Ngā take ā-iwi i hua i te wā o te Pakirehua
Societal factors during the Inquiry period

824. Societal factors can have a significant impact on enabling or preventing abuse. Much of the abuse and neglect experienced by survivors was shaped by entrenched attitudes and systems of power and prejudice within society. These then shaped the different care systems. Understanding and addressing social factors is critical, as institutional and legislative changes alone are unlikely to deliver meaningful transformation. Part 2 of this report sets out the societal backdrop that contributed to abuse and neglect in care.

825. During the Inquiry period, people in care were often seen as not normal or otherwise undesirable or flawed.[1102] Delinquent, defective or deviant were common words used to refer to people in care.[1103] Research shows that “children in residential care also lack value and worth in the eyes of the wider community; they are easily stereotyped and this affects the resources and investment made available for their care”.[1104] Social attitudes towards class, race, gender and disability inform and intensify this pattern.[1105]

826. This chapter examines how the societal factors contributed to abuse and neglect in care throughout the inquiry period.

Ngā take i whai wāhi ki ngā mahi tūkino i roto i ngā pūnaha taurima
Societal factors that contributed to abuse and neglect in care

827. The Inquiry heard from survivors and expert witnesses that societal factors such as racism, ableism, disablism, sexism, discrimination against Deaf people, homophobia and transphobia were present throughout the Inquiry period. These factors directly contributed to survivors entering care and suffering abuse and neglect in care. The following section sets out the main forms of discrimination the Inquiry heard about, and how these became factors in abuse and neglect. It is not an exhaustive list, or an exhaustive analysis. Each of the main forms of discrimination described below is an academic field in its own right. What follows are the Inquiry’s general comments on how societal attitudes contributed to abuse and neglect in care during the Inquiry period.

Kaikiritanga
Racism

828. The Inquiry heard that institutional, cultural, and personal racism directly contributed to survivors, and in particular Māori and Pacific survivors, entering care and suffering abuse and neglect in care.

829. Institutional racism reflects broader racism present within Aotearoa New Zealand society. At the Inquiry’s State Institutional Response Hearing, the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki, Chappie Te Kani acknowledged:

“The structural racism that exists in the care and protection system reflects broader society.”[1106]

830. Institutional and structural racism was present in the care system throughout the inquiry period.[1107] It was rooted in the belief “that Pakeha culture, lifestyle and values are superior to those of other New Zealand cultures, notably those of Māori and Polynesian people.”[1108] The 1988 Puao-te-Ata-Tū Report commented on the impact of institutional racism within the care system on Māori, noting:

“[t]he history of New Zealand since colonisation has been the history of institutional decisions being made for, rather than by, Maori people.”[1109]

831. Throughout the Inquiry period this could be seen in “the prevailing deficit views of Māori as lazy, dependents of the state, incapable of providing the right family environment for their children”.[1110]

832. The care system also failed to consistently and meaningfully ensure that Pacific children, young people and adults in care had adequate access to their culture, identity, language and communities.[1111]

Ngā whakaāhei me ōna whakakorenga
Ableism and disablism

833. The Inquiry heard that attitudes of ableism and disableism contributed to Deaf, disabled people and people experiencing mental distress suffering abuse and pervasive neglect in care during the Inquiry period.

834. At the Inquiry’s State Institutional Response Hearing, the Director-General of Health Dr Diana Sarfati acknowledged “that institutional and societal ableism in legislation, policy and systems has contributed to the abuse of disabled people and people with mental health conditions in health and disability care settings.”[1112]

835. Ableism underpinned the views of disability throughout the inquiry period, and disablism was inherent within all care settings.[1113] Throughout the Inquiry period limited understandings of neurodiversity, traumatic brain injury and foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) contributed to survivors entering and suffering abuse and neglect in care.

836. The Inquiry also heard that audism and a preference for oral communication directly contributed to deaf people entering care and suffering abuse and neglect in care. This is discussed in detail in the case study on abuse and neglect at Van Asch College and Kelston School for the Deaf, Our Hands Were Tied.

837. The Inquiry heard that ableism and disableism was embedded in Aotearoa New Zealand society,[1114] and that ableist attitudes contributed to policies of institutionalisation that resulted in the invisibility of disabled people throughout the inquiry period. The Inquiry also heard that the whānau of disabled people were not adequately supported with resources and investment to ensure they could care for disabled family members, and that communities were not reasonably or adequately funded to provide supports and deliver programmes.

