![]() |
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Law Foundation Research Reports |
Last Updated: 2 April 2021
Royal Commission into Abuse
in State Care
Compilation of Reports prepared by: Dr Elizabeth Stanley, Rosslyn Noonan, Sonja Cooper, and Dr Anaru Erueti.
30 April 2018
Following the announcement of the new Labour-led government in October 2017 there were clear signs of an intention to hold an independent inquiry into the abuse and neglect of children. Y oung people and vulnerable adults in state care. The initiatives attached to this report were prepared in response to that commitment. They were led by Sonja Cooper, Dr Anaru Erueti, Rosslyn Noonan and Dr Elizabeth Stanley but all of them were informed by the views of survivors, along with experts and professionals working in the field of child care.
The first set of documents was prepared as it became clear that the government was preparing draft terms of reference with the object of informing that process. The documents include:
Annex 1, A “Draft framework for a New Zealand Royal Commission into Abuse in State Care" of 4 December 2017. This set out what the Inquiry should be (a Royal Commission) and what it ought to do (for example engage fully with survivors) and was informed by a survivors’ survey and our consultations with survivors and other experts who have worked on issues of child care.
Annex 2, Survivors’ submissions on Inquiry into Abuse in State Care, 2018. This survey was sent out from 15 November 2017 to survivors. By 11 December 2017, we had received 422 submissions. We have asked the Royal Commission to integrate these 422 submissions into the consultation process so they stand alongside other submissions received.
The following second set of documents were prepared after the government released its draft ToR on 1 February 2018.
Annex 3, Short Report from Hui, 14-15 February 2018. This report followed a hui held to discuss the draft Terms of Reference for the Royal Commission released by government on 1 February 2018. The hui was funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation. It was attended by survivors, advocates, practitioners working in the care/justice/health sectors, academics and media professionals, among others. Sir Anand Satyanand, the newly appointed Chair of the Royal Commission, listened carefully to the presentations and wide-ranging discussion across the two days. The report contains ten recommendations aimed at strengthening the Royal Commission and the draft ToR. These ten recommendations reflected the views of those who attended the Hui.
Annex 4, “Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care Submission on Government‘s draft terms of reference”, dated 24 April 2018. These draft terms of reference were prepared by Sonja Cooper, Dr Anaru Erueti, Rosslyn Noonan and Dr Elizabeth Stanley as a submission to the Royal Commission on the draft Terms of Reference (ToR) released by Government on 1 February 2018.
Sonja Cooper, Dr Anaru Erueti, Rosslyn Noonan and Dr Elizabeth Stanley
Annex 1
Draft Framework for a NZ Royal Commission into Abuse in State Care
4 December 2017
By
Elizabeth Stanley (Associate Professor in Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington)
Rosslyn Noonan (Director, NZ Centre for Human Rights, Law School, Auckland University)
Anaru Erueti (Senior Lecturer, Law School, Auckland University) Sonja Cooper (Principal, Cooper Legal)
This draft framework has been developed from the survivors‘ survey, completed by 340 survivors of abuse in state care at 1 December 2017. It reflects their wishes. We have also consulted with several advocates and survivors who have worked on these issues for many years. We thank all those who have assisted us in the development of this document.
We strongly support the official commitment to advance further effective engagement with survivors, their families and whanau, as well as with stakeholders (including whanau, hapu and iwi; NGOs; scholars; legal experts; and community groups) into the design, scope and operations of the Commission.
TERMS / FRAMEWORK
This body must be established at the highest level, being a Royal Commission. While other forms of Inquiry would have the same powers as a Royal Commission, the latter is extremely important in demonstrating mana. A Royal Commission will symbolise the government’s seriousness in taking action against state abuse, and demonstrate that this is a *whole-of- government’ issue. We anticipate that it will be the only opportunity in our lifetime to deal with the state’s abject failure to protect and nurture children, young people and seriously vulnerable adults.
Thousands of victim-survivors have been treated very poorly, over decades. The impacts of abuse have affected many more New Zealanders, across generations. The NZ government now spends millions of dollars each year (including through Health, Social Development, Oranga Tamariki, Police, Justice and Corrections) to address the legacies of abuse. A Royal Commission would provide a strong and undeniable basis for understanding these experiences, remedying victimisation, and provoking crucial changes within laws, policies and practices. It has the potential to positively change the relationships between state agencies and survivors, their families and whanau.
