13. The pathways into Hokio Beach School (Hokio School) and Kohitere Boys’ Training Centre (Kohitere Centre) for children and young people were influenced by the social attitudes of the time. Negative attitudes towards children and young people, viewed as delinquent, played a role in the increasing numbers of children appearing before and being charged in the Children’s Court. Who came before the Court and was charged was impacted by racism and discrimination towards tamariki and rangatahi Māori. Pacific children were also impacted by racism and racial profiling. Ableist views and practices contributed to disabled children and young people being sent into care, and sometimes misdiagnosed.

14. For the majority of children and young people at Hokio School and Kohitere Centre, this was not their first time in care. Many were viewed by the State as difficult children, unable to remain in the community. From the mid-1960s onwards there were disproportionate numbers of tamariki and rangatahi Māori at both institutions, sometimes as high as 80 percent. After leaving Hokio School or Kohitere Centre, children and young people were left without adequate support and many were sentenced to borstal or corrective training.

15. This chapter describes the circumstances that led children and young people being taken or placed into care at Hokio School and Kohitere Centre during the Inquiry period.

Attitudes to juvenile delinquency influenced pathways into care

16. Negative attitudes towards children and young people perceived as delinquent influenced decisions about who went into care and how they were treated while in care. From the 1950s, rising public concerns over ‘juvenile delinquency’ likely contributed to, and were simultaneously fuelled by, rising rates of appearances and convictions among children and young people in the Children’s Court.[24] A 1971 report into long-term institutional care of boys illustrates a negative view held by much of the public, and many of the Hokio School and Kohitere Centre staff, towards the children and young people there:

“Notwithstanding that boys over fifteen are eligible for borstal, and that many of the worst offenders are not caught, the boys in Kohitere and Hokio comprise one hundred and seventy of the most delinquent boys for their age in New Zealand.”[25]

17. Another report, published over a decade later, showed attitudes had hardened, implying many boys were beyond rehabilitation. In this report a former Kohitere Centre principal described children and young people as “social failures” and that institutional training was “a last ditch resort for social deviants, with little intrinsic rehabilitative potential”.[26]

Racism, racial profiling and over surveillance influenced pathways into care

18. The urban migration of Māori saw rangatahi and tamariki Māori come to the increased attention of NZ Police and child welfare services. At the same time, they were expected to integrate into a Pākehā society that was racist, encouraged conformity and lacked understanding of te ao Māori. This occurred alongside, and due to, the covert and overt racism and discrimination in the education system, the justice system and within care institutions.[27] Tamariki and rangatahi Māori were often perceived to be a potential problem based on their ethnicity alone.[28]

19. The social welfare system was imposed within a colonial Pākehā State and predominantly impacted tamariki and rangatahi Māori. Māori survivor Wiremu Waikari (Ngāti Porou) told the Inquiry:

“State intervention was another form of colonisation. The State had many ways of breaking down our whānau. We had just been through the Second World War, we had lost a lot of men, a lot of role models. I was a child living in a middle-class family and I had never been touched by abuse, I had a good male role model in my life. Being placed into care meant the trajectory of my life changed drastically.”[29]

20. A Victoria University of Wellington study published in the 1960s tried to explain the high numbers of tamariki and rangatahi Māori in Kohitere Centre, suggesting that urbanisation and an ‘inability’ to integrate could be to blame.[30] The report analysed factors such as home life, socioeconomic status and attitudes towards authority, but failed to consider bias and racism towards Māori in the justice and other State systems. A 1973 study by the Department of Justice however recognised the impact of targeting and discrimination. It reported that Auckland police youth aid officers “discriminated against Māori boys by sending a disproportionate number of them to court”.[31]

21. It is highly likely that Māori boys sent to Hokio School and Kohitere Centre would have been impacted by racist discrimination in the justice system. The Inquiry’s final report, Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light, has further details on how colonisation, land loss, cultural disconnection and poverty impacted the pathway of tamariki and rangatahi Māori into State and faith-based care systems.

22. Particularly from the 1970s, Pacific fanau and tagata talavou were also increasingly surveilled and targeted by NZ Police. ‘Overstaying’ Pacific Peoples were accused of contributing to competition over jobs and being a burden on society through unemployment. This exacerbated racism towards Pacific Peoples.[32]

Ableism and lack of awareness of neurodiversity influenced pathways into care

23. Prevailing societal attitudes during the Inquiry period devalued and dehumanised disabled children and young people, who did not receive the support they needed and were more vulnerable to abuse and neglect. Up until the late 1980s there was a lack of understanding and awareness of the conditions that fall under the umbrella term ‘neurodiversity’. The term itself was not used during the scope period. Before 1980, children and young people with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) were often misdiagnosed as having childhood schizophrenia. Children and young people with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) could be seen as too difficult to manage and subsequently institutionalised. Children and young people with ASD and ADHD in care were often sedated, restrained or harshly disciplined for their behaviour.[33]

Most children and young people had already been in other social welfare residences and institutions

