7. Many survivors and their whānau said they tried to report the abuse and neglect they experienced in State and faith-based care throughout the Inquiry period (1950–1999).

8. Most survivors who came forward were not believed. State and faith-based institutions generally took no effective action to stop the abuse. Māori survivor Susan Kenny (Ngāti Apa), who was 12 years old when she was taken into social welfare care, told a social worker why she had run away from her foster home, but:

“he never believed anything I said. None of it. He wasn’t interested and thought I was a bad girl, so I would have been a liar to him.” [8]

9. Few State or faith-based institutions had clear processes to deal with reports or complaints. They sought to resolve reports behind closed doors to protect their reputations. It was rare for State or faith-based institutions to report abuse and neglect to NZ Police.

10. Internationally, abuse and neglect of people in psychiatric institutions had been understood since the 19th century. From the 1960s, abuse and neglect of disabled people in institutions became increasingly visible. Deinstitutionalisation was first proposed in Aotearoa New Zealand by the third report of the Royal Commission into Hospital and Related Services in 1973.[2] Physical abuse of children began to be understood as a social problem in the 1960s.[3]

11. In the 1970s, there was growing awareness about the issue of child sexual abuse, although this was primarily focused on familial abuse. In the 1980s, media interest in criminal cases, in Aotearoa New Zealand and overseas, led to greater public understanding about child sexual abuse, particularly in faith-based care settings.[4] In 1986, a report to the Department of Health found substandard conditions and deficiencies of care across psychiatric and psychopaedic hospitals.[5]

12. During the 1970s and 1980s, against the backdrop of growing Māori activism seeking realisation of the promise of te Tiriti o Waitangi, there was concern from whānau and hāpori Māori (Māori communities) about the inadequacies of State care and the over-representation of Māori in social welfare settings.[6] The landmark 1986 report Puao-te-Ata-Tu set out a pathway for the transformation of social welfare settings, but its recommendations were never fully implemented.[7] Māori survivor Poi McIntyre (Ngāi Tahu) who was placed in social welfare care at 4 years old, said:

“It was ‘bad to be brown’ and my experiences of institutional racism were exacerbated by the fact my whānau was one of a handful [of] Māori whānau in the Timaru area at the time.”[8]

13. In the early 2000s, the State established a dispute resolution process and offered out-of-court settlements for some Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit survivors who had made claims. The publicity from the settlements, and two court decisions finding that the State was liable for abuse suffered in foster care, led to more and more claims brought by survivors who had been abused and neglected in State or faith-based care. A report by the National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability in 2003 found systemic neglect of the health of adults with intellectual disabilities.[9]

14. From January 2004 to 31 August 2017, 2,513 people made claims either in court or directly against the Ministry of Social Development.[10] Many more made claims against the Ministries of Health and Education, as well as individual churches. These claims related to many different types of abuse and neglect in many different institutions over different time periods.

15. During the 2000s, the State opted for a dual approach to respond to the increasing claims of abuse in State care. First, government agencies set up separate, inconsistent in-house processes to settle abuse claims out of court.[11] Pākehā survivor Stephen Shaw, who was placed in care at 16 months old, was offered a sum of money by the Ministry of Social Development in 2016:

“I should have fought for more, I deserved more. How they got to that figure I will never know, but I would like an explanation. I hated the stupid generic apology that was mass produced and sent to everyone. It was completely impersonal. I ripped my letter up. I still want a personalised letter from the minister responsible for what the government did to me.”[12]

16. Second, the State strongly defended itself against the claims brought by survivors in court.[13] The State’s goals at that time were to limit its legal and financial liability and to discourage further claims. This was partly driven by its persistent view that there was no evidence of systemic failure in the State care.[14]

17. Forums were set up for survivors to share their experiences of abuse in State care. The Confidential Forum for Former In-Patients of Psychiatric Hospitals ran from 2004 until 2007. While the Confidential Forum was not able to make recommendations, it noted in its report that “another hope of many former patients who came to the Forum was that the Government would give a public acknowledgment or apology showing that the Government understood that many former in-patients of psychiatric hospitals had had experiences that were deeply humiliating and demeaning, often taking a lifelong toll”.[15] The Confidential Listening and Assistance Service for survivors of abuse or neglect in State care in the health, child welfare or special education sector ran from 2008 to 2015.[16]

18. Some faith-based institutions provided avenues to enable out-of-court settlement of survivor claims. Some initially took a legalistic approach, at-times relying on their insurers to resist or reduce the claims.

