137. There were common factors across all care settings that caused or contributed to abuse and neglect such as the abusers, the lack of vetting and training, inadequate monitoring and oversight and ineffective complaints processes. Part 7 of the Inquiry's final report, Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light, can be read for a fuller account.

138. Part 7 of the Inquiry's final report, Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light, also describes the factors that the Inquiry identified as having caused or contributed to the abuse and neglect of children, young people and adults in State and faith-based care. In addition, Part 7 identifies the lessons learned and the changes made to prevent and respond to abuse and neglect. Part 7 concludes by setting out findings relating to:

• breaches of relevant standards
• factors that caused or contributed to abuse and neglect in care
• fault
• lessons learned.

139. The Inquiry identified that four factors all caused or contributed to the abuse and neglect of survivors in the care of faith-based institutions. These included:

• factors relating to the people at the centre of abuse and neglect
• institutional factors
• structural and systemic factors
• societal factors.

140. Children, young people and adults in State and faith-based care were diverse, with diverse care and support needs. Although each person in care was unique, every person needed support, strong protection, and safeguarding. Strong protection refers to a set of internationally-recognised factors that contribute to resilience because they promote healthy development and well-being and can reduce the risk of experiencing abuse and neglect. These factors are a combination of personal, parental, and environmental factors.

141. The rights guaranteed in te Tiriti o Waitangi reinforce many protective factors. For example, connection to whakapapa, whānau, hapū and iwi are taonga protected by te Tiriti o Waitangi.

142. Had these rights been upheld during the Inquiry period – such as the right to tino rangatiratanga over kāinga, and the right to continue to live in accordance with indigenous traditions and worldview guaranteed by the principle of options – these rights would have been amplified protective factors for tamariki, rangatahi, and pakeke Māori, reducing entry into care and the risk of abuse and neglect in care.

143. Human rights recognise that children, young people, adults, people with disabilities and Māori as indigenous to Aotearoa New Zealand are distinct groups that also require special measures, particularly protective measures. In care settings, this means special protection measures like comprehensive standards of care needed to be in place. During the Inquiry period, the lack of special protections or measures for people in care were factors that contributed to abuse and neglect.

144. During the Inquiry period, many whānau and communities needed support to care for their children, young people and adults at home or within their community. Without this support, many children, young people and adults were placed in State and / or faith-based institutions.

145. Many of the personal circumstances that made it more likely a child, young person or adult would enter care often became the factors for why they were more susceptible to, or at an increased risk of, abuse and neglect in care. These factors were underpinned by societal attitudes, like discrimination based on racism, ableism, disablism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and negative stereotypes about children and young people.

146. These factors included:

a. being raised in poverty and experiencing deprivation
b. being disabled with unmet needs
c. being Māori and racially targeted
d. being Pacific and racially targeted
e. being Deaf with unmet needs
f. experiencing mental distress with unmet needs
g. being Takatāpui, Rainbow, MVPFAFF+, gender diverse or transgender and being
targeted
h. if a person had experienced significant or multiple adverse childhood events
before entering care
i. having a deferential attitude to people in positions of authority, including faith
leaders and medical professionals
j. other reasons such as age or gender.

147. People placed in care needed support, strong protection and to be safeguarded against abuse and neglect. Instead, many were placed in care facilities with institutional environments and practices that heightened the risk of abuse and neglect.

148. Abusers misused their positions of power and control over people in care to inflict at times extreme and violent abuse, or to neglect people in their care. Abusers sometimes took calculated steps to conceal their actions which allowed them to continue, at times, acting with impunity.

149. Many staff and carers who witnessed abuse and neglect, or were told about it, did nothing. Some bystanders did complain or raise concerns, but often with limited success.

150. The systemic or institutional factors that contributed to abuse and neglect in care during the Inquiry period, which are described in detail in Part 7 of the Inquiry's final report, Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light, included:

a. standards of care were inconsistent and routinely breached
b. complaints processes were absent or easily undermined, with few records kept
c. senior State and faith leaders prioritised the reputations of institutions and
abusers over people in care
d. oversight and monitoring was ineffective
e. rights guaranteed under te Tiriti o Waitangi and human rights were largely absent
f. people in care were dehumanised and denied dignity
g. people in care were isolated from whānau, kainga, communities and advocates
h. there was little accountability for abuse and neglect.

151. All of the systemic or institutional factors that contributed to abuse and neglect were present in faith-based institutions. Part 7 of the Inquiry's final report, Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light, describes these in detail.

152. There were specific additional factors that caused or contributed to abuse and neglect in faith-based institutions including:

a. the misuse of religious power
b. the moral authority and status of faith leaders and the access that this power, authority and status gave them
c. barriers to disclosure
d. certain discriminatory attitudes, policies, and practices which contributed to abuse and neglect, including sexism and the negative perceptions of women as well as the negative attitudes about sex and repression of sexuality
e. harmful use of beliefs and practices that created environments that fostered abuse and neglect, including the interpretation of abuse through the lens of sin and forgiveness.

153. Most faith-based institutions also failed to take accountability for abuse and neglect of children, young people and adults in their care. Most of the faiths that were investigated acknowledged this failure to the Inquiry.

The authority of religious leaders created opportunities for abuse (clericalism)

154. The authority of religious institutions and clergy / church leaders created conditions for abuse and neglect to occur in faith-based care settings. [114]Christian teachings emphasised the importance of obedience to authority figures, especially parental or parent-like figures.[115]Perpetrators of abuse in religious institutions held unique positions of respectability and moral authority.[116] This power imbalance between clergy / church leaders versus community members was maintained in all the faiths the Inquiry investigated. In Protestant and Catholic churches it was known as a culture of ‘clericalism’, which is the result of practices that uphold the power of clergy over others.[117]

155. Clericalism or the authority of church leaders created opportunities for abuse as it allowed for unique access to people in care. People with religious authority, or people associated with the authority of a church such as volunteers and laity, were often closely involved in the lives of families. Some used that opportunity to groom family members in order to sexually abuse their children.[118] Consistent with international findings,[119] many survivors said the trust and status of clergy and religious leaders meant they were granted unsupervised access to people in care in a way other people might struggle to gain.

156. Survivors told the Inquiry that clergy or religious leaders could take them away on trips [120] or back to their homes,[121] and it was not seen as inappropriate for children or young people to be in a priest’s bedroom.[122]

157. The religious status and power afforded to abusers in ministry acted as an integral part of abuse for many survivors. Clergy were often revered with a “mixture of awe and fear” due to their power and spiritual authority,[123] and their unique powers of “moral persuasion” which created opportunities for abuse and exploitation.[124] Part 4 of the Inquiry's final report, Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light, describes survivors’ experiences of spiritual abuse, including how religion was used as a means of control and justification for abuse.

