Hē nō te Kāwanatanga
State oversight

101.   Private schools have been required to register since 1921, with the focus of registration being on the concept of ‘efficiency’.^[588]

102.   During the Faith Institutional Response Hearing in October 2022, the State spoke to the requirement for compulsory registration of all private schools, where the sponsoring Ministering had stated:

“In introducing the requirement for compulsory registrations [of private schools] ... the Government feels that it is not sufficient that we should allow any person to open a school in any sort of building and with any sort of instructions. To the children who attend these private schools the Government owes some duty to see that the schools are reasonably efficient, just as in the case of nursing-home, private hospitals, dentists and plumbers we insist on registration to protect the public and secure efficiency.

The concept of efficiency meant the:

Premises, staff, equipment and curriculum of the school are suitable; that the instruction afforded therein is as efficient as in a public school of the same class; that suitable provision is made for the inculcation in the minds of the pupils of sentiments of patriotism and loyalty.”^[589]

103.   As a registered private school, Marylands received State funding from the Department of Education.^[590] It also received funding from the Department of Health and the Department of Social Welfare.^[591] The State placed children into care at Marylands. At the hearing, the State said that, while it is sometimes talked about and thought of as a single unified entity, its statutory roles and responsibilities were owed by various State agencies.^[592] There has never been a single definitive statement of the State’s responsibilities towards children at private, faith-based schools such as Marylands.^[593]

104.   Hebron Trust was accredited by, and received funding from, the Community Funding Agency, which was part of the Department of Social Welfare.^[594] Hebron liaised with State agencies in Christchurch, including police and courts, about the care of at-risk young people.

Ngā whakaurutanga, me te korenga o te Te Tari o te Ora i whai i ngā aroturukitanga 
Placements and failure of monitoring by Department of Social Welfare

105.   Once children were placed at Marylands by the State, there was little ongoing monitoring or oversight to ensure the children were happy and thriving. It appears neither the Child Welfare Division of the Department of Education or the Department of Social Welfare carried out any audits or inspections of Marylands School.^[595]

106.   No cultural issues were considered when the State placed tamariki Māori at Marylands.^[596]

107.   During the Marylands public hearing, Mr Galvin of Oranga Tamariki confirmed he was also not aware of any policy that required a social worker to assess the accessibility of the school grounds and facilities before placing State wards with physical disabilities that affected their mobility.^[597]

108.   It was acknowledged by Mr Galvin that when policy relating to placement of State wards was in place, such as the explicit direction to obtain parental consent when placing a protestant ward of the State into a Catholic institution, it wasn’t always followed. Alan Nixon, for example, was Protestant but was placed as a State ward at Marylands without his parents’ consent as the policy required.^[598]

109.   Typically, each child placed at Marylands by the State had a child welfare officer or social worker in their home district,^[599] and the local Christchurch District Office acted as a ‘go between’ for the school and the home district officer.^[600] It appears that the home district officers were responsible for visiting and reporting on the child,^[601] and the Christchurch District Office was responsible for arranging annual progress reports from the school and providing these to the home district officer.^[602]

110.   At a bare minimum, home district officers were required to visit State wards once every four months.^[603] It seems that a sliding scale was anticipated. At the beginning of a placement, it was expected there might be weekly visits, which would then perhaps be reduced to fortnightly visits.^[604] A review of a sample of files showed the number of visits by social workers met the minimum of three visits per year on average. However, it is the Inquiry’s view that a policy of only three visits per year was grossly inadequate and proved ineffective in detecting abuse. 

111.    The social workers’ monitoring ‘visits’ did not always take place at Marylands.^[605] They could also take place in the home district when the child was home for holidays, and it seems that most did.^[606] Although the policy anticipated that visits would occur every three months, the reality was that the visits were geared around the school holidays.^[607] There might be two ‘visits’ over the course of the holidays, and then no further visits for a long time after that.^[608]

112.   Social workers did visit Marylands on occasion, but they did not always see every child on their caseload, and they rarely spoke to the children without a brother present.^[609] There was no guidance that the child had to be spoken to away from the brothers.^[610]

113.   The State says that there was no requirement for children who did not have formal legal status with the Child Welfare Division or the Department of Social Welfare to be visited at all.^[611] One survivor, Danny Akula, said:

“In terms of my placement at Marylands, MSD said that it had found no practice failures or breaches of Child Welfare’s duty of care. This was because I was not under any formal status
at the time of my placement …

… Cooper Legal took issue with MSD’s tendency to absolve itself of any liability on the basis that during particular periods I did not have any status, and therefore Social Welfare was not required to do anything. Cooper Legal pointed out that this was a completely self-serving argument which had been run every time there had been a trial about the extent of the Department’s duty of care. Cooper Legal pointed out that such arguments had failed in previous cases before the courts.”^[612]

Te korenga o te Rangapū i whakautu i ngā whakapae tūkino i te Kura o Marylands    
Failure by the Order to act on allegations of abuse at Marylands School

114.   From the late 1970s through to the early 2000s, the Order or other church figures were told of numerous allegations against brothers at Marylands, but in nearly all cases failed to act on them. Brothers McGrath and Moloney were mentioned most frequently in these allegations. In late 1977, church authorities transferred Brothers McGrath and Moloney to Australia and the Vatican respectively. They would both later be convicted of sexual crimes against Marylands boys over many years. The experience with Brothers McGrath and Moloney is not the only example of the Order’s failure to act.

115.   The timeline below sets out a summary of the allegations we know came to the Order’s attention but were ignored.

i.           In 1977, the Order received two anonymous letters alleging abuse by Brother McGrath and Brother Moloney. The Order’s Provincial, Brother Brian O’Donnell, concluded the allegations could not be substantiated and had the letters destroyed “because of the harm [they] could do”.

ii.         In 1977, Brother Timothy Boxall received a phone call from a sister who worked in the hospital saying Brother McGrath was sexually abusing boys. He says he passed on the allegation to Brother O’Donnell.

iii.        Also in 1977, a lay teacher at Marylands told Brother WW that Brother McGrath was sexually abusing boys. Brother WW says he told Brother O’Donnell about the allegation.

iv.        In 1983, Brother DQ was transferred from Australia to Aotearoa New Zealand after reports of abuse in Australia. Reports of abuse were made against that same brother relating to his time at Marylands and he was transferred back to Australia (leaving the Order shortly after).

v.         In October 1993, the Order’s data records that former Marylands student Brian Uttinger reported that Brother Moloney had been sexually abusing him.

