Executive summary

1. The Kimberley Centre was one of four large psychopaedic institutions in Aotearoa New Zealand. It operated under various names for 61 years from 1945 to 2006. In the terminology of the day, the term ‘psychopaedic’ was used to describe people with a learning disability to distinguish them from people who were mentally ill. Due to the government policy of institutionalisation, together the four psychopaedic institutions came to house thousands of disabled children, young people and adults. At its peak in 1964, there were 780 children, young people and adults at the Kimberley Centre alone.

2. Societal attitudes of ableism (favouring non-disabled people) and disablism (discrimination against disabled people) led to the segregation and congregation of disabled people into the Kimberley Centre. Societal attitudes that were ignorant of te Tiriti o Waitangi Treaty of Waitangi led to Māori cultural identities, heritage and language being suppressed and discouraged within the Kimberley Centre.

3. Social isolation was combined with geographic isolation. Located on the outskirts of Taitoko Levin near the Ōhau river, the Kimberley Centre was intended to be a ‘home for life’ for people with a learning disability who were commonly placed there by whānau on the advice of medical practitioners. Many of the Kimberley Centre’s children, young people and adults were long-term and admitted at a very young age; a study on the impact of deinstitutionalisation found that 75 percent of participants had lived there for 31 years or more, and 46 percent of participants were under 6 years old when they were admitted. Children, young people and adults were considered to be out of sight, out of mind.

4. Survivors and their whānau described the Kimberley Centre as a ‘hellhole’ and evidence received by the Inquiry suggests this description of the Kimberley Centre is apt.[1]

5. This case study summarises the evidence the Inquiry received about the Kimberley Centre. Survivors experienced a dehumanising environment where they were stripped of their individual identity, stigmatised and devalued for being disabled. In this environment, survivors’ right to human dignity was not respected. Abuse was commonplace, severe and chronic, and the Inquiry heard of abhorrent sexual and physical abuse. Survivors experienced neglect of basic needs as well as pervasive neglect – neglect across all facets of their lives. Children, young people and adults were not educated, stimulated or treated with dignity and respect. Their emotional and medical needs were not met, and their cultures were not acknowledged or fostered. The severe neglect they experienced had significant long-term impacts.

6. The Kimberley Centre’s institutional and cultural conditions provided fertile ground for abuse and neglect to take root and continue largely unchallenged for 61 years. This case study describes those conditions. Abuse and neglect was pervasive and structural within the institution. Abuse of children, young people and adults by staff was known and visible, yet staff who were responsible for abuse were not held accountable. This contributed to the abusive environment. There was no complaints process, and children, young people and adults felt that nothing would be done if they did complain to staff. There was a lack of accountability for abusers and the senior managers of the Kimberley Centre for not preventing or responding to complaints of abuse and neglect.

7. As a result, survivors suffered significant long-term impacts. For those who were children and young people, the neglectful environment deprived them of their childhood. For all survivors, it robbed them of their human promise – the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Significant overmedication took away their quality of life, and in some cases contributed to changing their behaviour towards aggressive tendencies. Poor nutrition, inappropriate eating practices and a lack of adequate dental care caused survivors to lose weight and their enjoyment of food. Māori survivors lost their kinship links and cultural identity as they were away from whānau and not provided with access to tikanga, te reo and mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge). Similarly, Pacific Peoples suffered cultural neglect as they did not have access to their unique cultures and practices.

Out of sight, out of mind

The name of this case study comes from the words of the late Sir Robert Martin:

“It is time to challenge New Zealanders. The phrase, ‘out of sight, out of mind,’ is no longer acceptable. I am in your sight today. I hope my story will remain within your mind.”

Survivor acknowledgement

The Royal Commission thanks all survivors who so bravely shared their experiences of abuse and neglect in care. We also acknowledge those who were not able to come forward, for whatever reason, we send you aroha and understanding. Our hope is that this case study shines a light on your experiences and echoes your calls to ensure such atrocities are never allowed to happen again in Aotearoa.