158. For many survivors, obedience to religious authority was so ingrained they complied with the orders of clergy or other religious leaders, even when it involved abuse or made them uncomfortable.[125] Survivor Dr Christopher Longhurst was sexually abused during his interview for the seminary. He described his abuser to the Inquiry: “[He] has authority and influence and power. He’s like my prospective – it’s more than an employer. He’s the guy who will make the recommendation to the bishop for me to go into the seminary. This is my dream … you know, this is my next step in life after high school.”[126]

159. This religious status and perceived closeness to God meant at times, survivors and their families felt special if a member of the clergy or a religious leader took an interest in them.[127] The Inquiry heard this religious authority and obedience was particularly prominent among Pacific survivors and their families, making barriers to reporting particularly strong. [128]

160. Many survivors told the Inquiry that this hierarchy and supreme power held by clergy prevented other staff members from intervening to stop or report abuse. Research has demonstrated that people who work in extremely hierarchical organisations may fear speaking up for fear of repercussion, which can allow the abuse to keep happening.[129] Survivor Mr JB told the Inquiry that he believed nuns were among those who must have known about abuse being perpetrated by priests or religious members, and failed to intervene.[130] Survivors recalled that nuns who would at times show glimpses of kindness or compassion were otherwise disempowered by a hierarchical culture that relied on cruelty to control.[131] The moral authority of religious institutions created a sense of impunity.

161. There was a wider sense of trust in faith-based institutions among survivors’ families that led to their placement in care and created a sense of impunity among these institutions who were well-perceived and therefore could ‘do no wrong’.

162. Some survivors said their parents specifically chose to place them in faith-based institutions because they were assumed to be trustworthy places.[132] This broad trust in faith-based institutions meant that beyond clergy and church leaders, reverence was extended to those employed by or volunteering for the faiths. As researchers have highlighted, because of the institutional standing of the churches, abuse often took place in the context of “unquestioned faith placed in sex offenders by children, parents and staff”.[133]

163. Several survivors told the Inquiry that staff members and volunteers involved in faith-based residential care provision were viewed as good people who were doing charitable work. Some survivors recounted later seeing their abuser receive prestigious awards,[134] or being glorified on television,[135]for their services to the community.

164. This perception of faith-based institutions and their staff as virtuous and worthy of the utmost respect created the conditions for a failure to identify abuse, allowing abuse to continue.[136] Clericalism can create a culture of impunity, where religious leaders feel they are beyond criticism due to the absolute power they hold among their communities.[137] This sense of impunity can lead survivors to fear the consequences of disclosure, and / or contribute to the failure of the religious institution to respond to reports of abuse appropriately.[138] These barriers to disclosure mean the true extent of abuse in faith-based settings will never be known, as many survivors will never report their abuse.

Barriers to disclosure

165. Faith-based settings had unique barriers to reporting abuse or making complaints.[139]There was a strong preference for secrecy and silence, which created additional barriers to making complaints, because survivors had little hope that any disclosure of abuse would be dealt with appropriately or lead to those responsible being held to account.[140] Within the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, people who did make complaints told the Inquiry they were often disbelieved or punished, or otherwise ostracised.[141]

166. In some faith-based settings, religious doctrine or documents created a barrier. Howard Temple (current Overseeing Shepherd at Gloriavale) acknowledged that the Gloriavale Doctrine of Unity made it very difficult for members to raise concerns because if they were in conflict with a person, they could not be in unity with that person.[142] It was also accepted that the Doctrine of Submission may have prevented children from raising allegations of abuse.[143]

167. These barriers to disclosure mean many survivors will never report their abuse, increasing the risk of further abuse being able to occur.

Lack of known or clear complaints processes

168. For many children, young people and adults in care, the absence of an accessible complaints process and clarity on how their complaint would be responded to, was a significant barrier to raising concerns or making a complaint about the abuse or neglect they were experiencing.

169. Without a known, clear, and accessible complaints process, people in care were reliant on others, particularly those in positions of power, to intervene on their behalf and raise concerns with senior staff and managers. For many people in care, this could have been trusted family, whānau, kainga, communities or access to an independent advocate.

Discriminatory attitudes, policies and practices in religious institutions

Gendered roles and sexism in positions of authority

170. Historically churches have reflected the culture of the time in their approach to the status of women within their institutions, but they have also been conservative in their response to changing awareness of these issues.[144]

171. Traditionally, formal religious roles were restricted to men in all Christian denominations.[145] Although early Christianity was notable for its respect for women, there is also a legacy of constraints on female leadership in the churches, despite frequent challenges from within.

172. Although there have been changes over time, in all eight faiths the Inquiry investigated, clergy and religious leaders have been highly gendered with control historically held by males.

173. Research has previously highlighted that prescribed gender roles and the absolute authority of males within faith-based institutions contributes to the occurrence of abuse and failed responses.[146] Patriarchal leadership structures result in what Susan Ross describes in relation to the Catholic Church as “unchecked, divinely sanctioned patriarchal power”.[147]These patriarchal hierarchies within faith-based institutions contribute to a culture where disclosing abuse is discouraged and victims are unsupported.[148]

174. The exercise of male power over women and children can limit freedom of thinking and response among those who are not in this position of power.[149]This constraint was particularly evident where survivors told the Inquiry that female staff were party to abuses of power among male clergy but did not act to intervene or report it.[150] The power held by male abusers often meant their behaviours went unchecked.

Negative attitudes about sexuality

Women and girls

175. Beyond the institutional sexism of the exclusion of women from positions of power in some faith-based institutions, the Inquiry has also heard that women were subjected to interpersonal abuse motivated by sexism and negative attitudes about female or diverse sexuality. Much of this abuse stemmed from a belief that women’s sexuality was something to be controlled and / or feared.

176. Christianity has historically encouraged sexual restraint outside of marriage.[151] A ‘proper’ Christian woman has been deemed one who remains a virgin until marriage so she is not “spoiled goods”.[152] In some Pacific communities, pregnancy outside of marriage is still associated with shame, although more broadly in Aotearoa New Zealand attitudes towards sex outside of wedlock shifted over the course of the Inquiry period. [153]

177. This deep-rooted stigma associated with female sexuality drove various forms of abuse across all the faith-based settings the Inquiry investigated. As discussed in Part 4 of the Inquiry's final report, Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light, survivors in a range of settings described being verbally abused using gendered slurs that implied they or their family members were promiscuous and were therefore worthless.[154] Such abuse commonly occurred in unwed mothers’ homes, institutions which were themselves a product of the understanding that an unwed pregnancy was something to be ashamed of.[155] Survivors felt their perceived promiscuity was justification for poor treatment, as they were told they brought poor treatment on themselves by having sex outside of wedlock.

178. Beliefs about virginity also posed barriers to reporting abuse. Survivors of sexual abuse feared the consequences of reporting in case they were ‘tainted’ for what might be considered sex outside of wedlock rather than abuse.

Men and boys

179. As discussed in the Inquiry’s Stolen Lives, Marked Souls report, there was less awareness of the sexual abuse of boys throughout the Inquiry period.[156] It was often perceived as something that did not happen to males, and there was an expectation that boys and men should just ‘harden up’. This contributed to it being difficult for boys and men to talk about sexual abuse. This was particularly so when the perpetrator was a male, because of the negative perception of homosexuality and the additional shame inflicted by some faiths about homosexuality.

