25. As a section 396-approved Child and Family Support Service, Te Whakapakari Youth Programme was a placement option for young people who were in need of care and protection, specifically catering to young people aged between 14 and 17 years old “who had problems with the law and within their families, particularly those with drug and alcohol problems”.[39] The Inquiry refers to such placements as a “compulsory care” option in its final report Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light.

26. The Inquiry received evidence that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services regarded Whakapakari as a ‘boot camp’. Anthea Raven, a social worker in Auckland during the operation of Whakapakari, noted: “Whakapakari was run by a self-promoted Kaumatua who had set up a boot camp style programme on Great Barrier Island”.[40] A social worker from the Northern Residential Centre wrote in a progress report in relation to a young person: “Due to his despicable behaviour, I recommend that he be placed within a strict discipline ‘boot camp’ environment for a considerable period – six months or more ie Whakapakari.”[41] Survivors also referred to the programme as a ‘boot camp’.[42]

27. There is limited ethnicity data available, but the Inquiry heard from Māori, Pacific and Pākehā survivors who were placed at Whakapakari. A report from 2003, written by the visiting nurse, Peter Sporle, said staff estimates of children and young people coming through the programme were 80 percent Māori, 14 percent Pākehā, 5 percent Pacific Peoples and 1 percent ‘other’.’[43]

28. A 1994 report, written by then Acting Supervising Social Worker Peter Topzand, recommended that young people stay at Whakapakari for a maximum of three months.[44] Some survivors told us, however, that their stays were extended well beyond that by social workers, and this is supported by their case files.[45] Māori survivor Mr LR’s (Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāpuhi, Tainui) placement in 1999 was extended to a total of nine months. His social worker extended his placement because she did not want him to return to the care of his mother, whose requests to visit her son at Whakapakari were declined.[46]

Scarcity of places to send ‘troubled’ children and young people

29. Children and young people were placed at Te Whakapakari Youth Programme from throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. Community residential programmes such as Te Whakapakari Youth Programme and Moerangi Treks in Te Urewera were appealing options for Youth Court judges and social workers as the programmes were willing to receive ‘troubled youths’.[47] Former social welfare staff member and psychotherapist Mr QS, who worked in child welfare for 38 years, said that it was a “relief” to youth justice staff throughout the country when these programmes were established, as they provided a placement on a national basis for some of the most troubled youths the State was working with. From 1993 until early 1995, Te Whakapakari Youth Programme continued to be viewed positively by youth justice social workers throughout the North Island who were “desperate” to find residential placements for young people who were difficult to place.[48] Mr QS observed:

“With the benefit of hindsight, the cultural esteem with which the program was held, blinded CYPS officers to the risk of placing seriously troubled youth with residential carers and cultural programs who were not vetted or trained to deal with the challenges involved.”[49]

30. Reports completed on behalf of the Children and Young Persons Service in 1995 and 1997 noted that if the programme were no longer available, there would be a major risk of increasing pressure on the residential facilities operated directly by the Children and Young Persons Service and an increasing strain on alternative care placements such as foster care.[50] The 1995 report by consultant Alison Thom (the Thom Report) noted that Whakapakari was considered a valuable resource not because of the quality of the programme but because of the national scarcity of options for the placement of young people. The Thom Report said Whakapakari was seen as a place of last hope for troubled teens, or to provide respite for those working with them, including police and social workers. The needs of the young person were allocated a low priority, secondary to those charged with their wellbeing.[51]

31. Former area manager Greg Putland highlighted the difficulty of obtaining a placement for young people in the 1990s:

“It wasn’t just, hey did the abusing but we did the placements and ... we didn’t always consider the absolute best interest of the kid when it came to a placement because we had to get a bloody placement.” [52]

32. There was chronic underinvestment by the Department of Social Welfare and its successors in resourcing appropriate, culturally informed programmes and developing the workforce and a complete disregard for the welfare of the children and young people placed at Whakapakari. In September 1997, a report by Children, Young Persons and Their Families Service senior advisory officer Patty Green, noted that “there is a significant lack of support from the Service and it seems that, at times, Whakapakari serves as a dumping ground for the Service”. The Green Report also noted that the requirement for social worker visits of children and young people every six weeks was not being met.[53]

33. The national scarcity of placements for children and young people was never addressed or rectified. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Service staff investigating complaints repeatedly expressed concern at the possibility of Whakapakari being closed. In May 1998, an investigation into another programme for young people, Moerangi Treks, found there was systemic and harsh physical abuse inflicted by its staff and supervisors. All young people in the Moerangi Treks programme were removed[54] and the Community Funding Agency and Children, Young People and Their Families Service suspended the approval status and funding of that programme. This meant that Te Whakapakari Youth Programme was the only national programme available to the Youth Court, and it was already in constant demand.[55] This may be the unwarranted justification by the Department of Social Welfare and its successors for why it continued to fund the Whakapakari Youth Programme for many years, despite ongoing complaints of abuse.

