60. Children and young people were subjected to harsh conditions, physical abuse and punishments, sexual abuse, and neglect. Survivors were often forced to participate in the abuse and carry out punishments on each other. The Ministry of Social Development received 176 allegations of abuse from 40 different claimants. Of the 176 allegations 99 are for physical abuse, 42 are for emotional abuse, 21 are for sexual abuse and 14 are for neglect.[91] Supervisors routinely carried a rifle and waved it around when issuing direction to the children and young people attending the programme.[92] This contributed to the culture of psychological terror and violence.

Survivors experienced sexual abuse in care

61. It was common practice for survivors to be strip-searched when they arrived. John da Silva spoke of this practice to the media and openly admitted he may have been breaking the law, but that it was ‘desirable’. Mr da Silva said: “Here is an example where you’re going against the law, perhaps ... You use what I call common sense. You won’t find that in a book.”[93]

62. Survivors described John da Silva inspecting their genitals and buttocks during the strip-search process.[94] In 1999, Māori survivor Mr FQ (Ngāti Pikiao, Ngāpuhi, Te Rarawa), aged 15 years old, was strip-searched on arrival. During the search a staff member put his fingers in Mr FQ’s anus on the basis he was searching for drugs.[95]

63. There was no legal power for John da Silva or any staff member of Te Whakapakari Youth Programme to conduct strip searches or internal searches of the young people.

64. Up until 2002, staff at State residences had a power to conduct strip-searches pursuant to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Residential Care) Regulations 1996, but only if there was a strong belief that the child or young person was concealing drugs.[96] The power to conduct an internal examination was limited to a registered medical practitioner and on strict conditions.[97] This power was revoked in 2000. The Regulations did not apply to Te Whakapakari Youth Programme because it was not a State residence, but a Child and Family Support Service approved under section 396 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.

65. The majority of Whakapakari survivors who engaged with the Inquiry reported sexual abuse by staff, which occurred in tents, on the boats or in the bush.[98] When survivors tried to complain of the abuse to social workers, they were ignored, and their allegations were not acted upon.[99]

66. Pākehā survivor Mr PM described a “rape club” culture when he attended Whakapakari in 1990.[100] He observed sexual abuse by a supervisor at night of other young people who shared the same tent.[101] The same supervisor once took him and two other boys to a tent, where he directed two older boys to “fuck” them.[102] Mr PM initially escaped, but was then caught by the supervisor, who hit him on the back of his head with the butt of his gun. On his return to the tent, he heard horrible noises as the two younger boys were beaten and raped. The two boys were holding their bottoms and in severe pain. One said that he had been “fucked up the arse”.[103] This happened on a second occasion where attempts were made by the same older boys and the supervisor to rape a group of younger boys.[104]

67. The same supervisor took Mr PM and another boy to his camper the night before he was due to go home from Whakapakari. He raped both boys after brandishing his gun at them.[105]

68. Māori survivor Mr SL (Tainui) also described older boys sexually assaulting younger boys by inserting wooden sticks in their anuses when he was at Whakapakari in early 1993. Mr SL was also sexually assaulted by a supervisor when he had been sent to Alcatraz as punishment for attempting to escape in a boat. He said that he and others complained but no one cared about them.[106]

69. Some male survivors told the Inquiry that a female staff member physically and sexually abused them.[107] Māori survivor Mr LR (Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāpuhi, Tainui) said this occurred on a regular basis over a six-month period and said she threatened to assault him if he disclosed the ongoing abuse.[108] This staff member also sexually abused survivor Mr LG when they shared a tent. The next day he asked another staff member if he could move tents but instead of taking action, he said this staff member must have told his abuser. When she found out she physically abused and intimidated him and he was sent to Alcatraz.[109] On his return, he was held down by some of the other boys, who inserted a broom handle into his anus. Those boys then did the same thing to another boy.[110]

70. In 2003, a supervisor raped survivor Mr PJ. When Mr PJ disclosed the abuse to John da Silva and his wife Wilhelmina da Silva, they took no action.[111] After he had disclosed the abuse, the supervisor raped Mr PJ on four or five other occasions. As a result, Mr PJ stole a firearm and the keys to a boat.[112] The perpetrator and another supervisor punched, kicked and stomped Mr PJ in order to retrieve the keys. The next day, Mr PJ was made to carry bags of wet sand uphill as a punishment. [113]

