campaign Wins Global Gold Award In London
A groundbreaking content series telling the stories of survivors of one of the country's most shameful periods has been awarded a Gold award at the global Native Advertising Awards in London. Abuse in Care - Shattering The Shadows, a Stuff Group content series directed by the survivor advisory group of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, won best Political Programme over entries from international organisations such as the EU. The campaign told the stories of just six of the estimated 200,000 children and young people who were abused while in the care of State and faith-based organisations between 1950 and 1999. With a focus on healing and hope, these heartwrenching accounts of lives devastated by abuse were created and curated by Stuff's Commercial Content team, led by Content Director Simon Smith. Tu Chapman, one of the Survivor Advisory Group Experts said the award was a wonderful acknowledgement of what was a very powerful content series. 'Our (survivors) fight for justice continues,' she said. 'Thank you to Stuff for elevating our voices.' Stuff Group's Commercial Content team also won two bronze awards on the night, for an innovative campaign for Triton Hearing, Get Amongst It, which prompted Kiwis to experience how loss feels through gamification and other channels, including print. Smith, who was in London to receive the awards, said the Shattering the Shadows acknowledgement was particularly poignant. 'We spend our days creating content that moves and engages our large audiences at Stuff and being able to do this for those who spoke out at the Royal Commission of Inquiry was very special,' he said. 'We strive always to create campaigns that resonate through storytelling in all its forms. Sometimes it is the beauty of carefully crafted words and images. Sometimes it is brand-new digital ways to connect. All of this was awarded at the Native Advertising Awards this year, among some of the largest and best media brands in the world.' About Stuff Group Proudly independent and New Zealand-owned, Stuff connects with around 3.4 million Kiwis every month across its major businesses, delivering quality news, content and experiences that help make Aotearoa a better place. Stuff Digital has unrivalled reach across the nation through number one news website and homegrown social network Neighbourly. Stuff Masthead Publishing connects with audiences through subscriber-led digital and printed metropolitan, regional and community publications, as well as a range of much-loved consumer magazines. Stuff Brand Connections arms advertisers and partners with a comprehensive range of cross-media advertising and Stuff Events solutions. Find out more at
NZ Herald
20-05-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Outrage! Te Pāti Māori, pay equity and the rules of Parliament
Their sin: they left their seats in Parliament and performed a haka in front of Act MPs, as the vote on Act leader David Seymour's Treaty Principles Bill was ending. Labour's Peeni Henare joined in the haka but has escaped punishment because he has expressed remorse. It's not because they did a haka, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told RNZ on Monday. 'That actually happens often. It's actually about not following the rules of Parliament.' It so often is. The merits of a complaint against power are sidelined by the powerful, who would prefer not to debate the complaint itself. The sanctity of the rules is far safer ground. For one thing, the rules are a-political, or so we're supposed to think. For another, focusing on the rules appeals to a desire for order and even for fairness: if we don't have rules, how can we know what justice is? But if rules are for regulating behaviour, that also points to a deeper purpose: they reinforce the authority of those who make them. Rules aren't a-political, or neutral. They protect the powerful. We all know this, we learned it when we were little children. What else did we learn when we were young? Naughty people must be taught a lesson. And by 'taught a lesson', we don't mean 'given a special educational opportunity'. We mean punished. We cling to that one, even when our culture is full of warnings of what can go wrong. Everything from the Abuse in Care report to movies like Hunt for the Wilderpeople and We Were Dangerous reminds us that punishment is often meted out not on merit, but to reinforce power. That's what's happening here: a reminder of the hierarchy of power is being visited on some 'uppity' people who won't sit down, won't show contrition, won't shut up. And what of the rules themselves? Both Luxon and Judith Collins, who chaired the committee, have hung their desire to punish on the suggestion the haka prevented Act MPs from voting. But Act had already voted. Given that, why has Collins not apologised and recalled her committee to reconsider its decision? If the committee was a proper court and not a politically motivated circus, the manifest falseness of this 'they were stopped from voting' argument wouldn't survive half a second on appeal. Some have said TPM was doing it for show, that it was all theatre. Excuse me? What goes on in the debating chamber is all for show. Besides, the committee didn't agree it was just performative. Its report says, 'There is no question the behaviour of Ms Maipi-Clarke, Ms Ngarewa-Packer and Mr Waititi could have the effect of intimidating other members.' But there very much is a question. Te Pāti Māori says interpreting its MPs' actions as 'a potential threat of violence reflects personal prejudice and ignorance of tikanga Māori, not reality'. The evidence suggests the Act MPs agree with that. Photos and video of the incident do not show them taking evasive action, defending themselves or even looking worried. They seem to be doing their best to look bored. Members of Te Pati Maori perform a haka in front of Act MPs during the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill in