46. Survivors of Van Asch College (Van Asch) and Kelston School for the Deaf (Kelston) endured serious sexual abuse including rape and sexual assault by staff and older children during the Inquiry period. Physical abuse by staff and from their peers occurred regularly, creating an environment of fear in some classrooms and in the hostels. Some students were bullied, harassed and verbally abused by staff and peers. Children and young people were punished for using Sign Language, and experienced linguistic neglect as they were not taught Sign Language. The majority of children and young people received an inadequate education, particularly those with other disabilities. Deaf identity was not supported by staff. Tāngata Turi Māori experienced racism and cultural neglect at schools staffed by hearing Pākehā. Pacific children may have similarly experienced racism and discrimination.

47. This chapter describes the abuse and neglect that survivors of Van Asch and Kelston reported to the Inquiry.

Survivors experienced sexual abuse

48. Sexual abuse experienced by survivors included rape, serious sexual assaults and sexual abuse under the pretext of cleaning their bodies. Survivors were sexually abused by staff and older peers. The abuse occurred in the hostel dormitories, in bathrooms, in the playground, and at times off-site. The boarding dormitories were not supervised at night, which increased the likelihood of both staff and students abusing boarders. Survivors spoke of significant peer-to-peer sexual abuse, a lack of sex education and lack of language to describe what was happening to them.

49. Māori survivor Milton Reedy (Ngāti Porou) was sexually abused by a male staff member during shower time at Kelston when he was around 8 to 10 years old. He described the abuse:

“He inserted his finger in my anus and would poke and rub it a number of times. I didn’t understand whether what he was doing was right or wrong because I was so young … An older Pākehā Deaf student taught me how to masturbate. I was 7 or 8 years old and he was 14 or 15 … This happened in the toilets, in a cubicle … No staff member ever spoke to me or educated me on sex or sexual abuse. I never told anyone about what the older boy was doing … There was no sign at that time for sexual abuse. We had no knowledge of words related to sex.[44]

50. NZ European Survivor Mr JS said the extent of sexual abuse at Van Asch was “too much” for him to talk about. It started when he was 14 years old and continued for three years:

“The older boys would often act as a pack and they would target me. There were many occasions when they would bully and sexually assault me. These boys would grab me and remove my pants and underwear. About three times, boarding staff saw this same group of boys target me, take my pants off and try to assault me. Every time, the staff just laughed and did nothing. They found it funny. When I was about 15, a male Deaf student raped me. When I was about 17, I was also sexually assaulted in the common room at lunch time.”[45]

51. NZ European survivor Mr JT told the Inquiry he was sexually abused at Kelston by several staff members:

“[One teacher] took me through to the toilets and took my pants down. He directed my hand to touch him in certain ways, on his genitals. He also touched my genital area. When this was finished, he told me to go back to the boarding school dorms … [Another staff member] worked in the boarding school looking after the residential students … [He] mostly abused me in his home ... He took his pants off and put Vaseline on my bottom. He rubbed my bottom and tried to insert his penis into my anus. He pushed hard. I screamed and screamed and screamed. He put his penis in me about three or four times. Then, [he] turned me around and ejaculated into my mouth.”[46]

52. NZ European Survivor Mr PI was born Deaf and with cerebral palsy. He went from St Dominic’s School for the Deaf in Feilding (not associated with Van Asch or Kelston), where he suffered physical and sexual abuse. He went to board at Van Asch College in 1983 at 13 years old.[47] At Van Asch College, Mr PI was sexually abused by a peer in the bath.[48]

Survivors experienced physical abuse

53. A number of survivors were harmed and assaulted at Van Asch and Kelston. This included punching, hitting, slapping to the head and ears, caning, strapping, smacking with a belt or ruler, kneeing, kicking, grabbing someone’s face or neck, and bullying behaviour.