The Commission must be entirely independent from those agencies and institutions that have been previously connected with abuse or harms. To ensure success, survivors must also perceive independence with regards to how Terms of Reference have been constructed, the appointments of senior
staff, as well as in daily operations and practices. The Commission must be viewed as credible and victim/survivor-centred.
neglect.
child welfare care (including family homes, foster care, religious homes, social welfare homes, other non-governmental placements) psychiatric and psychopaedic hospitals and wards
health camps
correctional facilities (including youth justice facilities, borstals, prisons)
special education schools
issues relating to abuse in state care Among other things, these include:
There must be widespread dissemination of findings — in the form of public events, hui, thematic papers, media pieces, short reports — through all its operations. The Commission must demonstrate its progress, whenever possible.
It is vital that the Commission provides regular and accessible updates to survivors and victims’ families. While diverse formats (eg audio/visual) will be necessary, it must also include communications that do not involve website or social media tech nologies. Communications must also be written in understandable language.
Alongside interim reports (see s20), the Commission should produce a publicly available final report that records findings in full. Reports should include ‘lessons’, recommendations and actions for future prevention.
The Commission must hear the experiences of: (i) Maori; (ii) those with
disabilities; (iii) both girls and boys.
In New Zealand, a disproportionate number of indigenous children have been held in state care, and institutionalised racism and colonisation has impacted on their treatment and opportunities. Maori communities have
been consistently marginalised in the making of law and policy on state care and there is evidence of the targeting of Maori families by state care agencies. During the mid-1980s, Maori children accounted for over 80% of those held in Auckland‘s social welfare institutions. Mgori survivors have detailed a significant loss of cultural identity as a result of their experiences. Maori children now form a large majority of children in state care. And there is a clear link between the significant numbers of Maori in state care and the disproportionate number of Maori in the prison system.
(ii) Children and Vulnerable Adults with Disabilities
Consideration must be given to the numbers of children and vulnerable adults with disabilities (including physical, mental, learning or intellectual disabilities) who have suffered serious levels of abuse and neglect under state care, and who have been systematically silenced. Those with disabilities have suffered different forms of abuse and neglect, including being more likely to be physically restrained and controlled. It is important to understand how violence and abuse can be legitimised through official language and care cultures.
(iii) Girls and Boys
There appears to be significant gender-based differences in the abuse suffered by boys and girls. While the vast majority of those in state care were and are boys, it appears that girls have also suffered particular forms of abuse within state care — for example, being more likely to be given medications, in care, on account of their ‘gendered delinquencies‘ rather than any offensive action. These gendered issues also intersect with ethnicity, such that Maori girls were also (and remain) significantly over- represented in ‘care’ and ‘justice’ institutions. While there has been little work on the abuse experienced by boys in state care (particularly in terms of their sexual abuse), there has been even less work undertaken to acknowledge or understand the specific abuse against girls, and its subsequent impact on New Zealand women.
Alongside these groups, it is vital that the Commission explores the experiences and impact of abuse on different groups. For example, Pasifika children also appeared to be disproportionately held in care. Further, many Pakeha children experienced state care, and some suffered extreme levels of violence. It is also important to understand how state interventions could harm, rather than assist, families who struggled with economic
disadvantage. It is therefore essential that the Commission is attentive to institutionalised racism, bias and different forms of disadvantage.
It is apparent that many children still face many harms and abuse within state care (seen, for example, within reports from the Children’s Commissioner, and with new claims to Cooper Legal). These harms and abuse mostly affect Maori children.
The Commission must therefore hear all claims (with a cut-off date for evidence being the final date for registration of claims to the Commission). Survivors have a strong priority to prevent abuse, and understanding the contemporary situation is crucial for this to happen.
people
The Commission should invite evidence from:
7. The Commission must engage processes that are survivor- focused
The Commission must be attentive to the fact that, due to their experiences, many survivors are deeply suspicious of government (and other) workers to be honest or to prioritise their interests over institutional
priorities. The Commission needs to be particularly attentive to these dynamics and ensure that all processes/practices are survivor-led.
Survivor-focused processes should include:
8. The Commission will have powers of compulsion with regards to witnesses and documents
In line with legislation, the Commission will have the power to retrieve all relevant, non-redacted documentation held by government and other agencies. This is an important power, given the previous lack of transparency and attempts by government departments to silence or hide evidence of abuse.
International evidence — eg from Australia — demonstrates that Inquiries without legal powers to force witnesses to appear or to subpoena documents found that most key people/agencies did not appear, and they ignored findings and recommendations. Alongside full access to documentation, this Commission will be able to compel witnesses.
The Commission can draw on materials already collated (eg by the Human Rights Commission) and should have access to the materials and outcomes of previous work (eg under the Confidential Forum, CLAS, HCU, etc). The Commission can also draw upon research already undertaken. This includes national research (eg by academics, civil society groups and government Ministries, among others) as well as international bodies (eg by the recent Commissions in Australia or Ireland).