Parliament. Photo / Adam Pearse These politicians have been confronted by challenging haka before, at Waitangi and elsewhere. They're well versed in the rituals. We all are. Seymour likes to call haka a 'war dance', but that's demonstrably not the role of haka today. They can be ferocious, confronting, sometimes even fuelled by rage. But in the modern age no one gets hurt. Whatever the occasion, haka provide a ritualised outlet for some very strong emotions. That should be respected. Haka also say: Just because I'm not literally going to attack you with my taiaha doesn't mean you should ignore this. I really am enraged. That should be respected too. Haka are ubiquitous now, and on the whole that's a good thing. But it does tempt us to think their proper role is to entertain or to mark a significant moment. Te Pāti Māori has reminded us that isn't true. The thing about rules is that they don't always correlate with doing the right thing. This has been coming up a lot. The Government undid the provisions of the Equal Pay Amendment Act, a law that established a framework for assessing pay equity claims. Most Government MPs were part of the Parliament that voted unanimously for this law in 2020. The abolition of that framework is retrospective and it was done under 'urgency', so there was no chance for public input or considered lawmaking. The rules allowed all this but that doesn't make it right. It's another blatant example of the way rules can be used against those without power. The Government has tried to claim the act needed changing because it had got 'out of hand'. Social workers, they scoffed, were being compared with detectives! But why not? The most common type of crime in this country is family harm. Juvenile offending is also common. We expect social workers to know who's committing both these types of crime and somehow to manage the households involved so it stops. And we blame and shame them when they get it wrong. Detectives face very little of that. The pay equity provisions of the 2020 law constituted a good bunch of rules, but they threatened the power balance. Can't have that. I've got another comparator: Why don't we compare teachers with MPs? Teachers have to think on their feet every second of the working day. Their base salary range is $61,329 to $103,086 and two-thirds of them are women. MPs, most of whom are men, are told how to vote and get an entry-level salary of $168,000. Abandoning the pay equity rules means scrapping 33 claims already in the system, each of which represented good-faith commitment to research and analysis that was going to be held up to rigorous scrutiny. That's a disgraceful way to treat the rules. That's also true for not allowing select-committee hearings: it undermines the democratic process and invites bad law. As for making the new law retrospective, that's frightening, because it suggests none of us know if we are currently breaking the law. Not the current law, but some law from the future that could be used against our behaviour now. Maybe you think that's a stretch. In my view, anyone who holds to the sanctity of rules should be well exercised about that one. Protesters rally outside Minister Tama Potaka's electorate office in Hamilton opposing the Government's pay equity legislation. Photo / Mike Scott 'I think it's really important that the rules are upheld,' said Luxon about the haka incident. But he doesn't think that about the pay equity rules he voted for in 2020. Worst of all, binning the 2020 act means an estimated 150,000 women and their families have been denied billions in income that was going to be theirs. Why did the Government chose to make women the victims of its Budget cuts? Not because it was the right thing to do. How could they think that, after voting for the 2020 act? They did it because they could. The rules let them get away with it. Rules, eh. No political party has been hauled before the courts for electoral corruption, despite considerable evidence that at the very least deserves close legal examination. The rules allow it. The Government has imposed a funding regime on the health system that puts lives in jeopardy and undermines the well being of tens of thousands of people. The rules allow it. Speed limits are rising, which means, say experts everywhere, that more people will die. The rules allow it. The rules also allow Parliament to take no clear stand over one of the most pressing moral touchstones of our time: what's happening in Gaza. I know opinion is divided, but I agree with UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who calls it 'genocide'. And the Government has signed up to an agreed set of rules for lowering climate emissions, even though it is in the process of breaking them. The rules allow that too. It's a trope of this debate that the rules of Parliament have already been bent to let Māori in. Te reo is officially allowed, haka and waiata are heard in the galleries and on the floor, some parts if the Parliamentary complex contain beautiful, richly meaningful whakairo (carving), raranga (weaving) and other expressions of tikanga Māori. We should be proud of all this. But almost none of it has changed the Victorian protocols of our Parliament. An insistence on the archaic behaviours of the English ruling class are everywhere. Worst of all, the rules allow much of the business of Parliament to be conducted with little to distinguish it from a cockfight. Pun intended. I'm not arguing against rules. They are helpful and often necessary, especially when they safeguard freedoms and protect the vulnerable. But rules designed to insulate the powerful are a different matter. And so is keeping a sense of proportion. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke became a global sensation when she ripped up the Treaty Principles Bill in Parliament. An awful lot of people understand what she did and why. They've heard 'you can't break the rules' before, many of them perhaps all their lives. They know what it means.
