New Zealand Royal Commission Report

In February 2018 the New Zealand Government established a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate what happened to children, young people and adults in State care and in the care of faith-based institutions in New Zealand between 1950 and 1999. On 25 June 2024 the Inquiry presented its Final Report “Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light” to the Governor-General.

The Commission was focused on institutions – places where people lived in care, including detention centres, special schools (e.g. deaf children), and also considered the impact on ethnic/demographic groups. The conclusions and recommendations are also applicable to non-residential-care situations, such as friends and workers meetings, conventions, social events etc.

The Commission found that the prevalence of abuse in faith-based care was worse than in state care. “As many as 42 percent of those in faith-based care…were abused.” Many more were exploited or neglected. And religious beliefs were often used to justify abusive actions and silence survivors.

The Summary Report on abuse and neglect in faith-based care provides a wealth of insights into the dynamics of abuse in faith-based institutions. Below are just a few excerpts, with paragraph numbers:

• “Sexual abuse within a spiritual or religious context severely damaged survivors’ ability to find spiritual security anywhere with their spiritual and religious beliefs, and the concept of a loving God was radically altered, if not destroyed.” (¶ 14)
• “Faith based care settings had some unique factors that contributed to abuse and neglect…and created barriers to disclosure. These factors included the misuse of religious power, the moral authority and status of faith leaders…sexism and negative perceptions of women…the interpretation of sexual abuse through the lens of sin and forgiveness.” (¶ 16)
• “Oversight and monitoring of faith-based institutions providing care was lacking, both in terms of external oversight…and internal oversight by the faiths themselves. Most faith-based institutions were not held to account and few lessons were learned…” (¶ 18)
• “In many instances, others were aware of, or even facilitated abuse and neglect… Children and young people who disclosed abuse were often disbelieved and punished. The status and perceived trustworthiness of clergy and religious leaders in society played a crucial role in people not believing survivors or intervening in abuse.” (¶ 68)
• “Underpinning much of this abuse…was an abuse of religious and spiritual teaching and authority.” (¶ 69)
• “Religious leaders were not only powerful but also trusted and respected… This enabled abuse to occur, and intensified barriers to reporting. This status, combined with the importance of obedience in faith-based care settings, often made it difficult for survivors to identify abuse or question the abusive behavior… Abusers used their status and ‘closeness to God’ as a means of silencing survivors.” (¶ 79)
• “Many staff and carers who witnessed abuse and neglect, or were told about it, did nothing.” (¶ 149)
• “Most faith-based institutions also failed to take accountability for abuse and neglect of children, young people and adults in their care.” (¶ 153)
• “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.” (¶ 158)
• “Faith-based settings had unique barriers to reporting abuse or making complaints. 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.” (¶ 165)
• “These barriers to disclosure mean many survivors will never report their abuse, increasing the risk of further abuse being able to occur.” (¶ 167)
• “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…” (¶ 168)
• “Prescribed gender roles and the absolute authority of males within faith-based institutions contributes to the occurrence of abuse and failed responses.” (¶ 173)
• “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.” (¶ 193)
• “Most faith-based institutions failed to take accountability for abuse and neglect of children, young people and adults in their care.” (¶ 194)

---

There are 138 detailed recommendations. Extracts of some that are especially pertinent to the friends and workers are:

[3] Public acknowledgments and apologies for historical abuse and neglect in the care of the State (both direct and indirectly provided care) and faith-based institutions should be made to survivors, their whanau (family) and support networks by the most senior leaders of all faith-based institutions …

[8] The government should take all practicable steps, including incentives and, if necessary, compulsion, to ensure that faith-based institutions and indirect care providers join the puretumu torowhānui (holistic redress) system and scheme once it is established.

[22] The Solicitor-General should amend the suite of prosecution guidelines to

a. include a requirement that those making decisions about whether to prosecute, and which charges to file, act consistently with New Zealand’s international human rights obligations and other relevant international law obligations (including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People)

b. include, in relation to the evidential test for prosecution, a requirement that those making assessments on the credibility and quality of a complainant’s evidence recognise the potential for their own bias, obtain relevant expert advice where necessary, and provide appropriate accommodations where necessary

[54] The senior leaders of all State and faith-based entities providing care directly or indirectly to children, young people and adults should take active steps to create a positive safeguarding culture, including by:

a. designating a safeguarding lead with sufficient seniority

b. supporting the prevention, identification and disclosure of abuse and neglect

c. ensuring the entity providing care directly or indirectly complies with its health and safety obligations

d. protecting whistleblowers and those who make good-faith notifications

e. ensuring accountability for those who fail to comply with safeguarding obligations

f. prioritising and supporting training and professional development in safeguarding and in abuse and neglect in care including the topics set out in Recommendation 63

g. actively promoting a culture that values all children, young people and adults in care and addresses all forms of discrimination

h. ensuring there are sufficient resources for safeguarding

i. identifying and correcting harmful attitudes and beliefs, such as the disbelief or mistrust of complainants or racist or ableist actions and beliefs

j. ensuring there is adequate data collection and information on abuse and neglect in care, including relevant data on ethnicity and disability, to allow analysis and reporting

k. learning from any incidents and allegations

l. publicly reporting on the matters including any issues arising in relevant annual reports.

[65] All State and faith-based entities providing care directly or indirectly to children, young people and adults in care and relevant professional registration bodies should ensure they have appropriate policies and procedures in place to respond in a proportionate way to complaints, disclosures or incidents of abuse and neglect,…..

Recommendations 89-110 are relevant to all faith-based entities providing care. Particularly relevant are:

[89] All faith-based entities that provide activities or services of any kind, under the auspices of a particular religious denomination or faith, through which adults have contact with children, young people or adults in care, should comply with the Care Safety Principles (Recommendation 39), the National Care Safety Strategy (Recommendation 40) and all statutory requirements under the Care Safety Act (Recommendation 45), including care standards, accreditation and vetting.

[94] All faith-based entities should ensure that religious leaders are accountable to an appropriate authority or body, such as a board of management or council, for the decisions they make with respect to preventing and responding to abuse and neglect in care.

---

Standard of Proof for Claims

Note: This section relates to financial claims. A different standard may be appropriate for initially responding to credible allegations and deciding how to deal with an accused perpetrator.

The Commission considered what standards of proof to apply when making a decision on a claim. The legal concept of ‘standard of proof’ means the degree to which a survivor must prove their claim for the scheme to accept it. The three options considered were:

• balance of probabilities: a claim is more likely than not to be true (the standard of proof applied in civil litigation)
• reasonable likelihood: a claim is not fanciful or remote and is more than merely plausible
• plausibility: a claim is apparently reasonable or probable without necessarily being so.

In the Commission’s view, the scheme’s starting point for assessing any standard or brief claim should be belief in the survivor. If nothing is raised during the claims process to give reason to doubt the survivor’s account, whether about the abuse, the harm suffered or the link between the two, the scheme should accept the survivor’s claim.

Poem by survivor Ms MC

---