54. Physical discipline of children and young people, such as corporal punishment, was accepted and legislated for a large part of the Inquiry period.[49] Schoolmasters were: "justified in using force by way of correction towards any child or pupil under [their] care, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.”[50] However, even legal practices were abusive at times and much of the punishment described by survivors went beyond the bounds of acceptable corporal punishment.

55. Deaf children and young people experienced regular physical abuse by teachers and hostel staff. While many survivors recall teachers and hostel staff who were caring, of their students many recall staff who physically abused children and young people on a regular basis. Some students had the same teacher for several years and survivors recall good and bad years depending on who their teacher was.

56. Several survivors recalled physical abuse at Kelston from teacher Mr 222 who gave a child “a hiding” by punching him and kneeing him around the kidneys for no apparent reason[51] and:

“Mr 222 had a black and orange striped cane. He always hit us over the hands with it. It really, really hurt. He would also slap us around the head and ears. It was such an ongoing thing. We were all constantly hit, slapped, kicked and caned. Mr 222 created an environment of fear in the classroom.”[52]

57. NZ European survivor Ms JQ, who attended Van Asch from 5 years old in 1977 to 18 years old, told the Inquiry she was about 5 years old when she was physically abused by her teacher. She described the incident:

“[She] really was a bitch ...There was one time we had to draw a picture, and I picked out a pink crayon. I was drawing a cake – I wasn’t sure if I was using the right colour. She came up to me and said, ‘What is that?’ I turned away from her because I was scared. She grabbed me by the jaw and held me so that I had to look at her and said, ‘You have to draw a chocolate cake’. I couldn’t figure out what she was saying ... Again, she banged on the table. She took the brown crayon and scribbled hard over my paper and through my drawing saying, ‘It should be a chocolate cake. It can’t be pink, it needs to be brown.’ She was holding my jaw again and saying something to me and I tried to move back and she smacked me really hard on the ear. I turned my head and when I turned she smacked me on the other ear too. I was so shocked. I could feel something warm trickling from my ears. Both my ears were bleeding. I was wearing the old FM system that we used to have as a hearing aid. They had really hard resin earpieces. When the teacher hit me, the earpieces had broken off inside my ears and made it bleed.”[53]

58. The right to human dignity recognises the intrinsic worth of all people.[54] All forms of inhumane treatment, humiliation and degradation infringe upon this right.[55] The survivor evidence indicates that some staff at Van Asch and Kelston did not respect the universal right to protection of human dignity. Failure to respect and protect human dignity can negatively impact on Māori survivors’ individual mana, as well as causing a loss of mana to their whānau, iwi, and hapū.

59. Some survivors were not kept safe by staff. Many were bullied by older peers, and some staff wilfully ignored what was occurring and failed to protect younger children. This occurred in both the boarding hostels and the schools.

60. Māori survivor Whiti Ronaki (Te Arawa) told the Inquiry he was bullied over food at Kelston:

“We had lunch bags with our names on them, and the big kids used to take my lunch bag. The big Māori kids would pick on the little Māori kids. I would go hungry because they took my lunch. We would say to the teachers my lunch is gone when the lunches were given out, we would go to the teacher who would just gesture back to us, but we were unable to understand what they were saying, which was frustrating. We would be really hungry. Sometimes on the weekends we were given a bag of lollies with our names on it and the bigger Māori boys would say ‘come here’ and then take your bag of lollies, give you two of them and take the rest.”[56]

61. An ERO report for Kelston in 2000 noted that the Board needed to “urgently develop documentation to guide the operation of the residential area to ensure the safety of children, young people and staff”.[57] ERO referred to the need for guidelines for maintaining records, managing behaviour, strategies for resolving conflict and developing individual programmes for students. ERO stated that the lack of documentation created a potential safety risk.[58] ERO specifically noted the lack of agreed procedures to manage difficult situations or for children and young people to express concerns and recommended that the board consider appointing an independent advocate for students to ensure key issues could be raised and addressed.[59]