180. The negative perception of homosexuality created barriers to reporting sexual abuse among some male survivors. A survivor described the hypocrisy of the anti-homosexual sentiment of Catholic teachings compared to his experience of sexual abuse by male clergy.[157] Research has highlighted how boys who are sexually abused by another male can experience shame and stigma associated with homophobia and fear of being viewed as a homosexual.[158]

Harmful use of beliefs and practices fostered abuse

Beliefs about sex contributed to sexual abuse

181. Survivors from many of the faiths the Inquiry investigated described a culture where discussion of sexual matters was repressed. Norms that prevent discussion of sexual matters were particularly prevalent in faith-based institutions,[159] with evidence that institutional cultures where discussing sex is taboo can elevate the risk of sexual abuse.[160] This elevated risk can be because adults and children may be unable to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate interactions,[161] and it can also pose barriers to reporting sexual abuse.[162]

182. These barriers were compounded by growing up in a cultural setting where discussing sex was particularly taboo. The taboo of sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy is particularly strong among Pacific communities in Aotearoa New Zealand, posing even greater barriers to reporting abuse.

183. The taboo surrounding sex in many faith-based settings meant some survivors did not receive any education relating to sex and sexuality, which impacted on their ability to identify inappropriate sexual behaviour. Research has demonstrated that comprehensive sex education can help prevent child sex abuse by educating children on what is and is not appropriate and teaching them how to disclose abuse.[163] In some cases, this secrecy and taboo meant ‘sex education’ could become an opportunity for abuse.

184. Sexual abuse was often assumed to be avoidable if survivors behaved properly, and survivors were therefore assumed to be willing participants or otherwise responsible. The emphasis in Christian teachings on sexual purity, particularly among women, lends itself to an understanding of the victim of assault as guilty of some sin or somehow at fault.[164] The Christian emphasis on sexual purity as a virtue[165] also sometimes led to an internalisation of blame among survivors of sexual abuse, creating barriers to disclosure.

185. In some cases of sexual abuse, in the past some faiths have described it as a consensual affair.

186. In some faiths, teachings related to sex are particularly strict. Restriction of sexual practices is a particular feature of the Catholic Church, where unlike in Protestant religions, clergy must be unmarried and abstain from sex. The link between celibacy and clerical sex abuse is often contested, but several independent researchers suggest there can be heightened risk associated with celibacy.[166] The requirement to agree to celibacy for Catholic priests, nuns, sisters and brothers may deprive them of romantic and physical intimacy, which when combined with unchecked power over children in care can lead to abuse.[167]

Religious concepts of sin, forgiveness and secrecy were applied to sexual abuse

187. In many faith-based settings, the interpretation of abuse through a religious lens led to inappropriate responses to reports and a failure to safeguard against ongoing abuse. Forgiveness is a key teaching in Christianity, where people are encouraged to let go of anger and blame and embrace those who have sinned against them.[168] Interpreted through this religious lens, faith-based institutions have sometimes responded to reports of sexual abuse as requiring forgiveness and reconciliation (including confession), rather than necessitating the involvement of secular authorities or a focus on prevention and safeguarding.[169]

188. The treatment of sexual abuse as a ‘sin’ can mean it is treated as a mutual act, rather than occurring in the context of significant power imbalance between perpetrator and victim.[170]

189. This view of abuse as requiring religious reconciliation can also mean little nonreligious input, such as reporting to NZ Police, is sought for dealing with perpetrators of sex abuse within a faith-based context This creates further secrecy from the secular world.

Religious beliefs were used to justify abuse

190. The Inquiry heard in many survivor accounts how adults in positions of power justified abuse using Christian beliefs and authority. For instance, survivors described being told they had to learn to suffer and fear God while being subjected to physical abuse.[171] The association of suffering with salvation is found in aspects of Christian theology.[172] Suffering is thought to teach humility, and martyrdom – an extreme form of suffering – holds special status within the Christian tradition.[173]

191. Survivors described being subjected to hard labour and physically assaulted in unmarried mother’s homes, during pregnancy and childbirth, as a punishment for their actions and to bring about moral reform.[174]

192. These hierarchical and violent environments, where religious teachings were leveraged as justifications for abuse, were able to emerge because of the isolation and insularity of many faith-based care settings and the societal attitudes of the time. This insularity meant they were not subject to external scrutiny, removing checks and balances that may have moderated behaviour. Abusive behaviour was therefore able to be justified as a ‘necessary’ or ‘normal’ part of life without necessarily being challenged.[175]

193. Often abusers used the biblical concepts of shame and humiliation, and the wider fear of religious punishment or repercussion to abuse and control children and young people. Examples of this are detailed in the Inquiry’s interim report Stolen Lives, Marked Souls. The misuse of religious teaching and scripture allowed abuse to occur, but it also prevented disclosures of abuse for fear of retribution by God himself.[176]

Most faith-based institutions were not held to account

194. Most faith-based institutions failed to take accountability for abuse and neglectof children, young people and adults in their care. Most of the faiths that were investigated acknowledged this failure to the Inquiry. These acknowledgements are set out below.

Catholic Church

195. Catholic Church leaders in Aotearoa New Zealand have previously issued public statements addressing the abuse and neglect within the church but have failed to adequately acknowledge the nature and extent of abuse and neglect within the church or accept responsibility for the harm done.

196. In a statement to the Inquiry, John Dew, cardinal and Archbishop of Wellington, when acknowledging and apologising for the harm, said: “As I have previously noted, I have been shocked and horrified at the way people have been treated and how their trust has been betrayed by clergy and religious, to our great shame. I simply cannot understand how this could have occurred.”[177]

197. Information released by the Catholic Church revealed that out of the 1,296 abuse reports, there were 592 alleged perpetrators, including diocesan priests, religious orders and lay people. The Catholic Church provided the Inquiry with the names of 27 perpetrators with criminal convictions related to abuse of those in the care of the Catholic Church.[178]

198. Despite the scale of abuse and neglect within the Catholic Church in Aotearoa New Zealand, the Inquiry is unaware of any consideration by the church of the systemic causes of this. Very few senior leaders have been held to account for the systems and environment that allowed members of the Catholic Church to perpetuate pervasive abuse and neglect.

199. Catholic Church leaders have not been accountable or transparent to their congregations and the broader community about the nature and extent of abuse and neglect by their members. This has impacted the church’s capacity to provide a proper system to prevent further harm and provide meaningful and adequate responses to survivors. It has also increased barriers to disclosure for survivors because information about the abuse of others is an important factor in supporting survivors’ disclosure of abuse.

200. The church’s comprehension of the nature and extent of abuse of people in its care mostly comes from protocols and advisory committees set up to handle individual reports of abuse. The church leadership has made minimal and inadequate attempts to understand the fundamental and broader systemic factors that have influenced abuse. This has meant the church’s prevention of further harm has been limited at best.