vi.        In December 1993, the mother of a boy who had attended Marylands in the 1970s wrote to Cardinal Thomas Williams, the Archbishop of Wellington, saying that her son had informed her that he had been sexually assaulted throughout the entire two years he had been at the school. She also said her son told her that brothers had sexually abused other boys. Cardinal Williams passed this information to the Bishop of Christchurch, Bishop Meeking,^[613] who then asked Brother Joseph Smith to “write to the person concerned indicating you have received it from the Cardinal and that the matter is being dealt with.”^[614] The Inquiry asked Brother Joseph Smith whether he recalled receiving the letter from Bishop Meeking. He replied: “I have no memory of this letter and any response I may have made to it.”^[615]

vii.      In 1997, Brother McGrath signed a statement provided to the Order that another brother had sexually abused a Marylands boy, and later identified that brother as Brother Moloney.

viii.     In December 1999, Mr HZ, a survivor of Lake Alice and Kimberley, met with members of the Dunedin Sexual Abuse Protocol Committee, including Sister Sue France from the Sisters of Mercy. Mr HZ disclosed that Brother McGrath, Brother Moloney and other brothers had sexually abused him while at Marylands. The Sexual Abuse Protocol Committee found the allegations credible. The Order signed a settlement agreement with Mr HZ in August 2000.

ix.        In July 2001, a mother of a boy who had been at Marylands left a message with the Order asking to meet the Provincial Brother Burke about her son’s experience at Marylands, asking where Brother McGrath, Brother Moloney and Brother Sebastian were living and “what changes were going to happen”. She did not have a meeting with Brother Burke until a year later, in July 2002.

x.         In December 2001, a survivor told Christchurch priest Father Paddy Cahill he had been sexually abused at Marylands. Father Cahill met Brother Burke in December 2001 to discuss the allegation.

xi.        In January 2002, Brother Burke asked to meet with two former Marylands staff members to ask if there was anything he should know about Marylands. They told him that they had had “concerns over Brother McGrath, Brother Moloney and Brother Keane”.

xii.      In March 2002, a brother told Brother Graham he had “an uncomfortable encounter” with Brother Moloney due to sexual innuendo and inappropriate touching. A second brother also says he raised concerns with Brother Graham about Brother Moloney a few months before Brother Moloney was asked to resign from his position.

xiii.     On 16 April 2002, Brother Burke and Dr Mulvihill met Brother McGrath to discuss Brother Moloney. Brother McGrath told them that Brother Moloney “was as much an offender as me” and that “backyard talk” among the brothers was that Brother Moloney was an abuser. Ten days later, Brother Moloney was asked to resign from his positions.

xiv.     In July 2002, Brother Burke met with a survivor, Mr DO, who disclosed abuse by Brother Garchow and others.^[616]

xv.      In August 2002, Brother Burke was told by a former Marylands student that Brother Garchow and other brothers had abused him.

xvi.     On 3 October 2002, Brother Burke wrote to the Bishop of Paramatta in Australia, Bishop Kevin Manning, in accordance with the process at the time for the transfer of clergy or religious operation in Australia. He said he was unaware of “any circumstances that might give rise to a complaint that Brother Raymond Garchow is likely to offend against Professional Standards”.^[617] That assurance was not withdrawn until October 2003 after police advised Brother Burke that they were charging Brother Garchow. At this time, Brother Burke withdrew Brother Garchow from ministry.

Te korenga o te Rangapū me te Tarati o Hebron i whakautu i ngā whakapae tūkino a Hebron    
Failure by the Order and Hebron Trust to act on allegations of abuse

116.   In addition to the Order’s knowledge of the allegations made in 1977, Provincial Brother Graham says the Order was aware of an allegation of abuse by Brother McGrath at Hebron in May 1992 and the Order was told of an allegation by one of the Hebron residents that Brother McGrath was abusing him. There was a further June 1992 report of abuse by Brother McGrath, who was only withdrawn from Hebron in August 1992 (after an 11 August 1992 report of abuse in Australia).^[618] He says there was a further allegation against Brother McGrath in Aotearoa New Zealand in June 1992.^[619] Neither 1992 report of abuse is included in the Order’s abuse data provided to the Inquiry.

117.    Both the Order and Hebron Trust have later misrepresented how they responded to those 1992 reports of abuse at Hebron.

118.   Cathy Harrison, Director of Hebron Trust, told the media in 1993 that Hebron Trust had “acted immediately”.^[620] This is contradicted by a 1993 article in The Press which reported that three Hebron staff had expressed concerns about the handling of abuse allegations made a year previously.”^[621]

119.   Provincial Brother Smith told the Prior General in Rome (Brother O’Donnell) in January 1994 that Brother McGrath had been convicted in Aotearoa New Zealand in December 1993. Brother Smith said:

“Before his arrest, as soon as we became aware of allegation [sic], Brother Bernard [McGrath] was removed from ministry and was admitted immediately to an appropriate treatment facility in the U.S.A. It has been a very difficult time for all concerned and I ask for your continued prayerful support.”^[622]

120.   Within a number of days after the complaint at Hebron in May 1992, Brother McGrath was back in charge at Hebron and no safeguarding measures were in place.

121.   Brother McGrath was removed from Aotearoa New Zealand three months later, on 13 August 1992. That removal was likely in response to an 11 August 1992 report of abuse against Brother McGrath in Australia. The Australian complaint resulted in the prompt dispatch of a brother from Sydney to collect Brother McGrath and bring him back to Australia.

Te mōhiotanga me te kawenga mō ngā tūkinotanga
a te Rangapū me te Hāhi Katorika 
Knowledge and accountability for abuse by the Catholic Church and the Order

Ngā reta i tuhia i te tau 1977 e whāwhākia ana ngā takakinotanga a Parata Moloney rāua ko Parata McGrath – me te korenga o te Rangapū i whakautu 
Letters written in 1977 alleging abuse against Brother Moloney and Brother McGrath – the Order failed to act

122.   The history relating to the 1977 opportunity to prevent harm has never been comprehensively told. As a result, the narrative that follows is detailed.

123.   In April 1977, Brother O’Donnell approved Brother Moloney’s nomination of Brother McGrath as sub-Prior of the Christchurch community.^[623]

124.   Brother O’Donnell gave a statement to police in June 2003, in which he referred to anonymous complaints of abuse he had received. His two interviews were in the context of police’s Operation Authority investigation.^[624] He told police about receiving a letter alleging Brothers Moloney and McGrath were abusing a boy at Marylands. He says that he received a second letter and that both letters were anonymous.^[625]

125.   Brother O’Donnell told police he considered the letters were “a malicious attempt to have the two brothers removed from the Christchurch community” and that he had destroyed them “because of the harm [the letter/s] could do”.^[626]

126.   Brother O’Donnell was asked further questions in 2016 about the letters he had destroyed. He told Catholic Church Insurers (Catholic Church Insurance Limited) and the Order’s lawyer that: “I thought it was a trouble-causing letter. I didn’t think it was based on fact and I thought it was members of staff at our school in Christchurch trying to get brothers moved on.”^[627] Brother O’Donnell did not explain why he assumed the allegations were false. He said that he did not interview either of the accused brothers, but that he did speak to Brother Moloney.^[628]

127.   On 3 September 1977 Brother O’Donnell telephoned Brother McGrath to tell him he was being transferred to Australia. Brother McGrath said this was a call “coming as a bolt in the dark.”^[629] It is likely that this call was made after Brother O’Donnell had received at least one of the anonymous letters, despite Brother O’Donnell later stating to police that he did not believe the allegations in the letters, and that the decision to move brothers away from Christchurch was due to a bad culture in the Community generally.

