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
  • Lack of independence or independent review
Listen

Lack of independence or independent review

Many survivors said they did not trust the organisations they went to for redress to treat them fairly because those same organisations were responsible for the abuse they had suffered. This applied even if the organisation no longer existed, but its responsibilities and liabilities were transferred to a new organisation. Many said they simply could not accept that these organisations could be impartial or manage the conflicts of interest well. Instead, they viewed redress processes as designed to defend organisations’ reputation and interests – and sometimes to defend the abuser. James Packer said it was “impossible for claimants to truly feel the process is fair and impartial”.

Many survivors said they did not want to have anything to do with the institution in which they were abused but, without any independent way for redress, other than the courts, they had no choice. Frances Tagaloa said she found it “strange to me that I had to go back to the Marist Brothers, to the very organisation that allowed the abuse to happen ... to try and see if they would fix it”. Keith Wiffin said the lack of independence completely undermined the integrity of the claims process. He said the Ministry of Social Development had a “very high threshold” to prove claims, and its starting point was to be “suspicious and disbelieving” of claimants and “protective of its own staff, even those with criminal convictions for abusing children”.

Mary Marshall, who suffers from depression since her abuse as a child and teenager, said there was a “clear bias and an unwillingness by Catholics to believe a Catholic nun could ever engage in such heinous crimes”.

Wiremu Waikari told us he found “the redress process to be a bit like a slap in the face. It’s like being retraumatised. MSD locked us up back then and now they want to shut the book on what all the workers that were hired by them did to us. There’s no transparency because MSD are assessing themselves. To me, MSD having that level of power is not on”.

Cooper Legal, speaking for the many claimants it had represented over the years, said there could be no real accountability while agencies “placed themselves in the position of information provider, information assessor, Judge, actuary and service provider”.

Survivors said they found the absence of any independent review or appeal mechanisms unfair because it left them with two unpalatable choices: either take the offer as presented or take the claim to court. As Phillipa Wilson discovered, the Ministry of Social Development will consider reviewing an offer internally – but at a cost. She said the ministry told her it would have to go through the claim “with a fine-tooth comb” and this “would probably take another four years at least and there was a chance the settlement offer would decrease”.

Survivors said the ministry was unwilling to review settlements after they had agreed to them, even when new information had come to light about the abuse or abuser. They said this was unfair. One survivor participated in the ministry’s fast-track process, and said it was only fair that claims settled in this way should be open to review.

 

Next: Frustration at lack of accountability

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