201. At the Inquiry’s Faith-based Redress Hearing, counsel for the Catholic Bishops and Congregational Leaders of Aotearoa New Zealand acknowledged:

“The Church recognises collectively [that] there has been a failure. Certain individuals have obviously been failed, and how and why those failures have occurred will need to be examined and remedied.”[179]

202. During the Inquiry’s Tō muri te pō roa, tērā a Pokopoko Whiti-te-rā (Māori Experiences) Hearing, the Catholic Church acknowledged the harm caused to Māori in its care:

“It is to the Church’s great shame and sorrow that Māori are among those subject to harm and abuse while in the care of the Church. Many Māori share the Catholic faith and there is a great sadness felt that the Church has failed Māori in its care, leading to loss of faith and identity”.[180]

203. The Catholic Church also acknowledged the harm caused to those who were in the care of Marylands School and Hebron Trust in Ōtautahi Christchurch. Many of the boys placed at Marylands School were disabled or had learning or behavioural needs, and those in the care of Hebron Trust were often ‘street kids’. Many were tamariki and rangatahi Māori in need of safety, shelter and support.[181] At the Inquiry’s Marylands School (St John of God) Hearing, the Catholic Church recognised that this group of survivors “were and are still the most vulnerable,” and continued:

“If you needed to be cared for, then you should have been safe in the care of the church. The fact that you were not safe and you were harmed is indefensible and a shame on all the church. For this, and when we didn’t respond as we should have to your disclosures and reports of abuse, the bishops and congregational leaders are deeply sorry.”[182]

204. The Catholic Church has acknowledged that harm has taken place at some Catholic educational institutions, including in relation to St Patrick’s College Silverstream in Te Awa Kairangi ki Uta Upper Hutt, which had 26 reports of alleged abuse relating to nine Society of Mary members at the college between 1951 and 1985.[183]

205. The Catholic Church leadership in Aotearoa New Zealand, including leadership of St Patrick’s College Silverstream, has repeatedly acknowledged that mistakes were made and more should have been done to prevent the harm, pain and suffering of children and young people in the care of St Patrick’s College Silverstream[184] and other Catholic boarding schools.

206. Sister Sue France, who provided evidence on behalf of Ngā Whaea Atawhai o Aotearoa, Sisters of Mercy New Zealand, told the Inquiry that the majority of reports made to the Sisters of Mercy related to physical or psychological abuse by religious sisters and took place in children’s homes or orphanages.[185] Sister Sue France conceded that:

“It’s clear that because of mistakes made by the Church and by our Congregation, that children were harmed when tragically this could have and should have been avoided.”

“As a Congregation we’ve changed over time, and this Inquiry has highlighted more changes that were needed”..[186]

Anglican Church

207. The Anglican Church acknowledges that children and young people were abused in its care. The Most Reverend Donald Tamihere told the Inquiry at its Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing:

“On behalf of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia we apologise to those who have suffered abuse while in the care of the church. It is horrific, shameful and completely unacceptable that people in our care have suffered abuse. We recognise and acknowledge that abuse has occurred within our church and we apologise unequivocally.”.[187]

208. The Most Reverend Donald Tamihere also told the Inquiry that the Anglican Church “remain horrified and ashamed that children and vulnerable people in the care of the church were subjected to abuse.”.[188] He acknowledged the many forms of abuse and stated that it had been “sexual, physical, verbal and emotional”.[189] and that “such behaviour is indefensible and completely antithetical to the gospel that we believe in and the values that we uphold”..[190]

209. The Anglican Church also acknowledged the additional harm caused by attempting to hide or cover up the abuse:

“We are particularly ashamed by the evidence before the Royal Commission that members of our church covered up instances of abuse. We reiterate the sentiment in our past statement: to have ignored or covered up abuse is deplorable. There has been a failure by the church to protect those in its care and hold offenders to account. For that, we are deeply ashamed.”[191]

210. The Anglican Church extended its apologies to those survivors who were abused at Dilworth School in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland. The Right Reverend Ross Bay, Bishop of Auckland, stated:

“Especially today I wish to acknowledge and apologise to those who are the survivors of abuse at Dilworth School. This is a school that was meant to offer hope and stability for boys coming from vulnerable situations. Instead, advantage was taken of that vulnerability by various members of the staff. Among those who abused students were two Anglican chaplains. The church recognises its responsibility for these people who were the church’s direct representatives on the staff”.[192]

211. In addition to the harm caused to those within the care of the Anglican Church, Bishop Ross Bay acknowledged the Anglican Church’s lack of responsiveness to those who tried to report abuse:

“You did not receive the genuine care to which you were entitled. This failure has been compounded by our lack of responsiveness over the years to people who came forward to report abuse and to seek redress”.[193]

Methodist Church

“The Church carries the primary responsibility for ensuring the protection and wellbeing of those in its care. We failed in this sacred duty and are determined to make amends”.[194]

212. The Methodist Church acknowledges that children and young people were subjected to sexual, physical and psychological abuse and neglect in children’s homes, in connected foster placements and at Wesley College in Pukekohe. The church has taken full responsibility for every person who was abused and neglected while in its care and its related institutions and acknowledged that it carried the primary responsibility for ensuring their protection and well-being.[195]

213. The Methodist Church told the Inquiry that as it listened to survivors’ stories it has become apparent that some abuse and neglect would likely have been avoided if survivors had been believed when they spoke out. Reverend Tara Tautari (General Secretary of the Methodist Church) told the Inquiry that:

“Regretfully, the Church has not always accepted and acted on reports of abuse and has not taken appropriate disciplinary action. The Church acknowledges and apologises to the survivors who tried to report their abuse but were not listened to and those for whom the Church’s response inflicted further harm”.[196]

214. The Methodist Church accepted its failings in addressing complaints of abuse and neglect and in providing redress. It acknowledged that it is likely there has been abuse and neglect in its care settings that remains unreported.[197] The church stated that “it is likely that this is not the only case of genuine concerns being minimised or denied”.[198]

215. At the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing, the Wesley College Trust Board acknowledged that the abuse and neglect suffered by children and young people has had significant consequences on those survivors, their whānau and communities.[199] The Methodist Church took full responsibility for the harm caused by abuse and neglect in the care of all Methodist institutions, including Wesley College.[200] Reverend Tara Tautari (General Secretary of the Methodist Church) accepted that the church failed in its “sacred duty” to ensure the protection and wellbeing of those in its care,[201] and apologised to survivors, their whānau and loved ones.[202]

Gloriavale Christian Community

216. Hopeful Christian (Neville Cooper) (deceased), former Overseeing Shepherd and founder of Gloriavale Christian Community was convicted and jailed in 1995 for sexual offending, including against young people aged between 12 and 17, within the Gloriavale Community.[203] Current Overseeing Shepherd Howard Temple is defending charges of indecently assaulting 10 girls, offending that began in 1998.[204]

217. NZ European survivor Rosanna Overcomer, who is a representative of the Gloriavale Leaver’s Trust, told the Inquiry that:

“What was not dealt with appropriately went on to become the culture I was raised in. When people in positions of power have no accountability, they create a path of hurt and destruction. Systems left unchecked don’t improve, they deteriorate. This is what has happened at Gloriavale.”[205]

