Key Takeaways
- The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has published an Official Information Act document online that included the names of five abuse survivors who were seeking compensation for their experiences in state care.
- The document was available online for three months before the breach was discovered, and none of the five survivors have been informed about the breach.
- The MSD has apologized for the breach, but there is disagreement between the ministry and the survivors’ lawyers about how the survivors should be informed and what compensation they should receive.
- The mother of one of the survivors fears that her son could be severely traumatized if he finds out about the breach, and is calling for compensation for the further harm caused by the breach.
- The incident has highlighted concerns about the government’s handling of sensitive information and its treatment of vulnerable individuals.
Introduction to the Incident
The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has been criticized for its handling of a sensitive document that was published online, including the names of five abuse survivors who were seeking compensation for their experiences in state care. The document was available online for three months before the breach was discovered, and none of the five survivors have been informed about the breach. The incident has raised concerns about the government’s handling of sensitive information and its treatment of vulnerable individuals.
The Breach and its Consequences
The breach was discovered by the Wellington human rights law firm Cooper Legal, which notified the MSD on November 21. The ministry has apologized for the breach, but the mother of one of the survivors fears that her son could be severely traumatized if he finds out about the breach. Her son has complex post-traumatic stress disorder due to the abuse he suffered in state care, and she worries that the breach could cause him further harm. The mother is calling for compensation for the further harm caused by the breach, and is seeking redress for the harm that her son has already suffered.
Disagreement Between MSD and Cooper Legal
There is disagreement between the MSD and Cooper Legal about how the survivors should be informed about the breach. The MSD general manager Anna Graham said that Cooper Legal had made it clear that the ministry should not directly approach the five named people to apologize. However, Cooper Legal principal lawyer Lydia Oosterhoff said that the firm had not kept the MSD waiting, and was waiting to hear back from the ministry after replying to its correspondence. Oosterhoff accused the MSD of washing its hands of responsibility and failing to take accountability for the breach.
Need for Trauma-Informed Approach
Oosterhoff emphasized the need for a trauma-informed approach when informing the survivors about the breach. She said that the survivors needed to be told in a way that recognized their vulnerability and the sensitive nature of the breach and their abuse. The MSD had initially proposed writing directly to the survivors, but Oosterhoff said that this was not good enough. She argued that the state had already abused the survivors’ trust and now needed to take accountability for the breach.
Call for Compensation
Oosterhoff is looking into what compensation the five survivors should receive for the breach. The mother of one of the survivors said that compensation was essential, given the further harm that the breach had caused. She argued that the breach was a violation of her son’s privacy and added to the harm that he had already suffered. The MSD said that it was discussing a proposed resolution with Cooper Legal, but the details of the compensation package are not yet clear.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The incident has highlighted concerns about the government’s handling of sensitive information and its treatment of vulnerable individuals. The MSD has apologized for the breach, but there is still disagreement about how the survivors should be informed and what compensation they should receive. The next steps will be crucial in determining the outcome for the survivors and ensuring that the government takes accountability for the breach. The incident serves as a reminder of the need for a trauma-informed approach when dealing with vulnerable individuals and the importance of protecting their privacy and dignity.