19. Many survivors and their whānau were not satisfied with the way State agencies and faith-based institutions dealt with their redress claims. Survivors faced a range of obstacles, including that they were not believed. Other barriers included the significant emotional impacts of describing the abuse they experienced, lack of information about their histories in care, long delays and the costs of bringing claims. Cook Island European and Deaf survivor Peter Evaroa told the Inquiry that his 2013 meeting with the redress claim team to discuss his abuse “was so stressful, it led me to start drinking again.”[17]

20. Survivors looked for other avenues to seek acknowledgement and redress, including the Human Rights Commission and the United Nations. Private individuals and advocacy groups began to pressure the Government to set up an independent inquiry into abuse in State care.

21. In 2009, the United Nations Committee Against Torture raised concerns about how Aotearoa New Zealand handled historic abuse claims.[18]

22. In 2011, the Human Rights Commission produced a draft report recommending that the Government should hold an inquiry independent of the Ministry of Social Development.[19] Hon Christopher Finlayson, then Attorney-General, was concerned about the draft report and its proposals. He said that an inquiry “would add nothing of value to the existing [resolution] processes in train” and would be costly, and that the draft Human Rights report would “undo some of the valuable progress made … in resolving grievances fairly and informally” if it was released.[20] The draft report was never finalised or publicly released.[21]

23. The final report of the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service (CLAS), published in 2015, concluded that much of the abuse in State care was preventable if people had done their jobs properly and proper systems had been in place.[22] The report recommended that the Government offer a public statement about what happened to those who suffered abuse and neglect in State care and an acknowledgment of the wrongs of the past.[23]

24. The Government responded that there would be no universal apology as there was no evidence that the abuse of children in State care was systemic, and it considered that the majority of children in care did not suffer abuse.[24] Hon Anne Tolley, then Minister of Social Development, argued that an independent inquiry was not needed because it would retraumatise victims.[25] Rt Hon Bill English, then Prime Minister, questioned whether an inquiry would add anything, given that the extent of abuse was already “pretty well known and pretty well understood”.[26]

25. Dame Carolyn Henwood, chair of the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service, told the Inquiry that the Government’s decision that a universal apology was not warranted was “a national disgrace”.[27] She pointed out that evidence of systemic failings would not be found unless the State was prepared to “turn over every rock” to look for it.[28]

26. Pressure on the Government was mounting. In February 2017, the Human Rights Commission launched its “Never Again E Kore Anō” campaign calling for an independent inquiry into abuse in State care and a public apology from the Government. This campaign was launched with signed support from community leaders, Māori, Pacific, disabled people, survivors of social welfare, psychiatric and disability care, academics, lawyers and others. In July 2017survivors of abuse in State care, more than 200 people, gathered on the steps of Parliament to share their experiences and submit a petition seeking justice for survivors.[29] That month, the Human Rights Commission released a research report that found evidence of systemic abuse in disability institutional care.[30]

27. There was increasing awareness about the wider impacts of the care system on Māori. In 2017 and 2018, the Waitangi Tribunal received seven applications seeking an urgent inquiry into the settlement of historical grievances about Māori children placed into State care overseen by Oranga Tamariki.[31]

28. In September 2017, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called for an independent Commission of Inquiry into abuse of children and adults with disabilities in State care in Aotearoa New Zealand.[32]

29. The convergence of views, combined with the growing call for change, including through the media, led the incoming Government to prioritise establishing an Inquiry after the 2017 general election. The Government announced this Royal Commission on 1 February 2018.[33] Pākehā survivor Christina Ramage, who was 15 years old when she was admitted into psychiatric care at Carrington Hospital, said:

“It is encouraging that, after 37 years in my case, a Royal Commission is finally taking steps to seek to uncover the harrowing stories of many individuals who were in care. However, in my opinion, it is far too long overdue.”[34]

Footnotes