Presbyterian Church and affiliated organisations

218. Reverend Wayne Matheson told the Inquiry that the Presbyterian Church has a policy of zero tolerance of abuse and neglect of people in their care and acknowledged this policy has not been consistently and thoroughly applied, and for that the Presbyterian Church was deeply sorry. Reverend Matheson further said that the Presbyterian Church is “extremely troubled that trust placed in the church has been broken by the abuse of people in our care”.[206]

219. The Inquiry notes that there is a distinct legal separation between the Presbyterian Church and the support services organisations that ran care settings during the Inquiry period. The Presbyterian Church conceded at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing that, despite the separate legal structures, survivors do not see a distinction between the church and its support services organisations, often referring to the two collectively as “the Church”.[207]

220. Most board members for homes that were run by support services were made up of members from the Presbyterian Church. Until the 1980s, governance boards for the support services organisations were comprised largely of Presbyterian ministers. For example, until the early 1980s, Presbyterian ministers made up most board members on the Board of Governance for Berhampore Home in Te Whanganui-ā-Tara Wellington. Berhampore Home was run by Presbyterian Support Central. Children and young people living there were alleged to have been abused by Berhampore Home’s director and manager, Walter Lake.

221. Presbyterian Support Central told the Inquiry that it has seen no evidence to show that the church ever investigated complaints at Berhampore Home.[208] When there was a complaint made to the church, it was referred to Presbyterian Support Central to deal with.[209] Presbyterian Support Central told the Inquiry that it was not aware of any monitoring of Berhampore Home by the church at the time. Any focus on the home appeared to be on its financial viability.[210]

222. The Inquiry is aware of a complaint made in 1991 by a deaconess to the moderator of the Presbyterian Church, advising that Walter Lake was a sexual predator. There are no records to suggest that the moderator took any steps to respond. The Presbyterian Church accepts that if the moderator was advised, the church should have done more.[211]

223. At the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing, the Presbyterian Church accepted that there was a moral responsibility for Presbyterian members sitting on boards of its support services organisations to report back to the church when they became aware of reports of abuse or neglect. Reverend Wayne Matheson told the Inquiry:

“I would think if I was sitting on a board and heard matters that were deeply distressing … and the board was … either unwilling or unable to take what I considered appropriate action, I would want to vote against any motion, etc, would also want my vote to be recorded and probably offer my reasons for dissent, so that they were on record in terms of that.”[212]

224. The Presbyterian Church accepted responsibility for the Presbyterian ministers who sat on the board overseeing Berhampore Home not taking further steps when complaints about Walter Lake were raised.[213]

Presbyterian Support Central

225. At the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing, Mr Asghar acknowledged the immediate and long-term harm that was suffered by survivors and their whānau from abuse and neglect at Berhampore Home:

“I’ve really been quite horrified and shocked at the way some children were treated in the home. Their mistreatment is to our absolute and great shame as an organisation. On behalf of Presbyterian Support Central, I offer a deep, profound and unreserved apology to survivors and their whānau for both the harm that they suffered as an individual and as children while in their care … and the harm that many actually are continuing to suffer as a direct result of their experiences in our care.”[214]

Presbyterian Support Otago

226. Presbyterian Support Otago ran two children’s homes, Glendinning Home in Ōtepoti Dunedin and Mārama Home in Lawrence, Ōtākou Otago, between 1950 and 1991.[215]

227. Survivor Ms PN, who was placed in Glendinning Home when she was 5 years old in 1950 or 1951, said she was severely sexually, physically and psychologically abused, including by parishioners of the local Presbyterian Church.[216]

228. The Inquiry’s investigation into abuse and neglect in the care of Presbyterian Support Otago during the Inquiry period was made particularly difficult because in late 2017 or early 2018, Presbyterian Support Otago destroyed its records, apart from registers of names and dates.

229. The decision to destroy the records was made by the chief executive officer at the time, Gillian Bremner, who instructed a staff member to destroy the records, with the exception of registers of names and dates.

230. Although Presbyterian Support Otago had no internal document retention policy in 2017–2018, by the time the documents were destroyed they had already been held for at least 27 years since the homes had been closed.[217] Joanne O’Neill told the Inquiry that she believes “there was an individual who was misguided in their decision-making”. She said that she recognised the significance of the documents and that destroying them is not a decision she would have made.[218]

231. While it is unclear whether the documents were destroyed in late 2017 or early 2018, Joanne O’Neill acknowledged that at the time the decision was made to destroy the documents, Presbyterian Support Otago was aware of reports of abuse and neglect in its care[219] and “that there was a plan for a Royal Commission to be put in place”.[220] By 21 February 2018, Presbyterian Support Otago Board Minutes record reference to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.[221]

232. The documents had already been destroyed by the time the Inquiry made a preservation of documents order on 28 March 2019, which prohibited State and faith-based institutions from destroying potentially relevant information.[222]

233. Joanne O’Neill told the Inquiry that:

“first and foremost I want to apologise to all of those who have been harmed while they were in the care of Presbyterian Support Otago. This harm is the complete opposite of what should have resulted from the care provided by Presbyterian Support Otago and I am very sorry that that happened.”[223]

234. Presbyterian Support Otago has accepted that one of the factors that enabled abuse and neglect to occur in its care homes included that people who were married, part of the church or involved in community objectives were believed to be upstanding and suitable to be involved in the care of children. It accepted that other factors that contributed to abuse and neglect were that there was no external State agency review or audit of care standards of any of Presbyterian Support Otago’s homes (the focus was on maintaining financial viability), and the culture did not encourage children and others to raise concerns.[224]

The Salvation Army

235. The Salvation Army estimated that “thousands” of children and young people were cared for in their children’s homes during the Inquiry period.[225]

236. The abuse and neglect suffered by those in the care of The Salvation Army’s children’s homes and homes for unwed mothers was wide-ranging and included sexual, physical and psychological abuse and neglect, including inadequate nutrition, hygiene and healthcare.[226] The Salvation Army operated Bethany Homes where some survivors told the Inquiry they were made to feel shamed for being unwed mothers and felt pressured to adopt out their children, while being denied relevant information, medical and emotional help and support.[227]

237. Murray Houston, commercial manager for The Salvation Army and the manager of the Royal Commission Response confirmed that by 1 August 2020 The Salvation Army had received 238 claims regarding historical abuse and / or neglect.228 The Salvation Army has accepted that abuse and neglect in its care was wide-ranging and involved different types of perpetrators, including The Salvation Army officers and other staff members, other residents, visitors to the homes and foster parents, among others.[229]

Plymouth Brethren Christian Church

238. The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church has acknowledged five allegations of abuse,[230] but does not necessarily accept that these incidents occurred within its care. The number of allegations of abuse acknowledged by the church is significantly lower than the 32 survivors who told the Inquiry about being abused and / or neglected while within the care of the church.

Lessons identified and changes made by faith-based institutions

239. During the Inquiry period, some lessons were learned by faith-based institutions who provided care to children, young people and adults in care, and they made changes as a result.