Alongside this, the Commission should undertake — or engage others to undertake - further substantive research. Several big projects would be useful, for example:
To outline the systemic continuity of the 'care to custody‘ pipeline;
- To examine the role of institutionalised racism within the care/justice systems, including engagement with Plaori on policies and laws
relating to state care and prior *inquiries‘ including the USD historical claims processes;
To explore how the silencing of abuse against those with disabilities can be challenged;
To examine the traumatic impact of abuse on victims, and the ‘intergenerational’ impacts on families and whlnau;
To examine how new knowledge on abuse should change professional training and practice of social workers, police, lawyers/judges, etc.
Any research must be conducted in an ethical manner and consistent with international human rights including UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This includes standards as to privacy, informed consent, and access to information.
examining them; initial counselling sessions; supports with dealing
with other agencies; removal tattoos, etc.
— such as connecting them to bodies that might enable restorative justice with offenders; or the transfer of cases to police for further investigation, where appropriate.
12. The Commission must provide recommendations for prevention of abuse
The Commission will outline actions for required changes in law, policy and practice. Among other issues, this would include actions to:
Ideally, the Commission would have the ability to compel obligations on agencies to fulfil recommendations, and to provide accountability for those changes (eg the Australian Royal Commission is currently noting positive and negative implementation of its recommendations).
The publication of the final report will establish the ground for a sincere and full public apology by the Prime Minister.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE COMMISSION
The Commission should receive administrative support under the Department of Internal Affairs. The Commission must be entirely independent.
It is important that the Terms are finalised with input from survivors, and from other stakeholders (including, for example, whanau, hapu and iwi; womens’ groups; Pasifika organisations).
All senior staff must be individuals who:
(i) Have no prior relationship with the agencies involved in the abuse or in previous responses to claimants. Survivors must clearly perceive that senior members are independent from any previous harmful experiences
- (ii) Are of the highest moral standing
- (iii) Have independence of mind
- (iv) Have demonstrated integrity and empathy
- (v) Have personal stamina and mental capacity
- (vi) Have knowledge of Tikanga Maori and te Tiriti
- (vii) Have an ability to behave and review without specific partiality
It may well be the case that the Chief Commissioner does not have a judicial background. It is more important for them to have experience and familiarity with the issues involved, a record in high quality operations, and a pastoral care emphasis.
It would be appropriate to recruit three Deputy Commissioners, each given a responsibility for the aforementioned priority groups (Maori; Disabilities; Girls and Boys).
To ensure that the Commission always works for the interests of survivors, the Commission should develop an advisory panel. Comprised of survivors,
the Panel will provide continuous feed back on the Commission‘s direction, strategies and outputs. All panel members will be paid, and receive travel expenses, for their work.
The Commission should develop a set of values to provide a guide for all engagements, operations and outputs. Among other elements, this could include:
This Commission has the potential to positively impact upon many New Zealanders’ lives. It will also bring benefits to multiple government departments, in helping to improve policies and practices towards populations that can often be linked to significant budget expenditure. For these reasons, the Commission should be appropriately funded to undertake its work.
Survivors have waited a very long time for action. While they almost unanimously support this Commission, the process will also have the potential to be retraumatising for them. This Commission has to be undertaken as quickly as possible.
The individual outcomes they seek — to be heard, acknowledged, supported, to be fairly compensated — should therefore form the basis for the Commission’s first segment of work.
The Commission should stage its work. For example:
Part One
Part Two s3)
Part Three
Part Four
Collate and disseminate information on what abuse occurred, to whom, and the impacts of that abuse
Determine/provide supports, redress and compensation Establish first set of recommendations
Publish Interim Report One
Determine why abuse happened and continues to happen (see Establish second set of recommendations
Publish Interim Report Two
Explore the state‘s response to claimants, and the continuing framework of complaints, monitoring and accountability Establish third set of recommendations
Publish Interim Report Three Final Report and Public Apology
Beyond being attentive to survivors’ needs, this staging would allow clear progress to be made in developing public understanding, and will allow system changes to be undertaken while the Commission is in operation.
Annex 2
Survivors’ Submissions on Inquiry into Abuse in State Care
By
Elizabeth Stanley (Associate Professor in Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington)
with
Sonja Cooper (Principal, Cooper Legal)
Rosslyn Noonan (Director, NZ Centre for Human Rights, Law School, Auckland University)
Anaru Erueti (Senior Lecturer, Law School, Auckland University)
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the team at Cooper Legal, especially Kerryanne Lai, for their assistance in providing administrative and financial supports for this work. We were fortunate to also receive resources from the Human Rights Commission to ensure that survivors did not have to pay to respond to this survey.