Survivors experienced psychological and verbal abuse

62. NZ European survivor Ms JR spoke of experiencing bullying and harassment from peers and having to adapt to survive the negative environment at Van Asch:

“I experienced so much harassment and bullying that I quickly developed survival skills. I survived by learning how to avoid people and how to get away at a moment’s notice. I started eating my lunch behind this hill on the school grounds … The boarding staff would never look after or support the newcomers … The psychological abuse and torment never stopped once, the whole time I was at Van Asch. The boarders would play mind games with me. Sometimes I felt like I was on the brink of losing my sanity. It was unbearable.”[60]

63. Some survivors were bullied or discriminated against for having disabilities (for example, some Deaf children and young people had additional support needs), or being ‘different’. NZ European survivor Ms NH was bullied by other Kelston Students because she was blind in one eye: “They would pull faces to mimic my blind eye and that was hurtful. I didn’t tell any of the staff as I didn’t know what ‘bullying’ meant and didn’t know how to communicate, and I also knew if I did say anything the Students would tease me more.”[61] NZ European survivor Mr PI told the Inquiry how he received “extra discrimination” at Van Asch because he had cerebral palsy.[62]

64. Survivors described being belittled and verbally abused by both teachers and hostel staff. Some survivors were put in solitary confinement, others had punishments such as being made to brush their teeth with soap.[63] Māori survivor Milton Reedy (Ngāti Porou) told the Inquiry a favourite phrase staff used to describe students at Kelston was ‘Deaf and dumb’, saying: “No wonder you’re here, you are Deaf and dumb.” Milton Reedy said he had tried to forgive and forget. “It is not easy. I am also upset by what I witnessed. It made me feel sorry for other students.”[64]

65. NZ European survivor Ms JQ said her teacher at Van Asch was quick to react in physically abusive ways if she got even a small thing wrong:

“She would grab me by the arm and drag me to a room and shut the door. The room was dark – pitch black – and I didn’t know what to do. It was a tiny narrow storage room where they would keep paint, paintbrushes and crayons. There was no one there and I would panic. I don’t know how long I would be left there for. She would open the door and then shout at me again while I was panicking. It was just awful. [She] put me in this room so many times. It was terrifying.”[65]

66. Ms JQ’s evidence illustrates psychological abuse as Deaf people rely predominantly on vision for orienting to the environment (without sound cues). Being shut in the dark would have felt much more acutely frightening and powerless for Ms JQ than for a hearing child.[66]

67. The humiliation and degradation of some Deaf children and young people by staff reflects a failure to protect and respect human dignity and inherent human value.[67] Discrimination against Deaf children and young people also infringes the right to equality and non-discrimination recognised in both domestic and international human rights law.[68]

Survivors experienced neglect

68. Neglect is a form of abuse that can take many different forms such as emotional, educational and cultural neglect. At Van Asch and Kelston, survivors experienced neglect including: not being taught or allowed to use Sign Language, not being provided with an adequate level of education, Deaf culture and identity not being supported, Māori children and young people were culturally neglected, and it is likely that Pacific cultures were similarly neglected.

Survivors experienced linguistic abuse and neglect

69. Deaf children and young people experienced linguistic abuse and neglect at Van Asch and Kelston. From the 1950s to 1970s children and young people were taught using oral methods by staff who were Pākehā and hearing. Due to the Department of Education’s policies of the time, Sign Language did not develop in the classroom. Children and young people were not allowed to sign and were not taught Sign Language. Children and young people were expected to learn to lipread and vocalise to be accepted by hearing society. Those who were caught signing were physically punished.

