Te whakatūnga o te Kōmihana
Establishment of the Royal Commission of Inquiry

30. The Royal Commission was initially established in February 2018 with a draft Terms of Reference.[37] The Inquiry was fully established, and its Terms of Reference finalised, by Order in Council on 12 November 2018.[38] It appointed Rt Hon Sir Anand Satyanand GNZM as chairperson and Ali’imuamua Sandra Alofivae MNZM, Dr Andrew Erueti, Paul Gibson and former judge Coral Shaw as members. The formal work of the Inquiry commenced in January 2019.

31. Some commissioners changed during the term of the Inquiry. In August 2019, Sir Anand Satyanand resigned and Coral Shaw was appointed as chair in November 2019. Julia Steenson was appointed a member in June 2020 and resigned in October 2022. Ali’imuamua Sandra Alofivae resigned in August 2023.

32. Mervin Singham was appointed as the executive director in February 2018 and resigned in June 2021. He was replaced by Helen Potiki. She resigned in February 2024 and Benesia Smith MNZM assumed the role of executive director in March 2024. The secretariat was made up of specialists to support commissioners in their duties.

33. Simon Mount KC and Kerryn Beaton KC were appointed as senior counsel to assist the Inquiry as required. The makeup of Counsel Assist changed over time.

Taurangi Whakariteritenga
Terms of Reference

34. The Terms of Reference set out the purpose and scope of this Inquiry, as well as principles and methods of work. The Government has updated the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference over time, to record resignations and appointments of commissioners, extensions to the reporting due date, and changes to the scope of the Inquiry.

35. This Inquiry is the largest and most complex Royal Commission of Inquiry ever established in Aotearoa New Zealand. When compared to recent international inquiries into abuse, the scope of this Inquiry is wider in terms of the nature of the abuse and neglect, the groups of survivors and the settings to be investigated. The table below compares a sample of recent international inquiries into abuse and neglect. The Inquiry is aware of other international inquiries that have recently commenced.[39]

Scope of some recent international inquiries into abuse and / or neglect

Ngā mea i tonoa kia tūhuratia e te Kōmihana
What the Inquiry was asked to investigate

36. The Inquiry was required to investigate the abuse and neglect of children, young people and adults in care who were in the care of State and faith-based institutions between 1 January 1950 and 31 December 1999. The Inquiry needed to consider the abuse and neglect experienced by different groups of survivors in different care settings. In certain circumstances, it could also consider issues and people’s experiences before 1950 and after 1999.[47]

37. The Inquiry was directed to identify, examine and report on:

• the circumstances and decision-making processes that led to people being taken into or placed into State or faith-based care, including the appropriateness of placements and the factors contributing to those decisions
• the nature and extent of abuse that occurred in State and faith-based care including the experiences of survivors who were in care between 1950 and 1999
• the immediate, long-term and intergenerational impact of the abuse on survivors and their families, whānau, hapū, iwi and communities
• the factors, including systemic factors, that caused or contributed to the abuse of survivors in State or faith-based care between 1950 and 1999
• redress processes for people who claim, or have claimed, to have suffered abuse in State or faith-based care, and any improvements that have been made to those processes
•  the lessons that were learned from 1950 to 1999, and what changes were made to the legislation, policy, rules, standards and practices to prevent and respond to abuse in State or faith-based care.

38. The Terms of Reference directed the Inquiry to deliver several different reports:

• a two-part interim report by 28 December 2020 on:[48]
• the Inquiry’s work to date, including key themes and common issues shared by survivors, and an analysis of the number of survivors who were in State and faith-based care
• an analysis of how much work and funding would be needed to complete the Inquiry’s work
• an interim report with recommendations on redress processes by 1 December 2021[49]
• a final report by 26 June 2024[50] with:
• findings[51] on:
• the nature and extent of abuse that occurred
• the factors that caused or contributed to abuse
• the impact of the abuse on individuals and their families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities
• the circumstances that led to individuals being taken into, or placed into care
• the lessons learned and what changes were made to prevent and respond to abuse
• recommendations[52] on:
• changes to redress processes for survivors of abuse in State or faith-based care
• other appropriate steps the State or faith-based institutions should take to address the harm caused by abuse in care
• changes to be made in the future to ensure that the factors that allowed abuse to occur between 1950 and 1999 do not persist.