Overview
This survey was established to quickly ascertain survivors‘ views on the scope and activities of any Inquiry.
The survey was sent out to survivors from 15 November 2017. Recipients were (i) Cooper Legal clients; (ii) CLAN NZ members; (iii) those within personal networks.
Given the political urgency to establish a process, there was a very short time-frame for the return of surveys. Despite this, we had a very strong return rate - By 11 December 2018. we had received 422 submissions.
We ask the Royal Commission to integrate these 422 submissions into the consultation process, so they stand alongside other received submissions. This is particularly important given that survivors should not be expected to repeat their concerns or thoughts on the nature of the Inquiry to different groups or agencies.
Findings
The submissions illustrate significant consistency of views between
SUFVÏVO CS.
NB. If people did not respond to a survey question, then it was counted as
‘Don’t know’. This category also includes those who replied ‘Don ”I know’.
Alongside victims-survivors, should the Inquiry hear from:
|
YES
|
NO
|
DON'T
KNOW
|
||||
Victims‘ families and friends?
|
335
|
22 (5%)
|
65 ( 1 5%)
|
||||
People who
facilities?
|
worked
|
in
|
state
|
care
|
279
(66"/a}
|
56
(13%)
|
87 (21%)
|
Government and non-government
agency workers? (eg, church and charity-based workers)
|
241
(57 la)
|
38 (9 O/o)
|
143 ( 34 % )
|
Submissions illustrated strong support (80%) for
families and friends to be heard. Survivors regularly remarked upon their
inclusion in relation to: (a) when an abuse victim had died or had difficulties
in communication, so that all victims could be ‘counted
’ and
represented ; (b) providing the Inquiry with testimony on the intergenerational
impacts of state abuse.
(ii) Although still a majority in support (66%/57%), there is ambivalence about the inclusion of workers within hearings. Seven survivors commented that they did not trust workers to tell the truth under Inquiry conditions. Government (politicians/civil servants) and other workers are seen to be protective of themselves and their institutions.
At the same time, submissions also noted that workers could detail how abuse occurred, and help to understand the systems that failed to protect victims. On that basis, while it will be important to hear from staff, the Commission must be survivor/victim focused and aware of the impact of the process on them.
FAO2 W A SBO L T RY S ON
Should the Inquiry:
|
YES
|
NO
|
DONE
KNOW
|
Hear about sexual abuse?
|
400
|
4 (1%)
|
18 (4%)
|
Hear about violent abuse?
|
409
(97 /o]
|
![]() |
11(30+)
|
Hear about psychological abuse?
|
409
(97a/a)
|
2
|
11(3%)
|
Hear about neglect?
|
398
|
3 ( 1%)
|
21 (5%)
|
Hear about *historic’ and recent abuse
(no cut-off date for evidence)
|
380 5 (1%)
(90a/a)
|
37 (9%)
|
(i) Submissions gave very high support (90%+) for an Inquiry that takes a broad focus. The Inquiry should encompass all types of abuse and neglect, and have a scope that includes historic and recent abuse.
Should the Inquiry:
|
YES
|
NO
|
DON’T
KNOW
|
Have public hearings as well as private
hearings?
|
270
( 64 a/o )
|
56
(1 3%)
|
96 (23%)
|
Travel around the country to hear
stories?
|
328
( 7 B^/a}
|
23 (5%)
|
71 ( 1 7%)
|
Hold hearings on marae or other
whanau- based places?
|
259
(6 20/a)
|
44
(10%)
|
119 (28%)
|
(i) Submissions demonstrated strong support (78%) for the Inquiry to travel around the country. Some survivors remarked that they would like to have hearings in their home towns and cities. Several noted that the Inquiry must conduct hearings within prisons, especially as so many abused care leavers are now incarcerated.
(ii) Submissions illustrated reasonably good support (62-64%) for public and marae- based hearings. Some survivors are very strongly in favour of having these opportunities but others thought that they might be compelled to give testimony in public or on a marae, and they responded negatively to that.
These responses indicate that the Inquiry must be flexible, offering different hearing opportunities that are meaningful to survivors, while being able to inform the NZ public about abuse issues.
RSS 4 O
Should the Inquiry:
![]() |
YES
|
NO
|
DONE
KNOW
|
|||||
Be able to
|
fully
|
access
|
all relevant
|
383
|
5 ( 1 %)
|
34
|
(@ O/o)
|
|
documents
|
from
|
other
|
agencies or
|
(91°/a}
|
|
|
|
|
groups?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be able to make witnesses to attend?
|
293
(s9°/a}
|
17 (4%)
|
112 (27%)
|
|||||
Be able to access your previous
statements?