70. Kiwi survivor Ms Bielski was told she was not allowed to use Sign Language as soon as she arrived at Van Asch at 5 years old, in 1978. At home she had used a mixture of signing and speaking, switching between the two, and because of this she was confused and shocked:

“I remember crawling under a table and crying. Being told I could not sign was like a slap in the face … I hadn’t been at Van Asch long when my teacher tied my hands to my chair to stop me from talking. You would never make a hearing student shut up by gagging them, or taping their mouth shut, so why is it okay to tie a Deaf person’s hands up?”[69]

71. Children and young people continued to sign in secret at school, in the playground and at the hostels because this was their most accessible natural language. Sign Language existed underground. To sign in public was considered embarrassing and shameful. Māori survivor Whiti Ronaki (Te Arawa) said children and young people at Kelston learned how to sign by watching each other: “We made up our own way of communicating [and] when the teachers were gone we would teach each other[70]”. Māori survivor Milton Reedy (Ngāti Porou) told the Inquiry the version of signing they used at Kelston wasn’t the formal sign language used now:

“It was more gestures and lipreading of each other. We would make up our own signs, which would then be disseminated and thrown into our language pool ... I think what they did to us at Kelston was wrong. Not being able to sign was upsetting. We were all upset. It was like being in a concentration camp.”[71]

72. Parents were told not to let their children sign at home as it would undermine their oral education. This left children unable to communicate with their parents, except by ‘home signs’ or gestures understood within the family context.

73. Maliah Turu, whose brother attended Van Asch, recalled her family was told to stop using sign and only communicate with him orally:

“Van Asch tried to prevent us from using sign with [my brother] … They said we should want ‘them’ to be as ‘normal’ as possible. I remember being in the room when the school staff were telling my mum this.”[72]

74. Brian Hogue was a teacher at both deaf schools between 1952 and 1967. He said: “Personally I found the pure oralist philosophy of those ‘in power’ repressive. It worked for a few very bright and gifted pupils, the rest were expected to follow with tragic results.”[73]

75. In 1979 Total Communication was introduced, as it was clear that the dominant ideology of oralism was not working after 100 years of it being mandatory. However, a 1979 letter from the Director-General of Education to Van Asch and Kelston expressed a reluctance to acknowledge the failing of the oral approach and move on from this method of teaching: “New Zealand has a long standing commitment to a strong oral emphasis in its education of deaf children. There is ample evidence to justify retaining this emphasis as basic in teaching communication skills to the deaf, but there is now also sufficient evidence to justify supplementing it by manual communication methods. These methods can be particularly valuable for those deaf persons who cannot, for some reason, develop effective speech and/or reading.”[74] 

76. Despite the move away from oralism, Total Communication used a form of signing based on the English language and Australian Sign Language vocabulary and was not an effective method of learning for Deaf children who did not yet have a command of spoken English. Kiwi survivor Ms Bielski described the problems with the approach:

“[Total Communication] was better than nothing at school because we could use signs as part of our communication with speaking. The problem was that they wanted us to use a new type of sign language that was based on the grammar and syntax of the English language and sign language from Australia, not New Zealand. I describe this sign language as ‘signed English’. It was not as intuitive for Deaf people as the purer version of New Zealand Sign Language and it did not make conceptual sense. The translations were too literal.”[75]

77. NZ European survivor Ms JQ who attended Van Asch from 1977 to 1990, told the Inquiry that Total Communication was difficult because children and young people had to sign every word they would say in English and ensure it was in the right order:

“It was too difficult … I could understand a little more TC [Total Communication] than some of my peers. I could see that TC didn’t help their literacy but caused more confusion. TC was supposed to aid us in writing English, but it didn’t. For example, sometimes the teacher would speak to us in TC and we would have to write down what they had said. Every student in the class would write a different sentence.”[76]

78. At the Inquiry’s State Institutional Response Hearing, Secretary for Education and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Education Iona Holsted accepted Counsel’s proposition that oralist policies adopted in Aotearoa New Zealand “prevented Deaf children and young people from exercising their choice to use sign language”[77] Ms Holsted also accepted evidence that Deaf survivors were punished for using Sign Language. [78]

79. Overall, Deaf children and young people’s right to human dignity was breached. This right includes the assurance of individual choice, autonomy and decision making. Deaf children and young people were denied the opportunity to exercise individual choice to use Sign Language and Deaf culture in their education.[79]

Survivors experienced educational neglect

80. The education at Van Asch and Kelston was inadequate for the majority of students and as a result they suffered educational neglect. For most Deaf children and young people, the impact of oralism and Total Communication meant they learnt very little at school.