24. Most children and young people at Hokio School and Kohitere Centre had already been in other State or faith-based care institutions. All the survivors the Inquiry spoke to had already been in care, and most had experienced multiple placements. According to Hokio School annual reports, from 1968 to 1979, between 84 and 98 percent of admissions came from other institutions.[34] Occasionally children and young people would come from psychiatric settings.[35] However, Hokio School and Kohitere Centre lacked the resources to provide proper care and support.[36] One survivor said he was given the choice between three months’ corrective training (with a criminal record), or 12 months at Kohitere Centre (without a record). He decided to go to Kohitere Centre but told the Inquiry: “I wish I had of went to prison.”[37]

25. Sometimes survivors were sent to Hokio School or Kohitere Centre because they had continuously run away from other institutions. Some were charged with offences such as theft.[38] Often children and young people’s behaviour was seen as unmanageable and they were unable to remain in the community due to their offending and behaviour.[39] Some survivor files noted that all other resources and opportunities had been used up,[40] they were out of control,[41] unwilling to change,[42] and refusing help.[43] The Department of Social Welfare saw long-term institutional ‘training’ as the only solution to control the boys and ‘correct’ their behaviour.[44] However, many survivors told the Inquiry their behaviour, such as running away, was due to abuse and neglect; and that no-one ever asked why they were running away.  

Who were the children and young people in Hokio School and Kohitere Centre?

26. Hokio School had 1,326 boys admitted from December 1956 to July 1988.[45] At Kohitere Centre, 4,138 boys were admitted from January 1950 to March 1990.[46] Of the survivors registered with the Inquiry, 52 went to Hokio School, 114 went to Kohitere Centre and a further 53 survivors were at both. Most children and young people were State wards, although some were placed into care by their parent entering into an agreement with the Director-General of Social Welfare for their temporary or extended care.[47]

27. The children and young people in Kohitere Centre tended to be older, while those at Hokio School were younger. Hokio School was intended to be for boys aged 10 to 14 years old, but housed boys as young as 8 years old and up to 15 years old. Younger boys admitted to Hokio School and Kohitere Centre were often a target for abuse from the older and larger boys.

28. Half of the survivors registered with the Inquiry who were at these institutions were born from 1958 to 1968 and a third were born after 1968. Given the average age of children and young people on admission, this means that most survivors were at both settings in the 1970s and 1980s, when violence, sexual abuse from staff, the kingpin hierarchy and gang culture were at their peak.[48]

The majority of children and young people in Hokio School and Kohitere Centre were Māori

29. From the mid-1960s onwards, the children and young people at both settings were predominantly tamariki and rangatahi Māori. The percentage of tamariki and rangatahi Māori admitted to Hokio School rose steadily throughout the 1970s[49], peaking at 80 percent in 1978.[50] Pākehā admissions fluctuated from 40 percent at the end of the 1960s[51] to as low as 10 percent of overall admissions a decade later.[52] For Kohitere Centre, the numbers of tamariki and rangatahi Māori rose and fell from 1966 to 1979 but they remained the predominant group throughout, peaking at 78 percent of admissions in 1972. Pākehā admissions for the same period were, for the most part, less than a third of the enrolled population.[53] In 1976 Pacific peoples made up 2.1 percent of Aotearoa New Zealand’s total population[54], yet on average made up 6.4 percent of the children and young people at Hokio School[55] and 5.6 percent at Kohitere Centre.[56]

30. Prior to 1966 ethnicity data was not recorded in the evidence provided to the Inquiry by either Hokio School or Kohitere Centre so it is more difficult to get a clear picture of the demographics of the children and young people at the residences for the earlier part of the Inquiry's scope period. One report suggests, though, that Pākehā boys were the majority at Kohitere Centre during this time.[57]

Pathway out of Hokio School and Kohitere Centre was often to other institutions

31. A former Hokio principal described boys going to Kohitere Centre as a “natural progression”.[58] From there, it was common for boys to be sent to borstal or corrective training. Some survivors even said that corrective training or time in adult prison was desirable because it meant they could be discharged from the care of social welfare before they turned 20.[59] Many staff told boys that prison was an inevitability.[60]

32. Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit was nearby in Whanganui and Dr Selwyn Leeks would often visit Hokio School and Kohitere Centre for psychiatric assessments. Several survivors told the Inquiry that after they left Hokio School or Kohitere Centre they were sent to Lake Alice, where they experienced abuse[61] and were subjected to electric shocks.[62] Some children and young people were also sent there for ‘treatment’ before returning to Hokio School or Kohitere Centre. As detailed in the Inquiry’s report Beautiful children: Inquiry into the Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit, 19 children from Kohitere Centre and nine from Hokio School were sent by the Department of Social Welfare to the Child and Adolescent Unit at Lake Alice.[63]

33. A 1984 Massey University study on both Hokio School and Kohitere Centre raised the issue that once boys were discharged and returned to the community, there was a lack of support from field social workers, and as a result, boys would often end up returning to care.[64] A report also said that many boys came from urban environments so farming and forestry training was not appropriate for when they were released from care.[65]