(eg to MSD historic claims unit and/or CLAS)
|
331
(79 /o]
|
10 (2%)
|
81 ( 19%)
|
(i) Submissions demonstrated very high support (91%) for an Inquiry that is able to fully access all relevant documentation. Survivors frequently added that it is important to receive non-redacted information.
(ii) Submissions indicated strong support (79%) for an Inquiry that could access their previous statements to agencies that have dealt with abuse claims. Several noted that this could not be in place of testimony to the Inquiry, but should be used as an additional source of information.
(iii) There is fairly strong support (69%) for compelling witnesses. Comments against this reflected concerns that it may take attention away from survivors.
SQ VI TI 9IiP OR
What related services would you like to see?
|
YES
|
NO
|
DON 'T
KNOW
|
Counselling sessions
|
3 7 7
![]() |
15 (4 O/o)
|
30 (7%)
|
Assistance with obtaining records
|
381
(90°/a}
|
4 ( 1O /o )
|
3 7 (9 0/o )
|
Support people to guide you through
the process
|
375
(89^/o]
|
13 (3%)
|
34 (8%)
|
Regular updates on the Inquiry‘s
progress
|
409
(9 7 /o ]
|
3 (1%)
|
10 (2%)
|
(i) Submissions demonstrated very high support (89%+) for an Inquiry that has care and assistance capabilities. Most survivors who did not support these services remarked that they had already received these supports, so did not need them.
(ii) There is extremely strong support (97%) for an Inquiry that communicated well with them and NZ society. Survivors regularly commented that updates should be diverse, accessible and presented in easily understood language.
Should the Inquiry:
|
YES
|
NO
|
DON’T
KNOW
|
Be able to recommend compensation?
|
398
(94•/a}
|
2
|
22 (6%)
|
Be able to examine and change
previous compensation?
|
311
(74•/a)
|
13 (3 O /«)
|
98 (23%)
|
Have a public report that will support
a State apology?
|
369
(88•/o)
|
9 (2%)
|
44 (10%)
|
take recommendations for changes in
laws, policies and practices?
|
389
(92•/a)
|
1
|
32 (8%)
|
Track the implementation of
recommendations?
|
345
(82^/a)
|
2
|
75 ( 18 0/o)
|
(i) Submissions indicated very high support (94%) for an Inquiry that was able to take on the function of providing compensation. Survivors noted that the Historic Claims Unit process is flawed and should be replaced. A key element of Inquiry work would be to establish a transparent approach to compensation.
(ii) There is strong support (74%) for an Inquiry that could adjudicate on previous compensation. Four survivors who did not support this thought they might be asked to ‘give up’ compensation. Any approach, here, must emphasise to survivors that compensation could not be reduced.
- (iii) There is high support (88%) for a report that led to a state apology. Several survivors noted that this needed to be meaningful, frank and full.
(iv) There is very high support (92%) for an Inquiry to make recommendations across laws, policies and practices. Some survivors noted that the Inquiry needed to work beyond ‘social welfare’ to encompass changes in health, policing, justice and corrections, among other areas. There is also strong support (82%) for an Inquiry to be able to track implementation of recommendations. Some survivors feared that the Inquiry would not lead to necessary change.
Survivors had an opportunity to make further comments on what they would like to see in the Inquiry. Their observations and suggestions are extremely useful to consider in any developments.
Nature of Inquiry
- Must be Royal Commission (x12)
To be completely independent (x6), especially from MSD/ Oranga Tainariki (x2) To be open and transparent (x5)
Involve survivors in decision-making on Tenus of Reference (x2) Learn from overseas experiences in setting up Tenus of Reference
Take advice from the Waitangi Tribunal, to ensure that it is Mâori-focused
“Bureaucrats should not be able to change terms of reference, or conditions of redress, without full consultation with victims”
Agencies should release all their information and stop protecting themselves
- To be a fair and just process
Scope
“All historic abuse should be looked at, no matter when it occurred”
“To enquire why the state (MSD) continues to abuse us. That‘s what I feel they are doing, just stalling all the time and waiting for us to die”
Must have particular emphasis on Mâori, and the stolen generations Must include foster care and coininunity placements (x3)
Include all institutions, not just those of state care (x3) — including churches (x3) and
charities (1 )
Cover abuse in mental health hospitals, and other health services Include residential schools
Investigate all agencies, including prisons and their inspectors
“Later suffering should be included, the impact that the abuse has caused
in terms of how their life has turned out. For myself: a hate of authority, anger, grief, hopelessness, shame, mistrust, a need for vengeance, violence, drug abuse”
Timeline
- Needs to be done quickly (x12)
Build in a time-frame — to make decisions after claim is lodged. Don’t drag it on
“Work as quickly as possible. Each time I get an email/letter, it takes me back to that place. Government acts like it doesn’t matter or that we don’t feel, but we do"
“It has to be talked about, but remember it‘s so hard to flip back to the past, it hurts so much to know that I could have had a different life if I’d had the support I needed as a child"
Those who’ve waited longest should be prioritised in hearings Fast-track cases with low level victim impact
Should develop handling system to help with the quick, fair processing of claims. Using factors such as: the degree of severity; the decade the claim applies to; age of the client when the abuse started; number of years the abuse continued; when the claim is first lodged; current health of the client. The overall rating would be assessed from the sum of factors, and could be reviewed if circumstances changed (eg if a client becomes terminally ill).