128.   Brother Moloney departed Marylands for Singapore and to his Vatican posting on 13 September 1977.^[630]

129.   Brother O’Donnell says he flew to Christchurch within a month of receiving the first letter.^[631] He says he received the second letter three to four weeks later.^[632] The Order’s house diary indicates that Brother O’Donnell arrived in Christchurch on 12 October 1977,^[633] after Brother Moloney had departed for Rome. Brother O’Donnell says he took part of the letter with him to Christchurch to show Brother Moloney “in the hope we could identify, what I would call disguised handwriting”.^[634]

130.   When Brother O’Donnell came to Christchurch, he took no steps to investigate the allegations. He told Catholic Church Insurance Limited: “I didn’t speak with anybody, but I examined the rolls to try and find out the address, there was some kind of indication of the suburb … but I couldn’t find any boy that had parents living in those addresses.”^[635]

131.   Brother O’Donnell says Brother Moloney concurred that it was: “a ridiculous kind of accusation to make against him given the sort of relationship that he had, he was very popular amongst the boys and just everything about his conduct was such that it seemed completely out of the blue and I think he concurred with me that it [allegations of sexual molestation] wasn’t something that was substantial.”^[636]

132.   After his visit to Christchurch, Brother O’Donnell wrote to Brother Moloney in Rome.

“I have just returned from Christchurch. … I am sure you would be pleased to hear from me that, after careful enquiries into the allegations made in relation to Marylands, I am convinced they were completely unfounded. More than that, I am equally sure they are the work of a ruthless and vindictive member of the teaching staff. You need have no further concern about that matter. It is over and done with – although I will not be surprised to have a recurrence when it suits the person involved. … It was good to hear your voice on the ‘phone the other night.”^[637]

133.   Brother O’Donnell said he never told Brother Moloney that he was the subject of an allegation. The contents of the letter quoted above are inconsistent with the suggestion that Brother Moloney was not informed that a complaint about him had been made. Brother O’Donnell has consistently advised he did not tell Brother Moloney and that the closure in this letter was “in respect of his responsibilities as Prior in Christchurch”.^[638]

134.   It is unlikely that Brother O’Donnell spoke to Brother Moloney when he visited Christchurch in October 1977, because Brother Moloney had already departed for Rome. The letter quoted above provides an update that would not be necessary if Brother O’Donnell had in fact spoken directly with Brother Moloney in Christchurch.

135.   Brother O’Donnell’s failure to report that complaint is consistent with what he told police in 2002 about how abuse allegations were dealt with in his experience. His account to police revealed a pattern of allegations of abuse which resulted in the transfer of the relevant brother to another community (the geographic cure response). Earlier in his career he had verbally informed Provincial Lynch (in about 1963 to 1965^[639]) that Brothers Berchmans (also known as Moynahan) and Donnellan had abuse allegations against them relating to Cheltenham in Australia. No written record of those allegations was made. Brother O’Donnell said those brothers were moved to another community, and also that the same pattern applied to the transfer of Brother Ephram Walsh (transferred from Cheltenham to Lillydale).^[640]His experience was that the senior leader of the time made no record of the allegations and transferred relevant individuals. His reaction to the 1977 letters was the same – no safeguarding measures were put in place, police were not informed, and no steps were taken to seek out victims and provide them with support for the trauma they had experienced.

136.   In correspondence during February 2020, Brother Timothy Graham discussed the letters destroyed by Brother O’Donnell in 1977:

“The letter sought the transfer of the brothers away from Marylands and cited incidents of alleged sexual misconduct as the basis for their transfer. The letter was anonymous, and no names were provided. It was determined that the allegations as set out in the letter could not be sustained and in the circumstances no further action was deemed appropriate.”^[641]

137.   Brother Graham made no mention of the fact the letters were destroyed or that he was relying on what Brother O’Donnell had said about the letters. There was no basis for his statement that the allegations could not be sustained, because there was no investigation.

138.   Overlapping with the 1977 letter events are discussions in which Brother WW told police what had occurred. Brother WW said a teacher had approached him saying that Brother McGrath was abusing children.

139.   He says that as he knew Brother O’Donnell was visiting in the near future, he waited to talk to Brother O’Donnell rather than speak to the Prior, Brother Moloney (because Moloney and McGrath were ‘quite close friends’).^[642] Brother WW says he spoke with Brother O’Donnell about the allegations when he arrived and was told “leave it to me”.^[643]

140.   Brother O’Donnell makes no mention of Brother WWs’ voluntary disclosure of allegations about Brother McGrath during his October 1977 visit. Neither brother appears to have made a record of this further allegation about Brother McGrath.

141.   A farewell function was held for Brother McGrath on 18 October 1977.^[644] Dr Mulvihill told police in May 2002:

“I have been advised that Bernard McGrath was moved from Marylands in 1977 because of allegations of abuse. I believe Brian O’Donnell received a letter alleging serious misconduct by a brother at Marylands. … I understand that [Moloney] organised for handwriting samples to be taken from the staff to establish the author’s identity.”^[645]

142.   Brother McGrath believes this was the reason for his transfer.^[646]

143.   As a result of the correspondence in December 1976^[647] and August 1977^[648], it appears that Brother Moloney’s transfer to Rome had been put in place sometime before Brother O’Donnell travelled to Christchurch in October 1977. The allegations against Brother Moloney did not prompt Brother O’Donnell to make any changes to Brother Moloney’s transfer to Rome.

Te whakawhitinga mai o Parata DQ ki Aotearoa Niu Tīreni i te tau 1982, whai muri i ngā whakapae tūkino ki a ia i Ahitereiria 
1982 transfer of Brother DQ to Aotearoa New Zealand, following abuse allegations against him in Australia

144.   In 1982, when Brother DQ was at Yarra View, Lilydale in Victoria, Australia, two allegations of abuse by him were received by the Order.^[649] Shortly after the second allegation, Brother DQ was transferred to the Christchurch community.