240. The large deinstitutionalisation of faith-based care for children and women from the late 1970s has meant the closure of orphanages, children’s homes and unwed mother’s homes.

241. There were changes during the Inquiry period to allow women to hold positions of authority in most of the faiths the Inquiry investigated, however by the end of the Inquiry period (and still today) women were still underrepresented in leadership positions in most of the faiths the Inquiry investigated. To the Inquiry’s knowledge, no faith-based institution kept on or proactively recruited Deaf or disabled people to positions of authority during the Inquiry period.

242. From the late 1980s some faith-based institutions started to implement safeguarding guidelines and develop processes relating to responding to reports of abuse and neglect in their care. For example, in 1987, the New Zealand Catholic Bishops’ Conference released a pastoral letter to priests about sexual misconduct and in 1993, it published guidelines on sexual misconduct by clerics, religious and church employees sometimes referred to as the ‘provisional protocol’. 

243.  Towards the end of the Inquiry period, The Salvation Army and the Anglican, Catholic, Methodist and Presbyterian churches made commitments to te Tiriti o Waitangi to create a bicultural relationship within their governance structures. These commitments are relatively recent, with most publicly acknowledging their commitments to te Tiriti o Waitangi in the 1990s.

244. At the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing, Reverend Tara Tautari, the first Māori General Secretary of the Methodist Church, explained that it took a long time – from the Methodist Church’s beginnings in Aotearoa New Zealand in 1822 to its commitment to become a bicultural church in 1983 – because:

“The Church did not understand what it meant to be partners, to share power, to share power in very real and tangible ways; for example, resource sharing, decision-making. These in former times were held by a small group of leadership that was largely patriarchal.”[231]