Accessing Survivors and Whanau
High tariff offenders should be treated the same as everyone els—e
government needs
to own the violence that’s been created. Eg Should also receive compensation (x8)
“High tariff offenders should be the same as everyone else. The MSD should realise the people you placed to protect us abused us, mentally, sexually, violently. They taught us violence...stop blaming us for your wrongs”
Provide travel expenses for victims and a supporter to attend hearings (x3)
Advertise globally — give New Zealanders who now live overseas a chance to
participat—e allow skype hearings or similar (x3)
Visit prisons to hear testimonies (x4)
Engage family and friends for victims who are no longer alive, or have been made incapable from their experiences (x3) — understand more about impacts (x2)
“I think people should be able to come forward on behalf of a family
member who has passed away"
Travel to as many parts of NZ as possible
We should be able to speak without feeling afraid
“I think the way they handled my case was wrong. I feel like they donrt believe me, and because it was for only a day and night that it doesn‘t matter”
Remember we were trained not to nark, and to trust no-one Victims should be able to opt for anonymity (x3)
Extreme care of my privacy and confidentiality regarding personal details of my life
Communications
Have open communications, and in understandable language for those with disabilities (x3)
Make it a personal process (x2) — real people
“Respect the rights and wishes of the victims, many of whom have had a
bad deal, for a long time, by the system "
Have one-on-one discussions so that someone else does the paperwork
- Be able to opt out of updates
Supports and Care — During Commission
Need professional mental health support for trauinatized victims (x4)
“While the intention for this is good and positive outcome, the process involving victims is very stressful and can impact on their health — physical and emotional — their behaviours which can be very challenging and this has a ripple effect onto family, friends and support team”
“Each time I receive a letter or email reminds me of that place and how slow the government is to react...it‘s like something that happened in the past doesn‘t really matter anymore. It’s a big kick in the teeth”
Provide practical supports and care to victims with disabilities (eg. use help / interpreters for those with disabilities, where required) (x3)
While wanted, this Commission will be stressful for victims— so need to help us with that (x2)
Follow up with victims afier hearings, to see how they’re coping (x2)
“I don’t have anyone or anywhere to feel safe and unjudged to talk or
express my inner feelings. I blame myself...I hate myself and I’ve learnt to hide it well”
“Everyone should be treated the same, a victim of state care abuse is a victim....Regardless of a person’s current circumstances”
Provide access to advocates and lawyers, so we can understand our options
- Put victims in contact with each other, if they request it
- Priority access to services, eg mental health, housing
- Help victims reconnect with whanau or iwi Help to find family members
Assistance to victims to allow them to travel to abuse sites (eg travel costs to get to Great Barrier Island)
Commission Reporting
Public accountabilit—y identifying who did what (x10)
- Include how abuse has had impact through life (x5) Examine intergenerational impacts (x3).