145.   Brother DQ was at Marylands for a year. The Order’s data shows that it has received two reports of abuse by Brother DQ in the 12 months he was at Marylands.^[650] Another survivor has told the Inquiry he was abused by Brother DQ but did not report this to the Order.^[651]

146.   In early 1984, there was a report to Brother Leahy of abuse by Brother DQ at Marylands. Brother Leahy told police he advised Brother Tehan of the allegation and Brother DQ was then sent back from Aotearoa New Zealand to Australia for psychiatric intervention.^[652] Brother Tehan told police that Brother Leahy told him of the allegation, but that it was Brother Leahy who transferred Brother DQ to Australia, with Brother Tehan only being asked for advice on psychiatric intervention.

147.   There do not appear to be any written records made by either brother of the allegations made relating to Brother DQ’s time at Marylands.

Te whakatau i te tau 1986 kia tukuna a Parata McGrath kia hoki ki Ōtautahi ki te whakahaere ā-tikanga kore nei i waenga o te hunga taiohi 
1986 decision to let Brother McGrath return to Christchurch to operate unsupervised among young people

148.   The Order has no record of why Brother McGrath was sent back to Christchurch in 1986. From the prosecutions of Brother McGrath in Australia, he was offending against boys in the care of the Order in Australia in the period 1977 to 1986.

149.   There is no explanation of why Brother McGrath was permitted to reside outside of the monastery at Marylands while he was ministering at Hebron. The Code of Canon Law states “Observing common life, religious are to live in their own religious house and are not to be absent from it except with the permission of their superior. If it concerns a lengthy absence from the house, however, the major superior, with the consent of the council and for a just cause, can permit a member to live outside a house of the institute, but not for more than a year, except for the purpose of caring for ill health, of studies, or of exercising an apostolate in the name of the institute”. Brother McGrath’s living arrangement usually required formal approval from Rome. The Inquiry has not seen any evidence that this occurred.^[653]

150.   Neither the Bishop nor the Order supervised Brother McGrath’s activities. The evidence of Hanz Freller, and others, is that during Brother McGrath’s time in New Zealand between 1986 and August 1992 (when he returned to Australia), the level of Brother McGrath’s violence was intense.

151.   The full extent of Brother McGrath’s abuse at Hebron Trust in this period may never be known. However, after the Order’s decision to transfer Brother McGrath back to Christchurch he went on to abuse numerous young people causing considerable harm and trauma.

Te Tariti o Hebron: Te korenga o rātou i whakautu 1992
Hebron Trust: Failures to act in 1992

Nawe mō Hebron 1992
1992 Hebron complaint

152.   Brother O’Donnell’s 2016 recollection was when allegations were made in Aotearoa New Zealand in 1992, they related to Marylands, not to the street kids’ [Hebron] ministry.^[654]

153.   Brother Terry Tehan told the Order’s Australian lawyer in 2000 that there was no documentary evidence to indicate the exact date the first complaint was made about Brother McGrath’s activities in New Zealand.^[655] Brother Tehan added
“[h]owever it was made in late May 1992 to the then Provincial Joseph Smith by the outgoing Prior, Brother Basil Maltby. Apparently in the days before travelling to Sydney in May 1992 a complainant came forward to Brother Basil [Maltby] with a formal complaint.”

154.   On 17 May 1992, Brother McGrath and Brother Maltby travelled from Christchurch to Sydney to attend the Provincial Chapter.^[656] That Chapter took place between 18 and 23 May 1992 at Marsfield and elected Brother Smith to the role of Provincial.^[657]

155.   Brothers O’Donnell’s and Tehan’s recollections are consistent with the possibility that an ex-student of Marylands had reported abuse to Brother Maltby (the then Prior) before members of the Order travelled to the Provincial Council in May 1992.^[658]

156.   Brother Smith’s 2022 evidence is that he does not know how Brother Tehan reached those conclusions.^[659]

157.   Brother McGrath has said that at the 1992 Provincial Chapter, Brother Smith told him that “a complaint had surfaced in New Zealand about my behaviour, and I was directed to return there. That allegation pertained to me touching the genitals of a male person after giving his back a massage … I denied the allegation and it was subsequently withdrawn.”^[660]

158.   Brother Smith says he does not recall being told about a complaint before or at the 1992 Provincial Council.^[661] He says, however, that he was aware of the May 1992 report of abuse, recalling he was told by Brother Maltby.^[662]

Whakapae tūkino, Mei 1992
May 1992 allegation

159.   The Order’s records indicate that the Hebron-related report of abuse by Brother McGrath was made when Brother McGrath was in Australia (his period of travel for the Provincial Council, being 17 to 26 May 1992).^[663]

160.   Sister Mary-Ellen McGuinness made notes of this complaint against Brother McGrath.^[664] She says she returned from Australia on 24 May 1992 and at 8pm that evening a Hebron colleague requested an urgent meeting with her. Sister McGuinness says she was informed at that time of an allegation against Brother McGrath. They agreed to meet Anne McCormack, Director of Catholic Social Services, the next day. Brother McGrath had been under Anne McCormack’s supervision in the early days of Hebron’s activities. It is not known whether she was formally responsible for supervising Brother McGrath in 1992.

161.   On 25 May 1992, Sister McGuinness, her colleague and Anne McCormack met. Anne McCormack advised that a meeting should be called, and staff advised, advising that “a person is innocent until proven guilty”.

162.   Brother McGrath returned to Christchurch on 26 May 1992.^[665]

163.   On 26 May 1992, there was a Hebron staff meeting where they were informed of the allegations. Brother McGrath was not present. Sister McGuinness read out her prepared notes.

“There is no evidence and I want each of you to remember that a person is innocent until that person is proved – and I underline the word proved – guilty. The person involved in this allegation is Bernard. The allegation is sexual assault. Now from the beginning I want each person here to treat this matter as highly confidential matter for the following reasons: -

A person’s good name is at stake.

That person is also the Director.

Hebron’s (the young people’s) good name is at stake.

Your jobs depend on Hebron’s good name.

This is a time of support of Hebron, of Bernard, of each other.

It is not a time for assumptions, for gossip, for imagining possibilities, or for talking amongst ourselves even.

A second reason for confidentiality is that tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, this could be you or me.

Please protect Hebron as you would wish to protect your family, yourself. Hebron (young people) and Bernard are important to each of us.

They are our bread and butter.

They are our vocation and our community.

They are our friend.

We care about Bernard and we care about Hebron.”^[666]

164.   Sister McGuinness stepped into the acting Director role for Hebron Trust on 26 May 1992.

165.   Sister McGuinness then met with Brother McGrath that same day. She received assurances from Brother McGrath “that he was not guilty”.^[667]

166.   Mr Lee Robinson says in his witness statement that Brother McGrath came into his offices in approximately May 1992, without an appointment, and said there had been allegations of sexual abuse against him from people who were working at Hebron Trust.^[668] Mr Robinson says he provided some professional advice to Brother McGrath in respect of this disclosure, but that because of client confidentiality and legal privilege, he cannot disclose what advice he gave Brother McGrath. Mr Robinson has not said whether he advised the Order of the allegation. If he did, the Order has not provided to the Inquiry any advice received at the time or its instructions to Mr Robinson.