838. At the Inquiry’s Ūhia te māramatanga Disability, Deaf and Mental Institutional Care Health Hearing, expert witness Dr Brigit Mirfin-Veitch explained that:

“understanding how social structures impact on and shape disability, violence and abuse also requires recognition that the way society works is framed by privilege and power, which is embedded in our economic and political and social policies and practices, that focus on the dominant and most productive members of society.”[1115]

839. During the Inquiry period, disabled people were generally not seen as human, and they were treated as if they had no inherent human value by society. This underlying prejudice underpins the nature and extent of abuse and neglect in care set out in Part 4 of this report. The prejudice stems from the societal belief in eugenics at the time, which perceived disabled people as inferior beings that should be segregated from society to prevent reproduction of a subnormal race.

840. Segregating and congregating Deaf, disabled people, and people experiencing mental distress in care institutions, away from their whānau, where they continued to be stigmatised demonstrated that they were not valued equally with able-bodied people. Deaf, disabled people, and people experiencing mental distress in care were denied inclusion and participation. Education opportunities were limited and neglected, especially for disabled people. Disabled people were generally unable to develop their independence or their unique gifts and strengths. For Deaf, disabled people and people experiencing mental distress, being kept away from their whānau and community exacerbated this.

841. Congregating people on perceived disability also led to assumptions of similarity between individuals, and people were not treated and cared for as individuals. This resulted in society continuing to disempower children, young people and adults in care who were Deaf, disabled and experiencing mental distress from participating in decision making processes.

Aro tōkai
Sexism

842. During the Inquiry period, women and girls were considered less valuable than men and boys and experienced gender-based discrimination. These sexist attitudes contributed to women and girls entering care and suffering abuse and neglect in care. In Part 4 of this report, the Inquiry described the evidence that showed female survivors experienced higher levels of emotional and sexual abuse in care than their male counterparts.

843. Throughout the Inquiry period, and especially from the 1950s to 1970s, women and girls in Aotearoa New Zealand experienced widespread sexism and gender-based discrimination. Society held negative beliefs that women’s sexuality was something to be controlled and feared.[1116] Women’s bodies were considered unclean and violence against women and girls was seen as acceptable.[1117] Women’s employment prospects were limited.

844. Gendered abuse and neglect was particularly evident in unwed mothers’ homes. Many unmarried women who became pregnant experienced intense shaming and judgement, often based on perceived promiscuity.[1118] Some were rejected by their families. Until the introduction of the Domestic Purposes Benefit in 1972, many unmarried pregnant women had no option other than unwed mothers’ homes for food, shelter and medical treatment during their pregnancies. Once in unwed mothers’ homes, women were demonised and subjected to verbal abuse such as gendered slurs and being shamed for having had sex outside of marriage. Many experienced medical neglect during childbirth.[1119]

845. Women in unwed mothers’ homes were also forced or coerced into adopting out their babies, based on the belief they were unfit to be parents because they were not married.[1120] While the 1969 Status of Children Act granted equal legal status of children of both married and unmarried parents, the Children and Young Persons Act 1974 still required the birth of a child to an unmarried mother to be notified to a social worker.[1121]

846. In social welfare settings, girls experienced degrading, traumatic and invasive vaginal examinations that were physically, psychologically, and often sexually and culturally abusive. Girls in children’s residences experienced sexist verbal abuse and were often perceived as promiscuous.[1122] Wendy Pokroy worked for the Department of Education as a psychologist from 1975 to 1977. She told the Auckland Committee on Racism and Discrimination about her visits to Dey Street Residence for girls in Kirikiriroa Hamilton:

“I remember a staff member repeatedly calling a little girl a bitch”.[1123]

847. Sexist attitudes, including the wish to control female sexuality, meant that girls and women in care were regularly targeted for forced venereal testing because they were viewed as potential carriers of sexually transmitted infections.[1124] The Inquiry saw no evidence that boys and men in care were subjected to this treatment as a matter of course. Forced venereal testing of girls and women largely ceased from the 1980s, after the Auckland Committee on Racism and Discrimination raised public awareness of the practice. The 1986 Residential Care Regulations included a provision that no one in a social welfare residence had to undergo a medical examination without their consent, except in limited circumstances.[1125]

