A survivor of Lake Alice who is set to have an inequitable redress payment fixed says he is disappointed the reimbursements are not being adjusted for inflation.
The government is reimbursing survivors who did not receive as much in redress as subsequent claimants, due to the legal firm that representing them being paid legal fees.
In 2001, the Crown reached a settlement with 95 survivors for $6.5 million, but the law firm representing them, Grant Cameron & Associates, deducted an estimated $2.6m from the total settlement, before the payments were made.
It meant survivors received on average $41,000, with $27,000 deducted in legal fees, whereas subsequent claimants received on average $70,000, because the Crown met the legal costs.
Stanford said the announcement fixed a "decades-long historical injustice" and criticised former governments for not correcting it.
Lake Alice. Photo: Supplied
"Since round two, we have always paid legal fees and for other claimants as well. So this was a sense of real frustration for those survivors. They've mentioned it to me when I've met with them, they've been to the media, they've mentioned it in the Royal Commission report. You can see it there in black and white, when you do something for one group and not for another, that's an injustice."
Stanford said the payments would be anywhere between $15,000 and $55,000, depending on their case.
The redress would not be adjusted for inflation, which she said was a consistent approach.
"We've been paying redress to Lake Alice survivors over a 20-year period that is not inflation adjusted. We're just making sure the decisions we're making are consistent."
Govt reveals settlement top up for Lake Alice abuse survivors
Stanford said ahead of the announcement she had spoken to survivors, who were "overwhelmed" that the matter was finally being addressed.
"They were actually speechless on the phone, many of them, and then just extraordinarily grateful to this government for putting right that wrong. Lake Alice survivors have been through an extraordinary amount, over many, many decades. They have not been treated well by successive governments and by the Crown," she said.
"Lake Alice survivors have been through an extraordinary amount, over many, many decades," Erica Stanford says. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
'It has taken a long time'
The director of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, Mike Ferriss, has worked alongside Lake Alice survivors, and said some were delighted and relieved the inequity would be fixed.
"This was always the easiest thing any government could do to rectify that inequity between the first-round claimants and the second-round claimants. That it has taken this long is really a shame for all those people that should have got it long ago," he said.
But one survivor, who said they wanted to be known as 'Mr AA,' said it was "bullshit" that the payments were not being adjusted for inflation, considering subsequent claimants had been compensated for the true value of their costs.
"I thought that was what was going to happen. I gave evidence to the Royal Commission, and that was one of my bitches, about paying legal fees. And then, the other round, they didn't have to. So they actually made on the deal a lot better than we're going to do," he said.
"What they're offering is take it or leave it. So I'd be stupid not to take it."
Crown reluctant to cover legal costs at time, lawyer says
Lawyer Grant Cameron told RNZ there were strong representations at the time that the Crown should pay the legal costs, but the firm was met with resistance.
Grant Cameron Photo: RNZ / Nate McKinnon
"During that process, we said to the Crown 'you could pay our costs for doing this work and bringing this to your attention' but it didn't want to do that. We said we could possibly do it on a legal-aid basis, but again the Crown would have to meet that cost. It refused to do so," he said.
Ultimately, the only way to fund the claimant's legal fees was on a contingency fee basis.
"Essentially, the law firm was unable to charge these clients. They had no money. But at the end of the day, we would have to be paid from whatever was recovered. The Crown was on full notice of that all the way through and knew full well these people would be faced with considerable legal costs if and when the matter did settle," Cameron said.
He said there was no possible basis for any law firm conducting work for nearly 100 clients over several years on a complicated range of legal issues not to receive some compensation for its services.
Cameron had asked the Crown 13 times during the first round of settlements for his firm's clients' costs to be paid, but the Crown had consistently refused.
"That first group was unfairly treated, and it's good that they will be paid now," he said.
The fees would not be paid out to next of kin, with Stanford saying claimants had to be alive to make a claim. Similarly to not adjusting them for inflation, this was for consistency.
Ferriss said in those cases, the fees should go directly to next of kin.
"There's been nothing consistent about any of this. To try and conform to some kind of consistency is inconsistent, to be ironic," he said.
"We know the generational harm does exist, and I think that would be putting that right as well."
The announcement comes two weeks before the national apology to survivors of abuse in state and faith-based institutions. Ferris said it would inspire confidence.
"Redress isn't only financial, and I think it's a really important point that many of the survivors make, and we certainly make, is that redress is making sure there is no repetition of those things that have happened in the past to happen again in the future."
However, Mr AA said he felt the announcement was being rushed out ahead of the apology.
"This is what happens when you try and rush things. Some survivors are still going to be held back," he said.
Survivors can lodge a claim with the Ministry of Health for reimbursement until 30 June 2025.