Show impact on wider family
“Focus on how abuse has impacted on family, past and present — leaving
people with trauma, PTSD, drug problems because they can’t cope”
“I was victim of brother‘s abuse after he was abused in care”
Comprehensive overview of total impact of abuse (x2)
Report on how abuse led to offending and gang involvement (x4)
Address MSD disrespect and lack of empathy to victims and families (x3). “Expose how MSD has continued to abuse us”
Name and shame those who refused to take action, or made things worse for us (x2)
- Keep attention on contemporary situation
Report on why people were put into care, ofien unnecessarily
Report in ways that can inform public conversations, including lots of public hearings (x2)
- Provide understandable information about how victimisation led to offending and poverty
Report on how children became institutionalised — and changes laws, policies to reflect
that
Study how abuse affected us — alcohol, drugs and crime to cope. A lot of us grew with a deep hate for authority
Use police records to identify actions against workers and those who looked after kids Use information from other complainants ’ files for validation
Produce verifiable research data
Redress / Compensation
- Quicker transparent compensation (x12)
“Months not years” — “we’ve been waiting too long”
Spouses/children should be able to claim for partners/parents who have passed away
Compensation to account for trauma and psychological harms, as can often be more difficult to recover from (x6)
“It should be taken into account all of the years spent waiting for
government to admit any responsibility for systemic failure and effect our experiences have had on our children”
“MSD should pay for wrecking my life, and make sure it doesn‘t happen to any child again”
Any compensation should not include fees, should be meaningful (x2)
Compensation should be given for denial of education, not just violence or sexual abuse Redress scheme to be open-ended — no arbitrary closing date
Compensation to consider working life lost, poor health, housing, and so on
Recommendations and Further Action
“All victims of state care should have a say in terms of what changes should be done to make sure what happened to us shall never happen again”
“ Emphasis on tracking the implementation of recommendations”
Ensure it doesn’t happen again (x8)
Offer life-long counselling (x7), not just for sexual abuse through ACC. Long-term counselling should also include wider family/whanau (eg to be able to talk about continuation of violence through family or other impacts) (x2)
Develop well-resourced protection/oversight/comp1aints body for all children in care today (x7)
Accountability and prosecutions for abusers (x8) Abusers to be fined (x3)
“Once the Inquiry is concluded I would like to see that those found to be
at fault held accountable for their negligence, so there is little or no chance of similar things happening to others”
Develop better laws/screening for those given ‘care’ of children or who are involved in programmes (x6)
Use new knowledge to train social workers and others (eg in health; justice) about impact of state abuse develop training and programmes for them and others (x5). Develop list of survivors who could be guest speakers on courses
“How are the processes of the Inquiry going to be used to remedy the abuse of our very own ‘millenial generation’? How are the people involved...going to address the abuse that is ongoing?”
Get agencies to admit they made mistakes (x4) Be able to refer cases to police (x3)
Change sentencing law—s so state abuse is clear mitigating factor (x3)
“I would like to see some form of lessening sentences imposed on offenders imprisoned where maladaptive behaviours have resulted from the impact the abuse has had on them”
- Survivors should have a say in recommendations (x2) engage victims to develop recommendations
Remove obstacles for legal cases — eg legal aid; limitations — stop victim blaming in courts (x3)
Develop programmes for us to live without violence— to be specifically created for those who have been in care (x2)
Develop new Corrections programmes that specifically address abuse in care issues. Supports for those with long sentences (x2)
Establish restorative justice meetings with abusers (x3)
Family support for victims doing time, as they probably wouldn’t be in prison if they’d been looked after in state care
Help victims with their offending and substance issues — be more lenient with us Official apologies
“We need a formal apology from the government and acknowledgement
that where we were placed was unfit, and that our abuse contributed to the abuse we carried on. It ain’t an excuse but an understanding of gangs, drugs, etc”
Institutions to be accountable
- Help with ID
“Help us to heal“
Annex 3
Royal Commission into Historical Abuse in State Care: Getting It Right
Short Report from Hui, 14-15 February 2018
Compiled by Dr Andrew Erueti, Dr Elizabeth Stanley, Rosslyn Noonan, and Sonja Cooper on behalf of, and in consultation with, the attendees of the hui on the RC‘s draft Terms of Reference.
Sponsored by the New Zealand Law Foundation
with survivors
3. The restrictive time-frame must be removed
Limiting the time frame (drafted as 1950-1999) will have several negative effects that will seriously compromise the integrity and impact of the Commission. In particular:
(i) The RC would ignore both younger and older victims of abuse, and thereby cause unnecessary trauma for those who have endured significant harms
(ii) The RC would not be able to make meaningful recommendations about contemporary structures, institutions and socio-cultural environments in which state care and abuse is conducted.
- Since 2000, many survivors have felt re-victimised by the way state agencies have responded to their claims of abuse. To prevent any repetition, there must be an independent examination of these processes and experiences.
(iii) The RC would lose trust among survivors, their whanau and supporters.
- The date limitation runs against the survivor-focused foundation of the RC. It is regarded as a state-protective strategy to ensure Government Ministers and government agencies whose decisions impacted on survivors between 2000 and 2018 avoid responsibility for harmful, victimising behaviours.
- The limitation would undermine the RC’s ability to write a full account of how children came into state care; their experience there; the link between state care and long-term incarceration; and the inter- generational effects.
(i) The RC must have an easily understood framework
(ii) The RC should hear testimonies of state and non-state abuse
• The focus to date has been children in state care, ie children taken from their parents and whanau and placed in residential homes, short-term homes, hospitals, orphanages, foster homes, ‘wilderness’ programmes, or other placements. There is recognition of all forms of abuse and neglect in this context, the lack of monitoring or accountability, and the disproportionate and inter-generational effects on Maori. The hui agreed that these were significant aspects of the RC’s focus.