39. The Terms of Reference directed the Inquiry to appropriately recognise te Tiriti o Waitangi and to partner with Māori throughout the Inquiry. The Inquiry was directed to be underpinned by te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles. It was also directed to recognise the disproportionate representation of Māori and Pacific Peoples in State and faith-based care and focus on the experiences Deaf people, disabled people and people who experience mental distress who were abused in care.[53]

40. The Terms of Reference directed some elements of how the Inquiry carried out its work. It had to avoid taking a legalistic approach to the Inquiry, and to use informal procedures where possible.[54] It was directed to operate under these principles:

• do no harm
• focus on victims and survivors
• take a whānau-centred view
• work in partnership with iwi and Māori
• work inclusively with Pacific Peoples
• facilitate the meaningful participation of disabled people and people who experience mental distress
• respond to differential impacts on any particular individuals or groups
• be sensitive to the different types of vulnerability that arise for people in State or faith-based care
• ensure fair and reasonable processes for individuals and organisations associated with providing care.[55]

Ngā kupu matua hei whakamārama i te whānuitanga o te Pakirehua
Key terms explaining the scope of the Inquiry

41. The following table sets out key definitions explaining the scope of what the Inquiry was asked to investigate.

Huatau o te manaaki me te noho i ngā pūnaha taurima
Concept of care and being in care

42. The Terms of Reference focus on the relationship between the State and / or faith-based institutions and the person in care.

43. Being “in care” could include direct care, where the State or a faith-based institution directly provided care for an individual, or indirect care, where the State had people or entities providing care on their behalf.

44. The Terms of Reference refers to “institutions”. This includes large formal buildings and facilities providing care, such as psychiatric institutions, which were common at the beginning of the Inquiry period. In the context of the Inquiry, “institutions” also refers to organisations, groups or bodies involved in providing care, including those connected to a religious or spiritual belief system. These organisations or bodies did not need to be associated with buildings and facilities commonly associated with the word “institutions” to be within the scope of the Inquiry.

45. The Inquiry could consider abuse and neglect in care provided in an institution or by an institution, and people involved in providing care with, for, or on behalf of an institution. The Inquiry could consider the actions of representatives, members, staff, associates, contractors, volunteers, service providers, or others, regardless of whether they were paid or had formal titles or positions. It could also consider abuse by another person in care, sometimes called “peer on peer abuse”.

46. The Terms of Reference did not limit the Inquiry’s scope to permanent or ongoing care. The care could, for example, be irregular, temporary, intermittent or transitional. Similarly, the Inquiry’s scope was not limited to abuse that took place on site at an institution.[56]

Ngā ritenga ki te taurimatanga-ā-whakapono
Approach to faith-based care

47. The Terms of Reference required the Inquiry to examine the abuse and neglect of children, young people and adults in faith-based care. The Terms of Reference did not list specific faith-based institutions or care settings.[57]

48. Faith-based care has its own unique features, which are specific to each faith-based institution.[58] Faith-based care settings include education, foster care and formal residential care (sometimes provided on behalf of the State – indirect care), such as children’s and young people’s residential institutions.[59]

49. In the care of faith-based institutions also includes ‘pastoral care’, although not everyone who is in a pastoral care relationship is also automatically ‘in care’. A person with authority or power given by a faith-based institution could develop a trust-based relationship with a child, young person or adult. If that trust-based relationship was related to the faith-based institution’s work or was enabled by the authority or poser given by the institution, then this would be consider as being in the care of a faith-based institution.

50. Minute 16 sets out the Inquiry’s approach to faith-based care with specific reference to pastoral care. Some examples of pastoral care relationships include youth groups activities, Bible study groups, Sunday school or children’s church activities, day trips and errands, pastoral or spiritual direction, mentoring, training, or visiting congregations or community members in their homes.[60]

51. As a result of their position of authority, members of and those working for faith-based institutions who exercise a pastoral care role may have significant influence over an individual, whānau, family or other group’s identity, beliefs, and life choices in interpreting a religious or belief system, and / or in guiding others on their religious or spiritual path. A pastoral relationship is therefore commonly one of status, trust and vulnerability.

