Executive Summary

This report analyses the experiences of 50 survivors of abuse who shared their experiences in private sessions with Commissioners. We chose them from the 349 private sessions the inquiry has conducted to date. We selected them in a way that ensured a mix of backgrounds (age, gender, ethnicity, disability and care settings). The mix is not intended to be indicative of the community-wide makeup of survivors.

Private sessions are survivor-led, meaning survivors are not interviewed or necessarily asked questions about every aspect of the inquiry’s terms of reference. Some have mentioned certain experiences and others have not, either – we presume – because they chose not to or did not have those experiences. Nonetheless, the frequent and consistent themes in the analysis give us confidence in the soundness of the insights detailed here, even as more can – and will – be learned about survivor experiences from further private sessions, written accounts and investigations conducted by the inquiry, all of which will help strengthen the basis of the inquiry’s final report.

Note that the themes emerging here differ slightly in nature and emphasis from those in the Commissioners’ themes in volume one because
Commissioners have drawn on a considerably larger number of survivor accounts.

Note: Some of the material in this report includes real examples of abuse. This may be distressing for some readers. Readers who find the contents of this report distressing can seek support from the services listed in appendix 1.  

Circumstances of being taken into care

Some survivors could not remember the specific circumstances that led to their being taken into care. Among those who could, most were taken into care because of abuse at home and/or concerns for their safety at home. Some were taken into care for reasons that were arbitrary,  unwarranted or unclear to them.

Some described a sense of fear, uncertainty and distress while being taken into care. Individuals’ needs and choice of care placement did not appear to be well considered. The placing of Māori and Pacific people, for example, seldom took account of their cultural needs, and many Māori described feeling disconnected from their whānau, hapū, iwi, tikanga Māori and te reo Māori.

Nearly all survivors described being moved between numerous care placements and settings, even if they could not recall the exact number.  Many were continually moved from placement to placement and setting to setting – some more than 10 times. Nearly half of the survivors’ siblings were also placed in care. Most siblings were initially placed in care together, but sometimes became separated in the course of transition between placements.

Nature and duration of abuse

Physical abuse and sexual abuse involving contact (such as fondling and penetration) were the most commonly reported types of abuse. Forty
survivors experienced either physical or sexual abuse, and 33 experienced both.

Neglect, psychological and emotional abuse, and bullying were also commonly reported. Survivors described home and institutional environments in which volatility, violence and other forms of abuse were rife. The great majority also witnessed the abuse of others.

Most survivors described numerous forms of abuse from many perpetrators in most care placements and settings. Māori survivors also experienced a sense of disconnection from their whānau, hapū, iwi, tikanga Māori and te reo Māori. Pacific survivors reported a sense of disconnection from their culture too. Both also reported experiencing discrimination.

Survivors talked about when and for how long they were abused and at what age this took place. From this information, it emerged that:

• Abuse occurred from the 1960s to the early 2000s.
• Survivors mentioned abuse in the 1970s and 1980s most often.
• Abuse was most common between the ages of five and 17, although it ranged up to 20.
• Most survivors were abused for periods of between five and 10 years.

Repeated abuse in many placements and settings made it difficult for many survivors to recall their exact age when abused.

Structural, systemic or practical factors behind abuse

The main structural, systemic or practical factors that survivors said contributed to or caused abuse included:

• limited monitoring of, and support for, their wellbeing
• a failure to identify abuse despite warning signals such as suicide attempts, persistent attempts to run away, disruptive or aggressive behaviour and disinterest in education
• further abuse, rather than support, after reporting abuse or when behaving in ways that should have rung alarm bells
• a lack of vetting, adequate supervision and management of staff and carers
• a culture of abuse that flourished in the absence of effective support systems.

Not all experiences were bad. Seventeen survivors described feeling cared for and loved in their places of care, and being kept safe by their social worker. However, these positive experiences tended to relate to specific individuals rather than to the institution or place of care to which they were sent.

Disclosing abuse and responses

Survivors found it difficult to disclose abuse. They noted:

• the absence of a person they felt safe disclosing the abuse to
• a fear of what would happen to them if they told someone
• an absence of any understanding at the time that they were being abused
• a sense of shame that they were in some way to blame
• a desire not to upset family members by disclosing the abuse, particularly if the perpetrator was inside the family.

Responses to disclosures were inadequate or harmful. Survivors were labelled troublemakers or liars and often subjected to punishments, while perpetrators avoided any consequences.

The power and influence of perpetrators made it easy for them to label survivors liars or influence processes or tamper with records so disclosures went unheard or unresponded to. Psychiatrists, doctors and nurses in psychiatric institutions, for example, would use their influence
to alter records and/or discredit survivors’ accounts of abuse.

Only one survivor said a disclosure resulted in a criminal conviction.

Impact of abuse

Survivors described a considerable range of consequences of abuse, including on their:

• behaviour (aggression, anger, alcohol and drug use, involvement in crime, difficulties sleeping and interacting with others)
• mental health (including suicidal thoughts and attempts)
• cultural connections and self- identity (in the case of Māori and Pacific people)
• personal relationships (including sexual behaviour)
• physical health (including injuries)
• education, employment and financial security.

Key insights:

• Many survivors were affected in a multitude of ways by the abuse.
• The vast majority described adverse consequences on their behaviour and mental health.
• Survivors commonly reported their relationships, education and economic situation were affected. They also reported committing crime.
• The abuse significantly affected some survivors’ ability to establish positive relationships and be a valued member of society.
• Nearly all survivors described immediate and life-long consequences from the abuse.

Some survivors described how their time in care had almost guaranteed they would become disconnected from society – particularly those placed in boys’ homes, who felt separated from society and punished, rather than cared for. They developed a resentment towards the system
and felt they did not fit in with society afterwards. They often ended up affiliating with gangs.

Redress and rehabilitation

Key insights:

• Most survivors seeking redress or rehabilitation did so to get financial compensation or an acknowledgement of their suffering.
• Survivors stressed the need to prevent those in care suffering abuse, and considered the inquiry an important step in ensuring this happened.
• A few received an apology, access to their records and amendments to their records.
• Survivors were frustrated their records were inaccurate or had been redacted, altered or destroyed.
• Many wanted their perpetrators to be held to account for their actions, although few said it was important perpetrators were brought to justice.
• Some survivors found redress and rehabilitation processes useful in helping them rebuild their lives, but others felt the compensation was inadequate given the nature and duration of the abuse and its profound effect on their lives.
• Some survivors said they felt uncomfortable during the assessment of their claims for financial compensation or counselling, which they described as drawn-out and complicated.

Rebuilding their lives

Thirty-one survivors described past or continuing efforts to rebuild their lives. Some found it very difficult to re-establish normal lives, especially if they had ended up with a criminal record or in prison.

The main factors in helping survivors rebuild their lives included:

• breaking the cycle of abusive behaviour in themselves and in others around them
• establishing positive, caring relationships with others
• reconnecting with their cultural identity
• getting an educationand/or a job.

Survivors often talked about their lack of caring or positive parenting skills, which they attributed to their time in care. Some described how this
had affected their personal relationships and parenting styles. Some found themselves quick to get angry. Survivors wanted to break this cycle
of behaviour. They said relationships with partners, children and grandchildren were the valuable way to do this.