71. In the early 1990s a supervisor raped NZ European and Māori survivor Mr NY (Ngāti Kahungunu) in his tent at night. The supervisor first hit him in the head with his rifle, and Mr NY drifted in and out of consciousness.[114] On a subsequent stay, another supervisor took him to a watering hole to bathe, then raped him against a log.[115]

72. Māori survivor Mr NQ (Ngāti Maniapoto) said that he was taken out alone in the boat with a supervisor, and John da Silva. He said that both sexually abused him and each knew what the other was doing. In desperation, Mr NQ threatened John da Silva. Mr da Silva then told the Department of Social Welfare that Mr NQ had threatened to steal a boat. This resulted in Mr NQ’s placement being extended for four weeks. During this time, and after he left, he told his social worker about the physical and sexual abuse but his complaint was not acted on.[116]

Survivors experienced physical abuse and violence

73. Staff were routinely physically abusive and violent towards young people attending the programme. Survivors were also traumatised and frightened by seeing and hearing their peers being beaten by supervisors.[117] Survivor Mr SL said he was not aware of any boys who avoided being beaten while at Whakapakari.[118]

74. Violence was inflicted by supervisors if mistakes were made during kapa haka practice, by kicking individuals in the face while they were forced to be on the ground doing push-ups as punishment. Boys were beaten if they made a mistake pronouncing te reo Māori.[119]

75. NZ European survivor Scott Carr described an assault where a supervisor headbutted him, threatened to kill him, put him in a headlock then threw him off a balcony. He then chased after Scott and threw him down a bank, causing him to lose consciousness. He woke up some hours later, covered in blood. Scott’s medical records reflected that he received treatment for a painful shoulder after running into a tree. The assault left him so distressed that he considered throwing himself off a cliff. Scott began sleeping with a knife to defend himself if he was assaulted again. The same supervisor continued to assault Scott during his time at Whakapakari by throwing firewood at him. [120]

76. Maori survivor Cody Togo (Ngāti Rangi, Tainui) said he experienced some form of physical violence from supervisors on a daily basis.[121] Māori survivor Mr RA (Ngāti Rongomaiwahine) described the violence:

“Every time I was physically assaulted by staff at Whakapakari, I would bleed, or my face would be swollen or sore for days. They didn’t hold back. They weren’t even trying to hit us as kids. I never got any medical treatment, not even plasters or Panadol. I just got told off for asking for it.”[122]

77. A staff member beat Māori survivor Mr V (Tainui) on the head with a shovel for taking a rest from digging tracks.[123] Another survivor told the Inquiry a staff member poured hot water over his foot because he thought the survivor had stolen his cigarettes. This survivor had to walk around on crutches and the wound got infected after he was left on Alcatraz for three days.[124]

78. Extensive abuse was inflicted by another staff member.[125] Survivor Mr LR described the woman beating him with a stick for stealing banana chips, to the extent he had black eyes, a bloody nose and a sore jaw.[126] Mr LR also described being punched and kicked by John da Silva.[127]

79. While some survivors had a good experience of John da Silva, many reported that he punched, backhanded slapped or hit them with wood or a rake. This occurred after they complained of abuse or as a punishment for wrongdoing.[128] Survivor Mr RA was tied to a tree for two days after he found some cannabis in the bush grown by the supervisors. John da Silva punched and threatened him when he refused to lie about finding the cannabis. He then attempted to sexually assault him, while punching him and forcibly removing his clothes.[129]

80. Staff also used extreme physical exercise as a punishment, such as making survivors hold a squat for an extended period or hitting them for making mistakes in kapa haka.[130] Numerous survivors described harsh physical punishments, such as being made to run up a hill carrying a heavy bag filled with rocks, stones or sand.[131]