Newsroom
04-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsroom
Lake Alice survivor takes Govt to court over redress scheme
New Zealand's international human rights record could take another blow as Malcolm Richards seeks an urgent judicial review of the Government's $20 million Lake Alice redress scheme, saying it fails in its obligation to provide adequate and appropriate redress in line with the international Convention on Torture. Meanwhile, representatives from the UN, including the torture committee's special rapporteur and the office of the High Commissioner for Refugees are on the Government's case to implement the international body's recommendations on torture redress. At the same time, the Government is actively considering whether to hold onto the get out of jail free card that it collected when signing up to the Torture Convention, or give up that card and agree to unreservedly comply with the international law New Zealand signed up to. In December, Erica Stanford – the minister responsible for the Government's response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care – announced a redress scheme for those who were tortured at the Lake Alice adolescent unit. Given the Crown's formal acknowledgment of torture, as well as the age and physical wellbeing of the remaining survivors, the Governmnet always said this group – thought to be about 200 survivors – would be the first cab off the rank for redress following the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. The Government set aside about $22.68m for individual payments, which would come alongside a new written apology acknowledging they were tortured, and access to support and rehabilitative services. Of this, about $3m was allocated to remuneration of an independent arbiter, independent legal advice for survivors and operating costs, leaving a little under $20m for compensation payments. Survivors who could provide records of their admission to the Lake Alice adolescent unit, as well as proof of being subjected to unmodified electric shock therapy or paraldehyde injections, would be eligible to either apply for an expedited predetermined payment or to go through an individualised pathway and receive a bespoke compensation payment. A total of 118 people have come forward to apply for redress so far. Of those, 74 have chosen the fast-track $150,000 payment and 46 of those have been paid out to a total of $6.9m. Meanwhile, 44 have chosen the individualised pathway, which is now closed to applicants (unless there are extenuating circumstances that allow a selected minister to add them to the list). Five survivor applicants are awaiting confirmation of eligibility. And so far, 11 people have signed up for the financial and wellbeing support on offer. Last year, Stanford acknowledged 'it is not possible to right or compensate for the wrongs of the past'. 'We recognise that there is no number, there is no precedent for this. And we knew that whatever we came up with wasn't going to meet some people's expectations, others it would.' But this roughly $150,000 per person was where Cabinet had landed (despite also considering a payment of $75,000 or $100,000 per person). However, Richards and his lawyer Chris Griggs said it wasn't just that this scheme was imperfect, it actually breached Article 14 of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, they argued. 'Having admitted and been found internationally responsible for torturing children at Lake Alice, the Government now thinks it can minimise its liability by setting up a compensation process which it controls and which does not comply with international minimum standards,' Griggs said. So, Richards was seeking a declaration from the High Court that that the scheme was unlawful. 'We are very keen on being perceived internationally as the great defenders and upholders of an international human rights law. We are not shy at all about criticising other countries or human rights violations. So we better get our own act in order, would be my suggestion,' Griggs said. Article 14 of the international treaty required the government to 'ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation'. In 2012, the UN Committee said this meant the Government needed to 'enact legislation specifically providing a victim of torture and ill-treatment with an effective remedy and the right to obtain adequate and appropriate redress, including compensation and as full rehabilitation as possible. Such legislation must allow for individuals to exercise this right and ensure their access to a judicial remedy'. The current redress scheme was not underpinned by any legislation, instead it was an administrative rather than judicial programme. The lack of legislation, as well as the fact the payments were made ex gratia (gifts), and that the payments came with an obligation to sign a contract of final settlement all meant that the survivors had no way to challenge the scheme or their compensation payments in court. It also meant they could not bring a future civil case against the Crown for compensation for torture, Griggs said, adding that this need for a redress scheme to be legally enforceable and therefore able to be challenged was a key requirement of the Torture Convention. A finite pool of money Richards and his lawyer also said the Government had essentially predetermined the amount survivors would get by allocating a specific funding pool. This allowed for little variation in the compensation payments, despite the vastly different survivor experiences. In response to a question from Newsroom in December, Stanford said while Cabinet had set aside $22.68m for the scheme, the total amount available to the arbiter to assign to each torture survivor would not be capped. Last week, Stanford's office confirmed to Newsroom it expected arbiter Paul Davidson KC to work within the allocated funding envelope – which would be finalised by Cabinet in the coming weeks – 'but he is able to return to ministers if he wanted to make a case for more funding'. Richards and Griggs said Davidson had made it clear to survivors that he planned to work within the allocated funding envelope, as his terms of reference allowed. That would mean if the money was split evenly between the 120 applicants, they would get roughly $160,000 