Why Oppose the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill
This Bill is not survivor-centred.
It creates barriers to redress, protects the Crown from accountability, and rewrites the intent of the Royal Commission. Survivors who suffered harm in State care deserve justice — not new exclusions, punitive processes, and legally hollow apologies.
Below explains what the Bill gets wrong, why it matters, and why Parliament must not allow a new redress system that repeats the harms of the old one.
Principles at Stake
- Survivor-centred justice: Redress must recognise harm and restore dignity without punitive filters or moral judgments.
- Accountability: The State must acknowledge wrongdoing — not shield itself from civil consequences.
- Te Tiriti o Waitangi: Māori survivors, disproportionately harmed, must not face further exclusion or structural disadvantage.
- Transparency: Apologies must be meaningful acknowledgements, not legally sterilised statements.
- Human rights: Every survivor of State abuse must have equal access to remedy, regardless of later life outcomes.
What the Bill Gets Wrong
- Creates a discriminatory two-tier system: Survivors with certain convictions face a presumption against financial redress, regardless of the severity of the abuse suffered.
- Replaces justice with image-management: The redress officer can only approve redress if doing so “would not bring the scheme into disrepute” — an undefined, political test prioritising Crown reputation.
- Legally neuters apologies: Clause 25 makes apologies inadmissible as evidence of fault, stripping them of meaning and accountability.
- Introduces strict-liability offences: Survivors can be fined up to $5,000 for administrative errors or failure to declare a conviction, even unintentionally.
- Forces intrusive scrutiny: Survivors must consent to access of sentencing notes, parole decisions, and Corrections files simply to be considered.
- Contradicts Royal Commission recommendations: The Commission called for accessible, trauma-informed, equitable redress — this Bill creates barriers and exclusions.
- Offers no right of appeal: Survivors denied redress have no review mechanism and must wait three years to reapply.
- Disproportionately harms Māori: Māori survivors are overrepresented among those with qualifying convictions due to Crown-caused harm and institutional bias.
Why This Matters
- Survivors are punished for trauma the State caused: Many who later offend do so because of the abuse they suffered in State care. Excluding them compounds harm.
- Apologies lose all accountability: Survivors cannot rely on apologies as factual acknowledgements in civil proceedings. Acknowledgement without liability is performance, not justice.
- Redress becomes inaccessible: The multi-step, high-barrier process discourages claims and retraumatises survivors.
- Māori are disproportionately excluded: Treaty obligations require active protection, equity, and partnership — presumption-based exclusion contravenes these duties.
- Crown responsibility is minimised: The Bill reframes redress around protecting State agencies rather than recognising and repairing harm.
- Public trust erodes: Survivors participated in the Royal Commission expecting meaningful reform — not a system that repeats past failings.
What Real Redress Requires
- Equal access for all survivors: No exclusion based on later offending — redress must be about State actions, not survivor morality.
- Accountable apologies: Apologies must remain admissible and meaningful, acknowledging fault and systemic failure.
- Independent oversight and appeal rights: Survivors must have pathways to review decisions and challenge unfair refusals.
- Trauma-informed and accessible process: Redress must reduce barriers, not create new hurdles.
- Te Tiriti-consistent design: Ensure equity, active protection, partnership, and prioritise Māori survivors harmed by State systems.
- Remove punitive conditions: No strict-liability offences, no invasive information demands, no vague “disrepute” test.
If You Care About Justice, Truth, and Real Accountability
This Bill cannot stand as written. Redress must restore dignity, not divide survivors. It must acknowledge State responsibility, not hide it behind legally hollow apologies.
If you believe abuse survivors deserve a fair and equal redress system,
If you believe the State must be accountable for harm it caused,
If you believe Te Tiriti requires equity, protection, and partnership,
Then this Bill must change — or be rejected in full.
“A redress system cannot heal when it begins by excluding the very people the State harmed.” — Ukes Baha
Read the full submission:
Submission: Opposing the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill