Abuse in Care: Ministry of Social Development fronts royal commission as first witnesses take the stand

Monday, 15 August 2022

Public Service minister Chris Hipkins addresses the interim report of findings by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State and Faith-based Care that was released in December 2020. (Video first published in December 2020)

It’s decades later and technology has improved, but the Ministry of Development is still making the same mistakes, the Royal Commission of Inquiry has heard.

Since the Abuse in Care Commission’s inception in 2019, there have been 117 days of public hearings. Thousands of witnesses have come forward and more than 1 million documents have been sourced.

In the next two weeks, 43 witnesses from 14 Crown agencies responsible for state care will answer questions from the commission, but for survivors and the commission’s Survivor Advisory Group, the burning question on their minds is why.

Why were so many abused, sexually, physically, mentally and spiritually, under the Crown’s care? Why were they ignored when they raised concerns? Why were so many neglected, placed in care institutions and forgotten about? Why were they taken from their homes, stripped of their cultural connections and their whānau?

* Abuse in care: Children's Commissioner urges government to re-instate breadth of inquiry

Survivor Advisory Group member Keith Wiffin wants answers from the agencies that failed him and countless others.

* Royal Commission launches separate probe into Marylands abuse

Keith Wiffin, a member of the advisory group and survivor himself, said he wanted answers for the treatment of his fellow survivors, then and now.

Rachael Schmidt-McCleave, Crown counsel for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care said agency representatives would be open and honest across the hearing.

“The question I always ask is, how could this have possibly happened? That is a question that all survivors deserve to hear answered.

“I want to hear openness, transparency and honesty.”

In her opening statement, Crown counsel Rachael Schmidt-McCleave told the commission the witnesses fronting their agencies would answer these questions and any others posed by the panel to the best of their ability.

“We have heard, we have listened, and we have believed,” Schmidt-McCleave said.

But as the witnesses representing the Ministry of Social Development took the stand, historical and contemporary issues of listening and believing allegations of abuse came under fire.

A list of alleged perpetrators of abuse held by commission counsel Anne Toohey showed how the agency's monitoring of the facilities had failed.

At Horowhenua’s Kohitere Boys Training Centre there were 228 complaints made to the ministry, covering 812 allegations of abuse including sexual, physical and emotional abuse.

These numbers were similar across the nearby Hokio Beach School and Epuni Boys’ Home.

It spreads over decades, Toohey said, and those that have been named have pages of allegations against them.

Debbie Power, chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development, tells the royal commission that in some cases the ministry could do better.

Send your tips, story ideas and comments to poutiaki@stuff.co.nz

The ministry’s chief executive Debbie Power told the commission there were better policies in place today designed to tackle complaints that arose.

However, Toohey challenged Power to explain how a person who has numerous allegations against their name could be working in a youth justice facility today if the policies were working.

Person A, who continues to work in state care, had 26 allegations of abuse which began to be reported to the ministry in 2006, Toohey said.

Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse of Care chairperson Judge Coral Shaw challenged whether children were central to Ministry of Social Development processes.

The ministry attempted to investigate the allegations, but “for various reasons couldn’t take it further at the time”.

“The allegations are summarised in this table as being physically abusive. This person would beat up boys while they were doing physical training, would kick, punch and clothesline boys, set up fights between boys.”

Although the man had three complaints upheld against him, he had been employed again in 2009, and was transferred to a different youth justice facility in 2015 where he remains a staff member.

Toohey asked Power: “Would the ministry accept that this represents a major failing?”

Power wouldn’t say it was a failing, rather that it was a situation where “we didn’t do our best work at the time in relation to dealing with that particular complaint and that is hugely unfortunate”.

Power said when allegations are made, two streams begin, one being an employment matter and the other the care of the child. Due to the man’s employment being under another organisation, her hands were tied.

“What I can say is that we did make referrals in relation to Person A … general information in 2019 in 2020 and 2021.”

However, Judge Coral Shaw questioned which person the process was protecting, the claimant or the alleged perpetrator.

“What is prevailing here? Is the protection of the child prevailing or is it the protection of the employment status prevailing?”

In short, it’s complicated, Power said.

“Absolutely we would want the protection of the child to be at the centre, all I’m simply saying is, we also have an employment process we have to go through.”

The hearing continues.