Survivors consistently said redress processes would produce better outcomes for them if they contributed to their design. They told us that these processes seemed currently focused on minimising organisations’ legal liability, not on meeting survivors’ needs. Māori, Pacific and disabled survivors particularly stressed this point. Some Māori survivors said they should be able to exercise their tino rangatiratanga in relation to the design and functioning of redress processes. Neta Kerepeti said “government agencies should have trust in Māori and let our people take the lead and have tino rangatiratanga or involvement in decision-making”. Disabled survivor Matthew Whiting emphasised that that any redress process “must be co-designed with disabled people”, and must comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Survivors feel that the development of redress processes have been largely one-sided and that their perspectives have been ignored.

“if you’re not around the table, you’re on the menu”.

Helen Boynton told us what survivors needed should matter most, “not what government policy says we need or should get”. Ms CU said the Catholic Church should “release power so that any reconciliation is co-designed independently with the victim’s families”. She said the redress process should not be led by the church because it would try to control it.

Next: Survivors feel left in the dark by inadequate information and contact