81. Blanket punishments were imposed on all the young people. Survivor Mr V recalled all boys having to do 200 press ups without rest and being forced to restart from the beginning if anyone stopped.[132] This, in turn, led to tension and violence between the boys. Survivor Mr RA said: “Our way to solve these problems was with a fist fight.”[133]

82. By 2008 law firm Cooper Legal had 11 survivor clients alleging extreme physical and emotional abuse during their time at Whakapakari.[134] Survivors described physical abuse from staff such as being physically tortured and tormented, head-butted down a hill, viciously punched with full force in the head, smashed in the head with pieces of wood, punched, kicked and given vicious ‘hidings’. They described how staff would throw a bucket of water over them while they were sleeping and then repeatedly kick them while they were on the ground in their sleeping bags. One survivor described being locked up in a cage as punishment and kept there overnight.[135]

Survivors experienced a culture of psychological abuse and fear

83. Survivors experienced constant insults on their dignity, including the use of degrading language and lessening of them as people.[136] Survivor Cody Togo recalled that supervisors verbally taunted him, telling him his whānau did not want or love him, and calling him an idiot, ‘useless’ and ‘dumb’. Supervisors also threatened to throw him in the water and feed him to the sharks if he attempted to run away.[137] Some young people experienced racism by staff, including NZ European survivor Scott Carr in 1998, and Samoan survivor Mr GU in 2003.[138] Others described constant verbal abuse.[139]

84. Mr SL recalls being forced to dig trenches with others as a punishment. When they were not digging fast enough, the supervisor pointed the gun at them. He described that they thought they were going to die. One young person defecated in fear.[140]

Sending children and young people to Alcatraz was an extreme form of solitary confinement

85. Whangara Island, known as ‘Alcatraz’, was a 10-minute boat ride from the main camp at Whakapakari. There was no shelter, water or food on Alcatraz. It was used throughout the life of the programme as a punishment. As early as 1989, staff member R Starck sent a letter on behalf of the Director of the Department of Social Welfare expressing concern at the use of Alcatraz, noting “I cannot allow this Department to allow Youths attending camps to be subjected to Whakapakari Justice as it is dispensed by way of banishment to the island called “Alcatraz”.”[141] Survivors continued to be sent to Alcatraz until the suspension of Te Whakapakari Youth Trust’s approval as a Child and Family Support Service in 2004.

86. After NZ European, Māori and Cook Islands survivor Mr LG (Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Porou, Ngāpuhi) was aggressive towards a female supervisor who had sexually abused him, he was taken to Alcatraz by boat as a punishment by John da Silva. He threw Mr LG overboard and forced him to make his own way to the shore. Mr LG was not provided with any food and had to find oysters to eat. He was left alone overnight on the island. He found himself “wanting to die”.[142]

87. John da Silva took Māori survivor Mr LR (Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāpuhi, Tainui) and a friend to Alcatraz after they attempted to escape. John da Silva punched and slapped them both as they approached Alcatraz and they were forced to swim to shore. They were then left on the island for two nights without food, water or shelter.[143] Survivor Mr V was taken to Alcatraz in 1994 for two weeks and recalled being left there with the other members of his tent. They were given a fishing line, some flour and porridge and were often hungry. There were insufficient tents, which meant some of the group had to sleep outside.[144]

88. Survivor Cody Togo was sent to Alcatraz three times in 1999, usually by himself and for a three-day period. He was forced to swim part of the way to the island, a terrifying experience as he had seen sharks in the water nearby. Cody said there was nothing on the island besides a flimsy tin shack, some potatoes, rice and rats, and there was no way to start a fire: “Alcatraz was scary and I was cold and hungry. I thought I was going to die.”[145]

89. In August 1997, a young person told social workers of the use of Alcatraz as punishment, where scraps of food would be taken every two days, and the boys had to dig out caves to sleep in: “You had to prove you were good enough to be allowed back to the main island.”[146]

90. In 2003, survivor Mr GU was sent to Alcatraz as a punishment for beating another boy, although he did so at the direction of a supervisor. He was forced to swim to the shore after John da Silva threw him off the boat. He was later left with some clothes, a sleeping bag and a loaf of bread. He had to live off kina and pāua and, at one stage, leaves. He was in dangerous situations when diving for kina and at one point he nearly fell off a cliff. He was scared and alone. Eventually he swam back to the mainland when no one had dropped off supplies or checked on him for two weeks.[147]

