|
|
Allegations
of Abuse in Institutions |
|
|
|
|
We have never done
sorry very well in New Zealand. The Kiwi way has long
been to leave unpleasant incidents in the past, to hush them up, pretend they
never happened. According to the
"she'll be right" brand of Kiwi stoicism, those involved should
just forget about it, get over it, move on. A more recent way of
thinking - some would say a touchy-feely PC way of thinking - is that things
don't just go away, they have to be dealt with. A number of cases of
past wrongs that have come to light in recent weeks - allegations of abuse of
military cadets at Waiouru, the inquiry into exposure of Vietnam veterans to
Agent Orange, and the trials of men accused of sexual offending on Pitcairn
Island - demonstrate a clash of the two schools of thought. In each case, some have
argued that the wrongs inflicted were just the norm of those times and
places, and that there is no point apportioning blame according to today's
different moral and social viewpoint. The abuse alleged at
Waiouru from the 1960s to the 1980s, including beatings, sexual assaults and
at least one death, has been likened to the sort of behaviour that went on in
boarding schools of that era: just a lot of jolly japes that should have made
men of the boys involved. NZ First MP and former
soldier Ron Mark has said the tough world of military discipline should not
be judged by the different standards of acceptable behaviour, as understood
in civvy street more than 30 years later. The alleged sexual
abuse dating back 40 years on Pitcairn Island has been described as
"just the way it was". Supporters of the seven Pitcairn men accused
of 55 sex crimes say under-age sex was part of the isolated island's culture
and you could hardly blame its inhabitants for going along with its social
norms. But for the victims of
these long-ago incidents, the past is not so easy to shelve. One former cadet
described how he still slept with a torch beside his bed for fear of being
attacked. Another was left infertile. Grown men had tears in their eyes as
they recalled incidents from decades ago. "Getting over
it" was certainly not an option for teenager Grant Bain, shot dead by
senior cadet Andrew Read in 1981. That Read was charged only with careless
use of a firearm and sentenced to 200 hours community service and a $200
fine, can only have left Bain's family with the feeling justice had not been
done. Vietnam veterans
exposed to Agent Orange more than 30 years ago face not only damage to their
own health, but also the nightmare of having serious health problems passed
on to their children and grandchildren. It does not matter how
long ago victims were wronged, if the perpetrators of those wrongs have never
been brought to justice and the consequences of their actions remain with
their victims. The way officialdom has
dealt with each case illustrates how our culture is changing to recognise
more widely past wrongs and accept that responsibility to provide redress
rests with the present. The government's swift
response in announcing an inquiry into abuse of cadets once complaints came
to light last week demonstrates an increasing willingness by those in
authority to address past wrongs and take them seriously. The mere fact the
Pitcairn defendants have been brought to trial - whatever the verdicts -
demonstrates that things have changed forever on the tiny island. For the Vietnam
veterans exposed to Agent Orange, the acknowledgment by a select committee
inquiry that veterans were exposed comes as some comfort after three decades
of official denial of what the veterans knew all along. But for the veterans,
it is not just a matter of setting straight the record of the past. The
present and future effects of exposure on veterans and their families must
also be resolved. Acknowledgment that
soldiers were exposed to the chemical may now open the way to compensation
and some have said they will take court action if necessary. The committee has recommended
a range of measures to help deal with medical conditions linked to Agent
Orange but has stopped short of recommending compensation. Committee chairwoman
Steve Chadwick has said that an apology is a matter for the government, not
the select committee. The government now has
90 days to respond, and its response may include an apology from Prime
Minister Helen Clark, though her position for the moment is the government
must take time to properly consider the inquiry's recommendations. An apology would not be
surprising, given Clark's track record of making apologies to groups who have
suffered wrongs in the past. She apologised to
Samoans for the New Zealand administration in Samoa a century ago, to Chinese
New Zealanders for historic mistreatment of Chinese in New Zealand, and to
homosexuals for New Zealand's past treatment of the gay community. Clark has also
apologised to iwi as part of treaty settlements and the concept of redress
for historic injustices is now well established through the treaty settlement
process. Some will interpret the
changing attitude of the government and society as the growth of a culture of
snivelling and hand-wringing, shouldering the present generation with
historic guilt, and hitching ever more wagons to the compensation gravy
train. Others will conclude
that we are simply, and at last, finding closure. |