848. Māori girls and women experienced sexist discrimination in combination with racism which framed them as lazy, unintelligent and hyper-sexual. This view is evident in a 1965 letter from the Whangarei District Child Welfare Officer about admissions of girls to Fareham House in Pae-Tū-Mōkai Featherston or Kingslea Girls’ Home in Ōtautahi Christchurch:

“The girls whom I refer are, in the main, the dull backward, affection-starved Māori girls who cannot produce anything near a reasonable day’s work and who try and get their needed affection from any male who is handy.”[1126]

849. In faith-based settings, a preoccupation with female sexuality resulted in female survivors being subjected to gendered verbal abuse, particularly being called sinful and promiscuous.[1127] Female bodies were considered dirty and shameful. Some survivors were made to feel unclean for menstruating.

850. The Inquiry also heard that the combination of sexism and ableism contributed to abuse and neglect of disabled girls and women in care. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities notes that disabled women and girls are “among those groups of persons with disabilities who most often experience multiple and intersectional discrimination”.[1128]

851. Part 4 of this report discusses gendered abuse of girls and women in disability and mental health settings, including being forcibly sterilised, given contraception without informed consent and being forced to have abortions – sometimes without the woman’s knowledge until after the procedure. Part 4 of this report describes the high levels of sexual violence in these settings. Neglect was also an issue. Some girls and women had no access to menstrual products, and others were not educated about menstruation.

Mae takatāpui me te taihemawhiti
Homophobia and transphobia

852. Homophobia and transphobia during the Inquiry period led to the abuse and neglect of children, young people and adults in care, including verbal abuse, conversion practices and shock treatment. Homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder until 1973[1129] and sexual relations between men were criminalised until 1986. Attitudes that connected homosexuality with mental illness and criminality were especially harmful.

853. The Inquiry saw evidence of strongly homophobic attitudes in both State and faith-based care, particularly the idea that homosexuality was sinful, morally wrong, and needed to be cured or treated. Survivors of faith-based care described a general culture of homophobia in most of the faiths the Inquiry investigated.[1130] In 1963, the Principal of Fareham House in Pae-Tū-Mōkai Featherston listed lesbianism as a problem that needed to be prevented:

“Unless it is equipped at the same level as the other places, then Fareham House cannot be regarded as a Training Centre for seriously delinquent girls, otherwise the vandalism, destruction, abscondings, Lesbianism and other sexual aberrations, will continue because there are no means available to prevent them.”[1131]

854. The perception of homosexuality as sexually deviant contributed to abuse and neglect being minimised or ignored. A former staff member at Epuni Boys’ Home in Te Awa Kairangi ki Tai Lower Hutt acknowledged that staff were far more concerned with same-sex activity between boys in the home than with the potential for them to be sexually abused by staff.[1132] Complaints of sexual abuse where the abuser was the same gender were sometimes characterised as a “homosexual experience” or “homosexual relationship” rather than as abuse, even where it was clear that the survivor could not legally consent or where the abuser was in a position of power.[1133]

855. Social attitudes throughout the Inquiry period demonstrated intolerance to variations in gender expression, especially by boys and young men. In May 1985, a social worker noted that a boy in foster care “is playing with girls at school and is taking make-up to school in his school-bag. It is hoped that this more male activity [playing soccer] may bring out the better side of [the boy]”.[1134] In February 1986, the same social worker wrote that:

“…there was some concern [expressed by the school principal] that his feminine tendencies…were seen at school. They were feeling that perhaps [the boy] should be placed in a foster home away from his sisters”.[1135]

856. Diverse gender expression was also assumed to be related to sexuality. In 1969, the Principal of Miramar Girls’ Home in Te Whanganui-ā-Tara Wellington recorded his concerns about the “Effect of Feminine Influence on boys” who were temporarily placed in the residence:

“With the slightly older boys there is a strong tendency for them to develop marked feminine attitudes and habits… [four boys aged between 8 and 11 years old] left the Girls Home with probably more problems than when they came. It got to the stage where they wanted to spend their spare time cooking, sewing, and playing with dolls etc. This same effect is noticeable with the younger boys where perhaps it is not quite so harmful, but I wonder about the influence this could have on later homosexual tendencies”.[1136]

