Historical abuse claims: Government spends $3.5 million

Many important cases, such as the White Trial, predated this decade, and the government also spent money on related programs, such as the Crown Response Unit.

Abuse survivor and advocate Keith Wiffin said the actual expenditure would be much higher and believed it was a complete waste of public money.

“If you look at this in its entirety, going back many decades when we have had resistance, denial and minimization, the cost of this will be astronomical.

“So it feels like the tip of the iceberg to me and the sad thing about that is that it has been a huge waste of taxpayers’ money because it hasn’t delivered solutions and just outcomes for those who have suffered.”

It has been three months since Parliament accepted the proposal Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Healthcare‘s final report.

In two weeks, the government will issue its apology, an important milestone in the survivors’ decades-long struggle for recognition and reparation.

Part of this struggle has involved lawsuits, where survivors have taken government agencies to court and the Crown has fought back.

Since May 2005, Crown Law has dealt with abuse in healthcare cases in accordance with a “litigation strategy” led by Cabinet and last updated in December 2019.

This strategy includes requiring agencies to resolve complaints early and directly with individuals, to consider settlements for all meritorious (likely to prevail) claims, and to ensure that these claims are full and final without admission of liability.

Wiffin said survivors in these cases went against “tremendous” resources from the Crown and often came out worse for wear.

“It has caused harm because it is an adversarial model that retraumatizes everyone who has to go through the process.

“And it is often done by the Crown in the full knowledge that these are meritorious claims for which they are obligated to resolve outside of litigation.”

The Royal Commission criticized Crown law’s the treatment of meritorious claims in its final report; found that the agency did not adhere to the litigation strategy it had established and that it was required to settle such cases.

One such case referred to is the White trial, in which two brothers – known as Paul and Earl White – brought a claim in the High Court in the mid-2000s alleging physical and sexual abuse they suffered in the 1970s. boys’ homes. .

Sonya Cooper, a Wellington lawyer and principal partner at Cooper Legal, has worked on landmark claims cases, including the White trial, for almost thirty years.

Cooper said the $3.5 million spend on Crown litigation seemed “conservative” and likely reflected the fact that many cases were not progressing during the Covid-19 pandemic.

She also pointed out that the Crown Response Unit, set up to coordinate the Crown’s response to the Royal Commission, would likely have cost millions.

“I think if you add that in, you’re probably closer to the $10 million that the Crown has spent on legal fees defending the Crown.”

“You could be looking at as much as 50%, 30 to 50%, of what was paid to survivors that was actually paid out by the Crown to defend the Crown.

“That’s just deeply cynical and I think it just shows what the priorities of the Crown have been and continue to be.”

Cooper said the Crown knew for decades it could not reasonably defend itself against claims and continued to fight cases anyway.

“When you think about what could have been done for the survivors, what should have been done with that money for the survivors, that’s probably another $20,000, $30,000 per survivor that could have been paid out, if not more.

“I just think it shows a lack of morality on the part of the government and on the part of the state, that it has always defended its position and continues to do so.”

The Royal Commission’s final report found that political and public sector leaders “spent time, energy and taxpayer resources to hide, cover up and then legally fight survivors to avoid the potential costs to the Crown and their own reputations.” to protect”.

RNZ approached Attorney General Judith Collins last week to ask whether she thought what had been spent on litigating landmark claims cases over the past decade had been a good use of taxpayers’ money.

Collins did not answer the question directly, but instead provided a five-paragraph response that referenced the government’s policy of settling abuse in healthcare claims out of court.

“Litigation is not an easy process for claimants making historical abuse claims and there are many legal hurdles facing abuse in care claims, as the Abuse in Care Royal Commission noted,” she said in the statement.

Wiffin said the Crown should immediately stop these types of lawsuits.

“As far as I can tell, this is largely an attempt to defend the indefensible, because these are often obvious, meritorious claims.

“So for me it’s about an attempt to relinquish taking full responsibility. That money should have been invested from day one in finding solutions and achieving just and fair outcomes for those who suffer.”

Both Wiffin and Cooper expressed hope that the government’s apology next month would lead to a different approach to recognizing and compensating survivors, although both were skeptical that this would actually happen.

“We are all waiting with bated breath to see what the government says on November 12 and it better be good,” Cooper said.

“It better not just be a kick in the teeth for the survivors.”

– RNZ

Subscribe to The Daily Ha free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.