Notes
[1] Our findings in relation to the failings of the Crown in defending claims of abuse in care are detailed in the case studies of Leoni McInroe, Paul and Earl White, and Keith Wiffin in Volume 2.
[1] A report we commissioned estimates about 655,000 people have been in certain types of care settings in NZ since 1950, and that up to 256,000 may have been abused. However, the true situation is likely to be far worse, given the range and breadth of care settings within the scope of our work, and significant gaps in the available data which were provided the basis for these estimates. Nor do these estimates account for effects on the families and whānau of victims, or their communities and later generations. MartinJenkins, Indicative estimates of the size of cohorts and levels of abuse in state care and faith-based care 1950 to 2019 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2020), pp. 6-8, 43.
[1] Savage, C., Moyle, P., Kus-Harbord, L. et al, Hāhā-uri, hāhā-tea - Māori Involvement in State Care 1950-1999: Report prepared for the Crown Secretariat (Ihi Research, 2021), p. 13.
[1] Māori Perspective Advisory Committee, Puao-te-ata-tu (day break): The report of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on a Māori perspective for the Department of Social Welfare (Department of Social Welfare, 1986), pp. 18, 57.
[1] Ibid., p. 18.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, He Pāharakeke, He Rito Whakakīkīnga Whāruarua: Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry, Pre-publication version (Wai 2915, 2021) p. 97.
[1] Including: Boshier, P., He Take Kōhukihuki: A Matter of Urgency (The Office of the Ombudsman, 2020); Kaiwai, H., Allport, T., Herd, R. et al, Ko Te Wā Whakawhiti: It’s Time for Change - A Māori Inquiry into Oranga Tamariki (Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, 2020); Office of the Children’s Commissioner, Te Kuku O Te Manawa: Ka puta te riri, ka momori te ngākau, ka heke ngā roimata mo tōku pēpi (2020).
[1] Transcript of evidence of Dr Moana Jackson from the Contextual Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 October 2019), pp. 232, 234.
9 Waitangi Tribunal, He Pāharakeke, He Rito Whakakīkīnga Whāruarua: Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry, Pre-publication version, p. 12.
10 Transcript of evidence of Dr Moana Jackson from the Contextual Hearing, p. 236.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, He Pāharakeke, He Rito Whakakīkīnga Whāruarua: Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry, Pre-publication version, p. 12.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Dr Rawiri Waretini-Karena (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2019), p. 13.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Dr Rawiri Waretini-Karena from Contextual Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 30 October 2019), pp. 149, 160-161.
[1] Kaiwai, H., Allport, T., Herd, R. et al, Ko Te Wā Whakawhiti: It’s Time for Change - A Māori Inquiry into Oranga Tamariki, pp. 25-32. See also: Witness Statement of Kim Workman (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 5 October 2019); Witness Statement of Dr Oliver Sutherland (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 4 October 2019).
[1] Cook, L., Second Brief of Evidence of Leonard Warren Cook to the Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry (Wai 2915, 16 July 2020) p. 4.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, He Pāharakeke, He Rito Whakakīkīnga Whāruarua: Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry, Pre-publication version, p. 29.
[1] In 1966, half of the Māori population was aged under 15, and the average number of children born to Māori women was 5.6, compared to 3.5 for Pākehā: Cook, L., Second Brief of Evidence of Leonard Warren Cook to the Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry, p. 3.
[1] Meredith, P., Urban Māori – Urbanisation (Te Ara: The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, 2015).
[1] Dalley, B., “Moving Out of the Realm of Myth: Government Child Welfare Services to Māori, 1925-1972” New Zealand Journal of History 32, vol. 2 (1998), p. 195.
[1] Ibid., pp. 195-196.
[1] Ibid., p. 194; Garlick, T., Social Developments: An organisational history of the Ministry of Social Development and its predecessors, 1860-2011 (Steele Roberts, 2012), pp. 57, 61.
[1] Garlick, T., Social Developments: An organisational history of the Ministry of Social Development and its predecessors, 1860-2011, pp. 57-58.
[1] Sutherland, O., Justice and Race: Campaigns against racism and abuse in Aotearoa New Zealand (Steele Roberts, 2020), p. 193.
[1] Sir Kim Workman, quoted in Smale, A., “Smashed by the state: The kids from Kohitere,” Radio New Zealand (13 February 2017), www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/324425/smashed-by-the-state-the-kids-from-kohitere.
[1] Witness Statement of Sir Kim Workman, p. 9.
[1] Sutherland, O., Justice and Race: Campaigns against Racism and Abuse in Aotearoa New Zealand, p. 194.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Gassin, T., Māori mental health: A report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Wai 2575 Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry (Waitangi Tribunal, 2019), p. 6.
[1] Ibid., p. 4.
[1] Ms BH, RC-01233-C8R0 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 15 October 2019), p. 26.
[1] Ibid., pp. 26-27.
[1] Mr BL, RC-007740-L6S7 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2 March 2020), p. 10.
[1] Ibid., p. 12.
[1] Cook, L., Second Brief of Evidence of Leonard Warren Cook to the Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry, pp. 9-12.
[1] Nuku, K., Brief of Evidence of Kerri Nuku to the Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry (Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 2915, 2 July 2019), p. 4. According to former government statistician Len Cook, growth in the prison population during the 1980s reflected the coming of age of children who had spent time in state care: Cook. L., Exhibits of Brief of Evidence to the Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry (Wai 2915, 18 February 2020) pp. 9-10.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, He Pāharakeke, He Rito Whakakīkīnga Whāruarua: Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry, Pre-publication version, p. 185.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Private Session of Wiremu Waikari (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 8 July 2020), pp. 61-62.
[1] Kōrero from engagement event with Kiingitanga.
[1] Mr BN, CRM0006002 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care 17 April 2019), pp. 5-7.
[1] Anae, M., Coxon, E., Mara, D. et al, Pasifika Education Research Guidelines: Report to the Ministry of Education (Ministry of Education, 2001), p. 7.
[1] Frankael, J., “Pacific Islands and New Zealand”, (Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand, 20 June 2012); Larner, W., “Labour migration and female labour: Samoan women in New Zealand,” The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 27, vol. 1 (1991), 19-33, p. 31.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Hon Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, TRN0000399 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 July 2021), p. 11.
[1] Witness Statement of Dr Sam Manuela, WITN0560001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 12 July 2021), p. 8.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Anae, M., “All power to the people: Overstayers, dawn raids and the Polynesian Panthers”, in Tangata o le Moana: New Zealand and the People of the Pacific, eds. Mallon, S., Māhina-Tuai, K. and Salesa., D. (Independent Publishing Group, 2012), pp. 221-239.
[1] Office of the Prime Minister, Hansard transcript of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, speaking at a post-Cabinet press conference (14 June 2021), p. 1, www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-06/Press%20Conference%2014%20June%202021%20_0.pdf.
[1] Epuni Boys Home Handbook, 1975, ORT0000364, p. 75; Arbor House, Greytown Reception Centre – Annual Report, March 1981 to August 1985, ORT0003301, p. 36; Allendale Girls Home, November 1950 to July 1980, ORT0003455, p. 88.
[1] Sometimes, mixed ethnicity was not recorded at all. More recently, the lack of reporting on mixed ethnicity may have been because recording was done using a prioritised ethnicity method, which does not account for mixed ethnicity: Allan, J., Review of the measurement of ethnicity: Classification and issues (Statistics New Zealand, 2001), pp. 17-19. This system of ethnicity reporting has been seen in reports as recently as 2017: Ministry of Social Development, Kids in care – National and local level data (2017).
[1] Witness Statement of Dr Sam Manuela, 12 July 2021, p. 13.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Fa’amoana Luafutu from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, TRN0000399 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 July 2021), p. 42.
[1] Witness Statement of Frances Tagaloa, WITN0020001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2 October 2020), p. 11.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid., p. 12.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms CU, WITN0422001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 10 June 2021), p. 33.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care Research Team, Research Report: What we know about people in care and the extent of abuse in care (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2020), pp. 21-23. In 1983, for example, 16 per cent of people in Auckland’s Department of Social Welfare institutions were from Pacific communities, which comprised 6 per cent of the general population: Women Against Racism Action Group, Institutional Racism in the Department of Social Welfare (Department of Social Welfare, revised edition, 1985), p. 21.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr X, WITN0157001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 15 March 2021), p. 8.
[1] Sutherland, O., Justice and Race: Campaigns against Racism and Abuse in Aotearoa New Zealand, p. 116.
[1] Witness Statement of David Crichton, WITN0456001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 9 July 2021), p. 19.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr CE, WITN0552001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 8 July 2021), p. 16.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Fa’afete Taito, (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 24 September 2019), p. 7.
[1] Ibid., p. 8.
[1] United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, (A/Res/61/106, 24 January 2007).
[1] The report stated that 22 per cent of adults (people aged 15 years and over) and 11 per cent of children (people aged 0-14) living in households had a disability. See: Ministry of Health, Living with Disability in New Zealand: A descriptive analysis of results from the 2001 Household Disability Survey and the 2001 Disability Survey of Residential Facilities (2004), p. 16.
[1] Statistics New Zealand, Disability Survey: 2013 (2014), p. 2.
[1] After adjusting for differences in ethnic population age profiles. See: Statistics New Zealand, Disability Survey: 2013, p. 3.
[1] King, Dr P., Māori with Lived Experience of Disability - Part I (Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 2575, 2019), p. 20.
[1] Since the 1970s, Māori have had higher rates of admissions to psychiatric institutions than non-Māori: Durie, Sir M.H., Kingi, Te K.R., A Framework for Measuring Māori Mental Health Outcomes: A Report Prepared for the Ministry of Health (Massey University, 1997), p. 16; Kingi, T., Māori mental health: Past trends, current issues and Māori responsiveness (Massey University, 2005), p. 2. Māori not only more likely to be receiving mental health care, but also more likely to be in secure care and subject to compulsory treatment orders, see: Gassin, T., Māori mental health: A report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Wai 2575 Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry, pp. 12, 14; Witness Statement of Mary O’Hagan (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 14 October 2019), pp. 9-10, citing Mental Health Commission.
[1] Moore, A. and Tennant, M., Who is responsible for the provision of support services for people with disabilities? (National Health Committee, 1997), p. 32.
[1] Aitken, R., Caughley, J., Lopdell, F. et al, Intellectually Handicapped Children: Report of the Consultative Committee set up by the Hon. The Minister of Education in August 1951 (Department of Education, 1953), pp. 24, 38.
[1] Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, Report on the impact of ableism in medical and scientific practice (A/HRC/43/41, United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, 28 February 2020), p. 3.
[1] Millen, J., Breaking Barriers: IHC’s First 50 Years (Bridget Williams Books, 1999), p. 81; Craig, T. and Mills, M., Care and Control: The role of institutions in New Zealand (New Zealand Planning Council, 1987), p. 27. Also see: National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, To have an ‘ordinary’ life - Background papers to inform the National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability (Ministry of Health, 2004), p. 35.
[1] Leaman, A., “Dignity restored to Tokanui Hospital’s ‘lost souls’”, Stuff (20 February 2016), www.stuff.co.nz/national/77100182/dignity-restored-to-tokanui-hospitals-lost-souls.
[1] Tennant, M., “Disability in New Zealand: An Historical Survey,” New Zealand Journal of Disability Studies, vol. 2 (1996), pp. 12-15.
[1] The term ‘psychopaedic’ is a uniquely New Zealand term, coined in the early 1960s by then Director of Mental Health Dr Geoffrey Blake-Palmer. It stems from the outdated idea that a person with a learning disability has “the mind of a child,” see: Transcript of Evidence of Dr Brigit Mirfin-Veitch (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 1 November 2019) p. 407.
[1] Oakley/Carrington, Lake Alice, and Sunnyside were exclusively or mainly focused on psychiatric care, whereas the others provided a mix of care, see: Te Āiotanga: Report of the Confidential Forum for Former Patients of Psychiatric Hospitals (2007), pp. 61-62. Total residents were 10,475 as at 31 December 1949; Department of Health, “Annual Report of the Director-General of Health,” AJHR, Session I, H-31, (1950), p. 27.
[1] More than 150 children with learning disabilities attended state special residential schools at Ōtekaieke and Richmond, and residential Deaf schools at Sumner and Titirangi had combined rolls of close to 300 students between them, see: Department of Education, “Education: Child Welfare, State Care of Children, Special Schools, and Infant-Life Protection,” AJHR, Session I, E-04 (1950), pp. 5-6. Figures are for numbers of students enrolled as at 31 March 1946.
[1] Witness Statement of Dr Hilary Stace (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, October/November 2019), p. 15.
[1] Department of Health, Review of psychiatric hospitals and hospitals for the intellectually handicapped (1986), p. 7.
[1] Ibid., p. 9.
[1] Ibid., p. 15.
[1] Ibid., p. 17.
[1] National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, To have an ’ordinary‘ life - Background papers to inform the National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability (Ministry of Health, 2004), p. 35. Mangere was the first psychopaedic institution for people with an intellectual disability to close followed by Templeton Centre in 1999, Braemar in 2004 and the Kimberley Centre in 2006. Psychopaedic wards in psychiatric hospitals also closed, including those at Cherry Farm, Seacliff, Sunnyside, Porirua, Tokanui and Kingseat Hospitals: Milner, P., Gates, S., Mirfin-Veitch, B. et al, An examination of the outcome of the resettlement of residents from the Kimberley Centre (Donald Beasley Institute, 2008), p. 3.
[1] Henwood, Judge C., Some memories never fade: Final report of the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service (Confidential Listening and Assistance Service, 2015), pp. 11.
[1] Witness Statement of James Packer, WITN0081001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 13 February 2020), p. 4.
[1] Witness Statement of Dr Hilary Stace, p. 10; Te Āiotanga: Report of the Confidential Forum for Former Patients of Psychiatric Hospitals, p. 33; Hamilton, C., “Sterilisation and intellectually disabled people in New Zealand – still on the agenda?”, Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 7, vol. 2 (2012), 61-71.
[1] Witness Statement of Enid Wardle, WITN0401001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 3 October 2021), p. 5; Witness Statement of Mr BG, WITN0520001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 July 2021), p. 7.
[1] Milner, P., Gates, S., Mirfin-Veitch, B. et al, An examination of the outcome of the resettlement of residents from the Kimberley Centre, p. 58.
[1] See: Shalev, S., Thinking outside the box? A review of seclusion and restraint practices in New Zealand, (Human Rights Commission, 2017, updated 2020), p. 8. See also: Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction, He Ara Oranga: Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction (2018) and the reports released in August 2020 by the Chief Ombudsman after the unannounced inspection of five mental health units: Boshier, P., OPCAT Report: Report of an unannounced inspection of Waiatarau Mental Health Inpatient Unit, Waitakere Hospital, under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 (Office of the Ombudsman, 2020);Boshier, P., Report on an unannounced inspection of He Puna Wāiora Mental Health Inpatient Unit, North Shore Hospital, under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 (Office of the Ombudsman, 2020); Boshier, P., Report on an unannounced inspection of the Kensington Centre Mental Health Inpatient Unit, Timaru, under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 (Office of the Ombudsman, 2020); Boshier, P., Report on an unannounced inspection of Tumanako Mental Health Inpatient Unit, Whangārei Hospital, under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 (Office of the Ombudsman, 2020); and Boshier, P., Report on an unannounced inspection of Te Whare o Matairangi Mental Health Inpatient Unit, Wellington Hospital, under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 (Office of the Ombudsman, 2020).
[1] Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction, He Ara Oranga: Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction, see for example: pp. 14, 160.
[1] Witness Statement of Mary O’Hagan, 14 October 2019, pp. 21-22.
[1] Westcott, H. and Jones, D., “The abuse of disabled children,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol. 40, no. 4 (1999), 497-506; Ward, M. and Rodger, H., Child Sexual Abuse in Residential Schools: A literature review (UK Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, 2018), p. 15; Sullivan, P. and Knutson, J., “Maltreatment and disabilities: A population-based epidemiological study,” Child Abuse and Neglect 24, vol. 10 (2000), 1257-1273.
[1] Ward, M. and Rodger, H., Child Sexual Abuse in Residential Schools: A literature review, p. 15.
[1] Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care Research Team, Research Report: What we know about the numbers of people in care and the extent of abuse in care, p. 6.
[1] Individual redress submission of Caroline Arrell, RC-01362-Q4K2 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care), p. 7.
[1] See also: Roguski, Dr M., The hidden abuse of disabled people residing in the community: An exploratory study (Tairawhiti Community Voice, 2013), pp. 10-12.