167.   By 26 May 1992, 48 hours after the allegation was received by a senior leader at Hebron Trust, there is no evidence that consideration had been given to reporting the allegation to police. The Inquiry has not seen anything to suggest a focus on supporting the person who had come forward with the disclosure. Sister McGuinness’ messaging to staff focused on protecting Hebron and Brother McGrath’s reputation. Andrew Downs told us the staff were told: “there were people in this town who would defend Bernard to the end, including gang members, and therefore if we spoke out, lives would be taken.”^[669]

168.   Sister McGuinness’ notes record that on 28 May 1992 Brother McGrath advised her he had met with Barry Leach, as Sister McGuinness had recommended who had told Brother McGrath “next week he should just carry on as normal”. Brother McGrath resumed as Director on 28 May 1992, four days after Sister McGuinness and three days after Anne McCormack became aware of the allegation against him. This was a critical point of failure by Sister McGuinness, Anne McCormack and Brother Smith – both in his role as Provincial and as trustee of the Trust.

169.   Brother McGrath remained in ministry and in control of Hebron’s activities. The Inquiry has seen no evidence of safeguarding of the rangatahi who had contact with Brother McGrath through Hebron Trust.

170.   Sister McGuinness says that on 29 May 1992 she asked a colleague to see the complainant and “ask if he was going ahead with the allegations”.^[670] The reason for asking such a question is not explained, although it may be that there was an indication at the time that the accusation would be withdrawn. It appears the question was not answered at this time.

Hune ki te Tīhema 1992
June to December 1992

171.    Sister McGuinness says she updated Anne McCormack on 2 June 1992.^[671] There are no records of that discussion available to the Inquiry.

172.   On 4 June 1992, Sister McGuinness had a colleague ask the complainant if he wanted to continue his allegations against Brother McGrath, or did he want to withdraw them.^[672] She states the complainant decided to withdraw them.^[673]

173.   On 11 June 1992, the Hebron complainant signed a document addressed to Brother McGrath withdrawing his complaint.^[674] Brother McGrath was the only person present with the complainant when he signed the form.^[675]

174.   Sister McGuinness advised staff that the allegations against Brother McGrath were withdrawn and asked staff not to talk about it because “there were two reputations at stake”.^[676] The Inquiry believes Sister McGuinness was referring to the reputation of Hebron Trust and Brother McGrath.

175.   Brother Smith was the Provincial during this period. Evidence from his May 2022 witness statement is that nothing needed to be done in response to the complaint, because it was withdrawn.^[677] He states that he thought the complaint withdrawal was legitimate and responded on that basis. The reasons for considering the withdrawal of the allegation as legitimate are not explained by Brother Smith.^[678]

176.   On 22 June 1992, a probation officer requested a visit to discuss the allegations. Employees of the State appear to have been aware of the allegation but, again, no records appear to exist. Sister McGuinness records that the probation officer felt “the steps I had taken were correct”.^[679]

177.   Brother Timothy Graham says that there was a second individual who made a complaint to Hebron staff in June 1992, but that the Order holds “almost no” information about this complaint.^[680]

178.   It is possible that by this point in time (June 1992) there had been three complaints against Brother McGrath in Aotearoa New Zealand:

›      A complaint to Prior Maltby relating to Marylands (made before travel to the May Provincial Council).

›      The May initial complaint to Hebron staff (made while Brother McGrath was in Australia at the Provincial Council, withdrawn in suspicious circumstances).

›      A June 1992 complaint to Hebron.

179.   On 22 July 1992 the Provincial, Brother Smith, and Jim Cleary arrived in Christchurch to “view the brothers’ ministries in Christchurch and meet co-workers”.^[681] Sister McGuinness stated: “Brother Joseph arrived from Sydney and expressed concern for Bernard regarding his health.”^[682] Other than this brief comment, there are no documents recording the purpose of the visit or Brother Smith’s activities or conversations during this visit. Records were either never made or they were not retained.

180.   There is reference in the State’s documents to police making an approach to Hebron Trust in August 1992 but not taking any formal action.^[683] Neither Hebron nor the police have provided any documents relating the cause or outcome of any such approach at that time.

181.   On 8 or 9 August 1992, Brother Smith told the Provincial Council that Brother McGrath was “planning to withdraw from Hebron and was preparing to take time for renewal”.^[684] The brief record means the Inquiry cannot ascertain whether the Provincial Council was told about the May and June 1992 reports of abuse against Brother McGrath. Brother Smith says that he does “not accept that the minutes of 8 and 9 August indicate that the Order was sweeping the May 1992 allegation about McGrath under the carpet” because “there was no live complaint against McGrath at the time”.^[685]

182.   On 11 August 1992, an Australian complainant contacted Brother Smith and made an allegation of abuse by Brother McGrath at Kendall Grange.^[686] A different approach was adopted in relation to the Kendall Grange complaint, in that, Brother Smith made and kept notes and the complainant was offered counselling immediately.^[687] There is no explanation of why Brother Smith did not adopt the same approach for Hebron Trust complaints.

183.   On 12 August 1992, Brother Smith advised Brian Lucas, a member of the Australian Special Issues Committee, of the Australian allegation against Brother McGrath. It is not known whether Brian Lucas was also informed of the Aotearoa New Zealand allegations at this time. Brother Smith told his Provincial Council that Brother Julian would go to Aotearoa New Zealand to withdraw Brother McGrath immediately. Brother Julian was instructed to inform Brother McGrath and withdraw him, inform the community, inform Sister McGuinness and request she take over Hebron temporarily, and “Investigate previous allegation again in NZ of last few weeks”.^[688] Brother Smith says he is not sure why he wrote the comment that there had been a recent allegation, and assumes he was referring to the May 1992 report of abuse.^[689]

184.   In Brother McGrath’s absence, Sister McGuinness temporarily stepped in as Director of Hebron Trust and told Hebron staff that Brother McGrath’s travel back to Australia was because he was burnt out and sick with cancer. Staff also understood that Brother McGrath was getting treatment for alcohol and drug abuse.^[690]

185.   There is no evidence of any investigation into the May and June 1992 Aotearoa New Zealand reports of abuse, whether by the Order or Hebron Trust. Nor is there any evidence the Order informed the Christchurch Bishop of those reports of abuse.

186.   Brian Lucas advised Brother Smith to tell Brother McGrath:

“Allegations have been made, you do not need to give me any details, there is an official Protocol that is fair & just for everyone concerned (so no problems like USA arise[)]. Brian is the official contact person. Dangerous for B to return to N.Z.”

187.   There is no clarification of why it was considered ‘dangerous’ for Brother McGrath to return to Aotearoa New Zealand. In not requiring any details related to the allegations, the Order was preventing itself obtaining any information relevant to providing support and redress to Brother McGrath’s survivors.

