News

Include churches in state care abuse inquiry: Becroft

New Zealand’s Government-appointed advocate for children says religious organisations should be included in the upcoming Royal Commission of Inquiry into abuse in State care. Newer cases should also be heard. Teuila Fuatai reports.

Just a month before the Government announced its proposed terms for its inquiry into abuse in state care, the number of children in the system ticked past 6000.

A record high, the April figure made headlines alongside news that Oranga Tamariki - formerly Child, Youth and Family - was struggling to find enough caregivers to meet demand.

Children’s Commissioner and former Youth Court judge Andrew Becroft commented at the time :

“Historically, I think the confidence in the old Child, Youth and Family from the community had just about broken down. I think Oranga Tamariki knew that - I think April 1 last year was just a start date to begin change.”

Becroft, whose office is mandated to oversee the care system and problems within it, believes that “change” - and others rolled out since 2000 - must be tested. The upcoming Royal Commission of Inquiry into State care provides an opportunity to do this, he said in his submission on its draft terms of reference. The submission was released to Newsroom under the Official Information Act.

The Inquiry has a proposed 50-year time frame, ending December 31, 1999, in its draft terms of reference.The Government previously said the end date was based on the implementation of more than 10 pieces of legislation, beginning in the late 1980s. Those legislative changes were made in response to significant problems identified in the care system, and the 1999 cut-off allowed sufficient time for them to take practical effect, Minister for Children Tracey Martin explained at the May announcement.

However, Becroft rejected that analysis: “The 1999 cut-off is, it seems to me, an arbitrary line without a clear justification". Preferably, those under state care up to 2010, and who were no longer in care - with discretion to consider even more recent cases - should be included, he said.

“It is often asserted, on the basis of little evidence, that ‘things have improved’ and that in recent times the incidence of abuse in state care has reduced.”

“Incorporating those individuals who were more recently in state care would provide a more complete picture of whether standards and practices have changed, and if so, in what ways," Becroft said. "In particular, it would usefully inform an assessment of whether the range of mechanisms introduced since 2000 have had a meaningful impact on the welfare of those in state care.”

He also pointed out that if the “key drivers of abuse” had been addressed since 2000, then extending the Inquiry’s timeframe past 1999 would not “create any additional workload”.

“If that is not the case, that is in itself a crucial finding, and the Inquiry should be permitted to make findings to that effect."

The issue of whether to include church-run care facilities - which featured prominently in Australia’s inquiry into child sex abuse in institutions - was also discussed in Becroft’s submission. At the moment, the draft terms for the Inquiry limit its scope to individuals abused while under state care - excluding those who may have attended a church-run institution alongside state care children and been abused.

Becroft called the distinction “unhelpfully oblique”. “For example ... it appears a child attending a church-run school where abuse took place could report this abuse, if, at the time he or she was also a state ward. But, the child who sat next to him/her, and was also abused at the school by the same perpetrator, could not.”

That did not seem to be in the best interests of either child, he commented.

“Without the evidence of both children, now adults, the Inquiry would not be able to determine the full extent of abuse, its impact and its drivers.”

Becroft suggested two ways to mitigate the apparent inequity. First, the Inquiry could include all institutions in which children who were in state care were placed. That would result in it being open to consider abuse from anyone who attended institutions which state care children attended.

Alternatively, it could invite churches to conduct an initial, “stage one process” that mapped out the extent of abuse in its institutions, the impact of that abuse and the possible factors that had caused and enabled it. Becroft noted that, should this option be taken, the church-led inquiry process needed to be have the same resources and standards in place as one led by the inquiry panel, ensuring confidentiality and support for participants was consistent.

Sonja Cooper, whose law firm Cooper Legal represents more than 900 people with claims of abuse under state care, advanced on Becroft’s opposition to the proposed 1999 cut-off date – highlighting how significant the chosen timeframe would be for those expected to go before the Inquiry.

“The cut-off is arbitrary and gives rise to an unfortunate perception that it serves to protect people who may still be in the civil service or Government now,” she told Newsroom.

It did not have a good evidential basis, and the legislative changes in the late 1980s “did not significantly change the experiences of children in care at that time and do not provide a good enough reason to exclude people in the care system after that date”.

In her firm’s submission on the draft terms of reference, Cooper - whose youngest client alleging abuse while under state care is just 17 - has recommended extending the Inquiry’s timeframe to April 2017, when Oranga Tamariki was formed. To ensure as many cases of abuse were heard, she also suggested the Inquiry declare it would hear all claims of abuse from those under state care, unless they were currently in the system.

That approach covered off Becroft’s reasoning behind his 2010 cut-off date – that those currently in state care have access to a complaints process,- she said. It also gave as many people as possible the opportunity to participate in the Inquiry.

The extended timeframe would also highlight “the inter-generational issues that we see with our clients where we are now acting for three generations of the same family”. Importantly, it would also be the most effective way to impact current social work practice, Cooper added.

The Inquiry's final terms of reference are expected to be announced next month. Cabinet is currently considering a report from inquiry chair Sir Anand Satyanand on the submissions responding to the draft terms of reference. More than 400 submissions were received, including Becroft’s and Cooper Legal’s.

Read more:

State care abuse inquiry urged to widen scope

What a Royal Commission could mean for the system