[1] Witness Statement of Walton Ngatai-Mathieson, WITN0441001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 11 May 2021), p. 10.
[1] Mirfin-Veitch, B. and Conder, J., “Institutions are places of abuse”: The experiences of disabled children and adults in State care between 1950-1992 (Donald Beasley Institute and NZ Human Rights Commission, 2017), pp. 43-44.
[1] MartinJenkins, Indicative estimates of the size of cohorts and levels of abuse in state care and faith-based care 1950 to 2019, p. 38.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Tennant, M., The fabric of welfare: Voluntary organisations, government and welfare in New Zealand, 1840-2005 (Bridget Williams Books, 2007), p. 107.
[1] Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Volume 16: Book 1 – Religious Institutions (Commonwealth of Australia, 2017), pp. 453-459.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid., pp. 449-452; Pilgrim. D., “Child Abuse in Irish Catholic Settings: A Non-Reductionist Account”, Child Abuse Review, 21, no. 6, 405-413, p. 408.
[1] Witness Statement of Anne Hill, WITN0013001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 28 September 2020), p. 2.
[1] Transcript of Evidence of John, TRN0000332 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 4 December 2020), p. 387.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms K, WITN0045001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 September 2020), p. 15.
[1] Palmer, D., Feldman, V. and McKibbin, G., Final report - The role of organisational culture in child sexual abuse in institutional contexts (Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Australia, 2016), pp. 38-39; Beyer, L., Higgins, D. and Bromfield, L., Understanding organisational risk factors for child maltreatment: A review of literature (National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2005), pp. 44, 59-60.
[1] Witness Statement of Ann-Marie Shelley, WITN0002001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 6 August 2020), p. 12.
[1] Garlick, T., Social Developments: An organisational history of the Ministry of Social Development and its predecessors, 1860-2011, p. 65.
[1] Dalley, B., Family Matters: Child Welfare in Twentieth Century New Zealand (Auckland University Press, 1998), p. 172.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr X, p. 7.
[1] 43 per cent of survivors registered with us are women, see: MartinJenkins, Indicative estimates of the size of cohorts and levels of abuse in state care and faith-based care 1950 to 2019, p. 4.
[1] Witness Statement of Mrs D, WITN0063001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 September 2020), pp. 3-4. St Mary’s Homes Trust Board is affiliated with the Anglican Church.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Mrs D from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000335 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 9 December 2020), pp. 770-771.
[1] Witness Statement of Dr Oliver Sutherland, p. 9.
[1] Stanley, E., Road to hell: State violence against children in postwar New Zealand (Auckland University Press, 2016), p. 67.
[1] Witness Statement of Beverly Wardle-Jackson (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 7 November 2019), p. 11.
[1] Ibid., p. 8.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill for Cooper Legal from State Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000005 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 September 2020), p. 375; Witness Statement of Professor Elizabeth Stanley (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 11 October 2019), pp. 17-18; Witness Statement of Dr Oliver Sutherland, pp. 17-18. See also: Human Rights Commission, Report of the Human Rights Commission on representations by the Auckland Committee on Racism and Discrimination – Children and Young Persons’ Homes, administered by the Department of Social Welfare (1982), pp. 17-18, 85.
[1] Witness Statement of Gwyneth Beard, WITN0159001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 March 2021), p. 9. See also: Witness Statement of Mrs D, pp. 10-11.
[1] Witness Statement of Dr Hilary Stace, p. 10; Te Āiotanga: Report of the Confidential Forum for Former Patients of Psychiatric Hospitals, p. 33; Hamilton, C., “Sterilisation and intellectually disabled people in New Zealand – still on the agenda?”, Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 7, no. 2 (2012), pp. 61-71.
[1] Witness Statement of Enid Wardle, 3 October 2021, p. 5; Witness Statement of Mr BG, 21 July 2021, p. 7.
[1] Witness Statement of Professor Elizabeth Stanley, p. 16.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Leoni McInroe from State Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 24 September 2020), p. 156.
[1] Witness Statement of Janet Lowe, WITN0066001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 16 September 2020), p. 44.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, He Pāharakeke, He Rito Whakakīkīnga Whāruarua: Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry, Pre-publication version, p. 185.
[1] Witness Statement of Janet Lowe, p. 44.
[1] Witness Statement of Thomas Doyle, WITN0360001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 9 March 2021), p. 116; Transcript of evidence of Dr Thomas Doyle from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000344 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 23 March 2021), p. 535.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr N, WITN0070001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 8 August 2020), p. 11.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Volume 16: Book 1 – Religious institutions, pp. 490-492.
[1] Witness Statement of Dr Thomas Doyle, p. 110.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid., p. 116; Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final report - Religious institutions, pp. 485-490.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Jacinda Thompson from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000333 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 7 December 2020), p. 472.
[1] Witness Statement of Ann-Marie Shelley, 6 August 2020, p. 9.
[1] Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Volume 16: Book 1 – Religious Institutions, pp. 485-490.
[1] Witness Statement of Thomas Doyle, p. 118.
[1] Ibid., pp. 118-119.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Frances Tagaloa from Faith Based Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000329 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 30 November 2020), p. 35.
[1] Witness Statement of Fa’afete Taito, p. 8; Witness Statement of Ms K, 21 September 2020, p. 8.
[1] Durie, Sir M. H., Ngā Kāhui Pou: Launching Māori Futures (Huia Publishers, 2003), p. 36.
[1] As developed by Sir Mason Durie in 1982.
[1] Durie, Sir M. H., “A Māori Perspective of Health,” Social Science & Medicine 20, no. 5 (1985), 483-485, p. 483.
[1] Health Navigator New Zealand, Te whare tapa whā and wellbeing (2021), www.healthnavigator.org.nz/healthy-living/t/te-whare-tapa-wh%C4%81-and-wellbeing/
[1] Ibid.
[1] Durie, Sir M. H., “A Māori Perspective of Health,” p. 484.
[1] Ibid., p. 485.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban, WITN0642001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 5 July 2021), p. 5.
[1] Mo’a, V., “Faasinomaga (identity) and vā (relational space): Samoan ethics” in Pacific Ethics of Research and Care, ed. T. Suaalii-Sauni (Huia Publisher, forthcoming, 2023).
[1] Wendt, A., “Tatauing the post-colonial body,” originally published in Span (1996), 15-29, www.nzepc.auckland.ac.nz/authors/wendt/tatauing.asp.
[1] Kaʻili, T., “Tauhi vä: Nurturing Tongan sociospatial ties in Maui and beyond,” The Contemporary Pacific, vol. 17, no. 1 (2005), 89-90, p. 109.
[1] Reynolds M., “Relating to Vā: Re-viewing the concept of relationships in Pasifika education in Aotearoa New Zealand,” AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 12, vol. 2 (2016), 190-202, p. 194.
[1] Ibid., pp. 190-202, 195.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Dr Sam Manuela from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, TRN0000403 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 23 July 2021), p. 324.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, p. 19.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Folasāitu Dr Apaula Julia Ioane from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, TRN0000408 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 30 July 2021), p. 696.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, p. 19.
[1] Transcript of evidence from the Talanoa Panel, Session 2: A Pacific lens on redress from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, TRN0000407 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 27 July 2020), Dorothy Alofivae at p. 641. The panel members for the session were Dr Michael Fusi Ligaliga, Dorothy Alofivae, Dr Jean Mitaera and Dr Siautu Alefaio-Tugia. Helena Kaho facilitated the panel.
[1] Witness Statement of Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban, p. 7.
[1] Witness Statement of Frances Tagaloa, WITN00020005 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 23 November 2020), p. 13.
[1] Transcript of evidence from the Talanoa Panel, Session 2: A Pacific lens on redress from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 27 July 2020), Dr Michael Ligaliga at p. 628.
[1] Ibid., Dorothy Alofivae and Dr Michael Ligaliga at pp. 641-644.
[1] Ministry of Health, Strategic directions for the mental health services for Pacific Islands people (1995), p. 11.
[1] Ponton, V., "Utilizing Pacific methodologies as inclusive practice," SAGE Open 3, vol. 8 (2018) citing Suaalii-Sauni, T., Wheeler, A., Saafi, E. et al, “Exploration of Pacific perspectives of Pacific models of mental health service delivery in New Zealand,” Pacific Health Dialogue 15, vol. 1 (2009), 18-27, pp. 15.
[1] Agnew, F., Pulotu-Endemann, K., Robinson, G. et al, Pacific models of mental health service delivery in New Zealand project (Health Research Council of New Zealand, 2004), p. 3.
[1] Transcript of evidence from the Talanoa Panel on a Pacific lens on redress from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga.
[1] Pulotu-Endemann, K., Fonofale model of health (Health Promotion Forum of New Zealand, 2001), p. 2.
[1] Ibid., p. 3.
[1] Ibid., p. 5.
[1] Ibid, p. 6.
[1] Transcript of evidence from the Talanoa Panel on a Pacific lens on redress from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, Dr Jean Mitaera at p. 637.
[1] Ibid.
[1]Transcript of evidence from Talanoa Panel, Session 1: Pathways into Care from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, TRN0000407 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 July 2021), Dr Tamasailau Suaali’i-Sauni at p. 602. The other panel members for the session were Cabrini ‘Ofa Makasiale, Fuimaono Karl Pulotu Endemann, Dr Sailau Sualii-Sauni and Emeline Afeaki-Mafile’o and it was facilitated by Folasaitu Dr Julia Ioane.
[1] Transcript of evidence from the Talanoa Panel on a Pacific lens on redress from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, Dr Jean Mitaera at pp. 637-638.
[1] Ibid., Dr Jean Mitaera at p. 638.
[1] Fisher-Borne, M., Cain, J. M. and Martin, S. L., “From mastery to accountability: Cultural humility as an alternative to cultural competence,” Social Work Education 34, no. 2 (2015), 165-181, p. 177.
[1] Witness Statement of Leota Dr Lisi Kalisi Petaia, WITN0659001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 12 July 2021), p. 14.
[1] Degener, T., “Disability in a human rights context,” MDPI – Laws 5, vol. 3 (2016); Quinn, G. and Degener, T., “The current use and future potential of the United Nations human rights instruments in the context of disability,” (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, 2002).
[1] McClintock, K., Haereroa, M., Brown, T., and Baker, M., Kia hora te marino: Trauma informed care for Māori (Te Rau Mataini, 2018), p. 5.
[1] Witness Statement of Dr Fiona Inkpen for Stand Children’s Services Tū Māia Whānau, WITN0089001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care), p. 24.
[1] Ibid., pp. 19-23.
[1] Ibid., p. 15.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae Claims (Wai 898, 2018) Parts 1-2, p. 189.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, He Pāharakeke, He Rito Whakakīkīnga Whāruarua: Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry, pp. 12, 107-108; Waitangi Tribunal, Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae Claims, pp. 149, 154; Waitangi Tribunal, Turanga Tangata Turanga Whenua: The Report on the Turanganui a Kiwa Claims (Wai 814, 2004), p. 113; Waitangi Tribunal, Muriwhenua Fishing Report (Wai 22, 1988), p. 150; Waitangi Tribunal, Manukau Report (Wai 8, 1985) p. 67.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, He Pāharakeke, He Rito Whakakīkīnga Whāruarua: Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry, pp. 95-97.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae Claims, pp. 155-156, 189; Waitangi Tribunal, Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and Identity | Te Taumata Tuarua (Wai 262, 2011), vol 1, pp. 15-17.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Orakei Claim (Wai 9, 1987), p. 207; Waitangi Tribunal, Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on Claims Concerning the Allocation of Radio Frequencies (Wai 26; Wai 150, 1990), p. 51; Waitangi Tribunal, Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae Claims, pp. 182-183. See also: New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney General [1987] 1 NZLR 641.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, Manukau Report, p. 70; Waitangi Tribunal, Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae Claims, p. 189.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, He Pāharakeke, He Rito Whakakīkīnga Whāruarua: Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry, Pre-publication version, p. 22.
[1] New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at [693].
[1] As discussed in Waitangi Tribunal, The Te Arawa Settlement Process Reports (Wai 1353, 2007), p. 36.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, Tauranga Moana 1886-2006: Report on the post-Raupatu claims (Wai 215, 2010), p. 25; Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo: Report on Central North Island Claims (Wai 1200, 2008), vol. 4, p. 1248; Waitangi Tribunal, Muriwhenua Land Report (Wai 45, 1997), pp. 405-406; Waitangi Tribunal, The Ngai Tahu Land Report (Wai 27, 1991), p. 1052; Waitangi Tribunal, Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Waiheke Island Claim (Wai 10, 1987), p. 41; Waitangi Tribunal, The Taranaki Report: Kaupapa Tuatahi (Wai 143, 1996), pp. 314-315.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, He Pāharakeke, He Rito Whakakīkīnga Whāruarua: Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry, Pre-publication version, pp. 22, 93.
[1] For more information, see: part 2.2.
[1] Human rights standards are contained in range of instruments, including: United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (A/RES/3/217 A, 10 December 1948); United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Treaty Series, vol. 999, 16 December 1966); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (A/RES/2200, 16 December 1966); United Nations, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (A/Res/2106, 21 December 1965); United Nations, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (A/RES/34/180, 18 December 1979); United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child (A/Res/44/25, 20 November 1989); United Nations, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (A/Res/39/46, 10 December 1984) and its Optional Protocol (A/Res/57/199, 22 June 2006); United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (A/Res/61/106, 24 January 2007) and United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295, 2 October 2007).
New Zealand has also enacted the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (No. 109), www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html, to give effect to its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and recognises human rights in many other enactments, see: Human Rights Act 1993, No. 82, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304212.html; Crimes Act 1961, No. 43, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/whole.html#DLM327382; Ombudsmen Act 1975, No. 9, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0009/latest/whole.html#DLM430984; Official Information Act 1982, No. 156, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1982/0156/latest/whole.html#DLM64785; Crimes of Torture Act 1989, No. 106, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0106/latest/whole.html#DLM192818; Privacy Act 1993, No. 28, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0028/latest/whole.html#DLM296639; Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, No. 24, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0024/latest/whole.html#DLM147088; and the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994, No. 88, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0088/latest/whole.html#DLM333584.
[1] Each of the following obligations may apply to some cases of abuse in care: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art 8; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art 2(3); International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, art 6; Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art 14; Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, art 40.
[1] Shelton, D., Remedies in International Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2015), p. 85. This can include a failure to provide effective redress in relation to any event that occurred before the entry into force of any relevant human rights treaty, see: pp. 261-262.
[1] United Nations Human Rights Committee, General comment no. 31 [80], The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, 26 May 2004), p. 6.
[1] United Nations Human Rights Committee, General comment no. 31 [80], The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, p. 6; United Nations Human Rights Committee, Guidelines on measures of reparation under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR/C/158, 2016), p. 1.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, Whaia te Mana Motuhake - In Pursuit of Mana, Motuhake: Report on the Māori Community Development Act Claim (Legislation Direct, Wai 2417, 2015), p. 34.
[1] Ibid., p. 38.
[1] United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art 16(4). See also, in similar terms: United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 39.
[1] United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art 16(5).
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid., art 9; Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities, see: guideline 8.1, p. 23.
[1] Ibid., arts 12-13.
[1] Ibid., arts 13(1)-13(2).
[1] Ibid., art 4(3).
[1] Network of Survivors of Abuse in Faith-based Institutions, “What do victim survivors mean by redress?”, included in organisation redress submission (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 13 June 2021), p. 1.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms C, WITN0062001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 September 2020), p. 22.
[1] Witness Statement of Keith Wiffin, WITN0080001 (Royal Commission Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 12 February 2020), p. 15.
[1] Witness Statement of Mary Marshall, WITN0014001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 July 2020), p. 16.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Mr A from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000336 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 10 December 2020), pp. 822-823.
[1] Witness Statement of Anne Hill, 28 September 2021, p. 15-16.
[1] Witness Statement of Natasha Emery, WITN0578001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 08 June 2021), p. 9.
[1] Mr BP, RC-03229-T3K9 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 June 2021), p. 5.
[1] Ms BQ, RC-01393-S3P4 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 9 October 2019), p. 60.
[1] Mr BR, RC-00926-Z7B4 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 May 2019), p. 17.
[1] Witness Statement of Frances Tagaloa, 2 October 2020, p. 18.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Mr A from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase I, p. 823.
[1] Kōrero from engagement event with Kiingatanga.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Redress Roundtable (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2 July 2021), David Stone at pp. 24-25.