Footnotes

[114] Beyer, L, Higgins, D & Bromfield, L, Understanding organisational risk factors for child maltreatment: A review of literature (National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies, page 43); Pilgrim, D, “Child abuse in Irish Catholic settings: A non– reductionist account,” Child Abuse Review, Volume 21 (2012, page 407).
[115]Redmond, SA, “Christian ‘virtues’ and recovery from child sexual abuse” in Brown, JC & Bohn, CR (eds), Christianity, patriarchy and abuse: A feminist critique (Pilgrim Press, 1989, page 78).
[116]Regan, E, “Church, culture and credibility: A perspective from Ireland,” New Blackfriars (2013, page 166); Mathews, B, New international frontiers in child sexual abuse: Theory, problems and progress (Springer International Publishing, 2019, page 163).
[117]Plante, TG, “Clericalism contributes to religious, spiritual, and behavioural struggles among Catholic Priests,” Religions, Volume 11, No 5 (2020, page 2)
[118]Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Australia), Final Report: Religious Institutions: Volume 16, Book 1 2017, page 23)
[119]Cashmore, J, & Shackel, R, “Responding to historical child sexual abuse and the needs of survivors,” Current Issues in Criminal Justice, Volume 26, No 1 (2014, pages 1–4); Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Abuse in State Care (Australia), Final Report: Preface and executive summary (2017, pages 10, 51, 55, 68 & 77).[120]Witness statement of Neil Harding 1 (13 October 2020, para 59).
[121]Witness statements of Mr NB (16 August 2021, para 40) and Ms C (21 September 2020, paras 8-9).
[122]Witness statement of Mr QH (17 January 2021, para 6.6).
[123]Benkert, M, & Doyle, TP, “Clericalism, religious duress and its psychological impact on victims of clergy sexual abuse” in Pastoral Psychology Volume 58, No 3 (2009, page 224).
[124]Raine, S, & Kent, S. A, “The grooming of children for sexual abuse in religious settings: Unique characteristics and select case studies” in Aggression and violent behaviour Volume 48 (2019, page 183).
[125]Witness statements of Mr MO (4 May 2022, para 29) and Mr NE (17 June 2021, para 54).
[126]Private session transcript of Dr Christopher Longhurst (22 February 2021, page 53)[127]Witness statements of Vincent Reidy (21 September 2020, paras 2.7–2.8); Neil Harding (13 October 2020, para 57); Mr J (31 August 2020, para 1.20) and Ms K (21 September 2020, para 2.6).
[128]Witness statements of Ms CU (10 June 2021, paras 67–71); Dr Sam Manuela (12 July 2021, para 68) and Folasāitu Dr Julia Ioane (21 July 2021, para 49).
[129]Wardhaugh, J & Wilding, P, “Towards an explanation of the corruption of care,” Critical Social Policy, Volume 37 (1993, pages 4–3); Green, L, “Theorizing sexuality, sexual abuse and residential children’s homes: Adding gender to the equation,” British Journal of Social Work,
Volume 35, No 4 (2005, pages 453–481).
[130]Witness statement of Mr JB (28 April 2022, page 11).
[131]Private session transcript of survivor who wishes to remain anonymous (10 September 2019, page 42); Private session transcript of survivor who wishes to remain anonymous (28 May 2019, page 15).
[132]Private session transcript of survivor who wishes to remain anonymous (27 January 2021, page 5); Witness statements of Rosina Hauiti (8 July 2022, page 2) and Mrs D (21 September 2020, page 3).
[133] McAlinden, A, 2006, cited in Raine, S & Kent, SA, “The grooming of children for sexual abuse in religious settings: Unique characteristics and select case studies,” Aggression and violent behaviour, Volume 48 (2019, page 187)
[134]Private session transcript of survivor who wishes to remain anonymous (3 September 2019, page 20).
[135]Witness statements of Nooroa Robert (13 August 2022, page 11) and Ms CI (10 August 2022, page 2).
[136]Morton, S, “Getting evidence into action to tackle institutional child abuse,” Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 74 (2017, page 112); Pilgrim, D, “Child abuse in Irish Catholic settings: A non–reductionist account,” Child Abuse Review, Volume 21 (2012, page 408).
[137]Tobin, TW, “Religious faith in the unjust meantime: The spiritual violence of clergy sexual abuse,” Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, Volume 5, No 2 (2019, page 9).
[138]Morton, S, “Getting evidence into action to tackle institutional child abuse.” Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 74 (2017, page 112); Pilgrim,D, “Child abuse in Irish Catholic settings: A non–reductionist account,” Child Abuse Review, Volume 21 (2012, page 408).
[139]Palmer, D, Final report: The role of organisational culture in child sexual abuse in institutional contexts (Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Australia), 2016, page 46); Hamilton, M, Religious practices that have contributed to a culture of secrecy regarding child sex abuse in five religious organizations (Child USA: The National Think Tank for Child Protection, 2020, page 3).
[140]Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu: From Redress to Puretumu Torowhānui, Volume 1 (2021, pages 172–173); Submission of Dr Thomas Doyle (9 March 2021, para 274).
[141]Witness statements of Mr TW (23 June 2022, paras 84-86); Stephen Simmons (24 July 2022, page 3) and Ms KX (14 September 2022, para 42).
[142] Transcript of evidence of Howard Temple and Rachel Stedfast on behalf of Gloriavale Christian Community at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 13 October 2022, page 51).
[143]Transcript of evidence of Howard Temple and Rachel Stedfast on behalf of Gloriavale Christian Community at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 13 October 2022, page 52).
[144]Expert opinion of Professor Peter Lineham, MNZM (4 April 2024, page 1).
[145]Expert opinion of Professor Peter Lineham, MNZM (4 April 2024, page 1).
[146]McPhillips, K, “Soul murder: Investigating spiritual trauma at the Royal Commission,” Journal of Australian Studies, Volume 42, No 2 (2018, page 236); Cullington, E, “Evil, sin, or doubt?: The dramas of clerical child abuse,” Theatre Journal, Volume 62, No 2 (2010, pages 245, 255–256 and 262).
[147]Ross, SA, “Feminist theology and the clergy sexual abuse crisis,” Theological Studies, Volume 80, No 3 (2019, page 632).
[148]Irenyi, M, Bromfield, L, Beyer, L & Higgins, D, “Child maltreatment in organisations: Risk factors and strategies for prevention,” Child Abuse Prevention Issues, Volume 25 (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2006, pages 12–16).
[149]Special Archdiocesan Commission of Enquiry into Sexual Abuse of Children by Members of the Clergy, The report of the Archdiocesan Commission of Enquiry into the Sexual Abuse of Children by Members of the Clergy, Archdiocese of St John’s, Newfoundland (1990, pages 12–16).
[150]Transcript of evidence of Anne Hill at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Redress Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 1 December 2020, page 160).
[151]Baumeister, RF & Twenge, JM, “Cultural suppression of female sexuality,” Review of General Psychology, Volume 6, No 2 (2002, pages 193–194).
[152]Redmond, SA, “Christian ‘virtues’ and recovery from child sexual abuse” in Brown, JC & Bohn, CR (eds), Christianity, patriarchy and abuse: A feminist critique (Pilgrim Press, 1989, page 76).
[153]Brookes, B, “Shame and its histories in the twentieth century,” Journal of New Zealand Studies, Volume 9 (2010, pages 46–51).
[154]Witness statements of Maggie Wilkinson (17 September 2020, para 29), Margie Robertson (6 June 2021, para 90), Ms OJ (14 December 2021, para 38) and Mrs D (21 September 2020, para 64).
[155]Brookes, B, “Shame and its histories in the twentieth century,” Journal of New Zealand Studies, Volume 9 (2010, page 46).
[156]Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, Stolen Lives, Marked Souls The inquiry into the Order of the Brothers of St John of God at Marylands School and Hebron Trust (2023, page 329).
[157]Victim Impact Report of survivor who wishes to remain anonymous (11 September 2019, page 1).
[158]Easton, SD, Saltzman, LY & Willis, D G, “Would you tell under circumstances like that?”: Barriers to disclosure of child sexual abuse for men,” Psychology of Men & Masculinity, Volume 15, No 4 (2014, page 461).
[159]Morton, S, “Getting evidence into action to tackle institutional child abuse,” in Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 74 (2017, page 112).
[160]Palmer, D & Feldman, V, “Toward a more comprehensive analysis of the role of organizational culture in child sexual abuse in institutional contexts,” Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 74 (2017, page 28).
[161]Palmer, D & Feldman, V, “Toward a more comprehensive analysis of the role of organizational culture in child sexual abuse in institutional contexts,” Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 74 (2017, page 28).
[162]Fontes, LA & Plummer, C, “Cultural issues in disclosures of child sexual abuse,” Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, Volume 19, No 5 (2010, page 497).
[163]Goldfarb, ES & Lieberman, LD, “Three decades of research: The case for comprehensive sex education,” Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 68, No 1 (2021, pages 13–27).
[164]Redmond, SA, “Christian ‘virtues’ and recovery from child sexual abuse” in Brown, JC & Bohn, CR (eds), Christianity, patriarchy and abuse:A feminist critique (Pilgrim Press, 1989, pages 76–77).
[165]Redmond, SA, “Christian ‘virtues’ and recovery from child sexual abuse” in Brown, JC & Bohn, CR (eds), Christianity, patriarchy and abuse: A feminist critique (Pilgrim Press, 1989, pages 76–77)
[166]Anderson, J, “Socialization processes and clergy offenders,” Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, Volume 25, No 8 (2016, pages 853–854); Scheper-Hughes, N & Devine, J, “Priestly celibacy and child sexual abuse,” Sexualities, Volume 6, No 1 (2003, pages 19–21).
[167]Bosgraaf, E, “Breaking the will: relations between mental mortification in monastic life and the psychological abuse of children in Catholic institutions,” Mental Health, Religion & Culture, Volume 16, No 6 (2013, pages 589 and 590–591).
[168]Redmond, SA, “Christian ‘virtues’ and recovery from child sexual abuse” in Brown, JC & Bohn, CR (eds), Christianity, patriarchy and abuse: A feminist critique (Pilgrim Press, 1989, pages 73–75).
[169]Irenyi, M, Bromfield, L, Beyer, L & Higgins, D, “Child maltreatment in organisations: Risk factors and strategies for prevention,” Child Abuse Prevention Issues, Volume 25 (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2006, pages 12–14).
[170]Irenyi, M, Bromfield, L, Beyer, L & Higgins, D, “Child maltreatment in organisations: Risk factors and strategies for prevention,” Child Abuse Prevention Issues, Volume 25 (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2006, page 14).