81. Some students were frustrated at the constant repetition and lack of progress. Māori survivor Whiti Ronaki (Te Arawa) said he learnt little at Kelston:

“I did learn about 15 English words, and they would test me on the same words. There were no new ones, just the same 15 words over and over again.”[80]

82. NZ European survivor Mr JS started at Van Asch in 1979 aged 14 years old. He said that at first the education was okay but it declined quickly: “I was gaining access to language and all of the students were Deaf, so it made the class environment much easier to learn in. However, when I was around 16, the schoolwork got very boring. They gave us work suitable for primary school children. It was insulting and frustrating. I was bored so I got into trouble again. I was getting the strap and being sent to the headmaster regularly.”[81]

83. Some teachers taught the same group for a number of years, and what was taught could sometimes depend on the teacher’s preference rather than a set curriculum. Pākehā survivor Mr EV told the Inquiry he wasn’t taught normal lessons at Kelston by his teacher of two years, Mr 222, but instead was taught “army stuff”, such as Morse code, as Mr 222 had experience in the army:

“Morse code was not a normal part of our school programme ... If we got the Morse code wrong, [Mr 222] would make us do it again and again until we got it right. It was not fair to try to make us learn Morse code. We were never going to be able to master it. It didn’t make sense to us.”[82]

84. Teaching resources were put into a small number of children and young people who were considered more likely to succeed in learning. Kiwi survivor Ms Bielski told the Inquiry:

“Our class was used for show, to make the school look good. They invested so much into my class, but the other students were completely neglected. Four out of the six people in my class went onto to tertiary education, and one went onto to become a tradesman. My classmates and I all did well academically, and all went on to be successful. We were taught in a different way from the other students, we were able to use purer [New Zealand Sign Language] with [Total Communication] and we worked with our teachers to develop a teaching style that worked for us. None of the other classes at Van Asch got to experience the quality of education that we did. Most of them failed academically because the teachers took no interest in their success. The question I have today is, why? Why us? Why did none of the other students get this opportunity? They could have done so much better. This was educational neglect.”[83]

85. Academic expectations for Deaf children and young people were low. It was assumed that Deaf children and young people were unlikely to succeed in education. In 1966, Sumner School (later renamed Van Asch College) Principal Herbert Pickering said: “Educational retardation is a natural consequence of deafness and it is rare for our pupils to achieve academic success.”[84] In Kelston’s 1969 Annual Report Principal Alan Young said: “Generally a high school programme which is geared towards a School Certificate syllabus is suitable for only exceptional deaf children.” [85]

86. At the Inquiry’s State Institutional Response Hearing, Secretary of Education and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Education Iona Holsted acknowledged that the education system often had lower expectations for certain groups and communities, including Deaf people, and this was an extremely powerful determinant for learning outcomes.[86]

87. The Inquiry received evidence in the form of Department of Education inspection reports for Van Asch and Kelston completed by the Department’s special education staff during the Inquiry period. Following its formation in 1989, ERO conducted periodic reviews of Van Asch and Kelston.