[1] Kōrero from engagement event with Kiingitanga.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Transcript of evidence of the Talanoa Panel on a Pacific lens on redress from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Dr Sam Manuela from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, p. 337.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Transcript of evidence from the Talanoa Panel on a Pacific lens on redress from Tulou –Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, Dr Jean Mitaera at pp. 647-648.
[1] Witness Statement of Folasāitu Dr Apaula Julia Ioane, WITN0685001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 July 2021), p. 13.
[1] Transcript of evidence from the Talanoa Panel on a Pacific lens on redress from Tulou –Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, Dr Michael Ligaliga at pp. 628-629.
[1] Ibid., Dr Michael Ligaliga at p. 643.
[1] Throughout Dr Taufa’s evidence she discussed how ethnicity recording, and reporting, has impacted on Pacific survivors and Pacific people. See: Witness Statement of Dr Seini Taufa, WITN0714001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 18 July 2021), pp. 17-29.
[1] Transcript of evidence from the Talanoa Panel on pathways into care from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 July 2021), Emeline Afeaki-Mafile'o at p. 601.
[1] Ibid., Emeline Afeaki-Mafile’o at p. 611.
[1] Transcript of evidence from the Talanoa Panel on pathways into care from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, Sister Cabrini ’Ofa Makasiale at p. 612.
[1] Witness Statement of William Wilson, WITN0419001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 6 July 2021), p. 18.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms CU, p. 32.
[1] Witness Statement of Folasāitu Dr Apaula Julia Ioane, p. 35.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Folasāitu Dr Apaula Julia Ioane from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, p. 734.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Mr CE from Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 20 July 2021), p. 110.
[1] Transcript of evidence of the Talanoa Panel on a Pacific lens on redress from Tulou - Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, Dr Siautu Alefaio-Tugia at p. 644.
[1] Ibid., pp. 644-646.
[1] Transcript of evidence of the Talanoa Panel on pathways into care Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, Sister Cabrini Makasiale at p. 619.
[1] Kōrero from Deaf and disability stakeholders redress wānanga, 21 October 2021.
[1] Ms BT, RC-01780-V8T7 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2 March 2020), pp. 129.
[1] Transcript of evidence of the Redress Roundtable (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 1 July 2021), pp. 14, 32.
[1] Kōrero from Deaf and disability stakeholders redress wānanga, 21 October 2021.
[1] Individual redress submission of Matthew Whiting, RC-01612-C4P2 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care), p. 1.
[1] Kōrero from Deaf and disability stakeholders redress wānanga, 21 October 2021.
[1] Ibid., 22 October 2021.
[1] Ibid., 21-22 October 2021.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Individual redress submission of Matthew Whiting, pp. 2-3.
[1] Currently this is Anglican Care (Canterbury / Westland).
[1] Transcript of evidence of Solicitor Una Jagose QC for Crown Law Office from State Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000022 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2 November 2020), p. 963.
[1] Between 1972 and 1977.
[1] At the time, the firm was known as Sonja M Cooper Law, but we refer to it as Cooper Legal (as it is now known) throughout.
[1] Memorandum from the Office of the Attorney General to Cabinet Policy Committee, Psychiatric hospitals claims: Proposal for Alternative Dispute Resolution process, CAB0000005 (18 October 2004), p. 5.
[1] Memorandum, Psychiatric hospitals claims: Proposal for Alternative Dispute Resolution process, p. 6.
[1] Internal Ministry of Social Development memorandum from Garth Young to Historic Claims Steering Group, Update on investigation, MSD0002029 (28 August 2006), p. 2.
[1] Letter from Solicitor-General Una Jagose QC, Crown Law to Dr Michael Cullen, Attorney General, Historic child welfare claims, CAB0000009 (31 January 2007), p. 3.
[1] File note from Residual Health Management Unit regarding mental health claims update from Crown Law Office, MOH0000104 (28 September 2004).
[1] Internal Ministry of Social Development memorandum from Deputy Chief Executive, Corporate and Governance to the Leadership Team, Historical claims by former wards of the state, MSD0002030 (26 February 2007), pp. 2-3.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Solicitor-General Una Jagose QC from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 2 November 2020, p. 968.
[1] Memorandum, Psychiatric hospitals claims: Proposal for Alternative Dispute Resolution process, p. 14.
[1] Internal Ministry of Social Development memorandum, Update on Investigation, p. 2.
[1] Memorandum, Historical claims by former wards of the state, p. 2.
[1] Report from Crown Law to the Minister of Justice, Minister of Health, Minister of Education, Attorney General and Minister of Social Development, Historic abuse claims - Update on review, CAB0000015 (15 December 2019), p. 9.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Solicitor Una Jagose QC from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 2 November 2020, p. 971.
[1] Memorandum, Historical claims by former wards of the state, p. 10; Memorandum from Dr Michael Cullen, Attorney-General and Annette King, Minister of Justice to Cabinet Policy Committee, Review of the litigation strategy for historic claims of abuse, CAB0000004 (16 May 2008), p. 6.
[1] For example, Garth Young told us that the Ministry of Social Development identified from a “reasonably early stage” that Epuni, Hokio and Kohitere Boys’ Training Centre stood out in terms of numbers of claims. See: Transcript of evidence of Garth Young for Ministry of Social Development from State Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000018 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 October 2020), p. 314.
[1] Witness Statement of Dr Brigit Mirfin-Veitch (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care), p. 15.
[1] Internal Ministry of Social Development memorandum, Update on Investigation, p. 2.
[1] File note summary of staff allegations from Garth Young, Ministry of Social Development, in response to a query by Mark Wesley-Smith, the Nation, MSD0002374 (8 September 2017); Internal report from Garth Young to Anne Tolley, Minister of Social Development, Historic claims update, MSD0001056 (21 September 2017).
[1] Ministry of Health, Review of psychiatric hospitals and hospitals for the intellectually handicapped: Report to Hon Dr M.E.R. Bassett, Minister of Health as discussed in Mirfin-Veitch, B. and Conder J., “Institutions are places of abuse”: The experiences of disabled adults in children in State care between 1950- 1992, pp. 38-39.
[1] Report from National Health Advisory Committee on Health and Disability to Minister of Health and Minister of Disability Issues, To have an ’ordinary’ life: Kia whai oranga ’noa’ (2003), pp. 25-26.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Garth Young from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 21 October 2020, p. 330.
[1] Draft letter from Una Jagose, Crown Law, to Jacinda Lean, Ministry of Social Development, regarding advice on child welfare historic claims strategy, CRL0016524 (13 September 2016), p. 6; Draft briefing from Crown Law to Attorney-General regarding limitation defences and claims of abuse in State care, MOE0000221 (November 2018), p. 18.
[1] Memorandum from Annette King, Minister of Health, to Cabinet Policy Committee, Lake Alice Hospital claims: Further settlement, CAB0000026 (7 December 2001), p. 12.
[1] Memorandum, Review of the litigation strategy for historic claims of abuse, p. 11.
[1] Handwritten note from Private Secretary to a Government Minister regarding Attorney-General's concerns about lawyers' legal aid fees, MOJ0000131 (circa 2009), p. 5. See also: Transcript of evidence of Solicitor Una Jagose QC from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 4 November 2020, pp. 1184-1185.
[1] Memorandum, Historical claims by former wards of the state, pp. 3, 10.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Simon MacPherson for Ministry of Social Development from State Redress Hearing Phase II (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 20 October 2020), p. 119.
[1] Memorandum from Dr Michael Cullen, Attorney-General, to Cabinet Policy Committee, Historic abuse claims against the state, CAB0000008 (9 May 2005), p. 8.
[1] Memorandum, Review of the litigation strategy for historic claims of abuse, p. 6.
[1] In February 2007, the Ministry of Social Development recorded that Sonja Cooper had estimated that 65 – 75 per cent of her clients were Māori, and the ministry noted that this was consistent with the demographics of the historical residential care population. See: Memorandum, Historical claims by former wards of the state, p. 13.
[1] In fact, the proposal to Cabinet stated that “the proposals in this paper do not have human rights implications”. See: Memorandum, Review of the litigation strategy for historic claims of abuse, p. 15.
[1] Te Āiotanga: Report of the Confidential Forum for Former In-Patients of Psychiatric Hospitals, p. 1.
[1] Witness Statement of Judge Carolyn Henwood (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 28 October 2019), p. 1.
[1] Henwood, Judge C., Some memories never fade: Final report of the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service (2015), pp. 11, 18.
[1] See further discussion on these Mental Health Act immunities in part 2.4.
[1] On appeal, the Crown accepted that sexual assaults and gratuitous physical assaults could not be considered to have been acts done in pursuance of the legislation, but all other alleged abuse could be.
[1] Including failing to disclose information about the convictions of the alleged abusers to both Keith Wiffin and the White brothers: see case studies of Keith Wiffin and White brothers in Volume 2.
[1] Extracts from White case transcript, featuring cross examination led by Kristy McDonald QC, WITN0009015 (4 July 2007- 5 July 2007).
[1] Memorandum, Review of the litigation strategy for historic claims of abuse, pp. 10-11; Memorandum, Historic abuse claims against the state, p. 9.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Simon MacPherson from State Redress Hearing Phase II, pp. 203-204; Witness Statement of Philip Knipe for Ministry of Health, WITN0100001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 27 January 2020), p. 12.
[1] White v Attorney-General HC Wellington CIV-1999-485-85, 28 November 2007; K v Crown Health Financing Agency [2007] NZHC 1267; J v Crown Health Financing Agency [2008] NZHC 81.
[1] Total of $47.79 million as of November 2020. The payments made from agencies to claimants are as follows: The Ministry of Education spent $0.55m on 2010-2020 direct education claims (Witness Statement of Helen Hurst for Ministry of Education, CRN0000066 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 January 2021), p. 5). The Ministry of Health spent $16.8m, comprising of $12.6m for Lake Alice since 2000, $2.86m on the CHFA process till 2012 and $1.34m on the HARS process post-2012 (Crown Closing Submissions – Redress Hearing – Appendix 1 – Breakdown of payments in settlement and legal costs for historic abuse claims (GST exclusive), CRN0000049 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 5 November 2020), p. 1). The Ministry of Social Development spent by $30.22 million between 2006 and June 2019 (Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer for Ministry of Social Development, WITN0102004 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 January 2021), p. 10). Oranga Tamariki spent $0.22m on claims ‘inherited’ by the agency (Witness Statement of Steven Groom for Oranga Tamariki, WITN103003 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 18 December 2020), p. 8).
An approximate total of claims that have been resolved through redress processes are as follows. Total of claimants whose settlement resulted in payment have been used wherever possible: The Ministry of Education has settled 33 claims with payments since the scheme was established in 2010 (Witness Statement of Helen Hurst for Ministry of Education, WITN0099001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 27 January 2020), p. 13.) Up to November 2019, the Ministry of Health had resolved approximately 330 claims through CHFA, 185 Lake Alice claims, and 223 claims through its Historic Abuse Resolution Service (Witness Statement of Philip Knipe, 27 January 2020, pp. 8, 16, 23.) The ministry told us that since the inquiry’s redress hearing, it estimates it has resolved a further 13 Lake Alice claims, bringing the total to almost 200. The Ministry of Social Development has paid approximately 1,592 claimants between the financial years of 2003/2004 and 2019/2020 (Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer for Ministry of Social Development, WITN0102003 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 31 July 2020), p. 6). Oranga Tamariki has resolved claims by 11 survivors as of October 2020 (Transcript of evidence of Steven Groom for Oranga Tamariki from State Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000023 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 27 October 2020), p. 617.)
[1] Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer, 31 July 2020, p. 5; Witness Statement of Simon MacPherson for Ministry of Social Development, WITN0100001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 27 January 2020), p. 21.
[1] Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer, 31 July 2020, p. 6.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Memorandum from Ministry of Social Development’s Deputy Chief Executive of Corporate and Governance to their Leadership Team, Historical claims by former wards of the state, MSD0002030 (26 February 2007), pp. 3, 16.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Linda Hrstich-Meyer for Ministry of Social Development from State Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000020 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 23 October 2020), p. 481.
[1] Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer, 29 January 2021, p. 19.
[1] For example, survivors BSM and WM were offered (and accepted) fast-track offers of $5,000 after moderation, even though their claims were initially assessed as falling within categories that would provide $12,000 and $20,000 respectively. The $5,000 category was designed for “claims with insufficient particulars”. Both of these survivors’ claims related to multiple physical assaults, including kicking, punching and being thrown around, long stays in “alcatraz” and various practice failures. See: Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer, 29 January 2021, pp. 4-5, 18.
[1] Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer for Ministry of Social Development, WITN0102001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 27 January 2020), p. 23.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, Decision on applications for an urgent hearing concerning the settlement of grievances of Māori children placed in state care and the contemporary actions of Oranga Tamariki (Wai 972; Wai 1247; Wai 1670; Wai 1911; Wai 2494; Wai 2615; Wai 2619; Wai 2823; Wai 2891, 2019); Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer, 27 January 2020, pp. 24-25.
[1] Consultation with Māori claimants involved eight workshops, including one with professionals working in the area, where they were asked about changes they thought the claims process needed. Around the same time, the ministry also contracted Allen + Clarke to carry out a wider consultation with claimants about their experiences and feedback on the historic claims process. See Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer, 27 January 2020, pp. 25-26; Douglas, H. and Matahaere-Atariki, D., Report on the Consultation Process on the Historic Claims Resolution Process with Māori Claimants, MSC0000461 (Ministry of Social Development, 20 July 2018), p. 3.
[1] Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer, 27 January 2020, p. 26.
[1] Ibid., pp. 30-31.
[1] Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer - Appendix, 31 July 2020, p. 7.
[1] Witness Statement of Steven Groom for Oranga Tamariki, WITN0103001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 27 January 2020), p. 3.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Steven Groom from State Redress Hearing Phase II, pp. 621, 623, 629.
[1] Witness Statement of Steven Groom, 27 January 2020, p. 4.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Steven Groom from State Redress Hearing Phase II, pp. 650-652.
[1] Submission of Judge Andrew Becroft for the Office of the Children‘s Commissioner, CRM0000744 (6 October 2019), p. 12; Submission of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner - Redress for Abuse in Care (June 2021), p. 12.
[1] Witness Statement of Philip Knipe, 27 January 2020, p. 15.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Philip Knipe for Ministry of Health from State Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000016 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2020), p. 28.
[1] Witness Statement of Philip Knipe, 27 January 2020, p. 21.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Philip Knipe from State Redress Hearing Phase II, pp. 65-66.
[1] Ibid., pp. 63-64.
[1] Witness Statement of Helen Hurst, 27 January 2020, p. 9.
[1] Ibid., p. 11.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Helen Hurst for Ministry of Education from State Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN00000024 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 28 October 2020), p. 735.
[1] Witness Statement of Helen Hurst, 27 January 2020, p. 18. See also Witness Statement of Helen Hurst, 29 January 2021, p. 6.
[1] Ministry of Education, Sensitive claims of abuse in state schools (2021), www.education.govt.nz/our-work/contact-us/historic-claims-for-abuse-or-neglect-at-a-residential-special-school/.
[1] Witness Statement of Wayne Keen, WITN0387001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 28 April 2021), p. 20; Witness Statement of Wiremu Waikari, WITN0204001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 27 July 2021), p. 51.
[1] Transcript of evidence of David Crichton from Tulou - Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, TRN0000406 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 28 July 2021), p. 536.
[1] Ibid., p. 534.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Helen Hurst from State Redress Hearing Phase II, p. 744; Transcript of evidence of Solicitor-General Una Jagose QC from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 4 November 2020, p. 1227; Transcript of evidence of Garth Young from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 22 October 2020, p. 452; Transcript of Linda Hrstich-Meyer from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 27 October 2020, p. 585.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Steven Groom from State Redress Hearing Phase II, p. 684.
[1] Witness Statement of Helen Hurst, 29 January 2021, p. 5.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Linda Hrstich-Meyer from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 23 October 2020, pp. 460-462.
[1] Witness Statement of Tanya Sammons and Georgina Sammons, WITN0086001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 24 February 2020), pp. 19-20.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Linda Hrstich-Meyer from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 27 October 2020, pp. 575-578.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Linda Hrstich-Meyer from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 23 October 2020, p. 488.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Philip Knipe from State Redress Hearing Phase II, pp. 23, 27.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Linda Hrstich-Meyer from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 23 October 2020, p. 488.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Georgina Sammons, Tanya Sammons and Hope Curtin from State Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000008 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 25 September 2020), Georgina Sammons at pp. 207-210; Transcript of evidence of David Crichton from Tulou - Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga, pp. 529-531; Ms BM, WITN0590001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 24 November 2020), pp. 22-24.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill for Cooper Legal from State Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000007 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2 October 2020), pp. 586, 622.