A mix of care and protection and youth justice

34. Te Whakapakari Youth Trust gained approval to be a section 396 provider from 1990 as a Child and Family Support Service. Section 396(3) of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 allowed for an organisation or body to be approved by the Director-General of the Department of Social Welfare as a Child and Family Support Service, which was effectively a third party provider of State care.

35. As it was a section 396 provider, social workers could refer children and young people in need of care and protection to the Te Whakapakari Youth Programme similar to placement in other forms of social welfare care such as foster care or children’s homes.[56] If an application was made for a care or protection order, the court could make custody orders placing children and young people in the care of the director of Te Whakapakari Youth Trust as an approved Child and Family Support Service.[57] Similarly, young people already in the custody of the Director of Social Welfare could be placed at Whakapakari.[58]

36. Young people could be ordered to attend Te Whakapakari Youth Programme by the Youth Court as an outcome of proven youth justice charges. Orders could be made by Youth Court judges under sections 283(m) and 307 of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 for “supervision with activity”. This placed the young person under the supervision of the Director-General of Child, Youth and Family or an organisation, with a requirement to attend and remain at a centre approved by the Department of Child, Youth and Family, or to undertake any specified programme or activity. Te Whakapakari Youth Programme was approved by the Department of Social Welfare.[59] In the case of young people on remand from the court, placement at Whakapakari was seen as an ‘ideal’ outcome by Child, Youth and Family because the isolation of the programme meant that young people could not abscond and offend further.[60]

37. This order could only be made where the “nature and circumstances of the offence” were such that but for the availability of a ‘supervision with activities order’, the court would have considered imposing an order under sections 283(n) and 311 that a young person be placed in the custody of the Director-General of the Department of Social Welfare.[61]

38. A section 307 order could only be made with the consent of the young person, and the order could not be made for more than three months. In 1997, a Child, Youth and Family report noted that the majority of young people placed in Whakapakari were young people on remand from the court and young people under supervision with activity orders. The report noted that the courts were imposing this order without consent of the young person or their guardian, concluding “it appears the Service is acting illegally by placing some people on the programme”.[62]

39. The report appended an opinion dated 2 July 1994 from the Children and Young Persons Service Legal Service, which concluded that section 307 could be relied upon to justify placement of children and young people in residential “trekking/outward bound type courses where they stay overnight for one or more nights”.[63] This opinion was adopted by a more recent legal opinion from the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Service Legal Service dated 4 September 1997, with the proviso that if a young person had to reside elsewhere, such as at Whakapakari, parental consent was always required. Such a placement would therefore be a parental placement with an organisation approved by the Community Funding Agency.[64]

40. The report concluded that while section 307(1)(a) did not contemplate a full residential programme, and referred to the young person attending for “such weekday, evening and weekend hours each week ... as the Court thinks fit,” section 307(1)(b) was not so restricted. The section provided simply that a direction could be made that the child or young person undertake any specified programme or activity. However, the consent of the young person or their guardian must be provided.[65]

41. The 1997 Child, Youth and Family report noted that the issue as to the lack of consent by the young person or their guardian to orders pursuant to section 307 was being raised with the principal Youth Court Judge to be dealt with urgently.[66]

42. By 1995, the number of children and young people placed at Whakapakari for care and protection purposes was slowly increasing. Mixing individuals with those placed for a youth justice outcome was inconsistent with general social welfare care setting practices at the time and contrary to statutory criteria.[67]

43. Due to poor record keeping, the reasons for sending children and young people to Whakapakari cannot be accurately assessed, but between 1994 and 1997 several reports commented on these reasons.

44. In 1994 the Topzand Report noted that the Children and Young Persons Service was unable to provide the care status of the young people on the island, and the staff at the programme were also unaware of this information.[68]

45. The 1995 Thom Report noted the increasing number of care and protection referrals when the programme was initially developed in response to youth justice needs.[69] It also noted that additional conditions had been added to the approval of Whakapakari, including upgrading in regard to parental authority. These conditions were to be reviewed for compliance in December 1994 but at the time of the Thom Report in September 1995, there was no evidence that the review had taken place.[70]

46. Two years on, the problems persisted. The Green Report observed that placing young people with significant emotional and psychological problems at Whakapakari was inappropriate due to the harsh conditions of the programme and the isolation from their families, communities and specialist resources.[71] In 1997, five out of the 20 young people on the island had care and protection status. Wilhelmina da Silva stated that one of them was inappropriately placed on the island because of their emotional and psychological needs.[72] The report recorded that children as young as 12 years old were being placed at Whakapakari for care and protection. As a result a “point to consider” was noted that the age group be restricted to 14 to 16 years.[73] An appendix to the Green report recommended that the age group be restricted to 14 to 16 years, and that referrals be predominantly for youth justice reasons.[74]

