Seventeen survivors talked about having sought redress (lodging a complaint or seeking an apology or financial compensation) and undergoing rehabilitation (usually counselling or some acknowledgement from authorities). Several survivors said they thought it important to prevent abuse in care, and that the inquiry was a good step in the right direction.

Key insights:

• Counselling and financial compensation were the most likely forms of redress and rehabilitation.
• A few received an apology, access to their records and amendments to their records.
• No survivors mentioned wanting perpetrators brought before the courts, although many said they wanted them – and the institutions concerned – held to account.
• Some of the survivors who obtained redress or took part in rehabilitation found it useful in helping them rebuild their lives, although some considered the level of redress and compensation inadequate given the nature and duration of their abuse and its profound impact on their lives.
• Survivors who had sought redress and rehabilitation said the assessment process had many steps and made them feel uncomfortable. There was also a long wait for the decision.
• A few said there should be fewer steps, a faster decision process and more generous offers of redress and rehabilitation.
• Many survivors were unaware of, or unclear about, what redress and rehabilitation options were available to them.

Compensation, counselling, apologies and records

Most of the 17 survivors who mentioned redress and rehabilitation did so to:

• get financial compensation
• have their experiences heard and acknowledged
• help prevent the abuse of others in care
• get an apology for their abuse and its impact on their lives.

Some survivors had formally made claims against Ministry of Social Development, ACC, a faith-based institution or a non-government  organisation for financial compensation (including one-off and regular payments) and/or counselling. A few mentioned receiving financial compensation and awaiting decisions on their compensation claims. Some survivors had sought counselling themselves because they felt the need to and they knew the process to obtain funded counselling would be difficult.

A few survivors said they were receiving benefits because physical and/or mental disabilities arising from their abuse had left them unable to work. One woman, for example, was on a disability benefit after suffering sexual and physical abuse in a psychiatric institution. Those receiving  benefits had not formally sought compensation.

Some survivors were given access to their records as part of redress and rehabilitation. A few said they had also received an apology.

None of the survivors said it was important to them that perpetrators were brought before the courts, although they frequently talked about holding perpetrators and institutions to account. Some survivors were pessimistic about the prospects of perpetrators ever being held to account because there was no recognition of how bad the problem had been in institutions and because, in some cases, the perpetrators were dead.

A few survivors wanted nothing to do with any court proceedings, saying they just wanted to move on. By contrast, many others expressed great anger at their perpetrators and the injustice of a system that had let them down.

Survivors said taking part in the inquiry was a way to help prevent abuse among those in care. Many said talking to the inquiry helped with their healing process. For a few, taking part in a private session was the first time that they had told anyone in a position of authority about their
abuse. As one survivor explained:

“ Mainly my reason for telling my story is in a hope that when you present it to the Government and that, they can hear our voices. Our voices can be heard and they put every step and amendment into it not happening to children now, today, or in the future.”
SANDRA, MĀORI, 45

Many said redress and rehabilitation were important because they helped close a dark chapter in their lives. Some stressed that counselling helped them recognise they were not to blame for their abuse. Others said counselling sessions helped them verbalise and move on from their experiences.

Some survivors said they considered it important that authorities amended their records to make them accurate. One woman said such revisions, along with an apology, were crucial to her healing process:

“That’s one thing I did manage to do, I got an apology and I got that wiped off my notes, which to me was a big thing because I felt that I didn’t want the label of [drug addict and schizophrenic].”

ANNE, EUROPEAN, 66

Some of those who received an apology did not consider it genuine or appropriate in light of the seriousness of the abuse and its impact. One survivor who received a letter of apology said it did not specifically acknowledge any of his experiences, which left him with a feeling of deep frustration:

“Patronising. I don’t think it’s genuine, I think it’s just a template-generated letter.”