[1] Memorandum, Historical claims by former wards of the state, p. 16-17.
[1] Witness Statement of Loretta Ryder, WITN0267001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 30 March 2021), p. 26.
[1] Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer, 27 January 2020, p. 30.
[1] Witness Statement of Philip Knipe, 27 January 2020, p. 22; Witness Statement of Helen Hurst for Ministry of Education, (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 13 March 2020), p. 3.
[1] The Ombudsman recommended that Alva Sammons’ claim should be treated like any other historic claim. The ministry declined to follow this recommendation. See: Witness Statement of Tanya Sammons and Georgina Sammons, 24 February 2020, p. 22; Letter from Prof Ron Paterson, Ombudsman to Amanda Hill, Cooper Legal, regarding the final decision of the Ombudsman Act investigation – Ms Georgina Sammons, REL0000000993 (14 June 2016), p. 5; Email from Office of the Ombudsman to Amanda Hill, Cooper Legal, regarding the Ministry of Social Development’s refusal to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendation, REL0000001000 (9 March 2018), p. 1.
[1] In 2007, Cooper Legal informed Ministry of Social Development that it estimated 65 to 75 per cent of its clients were Māori and the ministry acknowledged that this reflected the historic residential care population. The ministry has also recorded that the majority of its claimants, both direct and unrepresented, are Māori making up around 54 per cent of the ministry’s claims from claimants. See: Memorandum, Historical claims by former wards of the state, p. 13; Witness Statement of Simon MacPherson, 27 January 2020, p. 21.
[1] Memorandum, Historical claims by former wards of the state.
[1] Douglas, H., and Matahaere-Atariki, D., Report on the Consultation Process on the Historic Claims Resolution Process with Māori Claimants; Transcript of evidence of Simon MacPherson from State Redress Hearing Phase II, pp. 126-127.
[1] Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer, 27 January 2020, p. 30.
[1] Ministry of Education, Ministry of Education Redress Process: Sensitive Claims Lodgement Form, assets.education.govt.nz/public/Documents/our-work/Claim-Lodgement-Form.pdf.
[1] Douglas, H., and Matahaere-Atariki, D., Report on the Consultation Process on the Historic Claims Resolution Process with Māori Claimants, p. 18.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Steven Groom from State Redress Hearing Phase II, p. 664.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Philip Knipe from State Redress Hearing Phase II, p. 98.
[1] The Act does not expressly empower the courts to grant remedies for breaches, but the courts have determined that they have this power. Compensation is available as a remedy, not as a right, and depends on the facts of the case. The courts will not award compensation if they consider that non-financial remedies are enough to show that a defendant’s behaviour was wrong. If compensation is awarded, it tends to be moderate. See: Taunoa v Attorney-General [2007] NZSC 70, [2008] 1 NZLR 429; Andrew Butler, A., and Butler, P., The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: A Commentary, 2nd ed (LexisNexis, 2015), pp. 1531-1532.
[1] The Ministry of Education clarified that the alleged abuse that is the basis of the allegation may be taken into account, but no additional payment is offered for the alleged breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, because it does not require proof of any claim to a legal standard. In settling any such claim, it includes a statement in a memorandum of settlement “to make it clear that in reaching settlement with the plaintiff the defendant does not in any way accept that the plaintiff’s cause of action based on various human rights instruments was properly brought, or that those allegations are made out, or that, that cause of action is the subject of any payment made under the settlement agreement.” See: Witness Statement of Helen Hurst, 29 January 2021, p. 8.
[1] File Note by Ministry of Social Development, Recognising potential Bill of Rights damages in the Alternative Dispute Resolution process, MSC0000442 (8 November 2016).
[1] Letter from Julia White, Crown Response to the Abuse in Care Inquiry to Joss Opie, Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, regarding how New Zealand Bill of Rights Act breaches are treated in claims for redress by each of the Crown agencies (16 August 2021), p. 2; Transcript of evidence of Linda Hrstich-Meyer from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 27 October 2020, pp. 572-573.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Linda Hrstich-Meyer from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 27 October 2020, p. 581.
[1] Ibid., pp. 573-575.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Helen Hurst from State Redress Hearing Phase II, p. 752.
[1] Ms BM, p. 32.
[1] Weekes, J., “Lawsuit looms after intrusive searches, $375k payout for women prisoners,” Stuff (26 March 2019), www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/111554199/women-prisoners-get-apology-and-375k-payout-for-intrusive-searches?rm=m.
[1] Ministry of Social Development, MSD Historic Claims: Business process and guidance, Version 2.2, CRN0000057 (2020), p. 25.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Solicitor-General Una Jagose QC from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 2 November 2020, p. 991.
[1] Ministry of Education, Sensitive claims of abuse in state schools, www.education.govt.nz/our-work/contact-us/historic-claims-for-abuse-or-neglect-at-a-residential-special-school/.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Helen Hurst from State Redress Hearing Phase II, p. 784.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Philip Knipe from State Redress Hearing Phase II, p. 54.
[1] Witness Statement of Philip Knipe, 27 January 2020, p. 22.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Steven Groom from State Redress Hearing Phase II, pp. 642-643.
[1] Oranga Tamariki, Claims (2020), www.orangatamariki.govt.nz/about-us/contact-us/feedback/claims/.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Linda Hrstich-Meyer from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 23 October 2020, p. 542.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Philip Knipe from State Redress Hearing Phase II, p. 34.
[1] Witness Statement of Simon MacPherson, 27 January 2020, p. 19.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms K, WITN0045001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 September 2020), pp. 7-8.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr G, WITN0046001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 4 November 2020), p. 4.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr AX, WITN0016001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 7 August 2020), p. 15.
[1] Witness Statement of Mary Marshall, WITN0014001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 July 2020), p. 3.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms CU, WITN0422001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 10 June 2021), p. 20.
[1] Witness Statement of Gloria Ramsay, WITN0021001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 15 September 2020), p. 13.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr A, WITN0044001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 August 2020), p. 2.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Closing Statement by The Salvation Army from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000348 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 March 2021), pp. 882, 887-888; Transcript of evidence of Closing Statement by the Catholic Church from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000348 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 March 2021), pp. 936-937; Transcript of evidence of Archbishop Donald Tamihere and Archbishop Philip Richardson for the Anglican Church from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000343 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 22 March 2021), pp. 418-419.
[1] Synopsis of Oral Closing Submissions for the Bishops and Congregational Leaders of the Catholic Church in Aotearoa New Zealand (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 March 2021), p. 14.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Cardinal John Dew for the Archdiocese of Wellington and the Metropolitan Diocese from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000347 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 26 March 2021), pp. 868-869.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Closing Statement of The Salvation Army from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, p. 887.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Bishop Ross Bay for the Anglican Church from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000341 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 18 March 2021), p. 284.
[1] Witness Statement of Vincent Reidy, WITN0027001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 September 2020), p. 13.
[1] The Holy See has ratified a number of international conventions, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
[1] Code of Canon Law (1983), canon 333 §1.
[1] Code of Canon Law (1893), canons 431-436.
[1] Witness Statement of Cardinal John Dew for the Archdiocese of Wellington and the Metropolitan Diocese, WITN0252001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 23 September 2020), p. 10.
[1] Ibid., p. 11
[1] Transcript of evidence of Cardinal John Dew from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, p. 803.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Cardinal John Dew, 23 September 2020, pp. 11-12.
[1] These included, for example, the protocol used by the Diocese of Christchurch, which was issued in 1994: Diocese of Christchurch, Protocol, CTH0001608 (1994) and the Sexual Misconduct Protocol issued by the Diocese of Hamilton on 1 June 1994: Diocese of Hamilton, Sexual Misconduct Protocol, CTH0001515 (June 1994).
[1] Congregation Leaders Conference of Aotearoa New Zealand, Suggested Procedures in Cases of Allegations of Sexual Abuse by a Religious, MSC0001140 (8 March 1996).
[1] Memorandum from Peter Ewart, Society of Mary, to Members of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference regarding replies from conference members concerning ACBC protocol for dealing with allegations of criminal behaviour, CTH0002317 (24 March 1992).
[1] New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference, Catholic Church Guidelines on Sexual Misconduct by Clerics, Religious, and Church Employees, CTH0002331 (1993).
[1] Ibid., p. 2.
[1] New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and the Congregational Leaders Conference of Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Houhanga Rongo – A Path to Healing: Principles and procedure in responding to complaints of sexual abuse by Clergy and Religious of the Catholic Church in New Zealand, CTH0002007 (1998). See also further versions of A Path to Healing: New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and the Congregational Leaders Conference of Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Houhanga Rongo – A Path to Healing: Principles and Procedures in responding to complaints of sexual abuse by Clergy and Religious of the Catholic Church in New Zealand, CTH0002009 (March 2001); New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and Congregational Leaders, Te Houhanga Rongo – A Path to Healing: Principles and procedures in responding to complaints of sexual abuse by Clergy and Religious of the Catholic Church of New Zealand, CTH0001154 (2007); New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and Congregational Leaders, Te Houhanga Rongo – A Path to Healing: Principles and procedures in responding to complaints of sexual abuse by Clergy and Religious of the Catholic Church in New Zealand, CTH0001155 (2007 with amendments as at 2010); National Office for Professional Standards, Te Houhanga Rongo – A Path to Healing: Principles and procedure for responding to complaints of sexual abuse and sexual misconduct against clergy and religious in the Catholic Church in Aotearoa New Zealand, CTH0001487 (February 2020).
[1] New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and the Congregational Leaders Conference of Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Houhanga Rongo – A Path to Healing: Principles and procedure in responding to complaints of sexual abuse by Clergy and Religious of the Catholic Church in New Zealand, CTH0002007 (1998), pp. 12-13.
[1] National Professional Standards Committee, Proposals for Mixed Commission regarding a national office for abuse complaints, CTH0001553 (25 February 2003), p. 2. The Mixed Commission includes each bishop and religious leader who are members of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and Congregational Leaders Conference of Aotearoa New Zealand.
[1] Ibid., p. 2.
[1] Witness Statement of Philip Hamlin for National Office of Professional Standards (NOPS) and National Safeguarding and Professional Standards Committee (NSPSC), WITN0254001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 September 2020), p. 18.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Closing Statement by the Catholic Church from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, p. 944.
[1] New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference, 1990 – A Commemoration Year – He Tau Whakamaharatanga Mō Aotearoa (1 January 1990), www.catholic.org.nz/about-us/bishops-statements/1990-a-commemoration-year-he-tau-whakamaharatanga-mo-aotearoa.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Virginia Noonan for National Office of Professional Standards (NOPS) from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000346 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 25 April 2021), p. 704.
[1] National Office of Professional Standards, Te Houhanga Rongo – A Path to Healing (February 2020), pp. 2-3.
[1] Witness Statement of Virginia Noonanfor National Office of Professional Standards (NOPS), WITN0256001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 January 2021), p. 6.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Dr Thomas Doyle from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000344 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 23 March 2021), p. 525.
[1] Witness Statement of Philip Hamlin, 21 September 2020, p. 18.
[1] Ibid., p. 9; Transcript of evidence of Virginia Noonan for National Office of Professional Standards (NOPS) from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000345 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 24 March 2021), pp. 681-682.
[1] Witness Statement of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill for Cooper Legal, WITN0094001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 1 March 2021).
[1] Transcript of evidence of Virginia Noonan from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 24 March 2021, p. 685.
[1] Ibid., p. 647.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Fr Timothy Duckworth for the Society of Mary from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000346 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 25 March 2021), p. 739.
[1] Of two discussions about systemic issues in the committee’s minutes, there was no evidence it had taken any action on the matter. At a meeting in November 2017, it noted “the problems that have been caused by repeat offenders” and “failure of bishops to treat seriously the issue of sexual abuse”: Minutes of meeting of Complaints Assessment Committee, CTH0009043 (28 November 2017), p. 2. At its November 2018 meeting, it had a discussion about systemic issues and did, however, ask the National Office of Professional Standards to complete an inventory of information about offending, and to seek advice from the Christchurch diocese about any complaints against diocesan priests connected to the Order of St John in the 1970s: Minutes of meeting of Complaints Assessment Committee, CTH0009047, (27 November 2018), p. 3.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Cardinal John Dew from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 26 March 2021, pp. 829-830.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Virginia Noonan from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 24 March 2021, p. 666.
[1] Ibid., p. 643.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Cardinal John Dew from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 26 March 2021, pp. 823-824.
[1] Ibid., p. 826.
[1] Ibid., p. 827.
[1] Ibid., p. 827.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Virginia Noonan from Faith-based Redress Hearing, 24 March 2021, p. 678.
[1] New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and Congregation Leaders Conference of Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Houhanga Rongo - A Path to Healing (February 2020), p. 14.
[1] New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and Congregation Leaders Conference of Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Houhanga Rongo - A Path to Healing (February 2020), p. 14; Pope Francis, Apostolic Letter Issued Motu Proprio: “Vos Estis Lux Mundi”, (18 May 2021), www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en.html.
[1] A Pastoral Letter to Priests Concerning Certain Aspects of Sexual Misconduct, CTH0002431 (March 1987), p. 2.
[1] See letter from Bishop Patrick Dunn, noting the Marist Brothers had received a flood of complaints but had not paid more than $10,000: Letter from Patrick Dunn, Bishop of Auckland, to Cardinal and Bishops of New Zealand, regarding Profession Standards Committee, CTH0001383 (23 August 2002), p. 1.
[1] Consensus from a Meeting to Discuss the Financial Implication of Sexual Abuse Claims, CTH0001469 (10 September 2002), p. 1.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid., p. 2.
[1] Memorandum from Patrick Dunn, Bishop of Auckland, to Cardinals and Bishops, Catholic Church, regarding settlement of abuse cases, CTH0001472 (20 June 2003), p. 2.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Cardinal John Dew from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 26 March 2021, p. 828.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms CU, pp. 13-14.
[1] The inquiry has received 47 different policies published by 23 difference church authorities relating to the prevention and response to abuse.
[1] Witness Statement of Sister Susan France for Sisters of Mercy, WITN0255001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 18 September 2020), p. 16.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Monsignor Brendan Daly, WITN0934001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 23 July 2021), p. 15.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Pope John Paul II, The Norms of the Motu Proprio: “Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela”, (30 April 2001); Pope Benedict XVI, revision of The Norms of the Motu Proprio: “Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela”, (21 May 2010); Pope Francis, Apostolic Letter Issued Motu Proprio: “Vos Estis Lux Mundi”, (18 May 2021).
[1] Witness Statement of Monsignor Brendan Daly, 23 July 2021, p. 40.
[1] Code of Canon Law (1983), canon 1722.
[1] Code of Canon Law (1983), canon 290.
[1] Witness Statement of Monsignor Brendan Daly, 23 July 2021, p. 22.
[1] For example, see: Letter from Bishop Steve Lowe, Diocese of Hamilton, to Holy See regarding request for dismissal, CTH0002891 (21 December 2017), pp. 9-11.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Cardinal John Dew from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 26 March 2021, pp. 815-816.
[1] Witness Statement of Dr Thomas Doyle, WITN0360001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 9 March 2021), p. 59.
[1] Pope Francis, Vos Estis Lux Mundi (7 May 2019).
[1] Ibid., art 12 §4.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Cardinal John Dew from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 26 March 2021, p. 814.
[1] Ibid., p. 813.
[1] Ibid., p. 815.
[1] Ibid., p. 815.
[1] Ibid., p. 815.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Cardinal John Dew from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 26 March 2021, p. 815.
[1] Witness Statement of Bill Kilgallon, WITN0632001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 10 September 2021), p. 16.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Cardinal John Dew from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 26 March 2021, p. 815.
[1] Title G, Canon XIII of Holy Orders in the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia (1992), section 6.1. The Anglican Church does not take direction from overseas but presents itself as in full communion with the Church of England and all other churches of the Anglican Communion.
[1] Witness Statement of Archbishop Philip Richardson for the Anglican Church, WITN0265001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 12 February 2021), pp. 11-12.
[1] Ibid., pp. 9-10.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Bishop Ross Bay for the Anglican Church from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 18 March 2021, p. 280.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Archbishop Don Tamihere and Archbishop Philip Richardson at the Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000342 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 March 2021), p. 384.