each – there was not the money available for significantly higher payments for those whose experiences of torture were more extreme. Griggs told Newsroom this was a difficult and sensitive issue to discuss, but the reality was that some torture survivors might have been at Lake Alice for days or weeks and been subjected to one instance of torture, while others might have been there for months or years and subjected to repeated torture, leaving them with significant trauma. In a February Cabinet paper, Stanford noted the scheme was unprecedented and was therefore hard to know how much to compensate survivors. She referred to a 2019 example from the UK, where 33 Greek Cypriots alleged torture and human rights abuses from the mid-1950s. The individuals received approximately £30,000 (NZ$65,000) but the British government did not acknowledge that torture occurred and said the settlement was not an admission of liability. In Australia, a former ward of the state of Victoria was forced to undergo electric shock therapy (ECT) after disclosing he had been sexually abused in care. He reached an $825,000 settlement with the state government and Uniting Church in 2020. And in 1996, Nepal passed the Compensation Relating to Torture Act which provides for victims to claim up to approximately NZ$142,500 (adjusted equivalent) and the Nepalese courts have awarded compensation for torture in a number of cases. However, victims have only 35 days from the date of the alleged torture to lodge a claim. Richards told Newsroom it was impossible to pluck a number out of thin air, but what was being put forward by the Government did not meet the definition of fair and adequate. As a teenager, Richards was admitted to Lake Alice and was beaten and raped. He was also subjected to unmodified ECT, including on his legs and genitals. The survivor said he witnessed another child die from ECT, and he lived in fear of being sent back to Lake Alice for decades afterwards. Richards continued to suffer physically and cognitively from his months in Lake Alice in 1975. He said the best estimate he could find for how much survivors should be compensated came from Leoni McInroe's high-profile court case in the 1990s, where she made a claim against Selwyn Leeks and the Attorney-General for $1.5m in compensation to account for her unlawful admission, drugging, ECT, seclusion, and a loss of educational and career opportunities. The figure was based off an expert's advice. Leoni McInroe, Lake Alice survivor. Photo: Aaron Smale Griggs said he believed fiscal considerations were driving the design of the scheme, but they shouldn't. 'If you drive your car recklessly and smash into someone else's car, and the car happens to be a Mercedes, it's going to cost a whole bunch of money. If you're not insured, you can't just say: 'Oh, sorry, I can only afford to pay part of it. I'll pay for the mud guard'. You actually have to pay what you owe them because of the damage that you caused them. And the government should be no different in that respect.' Richards and Griggs also raised issues with the fact the scheme was limited to those who'd received ECT and paraldehyde injections, failing to recognise those who were beaten, raped, and put in solitary confinement (sometimes naked) while they were children as forms of torture. Survivor 'not surprised' Richards said he wasn't surprised the redress scheme was not what survivors like himself had hoped for. He had been fighting for justice and fair compensation for years and felt he had been repeatedly brushed off, even after the UN finding of torture. While there were different options for more tribunals or support systems to be set up, Richards' experience was that they always fell short. 'The perpetrators are setting their own sentence.' Instead, he called on the Government to pay survivors fair and adequate compensation that would allow them to have autonomy over their own lives and the medical and wellbeing support they needed to access. Attorney-General's discretion That paper from February showed the Government was aware of its obligations under the Torture Convention, and included a three-page summary of guidance from the UN Committee Against Torture on implementing Article 14 of the Torture Convention. Stanford noted the Government's obligations under Article 14, as well as the recommendations from the UN in the cases of Richards and an earlier claim from Lake Alice survivor Paul Zentveld. 'This matter will continue to be raised if it is not satisfactorily addressed,' she said in reference to the periodic reviews the Government was subject to. However, the paper also noted that the UN guidance on Article 14 was not binding and that when New Zealand signed up to the Torture Convention in 1989 it made a reservation, which gave it the right to award compensation to torture victims referred to in article 14 of the Convention Against Torture only at the discretion of the Attorney-General. Essentially, discretion as to whether, and how, the Government awarded compensation to torture victims lay in the hands of Attorney-General Judith Collins. The UN has recommended the Government do away with this reservation, meaning it would be obligated to fully (or unreservedly) comply with Article 14. According to a Cabinet paper from January, the Government was actively considering this, and the Ministry of Justice is expected to provide Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith with advice on this issue by mid-year. He was yet to receive that update from the ministry. Calls for new legislation Griggs said in the spirit of trying to offer solutions he was attempting to draft a bill that could be used to enact torture redress legislation, as required by the Torture Convention. Griggs noted that if Nepal could do it, then New Zealand could too. In the process of attempting to design redress legislation, the lawyer came across a useful template for a tribunal that determined compensation for individuals: the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. 'If we can do a tribunal to sort out people's houses and leak, why can't we do a tribunal to help people who've been tortured by the state? That just seems a bit odd to me.' The application for judicial review will be filed in the High Court at Wellington on Monday morning.