857. People in care who were perceived or labelled as homosexual or did not adhere to socially accepted “masculine” or “feminine” behaviour were targeted. The Inquiry heard that in single sex settings such as boy’s homes and boys’ schools, boys and young men who were considered gay or whose behaviour was associated with femininity were subjected to physical and verbal abuse by their peers.[1137] One survivor, who was placed in Ōwairaka Boys’ Home in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland when he was 12 years old, told the Inquiry that “[if you] had slight indications of being gay, you were in deep trouble”.[1138]

Ngā waiaro tāraro ki ngā tamariki me ngā rangatahi
Negative attitudes towards children and young people

858. Children and young people throughout the Inquiry period were often viewed as delinquent, troublemakers, inferior and flawed, and deserving of punishment.[1139] These punitive societal attitudes directly contributed to children and young people entering care and suffering abuse and neglect in care.

859. Part 2 of this report discussed the moral panics during the Inquiry period that focused on concerns about juvenile delinquency. Part 3 of this report sets out how children and young people’s behavior was misunderstood as being deliberately naughty or criminal. Part 4 of this report describes the dehumanising abuse and neglect that children and young people suffered in care settings, and how this was amplified when beliefs about children and young people as inherently bad or in need of physical punishment intersected with other discriminatory beliefs such as racism, disablism, sexism and homophobia.

860. These beliefs were factors in abuse and neglect in care throughout the Inquiry period, including the tendency to think that children and young people were lying when they tried to report abuse or neglect.

861. These beliefs were still prevalent in 2006, six years after the end of the Inquiry period, when researchers analysed over 1,700 submissions to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on the 2006 Crimes Amendment Bill. The Bill proposed abolishing the justification for child discipline using force, and the submissions were a window into Aotearoa New Zealand’s attitudes towards children.

862. The researchers found that people who viewed children as “human becomings” or developing toward adulthood and therefore full status as humans, tended to support physical punishment. People who saw children as “human beings” – fully human in their own right – opposed physical punishment. Additionally, people who saw children as innately bad supported physical punishment, whereas those who viewed children as innocent believed in protecting them. Some of the quotes from submitters who opposed the Bill included:

“Children need to be forced to do the right thing again and again so that it becomes habitual.”

“Use of reasonable force is at times necessary to discipline children and is mandated by God.”

“Children today do not need more rights. They need more respect for authority and realise consequences for their actions.”[1140]

He whakamau toihara ki te hunga e pākia ana e te pōhara
Discrimination against people experiencing poverty

863. Throughout the Inquiry period there were negative stereotypes about poverty and welfare. Poverty was seen as a problem with individuals rather than an outcome of wider social, economic, and political circumstances.[1141] In Part 2 of this report the Inquiry set out that society’s view of poorer communities was often negative, categorising people in poverty into the deserving and undeserving poor.

864. People experiencing poverty and deprivation were more likely to be taken into care and to be abused and neglected while in care. Some survivors recall being identified as “welfare children” and “welfare rats”.[1142]

865. Many survivors received charity or financial assistance from faith-based institutions, creating a relationship of dependence. Part 4 of this report covered evidence from survivors who were made to feel indebted and taught to be grateful the church was caring for them. Survivors who attended prestigious schools were told they were lucky to be attending.

He kōrero mutunga mo ngā kawenga ā-iwi mo te hunga kei ngā pūnaha taurima
Conclusion on society’s responsibility for care

866. Societal attitudes throughout the Inquiry period have directly contributed to survivors entering care and suffering abuse and neglect in care. These societal attitudes include racism, ableism, disablism, sexism, audism, homophobia, discriminatory attitudes based on gender and sexuality, negative views towards children and young people, and negative views and stereotypes about people living in poverty and deprivation.

867. Societal attitudes are reflected in discriminatory institutional policies and practices. Oranga Tamariki and the Ministry of Health acknowledged respectively that structural racism[1143] and institutional ableism[1144] exist in the care system, and that these are a reflection of broader societal attitudes within Aotearoa New Zealand.

868. The State made efforts to eliminate discriminatory institutional policies and practices. However, many faiths maintain some discriminatory practices. Because discriminatory institutional policies and practices reflected broader societal attitudes, efforts to eliminate these failed in the absence of a concerted effort to eliminate the societal attitudes that underpin those policies and practices.

Footnotes