[1] Witness Statement of Bishop Ross Bay for the Anglican Church, WITN0259001 (Royal Commission of Abuse in Care, 12 February 2021), p. 6; Transcript of evidence of Bishop Ross Bay from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 18 March 2021, pp. 270-271.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Bishop Peter Carrell for the Anglican Church from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000341 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 18 March 2021), pp. 327-328.
[1] Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia/Te Hahi Mihinare ki Aotearoa ki Niu Tireni, ki Nga Moutere o Te Moana Nui a Kiwa, Addressing Abuse in Church Care, Principles and procedure in responding to complaints of abuse by clergy and officials in institutions run by the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia/ Te Hahi Mihinare ki Aotearoa ki Niu Tireni, ki Nga Moutere o Te Moana Nui a Kiwa, ANG0008541 (2018).
[1] Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia/Te Hahi Mihinare ki Aotearoa ki Niu Tireni, ki Nga Moutere o Te Moana Nui a Kiwa, Addressing Abuse: Principles and procedure in responding to complaints of abuse, WITN0265017 (2019).
[1] Transcript of evidence of Archbishop Don Tamihere and Archbishop Philip Richardson from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 22 March 2021, p. 438.
[1] He waka eke noa – A waka we are all in together (Anglican Church, 2020), p. 22. For every $1 of assets held by Tikanga Māori, Tikanga Pākehā holds $28 worth of assets.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Bishop Ross Bay from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 18 March 2021, p. 268.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Archbishop Don Tamihere and Archbishop Philip Richardson, 22 March 2021, pp. 418-419; Transcript of evidence of Bishop Peter Carrell for the Anglican Church from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000342 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 March 2021), p. 337.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Bishop Ross Bay from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 18 March 2021, pp. 267-268.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Bishop Ross Bay from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 17 March 2021, pp. 224-225.
[1] Anglican Church, He waka eke noa – A waka we are all in together (2020), p. 22.
[1] Witness Statement of Archbishop Philip Richardson, p. 31.
[1] Christ’s College, Historic Abuse Complaints Policy (February 2021), www.christscollege.com/assets/Historical-Abuse-Complaints-Policy.pdf.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Archbishop Don Tamihere and Archbishop Philip Richardson from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 19 March 2021, p. 396.
[1] Witness Statement of Archbishop Philip Richardson, p. 38.
[1] Ibid.
[1] The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, A New Zealand Prayer Book/He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa - “Ordination Liturgies”, WITN0265165, p. 913.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Bishop Ross Bay for the Anglican Church from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000340 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 17 March 2021), pp. 226-228.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Bishop Ross Bay for the Anglican Church from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 17 March 2021, pp. 231-232.
[1] Witness Statement of Jacinda Thompson, WITN0049001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 30 September 2020), p. 44.
[1] Witness Statement of Bishop Ross Bay, 12 February 2021, p. 16.
[1] Ministry Training School (Bishopdale College) in the Anglican Diocese of Nelson, A Training Manual for Ministry Standards in the Diocese of Nelson – Version 2006, ANG0001566.
[1] Pauling, Y., Churches Responding with Integrity to Clergy Sexual Misconduct, ANG0018822 (1998), p. 8.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Archbishop Don Tamihere and Archbishop Philip Richardson at the Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 22 March 2021, p. 451.
[1] Ibid., p. 452.
[1] Called deposition.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Archbishop Don Tamihere and Archbishop Philip Richardson from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 22 March 2021, p. 405.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Jacinda Thompson from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000333 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 7 December 2020), pp. 443-444; Transcript of evidence of Archbishop Don Tamihere and Archbishop Philip Richardson for the Anglican Church from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 19 March 2021, pp. 390-391.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Archbishop Don Tamihere and Archbishop Philip Richardson from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 19 March 2021, p. 390.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Robert Oakly, WITN0055001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 4 October 2020), p. 17.
[1] Witness Statement of Margaret Wilkinson, WITN0008001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 17 September 2020), p. 15.
[1] These figures are based on information we received between May to September 2020 from each entity within the Anglican Church.
[1] There also some claims which have no data because the claim was since considered out of scope or have information which cannot be disclosed due to suppression orders.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Bishop Ross Bay from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 18 March, p. 241; Transcript of evidence of Bishop Peter Carrell from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 19 March, pp. 332-333.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Bishop Ross Bay from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 18 March, p. 253.
[1] Witness Statement of Mrs N, WITN0052001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 28 September 2020), p. 20.
[1] Letter from Rev. Dr. Patricia Allan to Archbishop Brian Davis regarding sexual abuse in the Anglican Church, ANG0013884_00003 (9 September 1989).
[1] Letter from Nerys Parry, psychologist, to Bishop Bruce Moore, Anglican Church, ANG0002742 (8 September 1993).
[1] Masters. C and Bingham, E., “Churches taking tough line with clergy who prey”, New Zealand Herald, EXT0000555 (29 June 2002), p. 1.
[1] Pastoral justice and advocacy – Guidelines for the Church’s response to survivors of sexual exploitation by the Clergy, ANG0017763.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Archbishop Don Tamihere and Archbishop Philip Richardson at the Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 22 March 2021, p. 423.
[1] Letter from Sonja Cooper and Rebecca Hay, Cooper Legal to Reverend Michael Hughes, Anglican Church, regarding establishment of Anglican Church redress process, ANG0004387 (22 December 2016); Letter from Sonja Cooper and Rebecca Hay, Cooper Legal, to Reverend Michael Hughes, Anglican Church, regarding meeting of 30 May 2017, ANG0004388 (20 June 2017).
[1] Witness Statement of Archbishop Philip Richardson, p. 30.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Bishop Ross Bay, p. 16.
[1] Witness Statement of Colonel Gerry Walker for The Salvation Army (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care and Faith Based Institutions, 18 September 2020), p. 22.
[1] Ibid., p. 25.
[1] Ibid., pp. 8-9.
[1] Witness Statement of Colonel Gerry Walker, 18 September 2020, p. 6.
[1] Witness Statement of Murray Houston for The Salvation Army, WITN0250001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 18 September 2020), p. 42.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Colonel Gerry Walker for The Salvation Army from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000339 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 16 March 2021), p. 119.
[1] Witness Statement of Janet Lowe, WITN0066001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 16 September 2020), p. 33.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston for The Salvation Army from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000339 (Royal Commission into Abuse in Care, 16 March 2020), p. 127.
[1] Letter from Sean O’Sullivan and Jacki Cole, Phillips Fox, to Sonja Cooper, Cooper Legal, regarding Janet Lowe’s claim against The Salvation Army, EXT0000367 (29 May 2001).
[1] Witness Statement of Murray Houston, 18 September 2020, p. 13.
[1] Ibid., pp. 13-14.
[1] Ibid., p. 17.
[1] Ibid., p. 18.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston for The Salvation Army from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000340 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 17 March 2021), pp. 189-190. For example, when it stopped having officers attend survivor meetings in uniform, due to understanding the potentially triggering impact that could have on some survivors.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Closing Statement for The Salvation Army from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, p. 888.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 17 March 2021, pp. 189-190.
[1] Closing submissions on behalf of The Salvation Army regarding the Faith-based Redress Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 26 March 2020), pp. 13-14.
[1] Witness Statement of Murray Houston, 18 September 2020, p. 29.
[1] Ibid., p. 22.
[1] Ibid., p. 9.
[1] Ibid., pp. 10-11. Claims that have not formally been resolved remain ‘open’ and a claimant may choose to further progress their claim. Some claimants choose not to progress their claim or seek a redress settlement from The Salvation Army.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 17 March 2021, p. 175.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Colonel Gerry Walker from Faith-based Hearing Phase II, 16 March 2021, pp. 100-101.
[1] Witness Statement of Murray Houston, 18 September 2020, p. 39.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 16 March 2021, pp. 144, 153; Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 17 March 2021, p. 180.
[1] Letter from Sonja Cooper, Cooper Legal, to The Commissioner, The Salvation Army, regarding concerns about Mr Houston, SAL0001746 (21 January 2005); Letter from Sonja Cooper, Cooper Legal to General Linda Bond, The Salvation Army, regarding concerns about The Salvation Army New Zealand’s approach to allegations of sexual abuse, SAL0001748 (30 November 2011).
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Hearing Phase II, 16 March 2021, p. 151.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr N (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, WITN0070001, 8 September 2020), p. 15.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-Based Redress Hearing Phase II, 16 March 2021, p. 131.
[1] The Salvation Army, “Royal Commission” (2021), www.salvationarmy.org.nz/about-us/complaints-privacy/royal-commission.
[1] Witness Statement of Murray Houston, 18 September 2020, pp. 36-37.
[1] Ibid., p. 42; Witness Statement of Colonel Gerry Walker, 18 September 2020, p. 6.
[1] Selection of data providing information on settlements in The Salvation Army redress process, MSC0002219, p. 3.
[1] Witness Statement of Murray Houston, 18 September 2020, p. 47.
[1] Ibid.
[1] $54,350 as at 10 September 2020: Selection of data providing information on settlements in The Salvation Army redress process, MSC0002219, p. 3. The Commission notes that in some circumstances, financial settlements have included a payment toward past or future counselling costs, but the financial settlement has not required the payment to be put toward counselling.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 17 March 2021, p. 186.
[1] Ibid., p. 187.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 16 March 2021, p. 138. It was subsequently proposed that the low number of instances of this is likely due to the fact that the programme was only established in 2012.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 17 March 2021, pp. 180, 201-202; Transcript of evidence of Colonel Gerry Walker from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000338 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 15 March 2021), pp. 50-51.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 17 March 2021, pp. 180-181.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Closing Statement for The Salvation Army from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, pp. 888, 891.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 16 March 2021, p. 140.
[1] For example, see: Witness Statement of Gloria White, WITN0068001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 23 September 2020), p. 23.
[1] Witness Statement of Murray Houston for The Salvation Army, WITN0250022 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 January 2021), p. 21.
[1] Ibid., p. 22.
[1] Witness Statement of Murray Houston, 18 September 2020, p. 45.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr N, p. 15.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 16 March 2021, p. 151.
[1] Ibid., p. 150; Transcript of evidence of Colonel Gerry Walker from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 15 March 2021, p. 54.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Colonel Gerry Walker from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 15 March 2021, p. 54.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 16 March 2021, p. 159.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Colonel Gerry Walker for The Salvation Army from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 15 March 2021, p. 53.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 16 March 2021, p. 155-156.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Colonel Gerry Walker from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 15 March 2021, p. 48.
[1] The Salvation Army and the Treaty of Waitangi, SAL0000123 (March 1997).
[1] Witness Statement of Murray Houston, 18 September 2020, p. 46; Witness Statement of Murray Houston, 29 January 2021, p. 12.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 16 March 2021, p. 153.
[1] Witness Statement of Murray Houston, 18 September 2021, pp. 46-47.
[1] Presbyterian Support Central, Deed of settlement and restoration, PSC0000018 (February 2007).
[1] New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and Congregational Leaders Conference of Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Houhanga Rongo - A Path to Healing (2020), p. 3.
[1] Ibid., p. 14.
[1] Email from Bishop Ross Bay to Rev Dr Patricia Allan regarding completion of questionnaire, ANG0014571 (31 July 2019).
[1] Transcript of evidence of Georgina Sammons, Tanya Sammons and Hope Curtin from State Redress Hearing Phase I, 25 September 2020, p. 222.
[1] Witness Statement of Loretta Ryder, WITN0267001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 30 March 2021), p. 26.
[1] Witness Statement of Paora Sweeney, WITN0007001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 30 November 2020), p. 28.
[1] Witness Statement of Gwyneth BeardWITN0159001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 26 March 2021), p. 24.
[1] Witness Statement of Neta Kerepeti, WITN0427001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 22 April 2021), p. 24.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid., p. 28.
[1] Witness Statement of Loretta Ryder, p. 30.
[1] Witness Statement of Neta Kerepeti, p. 27.
[1] Witness Statement of Maryann Rangi, WITN0412001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 13 April 2021), p. 24.
[1] Witness Statement of Terry King, WITN0411001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 10 August 2021), pp. 15-16.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms CU, p. 25.
[1] Witness Statement of David Crichton, WITN0456001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 9 July 2021), p. 26.
[1] Witness Statement of Fa’amoana Luafutu, WITN0555001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 5 July 2021), p. 14.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Frances Tagaloa from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase I, p. 55.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms CU, p. 22.
[1] Witness Statement of Hakeagapuletama Halo, WITN0363001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 25 March 2020), p. 16.
[1] Witness Statement of Jarrod Burrell, WITN0609001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 9 August 2021), p. 7.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Sir Robert Martin from Contextual Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 5 November 2019), p. 705.
[1] Ms BU, RC-01356-T1D1 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care 24 November 2020), p. 69.
[1] Witness Statement of Neta Kerepeti, p. 29.
[1] Individual redress submission of Matthew Whiting, RC-01612-C4P2 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2021), p. 2.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban from Tulou - Our Pacific Voices: Tatala E Pulonga (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 July 2021), p. 14.
[1] Witness Statement of Helen Boynton, WITN0040001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 24 November 2020), p. 14.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms CU, pp. 32-33.
[1] Ibid., p. 33.
[1] Witness Statement of James Packer, WITN0081001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 13 February 2020), p. 13.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Colonel Gerry Walker for The Salvation Army from Faith-Based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000339 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 16 March 2021), p. 83.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms T, WITN0119001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 12 March 2021), p. 22.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms BA, WITN0589001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 31 May 2021), p. 9.
[1] Witness Statement of Mark Goold, WITN0116001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 8 June 2021), p. 16.
[1] Ibid., p. 13.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms BW, WITN0378001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 15 July 2021), p. 16.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Jacinda Thompson from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000333 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 7 December 2020), pp. 460, 463.
[1] Witness Statement of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill for Cooper Legal from State Redress Hearing Phase I WITN0094001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 31 January 2020), p. 207.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Jacinda Thompson from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase I, p. 444.
[1] Witness Statement of Joan Bellingham, WITN0083001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 25 February 2020), p. 11.
[1] Witness Statement of Robert Oakly, p. 15.
[1] Witness Statement of Kathleen O’Connor, WITN0428001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 May 2021), p. 13.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr N, p. 16.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr L, WITN0032001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 7 August 2020), p. 8.
[1] Witness Statement of Hone Tipene, WITN0724001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 22 September 2021), p. 35.
[1] Witness Statement of Neta Kerepeti, p. 28.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms BA, p. 10.
[1] Witness Statement of Mrs N, WITN0052001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 28 September 2020), pp. 13, 19.
[1] Witness Statement of James Packer, p. 7.
[1] Witness Statement of Mark Goold, p. 14.
[1] Witness Statement of Kathleen O’Connor, p. 16.
[1] Witness Statement of James Packer, p. 14.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Frances Tagaloa from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase I, p. 45.
[1] Witness Statement of Keith Wiffin, WITN0080001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 12 February 2020), pp. 12-13.
[1] Witness Statement of Mary Marshall, pp. 1, 15.
[1] Witness Statement of Wiremu Waikari, WITN0204001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 9 July 2021), p. 51.
[1] Witness Statement of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill for Cooper Legal, WITN0094394 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 6 March 2020), p. 28.
[1] Witness Statement of Phillipa Wilson, WITN0142001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 9 June 2021), p. 16.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms BA, p. 12.
[1] Witness Statement of Chassy Duncan, WITN0093001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 24 February 2020), p. 17.
[1] Witness Statement of Mary Marshall, p. 12.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Kerry Johnson from State Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000004 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 28 September 2020), p. 277.
[1] Witness Statement of Phillipa Wilson, p. 17.
[1] Ibid., p. 18.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr BY, WITN0241001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 23 July 2021), p. 7.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Marc, WITN0001001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 14 September 2020), p. 20; Witness Statement of John, WITN0023001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 26 August 2020), p. 15.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms K, p. 16.
[1] Witness Statement of Mrs N, p. 16.
[1] Witness Statement of William Wilson, WITN0419001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 6 July 2021), p. 18.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Jacinda Thompson from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase I, p. 470.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr BD, WITN0003001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 17 September 2020), p. 6.
[1] Witness Statement of Father Timothy Duckworth for the Society of Mary, WITN0253001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 23 September 2020), p. 22; Witness Statement of Brother Peter Horide for the Marist Brothers, WITN0257001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 12 February 2021), p. 10.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr BE, WITN0397001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 24 May 2021), p. 19.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms CU, pp. 31-32.