52. The Inquiry’s scope included investigating abuse that occurred in the context of a pastoral relationship even if the abuse took place away from the physical location of the faith-based institution. For example, abuse in any location would be in scope if the abuse was by a priest, religious or layperson who held a role with power and authority in a church and the abuse was enabled or facilitated by that role.

53. The Inquiry’s interpretation of ‘in the care of faith-based institutions’ was confirmed by an amendment to its Terms of Reference in 2023, which provided that “an informal or pastoral care relationship includes a trust-based relationship between an individual and a person with power or authority conferred by the faith-based institution, where such a relationship is related to the institutions work or is enabled by the institution’s conferral of authority or power on the person”.[61]

Ngā take i waho i te whānuitanga
Matters outside the scope

54. The Inquiry could not look at abuse and neglect that happened in fully private settings, except where a person was also in the care of the State or a faith-based institution.[62] For example, the following situations would be considered within the scope of the Inquiry:

• where someone had been placed, by a decision of the State, in the care of a relative, was living in the relative’s private home and was abused and neglected by that relative
• where a person was visited in their private home by someone working for a faith-based institution (such as a priest) who had an informal or pastoral care relationship with that person and abused and neglected them.

55. The Inquiry could not look at abuse and neglect that happened in prisons, private or public hospitals, aged residential and in-home care, and immigration detention, unless the person was still in State care at the time.[63]

56. The Inquiry could not review whether individual court decisions were correct. It could look at how court decisions were made in general, whether the right information was available to the court, and what laws and rules they had to follow at the time.[64]

57. The Inquiry could not prosecute people, sue them or discipline them. It could make findings of fault, that relevant standards were breached, and make recommendations that further steps be taken to determine liability.[65]

58. The Inquiry could not examine State and faith-based care settings, policies or legislation after 1999 in detail, or make specific findings about current care settings and current frameworks.[66] It could inform itself about these things so that its recommendations would be relevant today. The Inquiry could make specific findings and recommendations about current redress processes.

Ngā panonitanga o te Taurangi Whakariteritenga i te Pakirehua
Changes to the Terms of Reference during the Inquiry

59. When the Government first established this Inquiry in February 2018, it directed the Chair to consult the public on a draft Terms of Reference.[67] The scope of the Inquiry in the draft Terms of Reference was limited to abuse and neglect in State care. This included some aspects of indirect care by faith-based institutions where the State placed children into facilities run by churches, such as orphanages or residential facilities.

60. The Chair heard from more than 400 groups and individuals during consultation on the draft Terms of Reference. There was a strong call from many in the faith-based community – including from several churches as well as academics, survivors and their advocates – to expand the scope of the draft Terms of Reference to include a broader examination of abuse in faith-based care. There was a strong call from Māori to add an appropriate reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi.

61. The Government updated the draft Terms of Reference in response to the public feedback summarised in a report by the Chair.[68] When the Inquiry was fully established in November 2018,[69] its finalised Terms of Reference had a broader scope, including:

• specific reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi
• expanding the definition of State care to include all schools, both residential and non-residential
• explicitly including abuse of people in the care of faith-based institutions
• expanding the definition of abuse to include psychological abuse.

62. In July 2021, the Government changed the Terms of Reference to remove the Inquiry’s mandate to examine current frameworks to prevent and respond to abuse in care, including current legislation, policy, rules, standards and practices.[70] The changes confirmed the Inquiry could still hear from survivors about their experiences after 1999 and could make recommendations on redress and changes to be made in the future to address the factors that have allowed abuse to occur. These changes were made to avoid any delays to the Inquiry’s final report.[71]

63. In June 2023, the Government changed the Terms of Reference to confirm the Inquiry could not receive or consider any new evidence or produce any more interim reports or case studies after 31 July 2023.[72] These changes were made to avoid any delays to the final report.

64. In September 2023, the Government changed the Terms of Reference to confirm that being “in the care of faith-based institutions” included situations where a faith-based institution was responsible for the care of an individual through an informal or pastoral care relationship.[73] This change was made to affirm the Inquiry’s approach to conducting its processes and receiving evidence from survivors about abuse in the care of faith-based institutions.[74]

Te rā tuku i te rīpoata whakamutunga
Delivery date of the final report

65. The due date for delivering the final report was extended three times, through updates to the Terms of Reference, to 26 June 2024.

Ngā wā matua o te Pakirehua
Key dates in the Inquiry