188.   On 13 August, Brother Julian took Brother McGrath to Australia.^[691] It will never be known how many victims were abused (or abused again) by Brother McGrath in Christchurch in the three-month window of inaction between May and August 1992. He stayed in the Burwood community, and there are no records of any safeguarding measures or restrictions in place. Other brothers were told “B needs time aside, is under pressure”^[692] instead of being told he was accused of abuse. Brother Smith’s 2022 evidence states that on arrival to Australia, he immediately placed Brother McGrath in Burwood Psychiatric Hospital.^[693]

189.   Hebron Trust did not advise the Community Funding Agency or Children and Young Person Services of Brother McGrath’s removal from Aotearoa New Zealand at this time or the reasons for it.^[694] A 1993 briefing to the Minister of Social Welfare concluded: “The Trust appear to have been less than candid, in that there appears to have been knowledge of the incidents [plural] whilst the Agency [NZCFA] undertook the new approval process with the then Acting Director.”^[695]

190.   Brother Smith’s handwritten notes relating to the Kendall Grange complaint, include:

“Brother Smith advised the Australian complainant that Brother McGrath was being removed from his work and had agreed to come back to face the allegation, which would be dealt with through an independent investigation.”^[696]

191.   There is no evidence an independent investigator was appointed to investigate the Australian complaint. Knowledge that Brother McGrath was accused of abuse in two countries did not prompt the Order to seek out people abused by Brother McGrath.

192.   On 15 August, Brother Smith, Brother McGrath and Brian Lucas met in Sydney where Brother McGrath “told his story”.^[697] The Order has not produced any notes of what was disclosed by Brother McGrath at that meeting. Brother Smith’s notes simply say: “B told his story and had confession with Fr David. Brian Lucas suggested I go to Lawyers by myself and retell story. B not up to it and requires treatment immediately.”^[698]

193.   Brother Smith’s 2022 evidence is that he “did not sit in on the interview and am unable to comment on what was said”.^[699] That statement is completely inconsistent with Brother Smith’s contemporaneous note recording that he went to the lawyers to ‘retell’ Brother McGrath’s story. The Order has not produced its lawyer’s record of the meeting with Brother Smith, which could be expected to confirm the level of detail Brother Smith conveyed following the meeting involving Brian Lucas.

194.   The Order moved Brother McGrath from Sydney to Jemez Springs, a treatment centre in New Mexico USA on 25 August 1992.^[700]

195.   Brother Graham confirmed that within a month of the 11 August 1992 Kendall Grange complaint, the Order entered into a settlement with the person abused by Brother McGrath at that facility (Deed signed on 9 September 1992).^[701] There is no evidence the Order carried out an independent or internal investigation before entering into the settlement with the Australian complainant. Yet Brother Graham told ABC reporter Nial Fulton on 20 February 2020 that when Brother Smith became aware of this allegation in August 1992: “Br McGrath [was] withdrawn from the community and the allegations were investigated internally.”^[702]

196.   Hebron Trust received conditional approval as a Child and Family Support Service under s396 of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 on 20 October 1992.^[703]

I te tau 1992 i whakatakotoria tētehi nawe ōkawa ki te Rangapū mō Parata McGrath 
In 1992 a formal complaint was made to the Order about Brother McGrath

197.   One of Hebron Trust staff gave a statement to police on 16 October 1992 about disclosures of abuse by the May 1992 complainant.

198.   On 17 November 1992, Brother Smith advised the Servants of the Paraclete at Jemez Springs, New Mexico, that there was a further allegation of abuse against Brother McGrath relating to the Order’s facility at Morriset (Australia) in 1982/83.^[704] The Order notified its insurers in December 1992 of a report to police of abuse against Brother McGrath at Hebron Trust.^[705] The insurer’s document records that the Provincial (Brother Smith) “informed Bishop Meeking of Christchurch of the situation, along with the Order’s solicitor in New Zealand, Mr Lee Robinson”.

199.   The Order’s December 2021 abuse data provided to the Inquiry does not include a December 1992 report of abuse against Brother McGrath.

200.  The Inquiry has not received any records from the Order or the Bishop regarding the nature of the abuse disclosed at this time and the planned responses. Records were either not made or not retained.

201.   There is no explanation of the intended role of the Bishop in relation to the complaint to police of abuse by a member of the Order. The Inquiry notes that, despite the Bishop being informed, he reported to the Vatican: “the male religious in this diocese are reasonably sound although not well off for vocations.” ^[706]

202.  The Inquiry has not been provided with any evidence that the Order investigated the Aotearoa New Zealand December 1992 report of abuse.

Ngā whanaketanga a Te Tarati o Hebron i te tau 1993 
Hebron Trust developments during 1993

203.  Brother McGrath was to be discharged from Jemez Springs on 28 June 1993.^[707] However, news of civil claims of abuse by Brother McGrath at Kendall Grange surfaced in early July 1993^[708] which led to Jemez Springs agreeing that Brother McGrath could stay there^[709], and later an offer of a six-month rehabilitation programme in Apple Valley, San Bernadino, USA.^[710]

204.  On 4 August 1993, Hebron Trust’s Director Cathy Harrison^[711] told Brother Smith that another Hebron client had disclosed inappropriate behaviour by Brother McGrath.^[712] Brother Smith advised Cathy Harrison to arrange appropriate counselling for the person reporting abuse and that Jim Cleary would “follow up during visit next week to N.Z.” Cathy Harrison was also advised to contact Lee Robinson regarding the allegations. The Inquiry has not received any records of the steps taken by Jim Cleary in relation to this further report of abuse. It appears it was not investigated by Hebron Trust or the Order. The Hebron client was encouraged by a social worker at the Trust to disclose the abuse to police, which he did in October of 1993. The social worker also arranged for counselling for him.

205.  Brother Smith and Brother McGrath signed an agreement on 1 October 1993 that Brother McGrath would stay at Jemez Springs for another week and if prosecution was imminent, he would return to Australia or Aotearoa New Zealand as directed by Brother Smith, and that irrespective of police involvement, if media was involved, he must return as directed by Brother Joseph.^[713]

206.  On 3 October 1993, the Order’s Aotearoa New Zealand lawyer, Mr Lee Robinson, sent a press statement on behalf of the Order to Bishop Cunneen, inviting the Bishop’s comment.^[714] The second sentence of the press statement reads:

“As soon as these allegations [against McGrath] arose the Order took immediate steps to remove the person concerned from the programme on which he was working. He underwent hospitalisation in Australia for treatment and has since been undergoing specialist medical treatment in the USA.”

207.  The Order and its lawyer prepared and circulated a press statement which appears to misrepresent the true sequence of events as known to them.