WIREMU, MĀORI, 29

Some survivors said the amount of compensation they received did not reflect the nature and duration of their abuse or its impact. One man received $3,000 for physical, sexual, psychological and emotional abuse he suffered from the age of 13 while in care homes and a psychiatric institution during the 1960s:

“I get a phone call from [organisation’s name] saying, ‘Yes, it’s been accepted’. I’ve got a $3,000 payout from, say, 50 years of suffering.”
BRIAN, EUROPEAN, 68

Several survivors considered financial compensation to be “throwing money at a problem” rather than fixing it. Some survivors expressed
resentment at receiving copies of their records that were full of redacted or blacked-out sections, thereby frustrating their efforts to learn what was held on file about them. Many of those who received unabridged copies said they felt their records had been altered and did not fully reflect
their experience in care:

“He had the file of all the ECT I was getting, the abuse I’d been through – everything. They destroyed it. The reason why they were trying to get the information out of me at that time, back in the ’90s, was to find out how much I could remember, so there was no stone left unturned, so they could destroy anything or any evidence that connects them to it.”
TIMOTHY, EUROPEAN, 65

Other survivors said they were told their records no longer existed. For several survivors, reading their records brought back repressed memories of abuse. Some found it valuable. One survivor said her records gave her deeper insights into the circumstances that led to her being taken into care, and how her birth parents had been given repeated opportunities to raise her and her siblings properly:

“I read that in the file, where we were put back to my parents six times, you know, and all this time I was, like, ‘Fuck them, I hate them [CYFS] …they’re the reason why my family’s torn apart, you know, ’cos we’re not all together’, but when, um, I read through that on six different times they actually gave us back to my parents to get their shit together, and try and do better with us, yeah. So I thought it was all their fault, CYFS’s fault. It wasn’t, you know.”
JULIA, MĀORI, 28

Difficulties with redress and rehabilitation

Some survivors said they were not until that point aware they could access redress and rehabilitation. Some had never heard of the main organisations involved in seeking or providing redress and rehabilitation for survivors.

Among those who had sought redress and rehabilitation help, a few said they felt uneasy or embarrassed during the assessment process, found it difficult to talk frankly about all their abuse, found the process involved a lot of steps, found the wait for a decision drawn-out, and found it more difficult to get financial compensation if they had a criminal conviction.

A few said they felt assessment processes were designed around the needs of the organisation concerned, not those of applicants. One survivor, who had experienced physical, sexual, psychological and emotional abuse in care, including in a psychiatric institution, described his assessment experience:

“All she did, she more or less shut me down in some sense ’cos I’d sort of come back to… what was happening to my health issues…She shut me down by saying, ‘I’ve read the files, I’ve read the files, I’ve read the files’.”
BRIAN, EUROPEAN, 68

He appealed against the assessment decision and was allocated another person, who helped him get counselling and compensation.

Survivors found assessment processes challenging. They had to meet people from different organisations and detail their experiences – a difficult thing for some survivors, who found themselves retraumatised by the experience. Others found the formality uncomfortable. Several said they did not divulge the full details of their abuse.

Survivors offered counselling learned they could have a maximum of four sessions, and that they would have to go to another organisation if
they wanted more sessions – which usually involved another assessment. Survivors found this frustrating.

A few survivors in the middle of seeking compensation said the process was frustratingly long and made it harder for them to rebuild their lives and move on. One survivor said a decision on his claim would take several years:

“That’s what I’m afraid of, is going backwards. After I feel better about addressing everything and opening up to people, I don’t want to go backwards after that. I need to move forward with my life ... [The organisation] said, ‘There’s a timeframe of two to three years before your claim could be investigated’. I thought, ‘Why?’ ”
WIREMU, MĀORI, 29

Some said they had used their own money to hire a lawyer to seek compensation. They said the compensation they received was quite minimal after legal fees had been deducted.

One survivor said it was hard to get financial compensation for those who had been in prison or had a criminal conviction. He had sought compensation for the abuse suffered in a boys’ home and indicated his compensation went towards his legal fees, and he was not entitled to further compensation because he was categorised as a high-risk offender:

“The Attorney-General’s Office, who says, ‘Here’s 20 grand – non-negotiable’. [laughter]. Then, you get a letter from [name], who says, ‘We’ve got an offer. By the way, if you don’t sign this, you’ll be marked up as a high-tariff offender. Basically, it was explained that anybody doing over 10 years in prison for preventive detention is in that category and will be a [high-risk] offender. Therefore you would not be entitled to
compensation.”
PETER, MĀORI, 50

For some survivors, their experience with the system generally had discouraged them from seeking redress and rehabilitation help. They distrusted the system and had no faith it could help them.

One survivor said sharing stories with whānau on the marae was a valuable way to help Māori survivors heal.