[1] Witness statement of Robert Donaldson, WITN0011001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 24 August 2020), p. 9.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Louise Deans from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000335 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 9 December 2020), p. 704.
[1] Ibid., pp. 700-710.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms C, WITN0062001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 September 2020), p. 18.
[1] Witness Statement of Anne Hill, WITN0013001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 28 September 2020), p. 13.
[1] Ibid.
[1] WelCom, “Statement of Dominican Prior Provincial” WelCom, CTH0010166 (August 2018).
[1] Witness Statement of Anne Hill, p. 15.
[1] Ibid., p. 13.
[1] Ibid., p. 15.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Keith Wiffin from State Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 September 2020), p. 31.
[1] Witness Statement of Keith Wiffin (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 October 2019), p. 7.
[1] Witness Statement of James Packer, pp. 2-3, 9.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr F, WITN0025001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 September 2020), p. 9.
[1] Closing statement on behalf of Network of Survivors of Abuse in Faith-based Institutions (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 March 2021), p. 3.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Individual redress submission of Matthew Whiting, p. 1.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms C, p. 19.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr BF, WITN0022001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 20 September 2020), p. 13.
[1] Witness Statement of Tamzin Ford, WITN0130001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 September 2020), p. 15.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr F, p. 14.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr F, p. 14.
[1] Witness Statement of Toni Jarvis, WITN0145001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 12 April 2021), p. 31.
[1] Witness Statement of Wiremu Waikari, p. 51.
[1] Witness Statement of Kerry Johnson, WITN0084001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, February 2020), p. 9.
[1] Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer, 27 January 2020, p. 21.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Helen Hurst from State Redress Hearing Phase I, p. 728.
[1] Witness Statement of Kathleen O’Connor, p. 13.
[1] Witness Statement of Phillipa Wilson, p. 14.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms K, pp. 13-14.
[1] Witness Statement of Mary Marshall, p. 15.
[1] Witness Statement of Chassy Duncan, WITN0093059 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, August 2020), p. 2.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms BA, p. 9.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr BY, p. 7.
[1] Witness Statement of Kevin England, WITN0121001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 28 January 2021), p. 31.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Chassy Duncan from State Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000002 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 23 September 2020, p. 99.
[1] Witness Statement of Roy Takiaho, WITN0071001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 10 September 2020), p. 10.
[1] Witness Statement of Gloria White, WITN0068001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 23 September 2020), pp. 22-24.
[1] Witness statement of Wiremu Waikari, p. 52.
[1] Witness Statement of Frankie Vegas, WITN0433001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 28 May 2021), p. 8.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Georgina Sammons, Tanya Sammons and Hope Curtin from State Redress Hearing Phase I, 25 September 2020, pp. 210-211.
[1] Witness Statement of Toni Jarvis, p. 37.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr A, p. 11.
[1] Witness Statement of Roy Takiaho, p. 9.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms BA, p. 10.
[1] Witness Statement of Earl White, WITN0009001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 15 July 2020), p. 24.
[1] Witness Statement of Mark Goold, p. 14.
[1] Witness Statement of Anthony Waller, WITN0015001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 11 August 2020), pp. 15-16.
[1] Ibid., p. 16.
[1] Witness Statement of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill, 6 March 2020, p. 23.
[1] Witness statement of Mr BY, p. 8.
[1] Witness Statement of Frankie Vegas, p. 9.
[1] Witness Statement of David Crichton, p. 27.
[1] Ibid, p. 29.
[1] Witness Statement of Tanya Sammons and Georgina Sammons, 24 February 2020, pp. 8-9.
[1] Witness Statement of Loretta Ryder, p. 27.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr A, p. 8.
[1] Ibid., pp. 8, 10. The Salvation Army did offer assistance with reintegration after prison but noted that it needed to be assured that Mr A was prepared to engage fully.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms AF, WITN0658001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 13 August 2021), p. 14.
[1] Witness Statement of Keith Wiffin, 12 February 2020, p. 15.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms T, p. 23.
[1] Witness Statement of Dr Rawiri Waretini-Karena, p. 9.
[1] Witness Statement of Neta Kerepeti, p. 26.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr AX, WITN0016001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 7 August 2020), p. 15.
[1] Witness statement of Tanya Sammons and Georgina Sammons, p. 18.
[1] Witness Statement of Darrin Timpson, WITN0076001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 25 September 2020), p. 13.
[1] Witness Statement of Judith Perrott, WITN0579001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 3 June 2021), p. 12.
[1] Witness Statement of Tanya Sammons and Georgina Sammons, p. 15.
[1] McGougan v DePuy International Ltd [2018] NZCA 91, [2018] 2 NZLR 916.
[1] J v Crown Health Financing Agency [2008] NZHC 81 at [621].
[1] Limitation Act 1950, No. 65, s 4, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1950/0065/latest/whole.html.
[1] The court can grant such leave “if it thinks it is just to do so… where it considers that delay in bringing the action was occasioned by mistake… or by any other reasonable cause or that the intended defendant was not materially prejudiced in his defence or otherwise by the delay”. See: Limitation Act 1950, No. 65, s 4(7), www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1950/0065/latest/whole.html.
[1] The Limitation Act 2010 also introduced some amendments to the 1950 Act in relation to claims made after 2011 (for acts or omissions before 2011). Section 23B included creating an end date for when claims can be brought, either 15 years after the date of abuse or five years after the 2010 Act came into force, whichever comes later, subject to the discretion set out in section 23C.
[1] More specifically, this applies in cases involving sexual abuse of a child or non-sexual abuse of a child by a parent, step-parent or legal guardian, or a close relative or close associate of a parent, step-parent or guardian. See: section 17 of the Limitation Act 2010 and section 23C of the Limitation Act 1950.
[1] W & W v Attorney-General [2010] NZSC 69 at [2].
[1] See: Section 6 of the Mental Health Amendment Act 1935, No. 7, www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/mdaa193526gv1935n7320/ (which amended the Mental Health Act 1911) and section 124 of the Mental Health Act 1969, No. 16, www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/mha19691969n16155/ . Section 124 of the Mental Health Act 1969 expressly included the Crown in this immunity.
[1] This period does not include, for example, time when the person was still detained as a “mentally disordered person” - see section 6(4) of the Mental Health Amendment Act 1935 and section 124(4) of the Mental Health Act 1969.
[1] Obiter in J v Crown Health Financing Agency Wellington HC CIV-2000-485-876, 8 February 2008 at [599]-[611]; Witness Statement of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill, 31 January 2020, pp. 64-65.
[1] Law Commission, A new Crown Civil Proceedings Act for New Zealand (2014), p. 8.
[1] Witness Statement of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill, 31 January 2020, pp. 16-17.
[1] White v Attorney-General HC Wellington CIV 1999-485-85 (28 November 2007) at [434].
[1] For an example of a case in which harm such as the loss of cultural identity arising out of an unlawful removal of a child from his family was recognised by a court, see Trevorrow v State of South Australia [2007] SASC 285.
[1] Witness Statement of Earl White, 15 July 2020, p. 12.
[1] The Legal Services Act 2011, which came into effect on 1 July 2011, disestablished the agency. The administration of legal aid was transferred to the Ministry of Justice.
[1] Witness Statement of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill, 31 January 2020, p. 61.
[1] Note that this is not the duration of the entire case, the Ministry of Social Development’s total legal fees are higher than this figure.
[1] Mirfin-Veitch, B., Diesfeld, K., Gates, S., and Henaghan, M., Developing a more responsive legal system for people with intellectual disability in New Zealand (Donald Beasley Institute, 2014), p. 67.
[1] This term has no statutory authority. ACC coined the term for operational purposes because such claims involved the disclosure of particularly sensitive information.
[1] Accident Compensation Act 2001, No. 49, s 27, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0049/latest/DLM99494.html .
[1] Accident Compensation Act 2001, No. 49, ss 21 and 21A, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0049/latest/DLM99494.html.
[1] Accident Compensation Act 2001, No. 49, s 36(1), www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0049/latest/DLM99494.html.
[1] Figures relating to sensitive claims lodged with ACC all refer to the total number of claims lodged, as opposed to the number of successful claims. These figures relate to all claimants and are not confined to just abuse in care claims. Despite this, the figures paint us a clear picture of the experiences of survivors bringing sensitive claims in the ACC system. See: ACC, ACC response to section 20 Notices to Produce dated 23 December 2020 (5 March 2020), p. 5.
[1] ACC response to section 20 Notices to Produce dated 23 December 2020, p. 5; Bradley, A., “Only 32% of sexual abuse and assault claims make it through ACC system,” Radio New Zealand (18 May 2021), www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/442780/only-32-of-sexual-abuse-and-assault-claims-make-it-through-acc-system.
[1] Cardwell, H., “Unprecedented demand from sex abuse victims for ACC support: ‘It makes you want to cry’” Radio New Zealand (29 September 2021), www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/452523/unprecedented-demand-from-sex-abuse-victims-for-acc-support-it-makes-you-want-to-cry.
[1] Cardwell, H., “Unprecedented demand from sex abuse victims for ACC support: ‘It makes you want to cry’,” www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/452523/unprecedented-demand-from-sex-abuse-victims-for-acc-support-it-makes-you-want-to-cry.
[1] ACC response to section 20 Notices to Produce dated 23 December 2020, p. 3.
[1] Memorandum from ACC aide to Hon Carmel Sepuloni, Minister for ACC, ACC’s delivery to priority populations: Part 4 - Disabled people (4 June 2021), p. 3.
[1] ACC has discretion to pay a five year advance on an independence allowance, however they do not always do this. See: John Miller Law, Issues faced by ACC claimants (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2021), p. 19.
[1] ACC response to section 20 Notices to Produce dated 23 December 2020, pp. 4-5.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Kathleen O’Connor, p. 12.
[1] Individual redress submission of Matthew Whiting, RC-01612-C4P2 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care), p. 2.
[1] ACC response to section 20 Notices to Produce dated 23 December 2020, p. 6.
[1] Armstrong, H., Matters relating to ACC and survivors of abuse in care (as defined in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions Order 2018) (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2021), pp. 11-12.
[1] Ibid., 13.
[1] Individual redress submission of Matthew Whiting, p. 3.
[1] Witness Statement by Phillipa Wilson, WITN0142001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 9 June 2021), p. 11.
[1] Witness Statement of Frankie Vegas, WITN0433001 (Royal Commission into Abuse in Care, 28 May 2021), p. 16.
[1] Witness Statement of Leoni McInroe, WITN0096001 (Royal Commission into Abuse in Care, 31 July 2020), p. 24.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms K, WITN0045012 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 17 November 2020), p. 6.
[1] Witness Statement of Ann-Marie Shelley, WITN0002010 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 17 June 2021), p. 2.
[1] Witness Statement of Kevin England, WITN0121002 (Royal Commission into Abuse in Care, 11 May 2021), p. 2.
[1] Witness Statement of Kathleen O’Connor, p. 13.
[1] Bradley, A., “Man horrified 92 ACC staff accessed his sensitive claim file,” Radio New Zealand (12 October 2021), www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/453360/man-horrified-92-acc-staff-accessed-his-sensitive-claim-file.
[1] ACC response to section 20 Notices to Produce dated 23 December 2020, p. 2.
[1] Armstrong, H., Matters relating to ACC and survivors of abuse in care (as defined in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions Order 2018), p. 20.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Although some of these costs can be recovered at the end of the review process, the claimant is required to pay this money up-front, which is not always feasible.
[1] For the financial year of 2020/2021, an increase over the $8.62M budget for 2019/2020. See: ACC response to section 20 Notices to Produce dated 23 December 2020, p. 3.
[1] For example: Witness Statement of Malcolm Richards, WITN0335001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 31 March 2021), p. 19; Transcript of evidence of Rangi Wickliffe from Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit Hearing, TRN0000388 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 15 June 2021), pp. 113-114.
[1] For example: Witness Statement of Sharyn Collis, WITN0344001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 March 2021), p. 2; Transcript of evidence of Georgina Sammons, Tanya Sammons and Hope Curtin from State Redress Hearing Phase I, p. 198.
[1] Witness Statement of Donald Ku, WITN0324015 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 14 May 2021), p. 14.
[1] Draft Witness Statement of Ms LL (Deceased), WITN0349001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, prepared 23 November 2020, survivor passed away prior to finalisation), pp. 9-10.
[1] Witness Statement of Charlie Symes, WITN0320001(Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 March 2021), p. 8.
[1] Witness Statement of Ann-Marie Shelley, 6 August 2020, pp. 12-13.
[1] Witness Statement of Keith Wiffin, WITN0080001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 12 February 2020), p. 12.
[1] Crown Law, Solicitor-General's Guidelines for Prosecuting Sexual Violence (1 July 2020); New Zealand Government, Improving court process for victims of sexual violence (30 August 2017), www.beehive.govt.nz/release/improving-court-process-victims-sexual-violence; Gravitas Research and Strategy Limited, Evaluation of the Sexual Violence Court Pilot (Ministry of Justice, 2019).
[1] Witness statement of Frankie Vegas, p. 7.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Before making a claim to the tribunal, a claimant must make a complaint to one of the following: the Human Rights Commission, the Privacy Commissioner or the Health and Disability Commissioner.
[1] Human Rights Act 1993, No. 82, s 105(1), www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304212.html.
[1] For example: Hammond v Credit Union Baywide [2015] NZHRRT 6 at [183].
[1] Witness Statement of Trish Grant of IHC, WITN0092001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care), pp. 3, 9-10.
[1] Ibid., p. 3.
[1] Witness Statement of Jacinda Thompson, WITN0049001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 30 September 2020), pp. 33-34.
[1] Ibid., p. 37.
[1] Witness Statement of Jacinda Thompson, p. 37; Transcript of evidence of Rosslyn Noonan from Contextual Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 6 November 2019), pp. 991-992; Witness Statement of Rosslyn Noonan (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 4 November 2019), p. 7; Transcript of evidence of Trish Grant for IHC from State Redress Hearing Phase I (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 28 September 2020), p. 298.
[1] The Office of Human Rights Proceedings can provide legal representation to applicants wishing to take unlawful discrimination proceedings in the tribunal under the Human Rights Act 1993.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Trish Grant from State Redress Hearing Phase I, p. 299.
[1] Witness Statement of Jacinda Thompson, pp. 35-36.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Georgina Sammons, Tanya Sammons and Hope Curtin from State Redress Hearing Phase I, p. 215.
[1] Witness Statement of Peter Boock, WITN0289001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 May 2021), pp. 23-24; Letter from the Office of the Ombudsman to Peter Boock, CRM0008845 (30 September 2019), p. 1.
[1] Witness Statement of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill, 31 January 2020, pp. 150-151.
[1] The sisters received a ’provisional response’ from the Ombudsman on 27 July 2015. See: Witness Statement of Tanya Sammons and Georgina Sammons, p. 22.
[1] Waitangi Tribunal, Decision on applications for an urgent hearing concerning the settlement of grievances of Māori children placed in state care and the contemporary actions of Oranga Tamariki, p. 23.
[1] Binding recommendations can be made concerning Crown-forest rental lands and State-owned enterprises land.
[1] Witness Statement of GRO-A-5, WITN0050001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 October 2020), p. 9.
[1] Grievance and advocacy processes are outlined in sections 15 and 16 of the Oranga Tamariki (Residential Care) Regulations 1996.
[1] Office of the Children’s Commissioner, “Royal Commission – Redress Hearings: Independent monitoring of the services provided to mokopuna who come within the scope of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989" (20 August 2021), p. 6.
[1] Submission of Judge Andrew Becroft for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, CRM0000744 (6 October 2019), p. 4.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Keith Wiffin from State Redress Hearing Phase I,
TRN0000006 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 September 2020), p. 25.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Keith Wiffin from State Redress Hearing Phase I, p. 25.
[1] CLAN NZ, “Submission to the Social Services Committee on The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill” (3 March 2017), p. 1, appended to Witness Statement of Rosslyn Noonan (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 4 November 2019).
[1] Transcript of evidence of Ms T from Abuse in State children’s residential care hearing, TRN0000316 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 4 May 2021), p. 169.
[1] Witness Statement of David Crichton, p. 31.
[1] Winter, Dr S., “Redressing historical abuse in New Zealand: A comparative critique,” Political Science 70, no. 10 (2021), 1-25, p. 5.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill for Cooper Legal from State Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000009 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 30 September 2020), p. 441.