208.  On 4 October 1993, Mr Lee Robinson contacted police to “discuss the situation”.^[715] That same day there was a meeting between the Community Funding Agency and Hebron and a subsequent review of Hebron’s complaint and staff grievance procedures.^[716]

209.  The Christchurch Press article published on 6 October 1993 included that Hebron Trust had confirmed that “up to four allegations had been made against the staff member [McGrath] by young people in its care, although no charges were laid”.^[717] The Press reported that an unnamed person on behalf of Hebron Trust had confirmed that the trust “had conducted its own investigations and been in touch with appropriate agencies”.^[718] The Inquiry is not aware of any evidence to support that statement.

210.   The same media article confirmed that Brother Smith had travelled to Aotearoa New Zealand and confirmed that Brother McGrath, whom he described as a ‘worker’ (not a brother), was willing to return to Aotearoa New Zealand to face charges “if necessary”.^[719] He said the Order had not been trying to hide anything when it arranged for the ‘worker’ to go overseas. He stated: “the agency’s prime concern was the young people in its care and the worker’s health.”^[720] There is no evidence available to the Inquiry that supports the statement that the Order’s primary concern between May 1992 and October 1993 had been for the needs of the young people abused by Brother McGrath.

211.   Sergeant Lew Corbett publicly confirmed on 6 October 1993 that police were still reviewing the file, but that there had been “reduced priority during the year because the alleged offender had left the country”.^[721] In this regard, the Order’s decision to remove Brother McGrath from Aotearoa New Zealand adversely affected the criminal justice processes.

212.   Sister McGuinness took a copy of the signed 11 June 1992 withdrawal of complaint to police on 14 October 1993.^[722]

213.   Media reported on 15 October 1993 that three Hebron Trust workers had quit because of the Trust’s insistence on staff silence on sexual abuse. Director Cathy Harrison is reported as being shocked at the staff allegations and stating that the allegations “were damaging to the Trust’s work, its staff and clients”.^[723] Also, on 15 October 1993, the Order received a report of abuse by Brother McGrath by an ex-Marylands pupil.^[724]

214.   After the media reports on 15 October 1993, the Director of Hebron (Cathy Harrison) and Anne McCormack approached the Community Funding Agency to notify the (1992) allegations.^[725] The Community Funding Agency understood that Cathy Harrison had notified the Children and Young Persons Service at this time.^[726] The Inquiry has not been provided with records of that notification.

215.   Hanz Freller made a statement to police on 21 October 1993, however, he did not feel comfortable to disclose the full extent of the abuse.^[727]

216.   Brother McGrath returned to Aotearoa New Zealand on 29 November 1993.^[728] On 6 December, accompanied by his lawyer, he signed an admission of guilt to an agreed Summary of Facts.^[729]

217.   Brother McGrath was sentenced on 23 December 1993 to three years imprisonment.

Ka utua a Parata McGrath e te Rangapū i tana whakawāteatanga  Order makes payments to Brother McGrath in 1996 when he exits

218.   In 1996, after Brother McGrath had been released from his vows and left the Order, the Order considered Brother McGrath’s ‘exit payment’. A payment of $45,000 to $50,000 was considered, with further payments for therapy and the legal costs of defending an Australian claim.

219.   Brother Graham confirmed that the Order has a practice of making payments to brothers who leave the Order, because they have no independent resources. He also confirmed that the Order makes no distinction between brothers leaving after a criminal conviction for sexual abuse or leaving for different reasons.^[730]

Ka whakamōhiotia te Minita Tari o te Ora mō ngā hāmene a Parata McGrath 
Minister of Social Welfare informed about Brother McGrath charges

220.  After Brother McGrath was charged by police in late 1993, the Community Funding Agency (that had been funding Hebron Trust), provided a report to the Minister of Social Welfare.^[731] The report identifies: “The St John of God (Brother Bernard’s superiors) withdrew Brother Bernard immediately and escorted him to Sydney where he was hospitalised. At the time he was considered to be physically and mentally burnt out.”^[732]

Whakaputanga Pāpāho, ka whakahoungia e te Rangapū āna rautaki hei whakautu i ngā whakapae tūkino 
Media coverage, and the Order revises its approach to abuse claims

221.   The Boston Globe’s January 2002 reporting on how the Catholic Church had allowed abuse by former priest John Geoghan to continue, was the first time the church’s policy of moving priests accused of sexual abuse to new parishes without notifying authorities, was made public. Following on from this, in mid-2002, media reports highlighting abuse by the Order and how badly it had responded to those abused, appeared in Australasia.

222.  In June 2002, media reports critical of the Order’s handling of abuse claims appeared on both sides of the Tasman. On 13 June 2002, Melbourne newspaper The Age reported the Order had settled a class-action claim by 24 victims, all with “some form of communication or intellectual disability”. A settlement of AUD$3.6 million was agreed, with settlements ranging from AUD$100,000 to AUD$400,000.^[733]

223.  Two days later, the paper published another story about the anonymous whistle-blower, a lay employee of the Order, who revealed the settlement.^[734] The whistle-blower was alarmed to learn that a survey of 80 intellectually disabled men in the Order’s care showed signs of sexual abuse.^[735]

224.  On 22 June 2002, Christchurch newspaper The Press reported that five individuals from Marylands had received settlements totalling $300,000 over sexual abuse by four brothers, and that all five complainants had been “muzzled with confidentiality clauses”.^[736] Brother Burke issued a media statement decrying the use of “secrecy clauses” in settlement agreements and vowing it would “never again” happen, an assurance that would prove untrue.^[737] Christchurch’s Bishop John Cunneen also issued a press statement, in which he expressed shock at the allegations, but expressed discontent for the media’s continual focus on “the abuse from the few” in the Order, while ignoring the integrity of the many.^[738]

225.  A subsequent story by The Press said 11 further complainants had come forward in the 10 days since its first article. This prompted the Order to set up a free-phone number for others who might come forward.^[739] It reported that Brother Burke was adamant the Order knew nothing about Brother McGrath’s offending before a complaint surfaced in February 1992.^[740] He said another brother or brothers might have known about the abuse at the time and could have been party to similar offences,^[741] but added this “would have been very secret information among a certain group of people, therefore the Order itself would not have known”.^[742] However, as set out, the Order was indeed aware of sexual abuse by brothers at Marylands before The Press published its stories.^[743]

226.  The media coverage and many complaints that followed it did, however, mark a distinct change in the way the Order responded to allegations of abuse. After June 2002, the Order offered complainants the option of the church’s abuse-handling protocol, known as A Path to Healing, or the Order’s “pastoral process”. The Order did not produce any external publication describing this new process, nor are we aware of any complainants receiving documents explaining the difference between the two approaches so they could make an informed decision about which to choose.