[171] Witness statement of Ms OJ (14 December 2021, para 45); Private session transcript of survivor who wishes to remain anonymous (11 October 2019, page 25).
[172]Kienzle, BM & Nienhuis, N, “Battered women and the construction of sanctity,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, Volume 17, No 1 (2001, page 59).
[173]Redmond, SA, “Christian ‘virtues’ and recovery from child sexual abuse” in Brown, JC & Bohn, CR (eds), Christianity, patriarchy and abuse: A feminist critique (Pilgrim Press, 1989, page 73–75).
[174]Witness statements of Mrs D (21 September 2020, para 39) and Nancy (Sally) Levy (16 December 2021, paras 55–58).
[175]Palmer, D & Feldman, V, “Toward a more comprehensive analysis of the role of organizational culture in child sexual abuse in institutional contexts,” Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 74 (2017, pages 29–31).
[176]Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, Stolen Lives, Marked Souls: The inquiry into the Order of the Brothers of St John of God at Marylands School and Hebron Trust (July 2023, page 333)
[177]Witness statement of Cardinal John Dew (4 October 2022, para 41).
[178]Te Rōpū Tautoko, Information Gathering Project Fact Sheet (1 February 2022, page 3), https://www.catholic.org.nz/assets/Uploads/20220201-Tautoko-IGP-Fact-Sheet-1-Feb.pdf.
[179]Transcript of opening statement of the Catholic Bishops and Congregational Leaders of Aotearoa New Zealand at the Inquiry’s Faithbased Redress Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 22 March 2021, page 489).
[180]Transcript of opening submissions by the Catholic Bishops and Congregational Leaders of Aotearoa New Zealand at the Inquiry’s Tō muri te pō roa, tērā a Pokopoko Whiti-te-rā (Māori Experiences) Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 7 March 2022, page 3).
[181]Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, Stolen Lives, Marked Souls: The inquiry into the Order of the Brothers of St John of God at Marylands School and Hebron Trust (2023, page 32).
[182]Opening Statement on behalf of the Catholic Bishops and Congregational Leaders of the Catholic Church in Aotearoa New Zealand at the Inquiry’s Marylands School (St John of God) Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 9 February 2022, para 7).
[183]Transcript of evidence of Father Timothy Duckworth at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 17 October 2022, page 131).
[184]Transcript of evidence of Dr Rob Ferreira, Dr Clare Couch and Sean Mahony at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 17 October 2022, page 117).
[185]Witness statement of Sister Sue France (12 February 2021, page 1).
[186]Transcript of evidence of Cardinal John Dew, Dr Paul Flanagan and Sister Sue France at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 17 October 2022, page 214).
[187]Joint witness statement of the Primates (Most Reverend Philip Richardson, Most Reverend Donald Tamihere and Most Reverend Fereimi Cama) of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia (12 February 2021, para 4).
[188]Transcript of opening statement of the Most Reverend Donald Tamihere at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 22 March 2021, page 447).
[189]Transcript of opening statement of the Most Reverend Donald Tamihere at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 22 March 2021, page 447).
[190]Transcript of opening statement of the Most Reverend Donald Tamihere at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 22 March 2021, page 447).
[191]Joint witness statement of the Most Reverend Philip Richardson and the Most Reverend Donald Steven Tamihere (5 October 2022, para 7).
[192]Transcript of evidence of the Right Reverend Ross Bay, Bishop of Auckland, at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 20 October 2022, page 544).
[193]Transcript of evidence of the Right Reverend Ross Bay, Bishop of Auckland, at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 20 October 2022, page 544)
[194]Transcript of opening statement of Reverend Tara Tautari on behalf of the Methodist Church of New Zealand at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 18 October 2022, page 250).
[195]Transcript of opening statement of Reverend Tara Tautari on behalf of the Methodist Church of New Zealand at the Inquiry’s Faith-based
Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 18 October 2022, pages 250–251).
[196]Opening statement of Reverend Tara Tautari on behalf of the Methodist Church of New Zealand at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 18 October 2022, para 56).
[197]Opening submissions of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Te Hāhi Weteriana o Aotearoa, Wesley College Board of Trustees, and Wesley College Trust Board for the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 18 October 2022, para 3.24).
[198]Methodist Church of New Zealand, Response to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care Notice to Produce 452, Questions 2–7 (24 May 2022, page 10).
[199]Opening submissions of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Te Hāhi Weteriana o Aotearoa, Wesley College Board of Trustees, and Wesley College Trust Board for the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 18 October 2022, para 4.13).
[200]Closing remarks on behalf of the Methodist Church of New Zealand, Wesley College Board of Trustees, and Wesley College Trust Board at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 21 October 2022, para 3.1).
[201]Opening statement of Reverend Tara Tautari on Behalf of the Methodist Church of New Zealand at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 18 October 2022, para 6).
[202]Opening statement of Reverend Tara Tautari on Behalf of the Methodist Church of New Zealand at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 18 October 2022, para 14).
[203]Edwards, J, “Gloriavale: Details of crimes committed by founder Hopeful Christian made public for first time,” RNZ News (17 February 2023),
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/484395/gloriavale-details-of-crimes-committed-by-founder-hopeful-christian-made-public-forfirst-time.
[204]Naish, J, “Gloriavale overseeing shepherd appears in court for alleged sexual offending,” Stuff (2 August 2023), https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/132657162/gloriavale-overseeing-shepherd-appears-in-court-for-alleged-sexual-offending.
[205]Transcript of Opening Statement for Gloriavale Leaver’s Trust at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 13 October 2022, page 27).
[206]Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand, Response to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care Notices to Produce 523 and 530 (4 October 2022, Introduction (b)).
[207]Transcript of evidence of Reverend Wayne Matheson on behalf of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, page 314).
[208]Transcript of evidence of Naseem (Joe) Asghar and Patrick Waite on behalf of Presbyterian Support Central at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, page 267).
[209] Transcript of evidence of Naseem (Joe) Asghar and Patrick Waite on behalf of Presbyterian Support Central at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, page 267).
[210]Transcript of evidence of Naseem (Joe) Asghar and Patrick Waite on behalf of Presbyterian Support Central at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, page 257).
[211]Transcript of evidence of Reverend Wayne Matheson on behalf of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, pages 313–314).
[212]Transcript of evidence of Reverend Wayne Matheson on behalf of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, pages 310–311).
[213]Transcript of evidence of Reverend Wayne Matheson on behalf of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, page 311).
[214]Transcript of evidence of Naseem (Joe) Asghar and Patrick Waite on behalf of Presbyterian Support Central at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, page 247)
[215]Witness statement of Sam Benton, Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill of Cooper Legal (28 July 2022, paras 303–305).
[216]Transcript of evidence of Ms PN on behalf of Presbyterian Support Otago at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, pages 282–283).
[217]Transcript of evidence of Chief Executive Joanne O’Neill on behalf of Presbyterian Support Otago at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, page 290).
[218]Transcript of evidence of Chief Executive Joanne O’Neill on behalf of Presbyterian Support Otago at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, page 288 and 290).
[219]Transcript of evidence of Chief Executive Joanne O’Neill on behalf of Presbyterian Support Otago at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, page 282).
[220]Transcript of evidence of Chief Executive Joanne O’Neill on behalf of Presbyterian Support Otago at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, page 291).
[221]Presbyterian Support Otago, Minutes of Board Meeting (21 February 2018, page 3).
[222]Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions, Notice 1: Preservation of Documents (28 March 2019).
[223]Transcript of evidence of Chief Executive Joanne O’Neill on behalf of Presbyterian Support Otago at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, page 278).
[224]Transcript of evidence of Chief Executive Joanne O’Neill on behalf of Presbyterian Support Otago at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, pages 283–284).
[225]Transcript of evidence of Colonel Gerry Walker on behalf of The Salvation Army at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Redress Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 16 March 2021, page 118).
[226]Witness statements of Nikky Kristofferson (21 October 2020, paras 136, 142, 151) and Ann-Marie Shelley (6 August 2020, page 7).
[227]Witness statement of Susan Williams (16 February 2022, pages 3–4); Private session transcript of survivor who wishes to remain anonymous (16 June 2020, page 17); Private session transcript of survivor who wishes to remain anonymous (9 March 2020, page 25); Private session transcript of survivor who wishes to remain anonymous (3 March 2020, page 16).
[228]Witness statement of Murray Houston on behalf of The Salvation Army (18 September 2020, para 3.3).
[229]Witness statement of Murray Houston on behalf of The Salvation Army (18 September 2020, para 3.2).
[230]Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, Response to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care Notice to Produce 1 (23 April 2021, Schedule A: Response to schedule A of the Notice, page 6, para 10).