Service/Corrections. In addition, it was common for children to be abused while in Police custody.
for wider services for victims of trauma.
include a survivor(s), and someone with lived experience of
disabilities. Appointments should be broadly supported by survivors.
in order to: (i) include those with the right skills and attributes; and
(ii) conduct hearings in a timely manner.
VÏCÊi fTl S.
survivors.
focused.
Annex 4
Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse
in State Care
Submission on Government’s draft terms of reference
24 April 2018
Prepared by Sonja Cooper, Dr Anaru Erueti, Rosslyn Noonan and Dr Elizabeth Stanley
DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE—
Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care
These draft terms of reference have been prepared by Sonja Cooper, Dr Anaru Erueti, Rosslyn Noonan and Dr Elizabeth Stanley as a submission to the Royal Commission on the draft Terms of Reference (ToR) released by Government on 1 February 2018.
They differ from the Government’s ToR in the following key areas:
Requiring that the Royal Commission give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in its structure and ways of working.
BACKGROUND
2. The Human Rights Commission and the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called for this matter to be the subject of an independent inquiry. The Government has accepted the task by establishing the Royal Commission.
To reflect this expanded timeframe the word "historical" has been removed from the title of the Royal Commission.
3. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care is conducted under the Inquiries Act 2013. The Commission has the authority to come to its own independent conclusions and recommendations.
TREATY OF WAITANGI
HUMAN RIGHTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
9. The Inquiry shall examine, identify, and report on the following
9.1 The nature and extent of the abuse that occurred in care during the relevant period. This will include abuse suffered by an individual in a family / whanau placement, when the state had notice of that abuse.
9.2 The impact of the abuse on individuals and their families, whanau, hapu and iwi and other communities. In considering this, the Inquiry is invited to consider both the immediate impacts, as well as longer-term and intergenerational impacts; and to give particular consideration to any groups where differential impact is evident.
9.3 The circumstances that led to the decision to take or place someone into state care, and the factors that may have contributed to the decision-making process involved, including racial discrimination;
9.4 The factors which may have caused or contributed to the abuse of individuals in state care during the relevant period, including any structu ra I a nd systemic factors, legislation, policies and practices identified; and the agencies ultimately accountable for the abuse;
9.5 How official responses, political decisions, investigations, and criminal or civil proceedings have dealt with complaints of abuse;
9.6 Any general findings which will inform changes in practice;
9.7 Any limitations in the current settings available to prevent and respond to abuse in state care including standards, supports and oversight mechanisms that assist in preventing and responding to abuse;
9.8 The redress and monetary compensation processes for individuals who claim, or have claimed, abuse while in state care, including statutory, policy or administrative barriers and the Crown’s response to litigation;
- 9.9 Improvements to the redress processes warranted. 2
Other matters arising
2 The term “redress" covers monetary processes (for example, settlement processes) and non-monetary processes or services (for example, rehabilitation). For the avoidance of doubt, existing claims processes will continue to operate during the course of the Inquiry’s work. The Inquiry may, in accordance with paragraph 19 below, examine these processes and issue interim reports or recommendations.
DEFINITIONS
Abuse
applicable domestic and international standards.^
State care
was in state care at any time during their lifetime and up to 1 February 2018 inclusive, irrespective of whether they were a child, young person or an adult at the time.
APPOINTMENTS
13. All senior staff must be individuals who have no prior relationships with the agencies involved with, or accountable for, the neglect and abuse, or in previous responses to claimants.
See for example, the definition given in s14(1)(a) Orang a Tamariki Act 1989.
This includes situations in which the state has delegated, licensed, or in any other way contracted out or passed on its decision-making authority or care functions to another (including private) individual, entity, or service provider. In this regard, the Inquiry shall have regard to situations in which the State did or may have had functional or legal responsibility for an individual, but placed him or her in the immediate physical care of another. The Inquiry should also hear evidence from individuals who were left with or returned to family / whanau, in circumstances where the state was aware of abuse. The Inquiry shall, therefore, have regard to applicable domestic and international law concerning effective jurisdiction and control in the course of its work.
PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF WORK
Principles
Methods of work
for its work may include (but are not limited to):
advisory or research functions to support the Inquiry;
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
shall consider the following deliverables: 7
Findings and recommendations may concern, for example, legislative, administrative, policy, practice, or procedural change.
COMMENCEMENT OF WORK AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
evidence from [TBC].
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/NZLFRRp/2018/2.html