227.  The heart of the new process was direct contact between the complainant, Brother Burke (as Australasian head of the Order) supported by Dr Michelle Mulvihill, a clinical psychologist who worked from 1998 to 2007 to help the Order respond to sexual abuse claims. Brother Burke and Dr Mulvihill met survivors in person. Brother Burke told them he believed their allegations, and encouraged them to report the abuse to police. Brother Burke sent complainants a letter after the meeting reiterating these points and making an offer of an interim “pastoral payment”, not “compensation”, for which there was no need to sign any agreement. Accepting such an offer did not therefore mean full and final settlement of a claim.^[744] There were no confidentiality clauses either. Brother Graham is critical of this aspect of Brother Burke’s pastoral process.^[745] He later instigated a more legalistic process to settle the claims of survivors.

228.  Brother Burke sought a meeting with Bishop Cunneen to discuss how he might be able to help the Order deal with the growing number of complainants coming forward with allegations. As far as Dr Mulvihill was aware, there had been no word from the bishop throughout this time, despite all the publicity, much less any offer of assistance or support. She said it was Brother Burke who wanted to meet the bishop to “talk with him about where to from here for people in the diocese”.^[746] Although Dr Mulvihill did not attend the meeting, she was waiting nearby and recalls that:

“The Bishop of course had his own agenda, and Brother Burke left that meeting absolutely furious. I remember him storming out of the place and we kind of galloped down the street at a very fast pace and found a coffee shop. He was very upset. The Bishop had basically told him that he wanted this matter shut down as fast as possible. ‘Get it out of the media, there’s too much going on in the papers, shut this down and shut these people up.’”^[747]

229.  The December 2002 Pastoral Process document, prepared by Brother Burke and Dr Mulvihill, recognised that survivors “require re-assurance they will not be abandoned again and that the Province will give them ‘new’ hospitality’”.^[748] The Prior General in Rome was to be “kept informed about the progress, so that the Provincial receives support at that level”.^[749] Experts on the assessments of damages were to be “called in to indicate monetary values on complaints”.^[750] Importantly, the process required that pastoral relationships were to be formed and “we [the Order] do not run away and abandon these people once more when a deed of release has been signed”.^[751] It also emphasised that the Order would offer help with counselling “for as long as is professionally recommended”.^[752]

230.  Brother Burke told survivors the initial pastoral offer “is not, repeat is not, the end of the matter” and assistance with counselling would continue “for as long as is professionally recommended”.^[753] He promised survivors the pastoral process included “the development of an ongoing relationship” which is one that “does not end”.^[754]

231.   By August 2002, Brother Burke, assisted by Dr Mulvihill, had met 54 complainants – 29 of whom had made statements to police – and arranged meetings with 18 more.^[755] By March 2003, the Order had made 56 pastoral payments totalling about $4 million.^[756]

Ka tohua a Tā Rodney Gallen e te Rangapū kia arotakengia te tukanga whakatau mō ngā purapura ora o ngā tūkinotanga     
Sir Rodney Gallen engaged by Order to audit its settlement process for survivors of abuse

232.  In November 2002, Sir Rodney Gallen agreed to the Order’s request to audit the way it had implemented the pastoral process to ensure it was fair and just.^[757] The Order made it clear his role was to audit the process, not the outcomes of the process, and in particular not the adequacy of payments.^[758] Sir Rodney reported back in March 2003 that the Order had acted appropriately and responsibly in implementing the pastoral process.^[759] The following were among his observations:

›      Brother Burke and Dr Mulvihill had concluded early on that cross-references between complainants were more than sufficient to corroborate allegations.

›      The importance of survivors being told they are believed could not be overstated and that he considered “the indication that was said was accepted, both at interview and by subsequent correspondence, was important and appropriate”.

›      Letters of apology and “intention” did not amount to an inappropriate attempt to settle.

›      The lump sums offered to claimants were on the basis there was no pressure to accept the sum offered and the offer was not made by way of full and final settlement or in circumstances where it might later be alleged that any claim had been settled.

›      He had no part in assessing the sums offered, but it was appropriate to make an immediate offer.

›      The Order had made no attempt to cover up offending.

233.  On three occasions, Brother Burke subsequently misrepresented Sir Rodney’s role. In November 2002, he wrote to a survivor saying that Sir Rodney Gallen would “review everything we have been doing to make doubly sure that what we do offer you next February-March is, in fact, in your best interests.”^[760] This suggested Sir Rodney was advising on an outcome that was in that survivor’s best interests, but this was not his role.

234.  In March 2003, Brother Burke wrote to survivors saying he had sought advice on the process from Sir Rodney and KPMG “before making this offer”.^[761] This suggested that Sir Rodney’s view influenced the amount of the offer.

235.  Finally, in August 2003, he wrote in a newsletter to survivors that “a large number of cases have been put forward to Sir Rodney Gallen. Then, once Sir Rodney approved them, each of those men were made Pastoral Offers.”^[762] Again, this linked the making of offers after approval by Sir Rodney Gallen.

236.  In addition, the Order’s Aotearoa New Zealand lawyer, Mr Robinson, told survivor Mr DG’s lawyer in November 2002 that Sir Rodney Gallen had been appointed as an independent mediator and “any such claims and determinations will be independently assessed by Sir Rodney Gallen before conclusions are reached”.^[763]

237.  All these statements created the impression Sir Rodney Gallen had endorsed each payment offered, which was not the case.

Ketuketutanga a ngā pirihimana, kāore e tika ana ngā tukanga tiaki ahurea 2002/2003    
Lack of culturally appropriate processes during 2002/2003 police investigation

238.  Of the 58 individuals who reported abuse at Marylands during Operation Authority, 43 were recorded as Pākehā, four were recorded as Māori and the ethnicity of the remaining 11 complainants was unknown. Police stated: “ethnicity was not always recorded in the formal statements of those who made reports of abuse.”^[764]

239.  Police told the Inquiry it is now recognised that barriers to reporting abuse, accessing help and engaging with police, exist for communities that have historically been marginalised, including Māori and Pacific communities. Detective Superintendent Peter Read said:

“Recognising these barriers has contributed to the change in process whereby Police now involve agencies to help with culturally appropriate engagement.

... In today’s environment Police can seek assistance and support for victims from specialist iwi and ethnicity-based support agencies that cater to different cultural needs of victims during investigation processes and court cases.”^[765]

240.  There were failures to incorporate principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi and tikanga Māori in engagement.

“The principles of te Tiriti and tikanga Māori were not explicitly part of Operation Authority’s engagement with complainants, including Māori complainants. All investigators on Operation Authority were Pākehā.”^[766]

241.   In response to questions from the Inquiry about consideration given to the impact of abuse in terms of either Māori or Pacific cultural norms and values, Detective Superintendent Peter Read stated: “I am not aware of explicit consideration of the impact of abuse from a tikanga Māori perspective, or in terms of Pacific peoples’ cultural norms and values, as part of this role.”^[767]