National Business Review
Why doesn’t Phill Goff act?
Anyone who reads A city Possessed must wonder why the
government is so reluctant to act. After all, the episodes span the period of
the Lange-Douglas Labour government, the Bolger National government and a
coalition or three. So no particular party is to blame.
Some suggestions.
First, career politics. The only politician who comes
out well is Michael Cullen. While Minister of Social Welfare he stood against
the tide and seriously challenged the madness taking over his department. He
set up an inquiry under Ken Mason -who sadly let him down.
Given another term, Dr Cullen might have stopped the juggernaut in its tracks.
A wide ranging inquiry would bring this to public attention; so why should his
cabinet competitors do him any favours?
Second, the only child abuse was carried out by career civil servants against
the children in their care. When one of the children was asked if anyone had
been touching in her "in a yucky way" she responded: "Only the
doctors." This was one statement from the mouth of a babe that could be
relied on.
Presumably many of these civil servants now occupy senior positions and
continue to advise the Family Court and other institutions. Many of them were
brutal and vindictive then and presumably remain so today.
Ms Hood draws a valid link with the mindset that administered the Nazi death
camps. Why would any government, committed to the noble aims of the state want
to publicise such unpalatable truths?
Third, the judiciary was heavily interconnected. Any independent examination of
the events of The City Possessed would strengthen the case for retaining the
Privy Council, even if it had little direct application to this sorry affair.
Fourth and finally, several of the children are now old enough to pursue their
own legal actions. "Zelda" was 10 at the time of the trial and must
now be 20. She was a key witness because of her "seniority" but those
who first insisted children do not lie responded to her subsequent retraction
of her evidence by claiming she must be "in denial." She has good
reason to be angry and ready to get even.
One obvious charge is sexual assault. How else do you describe the actions of
"interviewers" who find that a child from the creche had
"asymmetrical puckering of the anus" or who calmly report on whether
a young girl's hymen can be penetrated by "one or two adult fingers."
Children who showed no signs of sexual abuse soon became disturbed and anxious
after they were enrolled in these interview and examination programmes. They
must have grounds for charges of medical malpractice at least.
Many children were subject to unlawful restraint or incarceration. The
interview tapes record the children repeatedly pleading to go home and to be
left alone. Their pleas are ignored until they tell the interviewers want they
want to hear. The term "torture" comes to mind.
There may be other charges that will become viable if some independent judge
reveals and rules on the whole disgraceful episode.
Any compensation payable to Mr Ellis could be insignificant compared with the
claims that could be laid by the children, their parents and the teachers and
managers of the creche.
Even Dr Cullen might not enjoy watching such inroads into his Budget surplus.