Apologies not meaningful
Some survivors said they received sincere apologies, but far more said they did not. Apologies were not sincere, did not genuinely acknowledge the abuse, and did not come from sufficiently senior individuals within the organisation. Survivors wanted an apology that was specific to their circumstances and culturally appropriate, not a generic one with a few adjustments. They also wanted genuine expressions of remorse and acceptance of responsibility for the harm done. Some, as discussed earlier, wanted apologies delivered in forms and at locations that were meaningful to them.
Many survivors said apology letters lacked personal details and appeared to be adaptations of template documents. One survivor said she was so angry with her letter of apology she threw it in the fire.
“You could tell it was a generic letter. It didn’t have any personal details, it just apologised for my experience. I felt like another statistic. How many of those letters did they send out? How many photocopies of those letters did they make?”
Another survivor said he doubted “the guy who signs the apology letters even looks at them”. Kevin England said his apology was a standard form letter that lacked any accountability and he read it just once. Chassy Duncan said his apology was cold and detached and felt like it had been “copied … from a Google template … it didn’t carry any weight”. Roy Takiaho said his apology “was a piece of paper [with] a bit of writing on it … that meant nothing to me”.
Survivors were more likely to find apology letters meaningful if they had input into the wording. Gloria White told us the Salvation Army amended its letter at her request, which left her feeling supported and listened to. But other survivors said they had no opportunity for such input. Wi Waikari said that what he wanted was an apology to his family, but he was not offered any opportunity to ask for that.
Survivors said apology letters used language that was careful to avoid any legal responsibility. To their mind, this minimised the abuse. Frankie Vegas said her letter of apology was extremely circumspect and “said something along the lines of, ‘things like that should never happen to children in care’, but they never said what ‘that’ is”. Georgina Sammons said representatives from the Ministry of Social Development apologised to her at a settlement conference in such empty words that “it felt like they didn’t even know what they were apologising for … I was so upset and angry. I just remember sobbing”.
Some survivors wanted apologies from government officials in positions of real authority, such as the responsible Minister, the Prime Minister or Governor-General. Some Catholic survivors also wanted someone highly ranked, such as the diocesan bishop, to give an apology.
