869. At the Inquiry’s Contextual Hearing, Tā Kim Workman recalled his reaction to witnessing the nighttime conditions at Kohitere Boys’ Training College in Taitoko Levin as a Youth Aid Officer in the early 1970s:

“My first response was one of anger. Anger and disbelief. Anger that the state could allow such conditions. Conditions so inhumane they were almost guaranteed to turn vulnerable children and youth into scarred, distrusting and sometimes dangerous adults. Anger that senior public servants and policy advisors could have allowed these conditions to continue for so long, knowing that they were parties and accomplices to the creation of criminals … It is almost as though the state, having neglected the welfare and needs of children in the first twelve years of their life, was able – once the child inevitably progressed to committing a criminal act – to breathe a collective sigh of relief, reclassify the child as a young offender, and quickly transfer any corporate accountability away from themselves by re-designating it as personal responsibility and laying it on an ‘accountable’ individual.

[I felt] [d]isbelief that successive governments had failed to monitor and correct conditions in these same institutions, which were eventually to become a matter of national disgrace and shame.”[1145]

870. Hundreds of thousands of children, young people and adults in care were cared for by the State and faith-based institutions between 1950 and 1999. Many survivors told the Inquiry about the horrific abuse and neglect they experienced while in care and the lifelong impacts for them, their families, whānau, hapū and iwi. For many survivors, the abuse and neglect they experienced in care resulted in serious and debilitating addictions, an inability to form stable or loving relationships, missed opportunities for educational and vocational achievement and feelings of a deep sense of shame or blame. For some, it set them on a pathway to imprisonment. The Inquiry has heard it led others to take their own lives.

871. Many of the factors that contributed to who entered care were the same as those that increased the risk of abuse and neglect in care – deeply entrenched discrimination, particularly racism, ableism, disablism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia, a lack of understanding or tolerance of gender diversity; negative stereotypes of children and young people as delinquents requiring punishment; negative views about poverty, welfare and a cynicism about societal and State responsibilities to prioritise support for the most marginalised in our communities.

872. These discriminatory, negative views were entrenched at all levels of State and faith-based care and were most obvious in the approach to Deaf survivors, disabled survivors, and survivors experiencing mental distress, at times in direct conflict with their human rights. The politicisation of care during the Inquiry period, at times framed as “tough on delinquents” or “tough on beneficiaries”, exploited and exacerbated this entrenched discrimination.

873. Once in care, several factors combined to increase the risk of abuse and neglect. Standards of care were inconsistent and widely variable, complaints processes and employment processes were ineffective or non-existent; senior leaders and managers prioritised abuser and institutional reputations over the safety of those in care, and there were repeated failures to report abuse and neglect to NZ Police. The State failed to adequately invest in care settings, in staff and carers, and in oversight and monitoring during the Inquiry period.

874. The authority and impunity of religious institutions during the Inquiry period resulted in some of the most extreme cases of abuse and neglect seen by the Inquiry. In part, this was due to discriminatory attitudes and harmful use of religious beliefs and practices within religious institutions, but it was also able to take place during the Inquiry period because of the high moral regard that the faiths were held in and the resultant lack of State regulation, oversight and responsibility for people in the care of faith-based institutions.

875. Throughout the Inquiry period, there was a persistent lack of investment in whānau and communities with care and support needs to enable whānau to care for loved ones at home and to be supported by their communities. 

876. Across all of these factors was the lack of legislative direction on giving effect to te Tiriti o Waitangi and human rights in both State and faith-based care settings during the Inquiry period.

877. Unfortunately, Aotearoa New Zealand seemed to fall behind other developed countries during the Inquiry period when it came to both its care settings and the fulfilment of human rights and indigenous rights. Large-scale institutionalisation dominated the Inquiry period, which contributed to high rates of entry into care and abuse and neglect in care, and Aotearoa New Zealand was decades behind other countries in ending this policy.

The following chapter sets out the Inquiry’s key findings on why abuse and neglect happened during the Inquiry period, and who was responsible.