[1] Witness Statement of James Packer, WITN0081001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 13 February 2020), p. 8.
[1] Henwood, Judge C., Some memories never fade: final report of the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service (Confidential Listening and Assistance Service, 2015), p. 20.
[1] Witness Statement of Hone Tipene, pp. 33-35.
[1] Witness Statement of David Crichton, p. 31.
[1] Winter, Dr. S., “Redressing historical abuse in New Zealand: A comparative critique,” p. 5.
[1] Witness Statement of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill, 31 January 2020, p. 148.
[1] Ibid., pp. 148-149.
[1] Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer, 27 January 2020, p. 17.
[1] Ibid., p. 18.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Patrick Stevens, WITN0085001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 28 February 2020), p. 7.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Trish Grant for IHC from State Redress Hearing Phase I, p. 307.
[1] Witness Statement of James Packer, p. 12.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms AF (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 13 August 2021), p. 3.
[1] Witness Statement of Mary O’Hagan (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 14 October 2019), referring to Egan Bidois, p. 20.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Mr X from Abuse in State children’s residential care hearing,
TRN0000315 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 3 May 2021), pp. 30-31.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr CE, WITN0552001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 8 July 2021), p. 16.
[1] Mr AY, WITN0432 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care), p. 8.
[1] Mr AZ, WITN0431 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care), p. 6.
[1] Mr AZ, p. 6.
[1] Winter, Dr. S., “Redressing historical abuse in New Zealand: A comparative critique,” p. 5.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill from State Redress Hearing Phase I, 29 September 2020, p. 375.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Garth Young from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 21 October 2020, pp. 293-296.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill, 29 September 2020, p. 375.
[1] Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer for Ministry of Social Development, WITN0102002 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 13 March 2020), p. 19.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ministry of Social Development, Review of Historical Claims Resolution Processes: Report on the Consultation Process with Māori Claimants, July 2018 (Ministry of Social Development, 2018), p. 9.
[1] Privacy Act 2020, No. 31, 53(b),www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0031/latest/whole.html#LMS23223.
[1] Witness Statement of Tanya Sammons and Georgina Sammons, 24 February 2020, p. 19.
[1] Witness Statement of Judge Carolyn Henwood (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 28 October 2019), p. 7.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Philip Knipe for Ministry of Health from State Redress Hearing Phase II, p. 29.
[1] Witness Statement of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill for Cooper Legal (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 5 September 2019), p. 39.
[1] Witness Statement of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill, 31 January 2020, p. 149.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill, 30 September 2020, p. 407.
[1] Ibid., p. 410.
[1] Witness Statement of Frankie Vegas, p. 9.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Steven Groom from State Redress Hearing Phase II, p. 676.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Kevin England, 28 January 2021, p. 33.
[1] Witness Statement of Earl White, 15 July 2020, p. 10.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Garth Young from State Redress Hearing Phase II, 22 October 2020, p. 443.
[1] Witness Statement of Earl White, 15 July 2020, p. 10.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Maureen Taru from Abuse in State children’s residential care hearing, TRN0000017 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 5 May 2021), p. 181.
[1] CLAN NZ, “Submission to the Social Services Committee on The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill”, p. 3, appended to Witness Statement of Rosslyn Noonan, 4 November 2019.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill, 29 September 2020, p. 392.
[1] Witness Statement of John, p. 15.
[1] Witness Statement of Janet Lowe, pp. 34-38.
[1] Witness Statement of Frances Tagaloa, WITN0020005 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 23 November 2020), p. 5.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Tamzin Ford, WITN0130001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 29 September 2020), p. 16.
[1] The Timaru Herald, “Salvation Army documents go missing,” The Timaru Herald (17 October 2006, NZP0007287).
[1]Report from Rob Veale, investigator, to Lieutenant Colonel Andy Westrupp, The Salvation Army, Interim report arising from allegations of sexual misconduct (24 December 2013, SAL0000854).
[1] Transcript of evidence of Tina Cleary from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000329 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 30 November 2020), p. 77.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Colonel Gerald Walker for The Salvation Army from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 16 March 2021, p. 124.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Bishop Peter Carrell for the Anglican Church from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000342 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 March 2021), p. 336.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston for The Salvation Army from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000339 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 16 March 2020), p. 132.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Bishop Ross Bay for the Anglican Church from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 17 March 2021, p. 241.
[1] Te Rōpū Tautoko, Briefing Paper No. 5 for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care: Preliminary report on Information Gathering Project data, EXT00015730 (12 February 2021), p. 7.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Ms B from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000337 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 11 December 2020), p. 984.
[1] Witness Statement of Neil Harding, p. 27.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Witness Statement of Gloria White, p. 17.
[1] Witness Statement of Janet Lowe, pp. 31-32.
[1] Letter from Sean O’Sullivan and Jacki Cole, Phillips Fox, to Sonja Cooper, Cooper Legal, regarding Janet Lowe’s claim against The Salvation Army, EXT0000367 (29 May 2001).
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 16 March 2021, p. 130.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms AV, WITN0053001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historic Abuse, 13 September 2020), p. 13.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Frances Tagaloa from Faith Based Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000329 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 30 November 2020), p. 53.
[1] Witness Statement of Mr AW, WITN0074001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 9 September 2020), p. 7.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Murray Houston from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, 16 March 2021, p. 151; Transcript of evidence of Brother Peter Horide for the Marist Brothers from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000345 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 24 March 2021), p. 597.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Ann-Marie Shelley from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase I,
TRN0000361 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2 December 2020), p. 253.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Transcript of evidence of John from Faith-based Redress Hearing Phase I, TRN0000332 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 4 December 2020), p. 405.
[1] Witness Statement of John, p. 17.
[1] Witness Statement of Ms K, p. 10.
[1] Our recommendations differ slightly from the interim recommendations presented to the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Jan Tinetti, on 1 October 2021. We subsequently edited them for conciseness and clarity, and also combined and reordered some. None of these changes altered the meaning of the recommendations. We have, however, added new recommendations. We decided that survivors should be able to apply to both ACC and the new redress scheme, but that entitlements from one should be taken into account by the other. We also decided that legislation and policy on abuse in care should expressly refer to the requirement to give effect to te Tiriti o Waitangi; that the principles for the puretumu system should include a principle on valuing diversity and challenging ableism; and that the Māori Collective and Crown should agree on draft legislation required to give effect to our recommendations. We also added recommendations on the redress scheme’s governance body, on unmarked graves and urupa, on funding New Zealand-specific research on abuse in care, on principles for responding to abuse in care claims, on the content and destruction of records, and on monitoring.
[1] To ’involve' is a standard of community engagement set out in the IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum which involves the agency and communities working together to identify the issues and develop solutions. Communities are involved in the decision-making process but the government ultimately decides. See: International Association for Public Participation, IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum (2020), cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/pillars/Spectrum_8.5x11_Print.pdf.
[1] Office for Disability Issues, New Zealand Disability Strategy 2016-2026 (Ministry of Social Development, 2016), www.odi.govt.nz/assets/New-Zealand-Disability-Strategy-files/pdf-nz-disability-strategy-2016.pdf.
[1] To promote independence, the legislation establishing the scheme should remove the responsible Minister’s power to amend the scheme’s Statement of Intent and Statement of Performance Expectations. This was the approach taken for the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
[1] The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care received 120 submissions, 100 from individuals (80 of whom were survivors) and 20 from organisations.
[1] For examples of overseas schemes giving rights to family members, see: Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002, No. 13, (Ireland), s 9, www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2002/act/13/enacted/en/html and The Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021, ss 24-28, www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/15/contents.
Careful consideration will need to be given to matters such as who qualifies as a member of family/whānau for the purposes of such a claim, what entitlements they should receive (for example, should there be a flat rate payment or should the amount be what the survivor would have received) and how should they be distributed among family members, and how long after the survivor’s death should a claim be permitted.
[1] Those designing the scheme will need to consider the circumstances in which State and indirect state agencies, and faith-based institutions, should be considered responsible for abuse in their care. This should include whether there are any circumstances in which they should not be considered responsible for the purposes of the redress scheme if the scheme finds that the survivor making the claim was abused in their care (and if so, what if any redress should be available for that survivor from the scheme).
[1] World Health Organization Social Change and Mental Health Violence and Injury Prevention, Report of the consultation on child abuse prevention (World Health Organisation, 1999), p. 15. The definition is in respect of neglect and negligent treatment: The failure to provide for the development of the child in all spheres: health, education, emotional development, nutrition, shelter, and safe living conditions, in the context of resources reasonably available to the family or caretakers and causes or has a high probability of causing harm to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development. This includes the failure to properly supervise and protect children from harm as much as is feasible.
[1] Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, No. 24, s 14AA, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0024/latest/DLM147088.html; Chief Executive Ministry of Social Development v T [2008] 28 FRNZ 66 (FC).
[1] Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v Ledger, [2015] NZFC 669 at [15], [53-56]; M v D-GSW [1990] 7 FRNZ 62 (HC) at [66].
[1] Human Rights Act 1993, No. 82, s 63, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304212.html.
[1] Ibid., s 63(2). See also: definition of racial disharmony in s 61 of the Act.
[1] In this regard see: Trevorrow v State of South Australia [2007] SASC 285, which at pp. 283-285 discusses Australian case law finding that compensation can be awarded for cultural loss. At pp. 285-286 the Court found that as a result of the State's unlawful conduct the indigenous plaintiff had not "developed a cultural identity with his people", and that this was a "material and compensable loss."
[1] See standard 6 of Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, ACNC Governance Standards, www.acnc.gov.au/for-charities/manage-your-charity/governance-hub/governance-standards; Department of Social Services, The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (the Scheme) Grant Connected Policy (Australian Government, 2021).
[1] Kruk, R., Final report, Second year review of the National Redress Scheme (2021), p. 167.
[1] Ibid., p. 217.
[1] Ibid., p. 70.
[1] Ibid., p. 217.
[1] Witness Statement of Dr Fiona Inkpen for Stand Children’s Services Tū Māia Whānau, WITN0089001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care), p. 19.
[1] Knowmore Legal Services Limited (Australia), www.knowmore.org.au/.
[1] An example of an organisation is Personal Advocacy and Safeguarding Adults Trust, which provide advocates trained and skilled in working with, and advocating for, disabled people and specialises in safeguarding adults at risk: www.patrust.net.nz/.
[1] The Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021, s 36(3), www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/15/contents.
[1] See, for example: National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018, No. 45, (Australian Commonwealth), s 12(2)(b), classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/nrsficsaa2018583/. See also, discussion of the reasonable likelihood standard: Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Redress and Civil Litigation Report (2015), pp. 367-376; contrast with, for example, the balance of probabilities standard to be used by Redress Scotland,
The Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021, s 36(1)(a), www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/15/contents.
[1] For an example of the plausibility approach to causation, see: the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, Schedule D: Independent Assessment Process (IAP) for continuing Indian residential school abuse claims (Canada, 2006), pp. 8, 12, 34-36. Note that in the Independent Assessment Process, the abuse and claimed harm had to be established to the balance of probabilities.
[1] New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, No. 109, s 27(1), 29, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html
[1] Ibid., s 27; Kaufman, F., Searching for justice: An independent review of Nova Scotia’s response to reports of institutional abuse, Volume 1 (Department of Justice, Nova Scotia, 2002). Alleged perpetrators had the right to comment in the Canadian Independent Assessment Process for the Indian Residential Schools, and in the Irish Residential Institutions redress scheme. They do not, however, have the right to comment in the Australian National Redress Scheme or in the upcoming Redress Scotland scheme.
[1] See, for example: SB v New South Wales (2004) 13 VR 527 at [594]-[601] and [604].
[1] Those designing the scheme may also wish to consider whether any additional harm caused by a survivor’s experience of previous State agency or faith redress processes should also be taken into account.
[1] The Confidential Listening and Assistance Service and the Confidential Forum for Former In-Patients of Psychiatric Hospitals.
[1] Those designing the scheme may wish to consider whether the well-being services available following the approval of a brief claim should be the same as those available following the approval of a standard claim, given that the brief claim process will not consider the impacts of the abuse on the survivor (i.e. what harm they have suffered because of the abuse).
[1] Carrion, V.G., Weems, C.F. and Reiss, A.L., “Stress predicts brain changes in children: a pilot longitudinal study on youth stress, posttraumatic stress disorder and the hippocampus,” Pediatrics 199, vol. 3 (2007), 509-516; Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G. et al, “Avoiding linguistic neglect of Deaf children,” Social Service Review 90, vol. 4 (2016), 598-619; Nemeroff, C.B., “Paradise lost: The neurobiological and clinical consequences of child abuse and neglect,” Neuron 89, vol. 5 (2016), 892-909; Perego, G., Caputi, M. and Ogliari, A. “Neurobiological correlates of psychosocial deprivation in children: A systematic review of neuroscientific contributions,” Child and Youth Care Forum 45 (2016), 329-352; Shern, D.L., Blanch, A.K. and Steverman, S.M., “Toxic stress, behavioural health and the next major era in public health,” Americal Journal of Orthopsychiatry 86, vol. 2 (2016), 109-123; Tottenham, N. and Galván, A., “Adolescent brain development,” in Developmental psychopathy: Developmental neuroscience, ed. Cicchetti, D. (John Wiley & Sons, 2016); Twardosz, S. and Lutzker, J.R., “Child maltreatment and the developing brain: A review of neuroscience perspectives,” Aggression and Violent Behaviour 15, vol. 1 (2010), 59-68; van IJzendoorn, M.H., Palacios, J., Sonuga-Barke, E.J. et al., “Children in institutional care: Delayed development and resilience,” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 76, vol. 4 (2011) 8-30.
[1] Confidential Listening and Assistance Service, 2015; Carr, A., Duff, H. and Craddock, F., “A systematic review of the outcome of child abuse in long-term care,” Trauma, Violence & Abuse 21, no. 4 (2020), 660-677.
[1] Compensation Advisory Committee, Towards redress and recovery: report to the Minister for Education and Science (2002).
[1] Consistent with this, United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child (A/Res/44/25, 20 November 1989), art 20(1) provides: “A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.” See also: SB v New South Wales (2004) 13 VR 527 at [579] and [595], in which damages were awarded for the aggravation of a pre-existing condition by the defendant’s breach of duty.
[1] Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer for Ministry of Social Development, WITN0102001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 27 January 2020), pp. 11-12.
[1] Witness Statement of Philip Knipe for Ministry of Health, WITN0100001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 27 January 2020), pp. 18, 23.
[1] Witness Statement of Helen Hurst for Ministry of Education, WITN0099001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 27 January 2020), p. 18; Transcript of Evidence of Helen Hurst for Ministry of Education from State Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000024 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 28 October 2020), pp. 721, 753-756.
[1] National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018, No. 45 (Australia), s 16(1)(a), classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/cth/num_act/nrsficsaa2018583/index.html#s16; Knowmore Legal Services (Australia), “What is the National Redress Scheme,” knowmore.org.au/for-survivors/redress-scheme/.
[1] Independent Assessment Process Oversight Committee 2021, Independent Assessment Process – Final Report (2021), p. 95, www.iap-pei.ca/media/information/publication/pdf/FinalReport/IAP-FR-2021-03-11-eng.pdf.
[1] We heard that one of the objectives of the Independent Assessment Process was to provide compensation at a level comparable to the courts, and that the amounts payable were determined with regard to Canadian case law at the time the Settlement Agreement was negotiated. However, we understand there was debate about whether the Independent Assessment Process achieved this because some considered the amounts available under the scheme to be much lower than what could be obtained in court. One of the issues that contributed to this was that payment ranges were fixed in 2006 and not changed in line with inflation or developing case law over the next 15 years (until the scheme closed on 31 March 2021).
[1] Northern Ireland Assembly, Research paper: Comparative analysis of the Historical Institutional Abuse Redress Board (2021), p. 3; Memorandum to Scottish Parliament, “Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Bill – Financial Memorandum,” p. 8.
[1] Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer, 27 January 2020, pp. 11-12.
[1] Ibid.; Historic Claims Business Process and Guidance (Ministry of Social Development, 2019).
[1] Transcript of evidence of Helen Hurst from State Redress Hearing Phase II, p. 721.
[1] Witness Statement of Philip Knipe, 27 January 2020, p. 18.
