As we drew closer to the date of the public apology, the response minister Erica Stanford began preparing abuse victims for disappointment. It’s clear that redress will not accompany the national apology tomorrow. There are a number of “extraordinarily complex decisions” yet to be made “which are still going through the Cabinet process”, she said last week. For those abused in faith-based care, it’s equally unclear whether the government will apologise for its role in allowing this abuse to occur and whether it intends to hold the churches to account. I’ll use the term “victims” here because an apology without action returns survivors to the position of victim again.
One gets the feeling Stanford is stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one side is the victim community that needs accountability and fair compensation, on the other is Cabinet and other public service actors who continue to play pivotal roles in the abuse crisis to the present day.
What’s been very concerning over the last few weeks is the way key terms have been used interchangeably in media when they simply shouldn’t be. To do so misleads the public and detracts from the true gravity of the situation victims face. A settlement is not compensation. Rather it’s a poor solution forced on victims because there are no further options to pursue. After running its test cases like White and Wiffin through the early 2000s, the Crown set legal precedent and then generally fell back on its litigation strategy, which is to “settle meritorious claims”. The issue with this is that the victim is presented with an insignificant “take it or leave it” settlement, derived from a formula. That is provided ex gratia and with no wraparound services. Essentially a head shot and then a kick in the guts when you’re down. The 65-page guide on ex-gratia payments provided by Crown Law defines it as: “(i) a payment made without the giver recognising any liability or legal obligation; (ii) the payment is made out of goodwill or a sense of moral obligation.”