Skip to main content Skip to navigation within this section
Abuse in Care - Royal Commission of Inquiry

Abuse in Care - Royal Commission of Inquiry

This Royal Commission is an independent inquiry into abuse in state care and in the care of faith-based institutions in Aotearoa New Zealand.

  • Reports Ngā pūrongo
    • Whanaketia
    • Stolen Lives, Marked Souls
    • Beautiful Children: Inquiry into the Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit
    • He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu from Redress to Puretumu Torowhānui
    • Tāwharautia: Interim Report
    • Administrative Report
  • Survivors Ngā purapura ora
    • Survivor experiences
    • Survivor videos
    • Getting help and support
  • Research and engagement Rangahau me ngā tūhonhono
    • How people engaged with the Inquiry
    • Public hearings
    • Research
    • Evidence library
  • Background material Ngā raupapa tuara
    • About the Royal Commission
    • Inquiry team
    • Advisory groups and reference groups
    • Quarterly reports
    • Timeline
    • Questions and answers
    • Pānui
    • News
  • Document library Kohinga tuhinga
    • Document library
    • Case studies
    • Recommendations
    • Summaries and guides
Quick Exit
AdobeStock 101472581
  • Home
  • Reports
  • He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu from Redress to Puretumu Torowhānui
  • Advocacy and financial help hit and miss
Listen

Advocacy and financial help hit and miss

Survivors’ experiences of legal assistance and advocacy varied. Some had dedicated legal help from lawyers well versed in abuse in care cases. Others struggled to find lawyers with experience, and as a result occasionally ended up accepting unnecessarily small settlements. Some were offered help with the cost of legal advice, others not. Some chose to seek legal aid, while others were deterred by the prospect of the debt they would be left with. Still others relied on family members and counsellors to help them get and interpret records and lodge claims. All of this placed pressure on claimants’ time, energy and resources. Institutions, meanwhile, had plenty of all three. Faith-based institutions were inconsistent about contributing to legal costs.

Some survivors said they were encouraged to get independent legal advice, while others said they were not. Those who did get advice sometimes didn’t fully understand the meaning of agreements they signed. One survivor said she was so angry when she received her settlement offer from the Ministry of Social Development that she did not read the agreement closely and didn’t see a lawyer about what the offer meant. “I don’t remember [the ministry] telling me that I should see a lawyer.”

Mrs N, who was sexually abused at an Anglican school, said she didn’t have a lawyer and wasn’t offered legal advice. She asked to have her counsellor as her support person, but the church would not pay the cost and so she ended up with a church-nominated person – an outcome she found damaging.

Deaf and disabled survivors often rely on advocacy services when navigating redress processes. Some face extra difficulties in finding a lawyer who is familiar with issues facing disabled people. Current processes do not provide the access to advocacy services required to enable disabled survivors to have control and choice as they navigate redress processes, and to ensure equitable outcomes for disabled survivors. James Packer, who is Deaf and has Asperger’s syndrome, said an advocate might have assisted him at the outset of his claim with the Ministry of Education. He said he knew nothing about how to make a claim and could not go to any designated organisation or person for support.

No institution routinely offered survivors financial advice about what to do with their settlement money, something that would have been highly useful for some survivors who had struggled to manage money well for most of their lives. Mark Goold said he was not offered any financial advice, but simply asked for his bank account number. Kathleen O’Connor also said she received no offer of financial advice, but felt strongly that organisations such as ACC and the Ministry of Social Development should offer budgeting advice to people who received payments. The Ministry of Social Development and Oranga Tamariki said they put claimants in touch with financial advisory services on a case-by-case basis. The other agencies and faith-based institutions said they did not offer financial advice with their settlement payments.

 

Next: Lack of independence or independent review

1-1-introduction-10
  • 2.5: Survivors’ experiences of State and faith redress processes
  • Māori faces and tikanga values nowhere to be seen
  • Pacific survivors’ culture overlooked
  • Redress unobtainable for most Deaf and disabled people
  • Survivors feel without a voice in way redress processes work
  • Survivors feel left in the dark by inadequate information and contact
  • Lack of manaakitanga through stressful process
  • Advocacy and financial help hit and miss
  • Lack of independence or independent review
  • Frustration at lack of accountability
  • Failure to take preventive action and make system change
  • Long delays a cause of frustration
  • Apologies not meaningful
  • Financial payments are inadequate
  • Redress was inadequate to restore mana or oranga
  • No ability to respond to harm to whānau
  • Survivors felt powerless
  • Redress processes have caused further harm
Site Logo Light
Connect with us
  • Find us on Facebook


    • Legal Menu
      • Privacy policy
      • Terms
      • Accessibility
      • Contact us
    • Ngā pūrongo Reports
      • Whanaketia
      • Stolen Lives, Marked Souls
      • Beautiful Children
      • He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu
      • Tāwharautia: Pūrongo o te Wā
      • Administrative report
    • Ngā purapura ora Survivors
      • Getting help and support
      • Questions and answers
      • Survivor stories
    • Rangahau me ngā tūhonhono Research and engagement
      • How people engaged with the Inquiry
      • Public hearings
      • Research
    • Te tuara me tōna raupapa Background and material
      • About the Royal Commission
      • Inquiry team
      • Advisory Groups and Reference Groups
      • Quarterly reports
      • Timeline
      • Pānui
    • Kohinga tuhinga Document library
      • Document Library
      • Case studies
      • Recommendations
      • Summaries and guides

    © 2025 Abuse in Care - Royal Commission of Inquiry