91. In 1992, TVNZ screened a documentary about Whakapakari called Breaking the Barrier. It noted that half of the young people were sent to the island “affectionately known as Alcatraz”.[148] It featured several young people being sent to Alcatraz, and showed inhospitable terrain, describing it as “a barren piece of rock”.[149] The documentary showed there was no fresh water, and featured fish being cooked as the only food.[150]

92. The United Nations defines solitary confinement as “the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact”.[151] When survivors were placed on Alcatraz alone, they were placed in a frightening, stark form of solitary confinement where there was no possibility of contact with other people. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that “detention of a child must conform with the law and be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time”.[152]

93. Isolation from others is “painful and profoundly damaging to the health and wellbeing of individuals with normal resilience and no prior health issues”.[153] These effects are more marked in children and young people, and especially those who have experienced trauma or who have learning difficulties and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.[154] Solitary confinement places the person in “highly stressful conditions, and it takes away the usual coping mechanisms – access to human company, nature and things to do”.[155] Impacts of solitary confinement include a loss of trust with staff, a sense of powerlessness, and a sense of anger. Medium- and long-term impacts include Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and a chronic distrust of those in authority.[156]

Mock executions and other conduct made young people think they were going to be killed

94. Staff made death threats and carried out mock executions throughout the years, creating a culture of fear and psychological abuse. A survivor witnessed a supervisor holding another young person under the water in a creek, as a punishment.[157] Mr V recalled one supervisor holding a gun to his head after he dropped a 20-litre bottle of water that rolled down the hill.[158] Mr NY experienced a ‘mock execution’ and wet his pants in fear.[159]

95. Mr PM described being forced to dig his own grave with three other boys. The supervisor forced the boys to get into their graves and lie face down. He threatened to shoot them. He then started shooting into the air. The boys were screaming and begging for their lives. When the boys tried to get out of the holes, the supervisor would kick them and beat them. Mr PM thought it was going to be the end of his life.[160]

96. In May 1998 a gang member performed a terrifying mock execution of four young people. The four young people had escaped, prompted by witnessing an assault on another young person.[161] One of these was survivor David Bagley. The young people caused damage to property and a boat in their escape.[162] The owner of the boat was a member of the Head Hunters gang.[163]

97. The young people were eventually caught and punished. John da Silva left them on Alcatraz in wet clothing without food or shelter. The next day the gang member came to the island and demanded that a stolen watch be returned. He cut David Bagley’s finger and threatened the boys.[164] When John da Silva returned to collect the boys, he ignored their complaints and instead delivered them to the gang member for another round of punishment. Before he left, John da Silva witnessed the gang member ordering his dog to bite David Bagley.[165]

98. The gang member forced the boys to their knees and fired numerous shots over their heads. The young boys were crying and screaming. The man then forced each boy in turn into a dog kennel at gunpoint, where they were bitten by the dog.[166]

99. The man then took the boys to his back yard and forced them to dig their own graves at gunpoint. He made them get into the holes and tormented them by shooting towards them. The boys were crying and terrified. At some point all four boys escaped, as the man fired shots over their heads.[167] They found John da Silva and a supervisor at the docking bay and told them what had happened. John da Silva took them to Alcatraz and left them there until they were removed from the programme.[168] David complained to his mother, who told David’s lawyer what happened, “but it seemed to me the whole thing was swept under the carpet”.[169]

Girls sent to Whakapakari experienced abuse

100. Records show that a small number of girls were placed at Whakapakari.[170] The boys would often bully the girls.[171] Concerns were raised at the mixing of boys and girls, due to the threats to the girls’ safety, including being sexually abused. In April 1991, John da Silva noted that “jealousy over the only 3 girls on the programme” sparked off fights.[172] On 30 August 1995, a female resident also wrote a letter complaining of violence towards the girls on the programme.[173] The resident threatened to commit suicide if she wasn’t removed.[174]