88. A 1983 Department of Education inspection report for Van Asch noted its curriculum was different to mainstream schools: “The school caters for residential and non-residential pupils, many of whom are multiple-handicapped and some of whom have been discovered to be so handicapped at late stages in their development. The nature of the pupil population and the severity of the handicaps represented amongst the pupils dictates the type of curriculum and the skills required of the teachers. This is somewhat different from the manner in which the curricula are implemented in normal hearing schools.”[87]

89. A 1994 ERO report for Kelston stated that the school had no school-wide information on individual achievement, and this should be addressed by the school.[88] ERO reported that most classrooms provided suitable learning environments but would benefit from detailed student achievement objectives. The report stated that the recognition of Deaf culture was strong and the school board had responded to requests for the employment of Deaf staff, funding of Deaf studies, purchase of interpreter services, and establishment of a position for a New Zealand Sign Language teacher. ERO noted the board’s decision to introduce New Zealand Sign Language.[89]

Deaf survivors with other disabilities experienced educational neglect

90. Historically, Deaf children and young people with other disabilities received insufficient training and education due to a lack of resources available at Van Asch and Kelston.

91. The annual reports of Van Asch and Kelston show that they enrolled many Deaf children with other disabilities, and this increased with the closure of psychopaedic institutions. In 1966, Kelston Principal Alan Young said the school had 19 “multiply handicapped children” and he questioned whether the “purely oral approach” was meeting their educational needs.[90] By 1970, Kelston had three classes for Deaf children with other disabilities, which Mr Young considered needed a more “realistic” training programme for “those children who do not respond to our regular teaching methods”. [91]

92. Van Asch’s 1980 report observed that there were resourcing issues for children who were Deaf with other disabilities and who required continued special help. Principal Sefton Bartlett wrote that some of these children had previously been in psychiatric units.[92] The above suggests a lack of resources for the education of these children and young people.

93. At the Inquiry’s State Institutional Response Hearing, Secretary of Education and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Education Iona Holsted acknowledged educational neglect in Deaf education: “I acknowledge that historically the State has failed to provide education fit for different groups, including blind, Deaf, [and] disabled tamariki.”[93] Ms Holsted also said: “I further acknowledge there are instances where some disabled and Deaf tamariki are still not able to access the full curriculum and wider education experience.”[94]

Survivors experienced a lack of support for Deaf identity from staff

94. Survivors reported that a positive aspect of attending a deaf school was that all of the children and young people were Deaf. As most students were the only Deaf person in their family, their only exposure to other Deaf people was at school.

95. The Inquiry heard that outside class, and in the boarding hostels, children and young people could explore their own sign language and Deaf culture, socialise and make lifelong friends. However, due to the ban on Sign Language and a complete lack of recognition of Deaf culture this was done in secret, and most staff did not allow or support Deaf language and culture to flourish. Many survivors spoke of the conflict between the joy of developing their own language and culture, while experiencing the neglect and abuse of the institution. Pākehā survivor Ms KF said while children and young people were subjected to so much abuse at Van Asch, it was also a site of identity development:

“For a lot of Deaf people, Van Asch is their tūrangawaewae. It is where they developed their culture and identity. Many Deaf people could not get this from their families; they only found their sense of self at Van Asch.”[95]

96. Māori survivor Milton Reedy (Ngāti Porou) said his time at Kelston was a mixture of good and bad:

“Bad because it was a really difficult time. I still feel the trauma. Good because I gained Deaf friends who became my second whānau.”[96]

Survivors experienced racial abuse and cultural neglect in care

97. Human rights law recognises indigenous groups have the right to enjoy and practise their own culture and language.[97]

98. Tamariki and rangatahi Māori were disconnected from both their Māori and Deaf cultures and languages. Te reo Māori and tikanga were not taught, and many tamariki and rangatahi did not even understand they were Māori, as their families had no way to describe this to them. As signing was not allowed, Sign Language could not develop, and this limited the vocabulary development of tāngata Turi Māori. Had Sign Language been allowed, there would have been greater opportunities for tāngata Turi Māori to develop signs for Māori concepts.