47. In 1998, a social worker referred a boy to Whakapakari for three months after he was suspected of smoking marijuana at school, despite the boy’s reluctance to attend.[75] The pathway was a temporary care agreement reached between Social Welfare and one of his parents.[76] Drug use was often cited as a reason children and young people were sent to Whakapakari. The Inquiry has received evidence that while on the programme, children and young people were exposed to drugs, with some of the supervisors smoking and even growing cannabis in the bush surrounding the camp.[77]

48. In 2000, a Ministerial review by Michael Brown noted that it was estimated that 12 percent of children and young people in the care of the Child, Youth and Family Service will have severe mental health problems, and a further 35–57 percent were estimated to have clinically significant emotional and behavioural problems. Additionally, there were high rates of attempted and completed suicide among those in care.[78]

49. The Departmental criteria for referral to Te Whakapakari Youth Programme were not formalised until 1998 following a review in 1997. The review found that young people were inappropriately placed at Whakapakari for care and protection needs who had significant emotional and psychological problems.[79] In response, from 1998 the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Service discouraged referrals of young people with mental ill health, psychiatric or severe emotional considerations and afforded youth justice referrals priority.[80] The minimum placement at Whakapakari from that point was two months.

Children and young people with high needs sent to Whakapakari

50. Children and young people perceived to have high needs due to neurodiversity or trauma issues were often placed at Whakapakari even if it was clearly not in their best interests. In fact, there seemed to be no strategy for determining what was in the best interests of the children and young people placed there, beyond the legitimating narrative that these survivors were ‘difficult’ or had high needs.

51. There is no evidence that young people had any form of assessment for disability or neurodiversity prior to being placed at Whakapakari:

1. Jason Fenton, a Māori, Niuean and Chinese survivor who was at Whakapakari for six weeks as part of a court-imposed sentence, believes he was born with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder as well as brain injuries from suffering physical abuse as a child, but was never tested.[81]
2. Survivor Mr PJ, who was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and treated at Princess Margaret Hospital in Christchurch, [82] was placed in the care of the Child, Youth and Family Service when his parents felt unable to cope.[83] In social welfare care settings, Mr PJ did not receive the mental health care he should have received. Eventually he was sent to Whakapakari, which he described as a “nightmare place”.[84]

52. No support was offered to either Jason or Mr PJ by Child, Youth and Family Service for their neurodiversity. Instead, children and young people were placed at Whakapakari which was an abusive, neglectful, punitive and dangerous environment.

53. The incidence of young people with neurodiversity entering the youth justice system is recognised to be high, with as many as 40 percent believed to have an intellectual disability and 60 to 70 percent meeting the criteria for Conduct Disorder.[85]

54. Some survivors did not know why they were placed at Whakapakari. At 14 years old, NZ European, Māori and Cook Islands survivor Mr LG (Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Porou, Ngāpuhi) was placed in Social Welfare care settings for care and protection reasons after he assaulted a police officer. He was sent to Whakapakari but his file does not demonstrate whether this was an outcome of a youth justice process or the fact he was made a State ward.[86] He still does not know the reason he was sent there. Mr LG always struggled with learning, and suspects he has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or a learning disorder. He has never been assessed.[87]

Conclusion on circumstances that led to young people being placed in Whakapakari

55. Te Whakapakari Youth Programme’s boot camp model proved particularly appealing as a placement for ‘troubled teens’ and many young people were sent there as an outcome of proven youth justice charges. Most of the young people sent to Whakapakari were young people on remand or young people under ‘supervision with activity orders’. The court could make these orders under to section 307 of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, which required the young person to undertake a specified approved programme. Whakapakari was seen by the court as a place of last resort, with harsh conditions and a disciplinarian ethos that would rehabilitate young offenders. Legally, the court could only impose such an order if it would have considered placing the young person in the custody of the Director-General of Child, Youth and Family but for the availability of a ‘supervision with activities order’.[88] The isolation of the programme meant that young people could not abscond and offend further.

56. The court could only make an order pursuant to section 307 with the consent of the young person or their guardian. However, in 1997, a Child, Youth and Family report noted that orders were being made by the courts without the necessary consent. The report concluded that the Service was acting illegally by placing some people on the programme.[89]

57. As the Te Whakapakari Youth Programme was an approved Child and Family Support Service pursuant to section 396 of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, children and young people in the custody of the Director of Social Welfare could also be placed in the programme, despite the fact they were not in trouble, and had no interaction with police or the youth justice system. Given, the boot camp nature of the programme, consideration should have been given to whether this was an appropriate placement for children and young people who were in need of care and protection.

58. However, evidence gathered by the Inquiry showed that children and young people who were in need of care and protection, who were traumatised, and who were neurodiverse, were also sent to Whakapakari with no proper consideration of their needs or the trauma they would suffer there. It was not until 1998 that the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Service discouraged, but did not ban, referrals of young people in need of care and protection.

59. There were scant resources and alternatives for young people, particularly on a national basis. This meant that the suitability of the programme for young people was not scrutinised, particularly as allegations arose of abuse and neglect.

Footnotes