101. In 1995 the Whakapakari Youth Trust “reluctantly”[175] restricted entry to boys only, after a supervisor was charged with unlawful sexual connection with a girl at the programme[176] who became pregnant as a result.[177] This was clearly an abuse of power, given the supervisor was a staff member in control of the individual. Despite this, the Child, Youth and Family Service found that there was no evidence of abuse and, other than removing the supervisor from the programme and no longer sending girls to the programme, took no other action.[178]

102. One female survivor said at one point she was the only girl on the programme and she couldn’t even use the bathroom without the threat of being raped.[179] She also described not having access to adequate hygiene when menstruating and having instead to bathe and clean her clothes in the river.[180]

Survivors experienced abusive regimes

103. Young people were expected to work during the day, including cutting and moving firewood, fishing, washing and kitchen duties.[181] Māori and Cook Islands survivor Ngatokorima Mauauri (Tainui) described it as “a taste of what slave labour felt like”.[182] Māori and Cook Islands survivor Mr UU (Te Atiawa) described the strict, boot camp style routine they were subjected to:

“There were rules we had to follow, and we had chores and jobs they told us to do. We just had to do what they said. It was very strict and if you stepped out of line, we got hit bad with either the strap or the belt. We just didn’t vibe with it, and it didn’t take long for one of the boys or girls to step out of line and pay the price.”[183]

104. Staff created an abusive environment by teaching boys to react with violence, and setting up fights between boys, including pack attacks.[184] Young people were beaten in front of their peers for any lack of adherence to the rules.[185]

105. Participants were awarded a special status as a reward for good behaviour and compliance with the rules. They were made a part of a group known as the ‘Flying Squad’, who assisted supervisors with enforcing rules and, in some cases, carrying out punishments on other children and young people. At the instigation of staff, many survivors were assaulted by members of the Flying Squad.[186] Peer pressure was also used as a formal means of controlling behaviour.[187] This was described by survivor Cody Togo: “Boys were made part of the Flying Squad if they sucked up to the supervisors, did what they were told and narked on the other boys.”[188]

106. Survivors who were made members of the Flying Squad by staff described their discomfort with the violence they were tasked to inflict on other boys.[189] Survivor Mr FQ sometimes told boys to pretend he had hit them.[190]

Survivors experienced educational neglect

107. Since 1914 every child between 7 years old and 14 years old has been legally required to be enrolled and attend school. In 1964 this increased to every child between 6 years old and 15 years old.[191] Reviews of the programme indicated that some young people were attending correspondence school under the guidance of Wilhelmina da Silva.[192] Evidence showed, however, that not all survivors attended correspondence school and, for those who did, the provision of education was scant. A brochure prepared by Te Whakapakari Youth Trust described the daily activity as chopping wood, fishing, hunting and survival activities, but does not mention any educational opportunities. No survivor who spoke to the Inquiry reported receiving any meaningful education while at Whakapakari.

108. Māori survivor Mr NY (Ngāti Kahungunu) went to Whakapakari twice and said there was no schooling when he attended.[193] Survivor Mr LR was supposed to be enrolled in correspondence school while there but said instead of school he had to do a lot of physical training and work, including the preparation of meals, collecting and chopping firewood, and fishing. The only schooling he received was to write a letter home once a week.[194] Survivor Mr PJ said correspondence school was only done once per week.[195]

109. In July 1994 following a report by social worker Peter Topzand reviewing a number of allegations against Whakapakari, the Community Funding Agency reviewed its approval and ongoing funding of Te Whakapakari Youth Trust.[196] In October 1994, the Community Funding Agency required additional conditions to be added to its approval for Te Whakapakari Youth Trust, including meeting academic needs and clothing provisions. A review was planned for December 1994 by the Community Funding Agency to ensure that these conditions of approval were met. However, there is no evidence that the review had taken place by September 1995.[197] The Inquiry did not receive any evidence that the Community Funding Agency took steps to ensure the conditions were met. It simply continued to fund Te Whakapakari Youth Trust.