Māori survivors’ experiences of racial abuse and cultural neglect

99. Both Māori and Pākehā survivors observed that some staff were racist, and tamariki and rangatahi Māori were disproportionately neglected and abused by staff in the schools and hostels. Further, few staff at Van Asch and Kelston were Māori, so there were few tāngata Turi Māori role models. Māori survivor Whiti Ronaki (Te Arawa) said he was confused about his identity and didn’t know he was Māori:

“People would ask me if I was Māori, Islander or Indian. I didn’t know, and Mum and Dad didn’t explain anything to me. I learnt really late what it is to be Māori. I used to come home for the holidays, and I saw a beautiful house. It took a long time to for me to know and realise that the beautiful house was a marae. I didn’t understand until I was older.”[98]

100. Māori survivor Mr JU (Ngāti Porou, Te Rarawa) attended Van Asch from around 6 years old in 1963. He described visiting Ngāti Porou marae with his whānau when he was 11 years old and being frustrated and confused that he was unable to communicate with people. He said his introduction to te reo Māori at 11 years old was a life-changing revelation:

101. NZ European survivor Mr JS told the Inquiry that Van Asch Principal Sefton Bartlett was “an incredibly cruel man” who was racist towards tamariki and rangatahi Māori:

“I think Mr Bartlett was racist towards Māori, he always targeted them. It was clear to me that he hated the Māori students. I wondered if maybe he moved to Van Asch because there were more white people there. The Māori Deaf students who knew him from Auckland all hated him.”[99]

102. The absence of tikanga took a long time to be recognised at Kelston. Rūaumoko Marae opened on Kelston school grounds in 1992 and tāngata Turi Māori were able to learn signed kapa haka, waiata, karanga and whaikōrero. Rūaumoko Marae became a base for the tāngata Turi Māori community, whose presence was a vital part of the marae. Tino rangatiratanga was visible on the marae.

“My parents wanted me to learn te reo Māori. They wrote some down for me, but I had no idea what it was. When I got back to school, I showed it to my friends but they had no idea either. When I showed it to my teachers, they said ‘no we don’t speak that language here’. It was at this moment that I realised that there are two languages, one for English and one for Māori … I was dealing with two different cultures, so that meant two different languages. But it was not until I was in my early 20s that I really started to understand the full implications of this.”[100]

Pacific experiences of racial abuse and cultural neglect

103. The Inquiry did not receive any statements from Deaf Pacific survivors, although it is known that many Pacific children and young people attended the schools, particularly Kelston.

104. It is possible that Deaf Pacific children and young people also experienced similar discrimination as tāngata Turi Māori. In addition to the denial of Deaf language and culture, Deaf Pacific children and young people were also likely alienated from their culture due to lack of language and being expected to assimilate into a Pākehā hearing education system.

105. Māori survivor Hēmi Hema (Whakatōhea, Ngāti Kahungunu) told the Inquiry that both Māori and Pacific children were treated worse than Pākehā children and suffered racial discrimination at Van Asch and Kelston:

“At both Van Asch and Kelston, the Māori and Pacific Island kids were put down and stereotyped, mainly by the staff and teachers. We were considered naughty kids and the Pākehā were the well-behaved kids. We would do silly little things, that all kids do, but the punishment was full on. Māori and Pacific Island kids were punished more. They picked on us. We would get the strap and be made to sit in the corner of the room for hours. It crushed your body and crushed your heart. We never forgot. It is stuck in our heads … their anger and hatred towards us.”[101]

106. It appears that little was done at Van Asch and Kelston to provide for and nurture Pacific students unique cultures. Pacific children and young people presented many problems for teachers, particularly as little English was spoken at home.[102]

The extent of abuse and neglect

107. Complaint data was not collated or analysed at either Van Asch or Kelston, so it is not possible for the Inquiry to accurately report on the full extent of abuse at these schools. However, it is clear from the evidence received, that abuse was pervasive and educational neglect was universal at Van Asch and Kelston.

108. Tāngata Turi Māori experienced racism and cultural neglect at schools staffed by hearing Pākehā. Pacific children may have similarly experienced racism and discrimination.