[1] For the Catholic Church, see: Te Rōpū Tautoko, Tautoko briefing paper no. 2 for Royal Commission into Abuse in Care: Summary of funding and costs associated with redress (2021), p. 10;
Te Rōpū Tautoko, Tautoko briefing paper no. 5 for Royal Commission into Abuse in Care: Preliminary report on Information Gathering Project data (2021), p. 35. For the Anglican Church, payment figures are based off the Church’s estimates and figures we received between May to September 2020 from each entity within the Anglican Church.
[1]Selection of data providing information on settlements in The Salvation Army redress process, MSC0002219, p. 3.
[1] Independent Assessment Process Oversight Committee 2021, Independent Assessment Process – Final Report, pp. 22, 84, www.iap-pei.ca/media/information/publication/pdf/FinalReport/IAP-FR-2021-03-11-eng.pdf.
[1] Kaufman, F., Searching for justice: An independent review of Nova Scotia’s response to reports of institutional abuse, Volume 1, pp. 300-308, 322.
[1] Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002, No. 13, (Ireland), s 13(6), www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2002/act/13/enacted/en/html; The Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021, ss 46-48, www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/15/contents; National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018, No. 45 (Australian Commonwealth), s 43, classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/nrsficsaa2018583/.
[1] The Court would also need to take into account any ACC payments or other entitlements received by a survivor.
[1] United Nations, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (A/Res/39/46, 10 December 1984), art 14(1): “fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible”; Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Ireland (CAT/C/IRL/CO/2, 17 June 2011), p. 9 (considering the waiver requirement under an Irish redress scheme for survivors of the Magdalen Laundries).
[1] The Crown will need to consider whether s 321(4) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 applies to payments from the redress scheme. If it does, the Crown should ensure that the Accident Compensation Corporation does not exercise its discretion under s 321(4)(b) to recover entitlements it previously provided to survivors if they receive a redress payment from the scheme. The reasons for that include that any payment ACC previously provided will have been taken into account by the scheme in deciding on the redress payment to the survivor.
[1] Witness Statement of Linda Hrstich-Meyer for Ministry of Social Development, WITN0102003 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 31 July 2020), p. 6.
[1] Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (Canada, 2006).
[1] Independent Assessment Process Oversight Committee 2021, Independent Assessment Process – Final Report, p. 57, www.iap-pei.ca/media/information/publication/pdf/FinalReport/IAP-FR-2021-03-11-eng.pdf: 4,348 claims resolved in 2010 (3,210 by adjudicator decision), 4,426 in 2011 (3,377 by adjudicator decision), 5,435 in 2012 (3,935 by adjudicator decision), 6,251 in 2013 (3,938 by adjudicator decision) and 5,092 in 2014 (3,739 by adjudicator decision). In 2015, it resolved 3,642 claims (2,646 by adjudicator decision). Note also that p. 47 of the Report refers to a negotiated settlement process and p. 57 sets out settlement statistics. Settlements were also provided for in the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002, No. 13, (Ireland), s 12, www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2002/act/13/enacted/en/html. Those designing the redress process for New Zealand may wish to consider whether to provide for settlements in that process.
[1] See: Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, Schedule D: Independent Assessment Process (IAP) for continuing Indian residential school abuse claims, p. 14; National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018, No. 45, (Australian Commonwealth), ss 73-79 (note, however, ss 156-157), classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/nrsficsaa2018583/; The Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021, ss 54-59 (note, however, ss74-78), www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/15/contents.
[1] We recommended above that once the scheme has approved a claim it should put the survivor in contact with a navigator. The navigator will then work with the survivor on what they need, including wellbeing services, to restore their mana. Those designing the scheme will need to consider what review rights should apply to decisions on well-being and other services.
[1] In Canada, a dispute about records held by the Independent Assessment Process in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement went to the Supreme Court: Canada (Attorney General) v Fontaine 2017 SCC 47, [2017] 2 SCR 205. We heard that the case put confidentiality undertakings the Independent Assessment Process had given to survivors in doubt, and created uncertainty about what the scheme could say to survivors accessing it after the litigation had begun in relation to what would happen to their records. These issues emphasise the need to have very clear rules about records at the outset and not to change those rules unless absolutely necessary.
[1] J (and Other Plaintiffs in the DSW Litigation Group) v Attorney-General [2018] NZHC 1331; Attorney-General v J (and Other Plaintiffs in the DSW Litigation Group) [2019] NZCA 449, [2020] 2 NZLR 176.
[1] We understand anonymous referrals are made when the survivor does not consent to their identity being disclosed, and that the Australian National Redress Scheme will not make a referral that identifies a survivor without the individual’s consent. In contrast, we understand Redress Scotland will advise survivors it will give police the name of anyone they allege abused them, along with their own name.
[1] Kruk, R., Final Report, Second year review of the National Redress Scheme, p. 217
[1] Problems have arisen in Australia in this regard, see: Ibid., pp. 160-169.
[1] The Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021, s 17, www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/15/contents.
[1] Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Act 2012, No. 35 (Ireland), s 42, www.legislation.ie/eli/2012/act/35/enacted/en/print.
[1] Witness Statement of Dr Fiona Inkpen, p. 22.
[1] Harvey, H., “New Zealand’s psychological crisis putting lives at risk,” Stuff (26 January 2021), www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/122695066/new-zealands-psychological-crisis-putting-lives-at-risk.
[1] Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction, He Ara Oranga: Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction, p. 16.
[1] Ibid., p. 11.
[1] In Australia, where the Catholic Church is made up of a range of independent bodies, Australian Catholic Redress Ltd was registered as a company to oversee Catholic dioceses’ engagement with the Australian National Redress Scheme (see: www.catholic.org.au/redress). The company provides a single access point for interaction between the scheme and dioceses, and the approximately 5,000 Catholic sites for which they are (or have been) responsible. The company also helps ensure all diocesan obligations under the scheme are met. It does not, however, include the Catholic Orders, many of which are small. This can complicate findings about who is responsible for payments (for example, where there is a school that was owned by a particular diocese but run by a specific Order).
[1] See recommendation 3 and part 1.4 above. See also: New Zealand’s obligations under, for example, article 2(3)(a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. See, too, article 14(1) of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The United Nations Committee against Torture has criticised New Zealand’s reservation to article 14(1), and for not having an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation in its legal system for victims of torture, see: Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of New Zealand (CAT/C/NZL/CO/6, 2 June 2015), p. 8.
[1] See in this regard New Zealand’s obligations under articles 2(2) and 2(3)(b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We note survivors can seek compensation for breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. However, the NZBORA does not cover private bodies including faith-based institutions and there are important differences between tort compensation and Bill of Rights compensation. Bill of Rights compensation also does not include any harm covered by accident compensation legislation: see the inquiry’s Briefing Paper - Redress in International and Domestic Human Rights Law (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2020), pp. 16-17. As referred to below, there may be a path for some survivors to seek compensation under the Human Rights Act 1993 for sexual harassment claims in limited settings.
[1] Some survivors in Australia are obtaining significant compensation including through the courts. By way of example only, and accepting it is not the standard award, in Western Australia a survivor of abuse while in the care of a faith-based institution has reportedly been awarded compensation of about $A1.3 million. See: Menagh., J, “Christian Brothers forces to increase payout to John Lawrence, who survived ‘degrading, humiliating‘ sexual abuse,” ABC News (6 May 2021), www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-06/christian-brothers-forced-to-increase-payout-to-abuse-survivor/100121008. Substantial out-of-court settlements for abuse in care have also been reported. See, for example: Cooper, A., “Legal payout brings hope for other victims of paedophile priest,” The Age (26 July 2021), www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/legal-payout-brings-hope-for-other-victims-of-paedophile-priest-20210722-p58c6z.html; Wilson, A., “State’s $1.2M Abuse Payout” Mercury (Hobart) (2 August 2021), www.pressreader.com/australia/mercury-hobart/20210802/281509344228644.
[1] Note that the abuse covered by the right should be the same abuse that the redress scheme will cover.
[1] Crown Proceedings Act 1950, No. 54, ss 3(2)(b), 6(1)(a),legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1950/0054/latest/whole.html; Attorney-General v Strathboss Kiwifruit Limited [2020] NZCA 98, [2020] 3 NZLR 247 at [70]-[109].
[1] See for example: Couch v Attorney-General (No 2) [2010] NZSC 27, [2010] 3 NZLR 149 at [158] per Tipping J, Wishart v Murray [2015] NZHC 3363, [2016] 2 NZLR 565 at [66]-[69], and P v Attorney-General HC Wellington CIV-2006-485-874, 16 June 2010 at [83]-[90]. It may be possible to claim exemplary damages on a vicarious basis against the Crown in circumstances where an official of the State has deliberately, recklessly or in a grossly negligent manner “directly inflicted personal injury on the plaintiff”, particularly if “that official has not been able to be identified and so the wrongdoer has not been punished or disciplined” (S v Attorney-General [2003] 2 NZLR 450 (CA) at [93]). It is unclear however the extent to which this would apply to abuse in care cases, or if it would apply to defendants other than the Crown. Note also Daniels v Thompson [1998] 3 NZLR 22 (CA) and the discussion about this case in Stephen Todd (ed) Todd on Torts (8th ed, Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2019) at 1341.
[1] For example, see: New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, No. 109, s 3, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html; Human Rights Act 1993, No. 82, s 62(3), www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304212.html.
[1] See: Accident Compensation Act 2001, No. 49, s 317(4)(b),www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0049/latest/DLM99494.html. This subsection refers to s 92B of the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA), which includes sexual harassment claims under s 62 of the HRA. If a case brought under s 92B is successful, remedies may be granted under s 92I HRA including compensation. We consider s 317(4)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 may be interpreted as providing an exception to the ACC bar for compensation claims for some sexual abuse (namely, that covered by s 62 of the HRA). We note that the Human Rights Review Tribunal referred to the ACC bar in Thompson v van Wijk [2021] NZHRRT 39 at [108.2], but did not appear to consider the effect of s 317(4)(b).
[1] Oceana Gold (New Zealand) Ltd v WorkSafe New Zealand [2019] NZHC 365. We understand the exception was enacted specifically to overcome shortcomings in accident compensation laws in terms of providing proper compensation to victims of crime, see: Victims of Crime Reform Bill 2011 (319-1), explanatory note, p. 14,www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/bill/vocrb2011250/. This is the same reason we recommend an exception be provided for abuse in care cases.
[1] See: Human Rights Act 1993, No. 82, s 92I, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304212.html. Amended as necessary to ensure appropriate compensation can be awarded in abuse in care cases. There should be no need to go to the Human Rights Commission first, as is the case with other complaints brought under the Human Rights Act 1993. However, there could be a requirement that claimants have to make a claim to the redress scheme before taking proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal, see: www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304212.html.
[1] For examples of this, see: Privacy Act 2020, No. 31, s 98, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0031/latest/LMS23223.html; Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994, No. 88, s 51, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0088/latest/DLM333584.html.
[1] Some readers may find it useful to have more detailed reasons for our recommendations on the right to be free from abuse in care and on limitation reform. We will consider publishing working papers in 2022 on these matters.
[1] ACC and WorkSafe, Harm Reduction Action Plan (New Zealand Government, 2019). Due to be reviewed in 2022.
[1] ACC and WorkSafe, 2020/21 Statement of Performance Expectations (New Zealand Government), pp. 9, 19.
[1] Limitation Act 2010, No. 110, s 17, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0110/latest/DLM2033120.html.
[1] Age of Majority Act 1970, No. 137, s 4(2), www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1970/0137/latest/DLM396479.html#DLM396495.
[1] For example, all Australian states have removed any limitation period for child sexual abuse. With the exception of Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia, all states have extended this beyond sexual abuse to include physical and psychological/connected abuse. See: Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, ss 17A-17D, www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/52/contents.
[1] Our reasons for this are essentially the same as the reasons given by the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse for the retrospective limitation reform it recommended, see: Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Redress and Civil Litigation Report (2015), pp. 434-444, 457-458.
[1] Any amount previously paid in settlement should be taken into account by the court.
[1] For examples of cases where a court has found that a fair trial was not possible in relation to all of part of a claim, see B v Sailor’s Society [2021] CSOH 62 and JXJ v De La Salle Brothers EWHC 1914 (QB).
[1] Regarding the need for the legislation to be retrospective, see: Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Redress and Civil Litigation Report (2015), p. 458; the Limitation of Actions and Other Legislation (Child Abuse Civil Proceedings) Amendment Bill 2016 (Explanatory notes) (Queensland) and Family and Community Development Committee, Civil Justice Reforms – Betrayal of Trust Report (State of Victoria Inquiry into the Handling of Child abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations 2013), p. 540.
[1] The Crown could also consider, in addition to the discretion not to allow a case to proceed if a fair trial is not possible, whether there should be a similar discretion when a defendant shows “substantial prejudice”, as in section 17D of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/52/contents. Consideration should also be given to the differing grounds on which previously settled or adjudicated cases can be relitigated in section 17C of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, the Civil Liability Amendment (Child Abuse) Bill 2021 (New South Wales), www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bill/files/3842/First%20Print.pdf and the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Queensland), s 48, www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/inforce/current/act-1974-075.
[1] Relevant to this will be whether this reform is required for vulnerable adults given the Limitation Act 1950, No. 65, s 24, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1950/0065/latest/DLM262437.html#DLM262610; Limitation Act 2010, No. 110, s 45, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0110/latest/DLM2033120.html.
[1] Mental Health Act 1911 (as amended by section 6 of the Mental Health Amendment Act 1935), and the Mental Health Act 1969, No. 16, s 124, www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/mha19691969n16155/; s 124 of the Mental Health Act 1969 included the Crown in this immunity.
[1] There are other immunity provisions, see for example: Public Service Act 2020, No. 40, s 104, www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0040/latest/LMS106159.html. The Law Commission may also wish to consider the extent to which these are barriers to survivors taking abuse in care claims which should be reformed.
[1] Any time during which the survivor was detained in a mental health institution, did not know of the events giving rise to their claim, or was outside of New Zealand, is not included in that six-month period.
[1] See, for example: Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 (not an abuse in care case).
[1] See, for example: Trevorrow v State of South Australia [2007] SASC 285 at [1167] to [1169]. The Court refers to a submission from the State that many of the plaintiff’s incapacities and disabilities were not caused by any wrongful act on its part. The Court stated: “In such a circumstance the State has an evidentiary responsibility to disentangle the causes of the plaintiff’s disability and incapacity and to exclude the State’s conduct as a contributory cause.” See also: SB v New South Wales (2004) 13 VR 527 at [544].
[1] Attorney-General's Values for Crown Civil Litigation (2013), www.crownlaw.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Media-Statements/Attorney-Generals-Values-for-Crown-Civil-Litigation-2013.pdf.
[1] The review reported concerns by interviewees that the Crown was “driven too much by the wish to win” and of a “proceed at all costs and win at all costs” culture, see: Dean QC, M. and Cochrane, D., A review of the role and functions of the Solicitor-General and the Crown Law Office (2012), pp. 15-16, www.crownlaw.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Reports/review-2012.pdf.
[1] Transcript of evidence of Una Jagose for Crown Law Office from State Redress Hearing Phase II, TRN0000025 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 3 November 2020), p. 1044.
[1] Legal Services Directions 2017, Appendix B - The Commonwealth’s obligation to act as a model litigant, (2017), www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L00369.
[1] New South Wales Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation (2016), arp.nsw.gov.au/assets/ars/39c2cd625f/Model-Litigant-Policy-for-Civil-Litigation.pdf.
[1] Legal Services Directions 2017, Appendix B - The Commonwealth’s obligation to act as a model litigant (2017), at [1], www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L00369.
[1] Ibid., [2(b)]
[1] Ibid., [2(d)]
[1] Ibid., [2(e)(i)], [(ii)], [(iii)].
[1] Ibid., [2(f)].
[1] Ibid., [2(g)].
[1] Ibid., [2(i)].
[1] Ibid., [5.2(a)(i)].
[1] New South Wales Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation, at [3.2(l)].
[1] Legal Services Directions 2017, Appendix B - The Commonwealth’s obligation to act as a model litigant, Note 4, www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L00369; New South Wales Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation (2016), at [3.3], [3.4].
[1] New South Wales Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation (2016), at [1.3].
[1] Ibid., at [1.4].
[1] Principle 18, see: New South Wales Government, Guiding Principles for Government Agencies Responding to Civil Claims for Child Abuse (2016), arp.nsw.gov.au/assets/ars/2b41c52636/NSW-Government-Guiding-Principles-for-Government-Agencies-Responding-to-Civil-Claims-for-Child-Abuse.pdf.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Find and Connect Web Resource Project for the Commonwealth of Australia, www.findandconnect.gov.au.