110. The 1995 Thom Report noted the daily routine of the camp included physical training, jobs (laundry, chopping wood and digging drains) and recreation (bullrush, kapa haka and walking). There is no mention of correspondence school or other educational activity.[198]

111. Records from 1998 state all participants on the programme were enrolled in a correspondence school supervised by Wilhelmina da Silva but that there was no funding for education or supervision of the correspondence programme.[199]

112. In a letter dated June 1998, the Correspondence School referred to a four-year history of student attendance at Whakapakari, in positive terms, saying that a high standard of work was expected and that the children and young people had good working habits.[200] It also recorded a total of 24 students enrolled in 1997. As there were 20 young people at Whakapakari for one- to three-month placements at any one time, this reflected a very low attendance rate. The letter notes the students’ conditions were “at best extremely basic”, as well as the lack of funding available for educational resources. The Correspondence School obtained sponsorship for Whakapakari to buy some basic resources.[201]

113. This assessment was completely at odds with the evidence the Inquiry has received from survivors, and records of the activities at Whakapakari from the time. Even if they were formally enrolled there is no evidence of regular attendance. Survivors who attended Whakapakari were educationally neglected in addition to abuse they endured.

114. Education is a necessary means of realising other human rights and being deprived of education further disempowered the economically and socially marginalised children. Some survivors were at Whakapakari for three to six months, and this ongoing educational neglect denied them the opportunity to acquire the means to participate in matters affecting their lives.

115. The lack of indoor facilities placed limitations on what Whakapakari’s outdoor education programme could offer, particularly given the rough weather in the area.[202] After undertaking a placement at Whakapakari for three days in 1997, a social work student believed that “the cold, wet and muddy conditions are too extreme over the winter period.”[203] The Chairman of Te Whakapakari Youth Trust responded to this by saying: “The Trust had given consideration to closing the camp during the worst of the winter months, but on balance considered there was no need to. Things taken into consideration included the excellent state of health of the young people, the generally high level of morale, and the kaupapa which encouraged the overcoming of adversity. The Trust currently believes that the winter conditions do not adversely affect the young people or the programme.”[204]

Survivors experienced neglect of physical and health needs

116. Survivors told us they were constantly hungry and the food provided was inadequate for the level of physical labour they were doing.[205] NZ European survivor Scott Carr said he was often hungry, particularly when young people didn’t manage to catch their own food. Staff intercepted food parcels sent by Scott’s mother, either to keep for themselves or to redistribute to other young people.[206] Māori survivor Cody Togo (Ngāti Rangi, Tainui) described the hunger:

“We were made to work each day and I was constantly hungry. Not just slightly hungry – it was a painful hunger that never really went away.”[207]

117. In one report, young people gave identical descriptions of the food available: porridge for breakfast, soup and bread for lunch, and fish and vegetables for dinner (if fish was available).[208] A brochure discussing the programme confirmed survivors’ accounts that young people would need to catch fish or hunt in order to have any protein.[209] John da Silva said that sometimes they had to “live as vegetarians” if no other food was available.[210]

118. The 1992 documentary Breaking the Barrier described the philosophy for the programme: “Do it yourself, or starve”. It showed a celebration when some of the participants successfully hunted a goat, and observed that because they had not been able to catch any fish, there was no other food available. The programme also conceded during a visit by care and protection social work staff in May 1994 that fish and meat were “short” at the time.[211]

119. Survivors lived in tents, which sometimes leaked and provided inadequate shelter. Māori, Niuean and Chinese survivor Jason Fenton said there were no beds within the tents.[212] The toilet was a longdrop that was so full, waste came up to the level of the toilet seat.[213] A complaint in 1995 by a staff member about conditions at the camp reported a rat infestation in the tents and kitchen, bad hygiene practices (for example, a toilet brush being used to wash dishes), and a lack of access to first aid and medical care (for example, no inhalers for asthmatics, refusal to provide a sling for a broken arm, no access to antibiotics for infected cuts).[214] This, and another complaint by a former boy, was what led to the inquiry and publication of the Thom Report, outlined in more detail in chapter 6.

120. Although some survivors experienced serious injuries from physical abuse, medical attention was delayed, or not provided. When a boy was seriously assaulted by two other young people on 1 June 1997, staff recorded that they could not take him to a doctor until 4 June 1997 because the 2nd of June was a public holiday and there was a cyclone on the 3rd.[215] Māori survivor Mr LR (Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāpuhi, Tainui) said he had cuts, bruises and lost teeth from assaults, but did not receive any medical attention.[216]

121. Although the Green Report suggested there was a weekly visit from a health nurse from 1995, many survivors described a complete lack of medical attention. Māori survivor Mr V (Tainui) told the Inquiry that a supervisor kicked a log down a hill towards him, where it hit him in the leg. He got a “big gash” from the log, which was bandaged up, but then became infected.[217]

122. The Thom Report discussed serious issues in relation to four young people interviewed and concluded that the conditions relating to diet, medical needs and personal hygiene were substandard.[218] One boy was accidentally burnt, scarring his back, and did not see a medical professional. A second boy said he had a fever for one to two weeks and did not receive medical attention. On his return he saw a GP for treatment of a bacterially infected penis – which should have been a red flag for abuse. A third boy returned from Whakapakari having lost 15 to 20 kilograms, was covered in impetigo, and had visibly inflamed and raw sores at interview, as well as cuts that had become septic. The fourth boy also suffered three fevers over a five and a half month stay and burns, for which he was given no medical treatment.

123. This same report said laundry was only done weekly, so children and young people could be in the same set of clothing for up to a week.[219] All boys interviewed said their footwear was less than adequate. This was a common theme in survivor accounts.

124. Survivor Mr V told us: “The conditions weren’t very hygienic. I was usually dirty, and we didn’t have hot water for showering.”[220] Until August 1995 when showers were installed, personal bathing was in a creek, with one hot bath per week.[221] As late as 2003, young people on the programme were only permitted to shower once a week. Many of the young people had boils as a result.[222]

125. In 1997, a second-year social work student raised a number of complaints with the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Service after staying at Whakapakari for three nights. The student reported that the tents were old and in need of repair, the bedding was damp, and some young people were inadequately clothed. He also said food was prepared in unhygienic conditions and eating facilities were “primitive”. [223] The 1997 Green Report noted these complaints but did not make any recommendations to rectify the issues raised.[224]

126. A further complaint was made in August 1998 that there were wet sleeping bags, and the conditions in the dining area were sub-standard with an open drain in front of the cooking area that rats frequented.[225] In response, a 1998 report by the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Service National Office recommended that the Service direct all applicants for Te Whakapakari Youth Programme placements to have suitable sleeping gear and wet weather clothing.[226] The 1998 report reached no conclusions on the particular allegations.

127. The environment was completely inappropriate for young people to live in, particularly as most of them had experienced trauma in either previous care settings or in their homes. Psychiatrist Dr Enys Delmage told the Inquiry that purpose-designed, bespoke facilities for young people are vital, and need to be informed by developmental science and tailored therapeutic approaches in order to help avoid institutionalisation and further trauma. The available research indicates the richness of the environment is a crucial element in healthy brain development.[227]

Conclusion on the nature and extent of abuse at Whakapakari

128. Children and young people were subjected to horrific abuse. The brutality of the camp was underscored by the daily use of violence against children and young people. Serious physical abuse was part of the daily fabric of life at the camp. Young people were found to have broken bones and scars on their return to the mainland.

129. Sexual abuse was rife. Supervisors raped children and young people at gunpoint. The supervisors orchestrated ‘rape parties’ where they encouraged older boys to rape younger boys or penetrate them using sticks in a group setting.

130. Two aspects of psychological abuse are unique to Whakapakari. The use of Whangara Island as ‘Alcatraz’ was an extremely frightening form of solitary confinement where young people were left without shelter, water or adequate food for days or weeks at a time as punishment. The second was the disturbing mock executions conducted by supervisors of young people, a practice that occurred on many occasions. Young people were forced to dig their own graves at gunpoint and lie in them. Some young people were shot at.

131. The harrowing experiences of children and young people are rendered more shocking by the fact they occurred so recently. There was no escape and no one to turn to for assistance. Children and young people were not safe at Whakapakari.

Footnotes