138. A number of factors have caused or contributed to abuse and neglect at Van Asch College (Van Asch) and Kelston School for the Deaf (Kelston) and allowed it to persist over many decades.

139. The Inquiry has divided them into four categories: personal factors, institutional factors, structural and systemic factors, and societal attitudes. All of these factors are inter‑related.

The people at the centre of abuse and neglect

Personal factors related to survivors

140. There was a lack of support for whānau of deaf children to educate and communicate with their children at home and at mainstream schools. Families of Deaf children were advised by medical and health professionals and educators to enrol them at Van Asch and Kelston at a very young age. The Inquiry heard from international inquiries that age and distance from family and community can influence an individual’s susceptibility to sexual abuse.[127]

141. A distinct feature of the abuse and neglect experienced by Deaf children and young people at Van Asch and Kelston was the inability to communicate their concerns due to the denial of their language (NZ Sign Language). The Inquiry heard that children and young people did not receive education on sex or sexual abuse, there was no sign at that time for sexual abuse. This is consistent with international inquiries that abusers will target people who have less capacity to speak out, for example young children, Deaf children and disabled children.[128]

Factors related to abusers

142. Abusers of children and young people at Van Asch and Kelston included teaching staff, hostel staff and other, particularly older, young people. In both groups, abusers exploited the power imbalance they had over younger Deaf children. Abuse was often perpetrated one-on-one, but sometimes a group targeted and abused an individual.

Staff abused children and young people

143. Some staff abusers were opportunistic, but some abuse involved a high degree of planning or pre-meditation, for example in the form of grooming a child or young person (such as on the pretext of cleaning the child or young person’s body). Some male abusers among teaching staff had a military background and brought this approach to their role in the form of a very punitive and physically abusive approach.

Peer-on-peer abuse

144. Survivors described very serious peer-on-peer sexual and physical abuse, including rapes and violent assaults. Sometimes a group targeted a younger child or young person. The unsupervised boarding hostels at night may have contributed to the prevalence of this form of abuse in that setting.

Factors related to bystanders

145. Part 7 of the Inquiry’s final report, Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light, discusses ‘bystanders’, referring to individuals who worked or volunteered in care settings and who saw or knew about abuse and neglect occurring. Many bystanders failed to intervene or to stop or report abuse.

146. The Inquiry received evidence of this behaviour at Van Asch and Kelston, particularly in the hostels. Some survivors told the Inquiry they had been abused by a peer or peers in the presence of staff, or with knowledge of staff, who did nothing to stop the abuse. One survivor described staff members laughing whenever a group of older boys were trying to take his pants off and assault him.

Institutional factors that caused or contributed to abuse and neglect

Vetting, training and development, and supervision of staff

Insufficient staff resources, high turnover of staff, and untrained staff

147. Under staffing contributed to abuse and neglect in care through staff being over worked, tired and under pressure which affected their ability to provide individual care. In Kelston’s 1972 annual report, Principal Alan Young advised the Department of Education that staffing levels were difficult and had remained virtually at the same levels when the school opened in 1958. Mr Young said that work at the hostel with young Deaf children was very demanding work: “Staff require at least a year’s experience in residential work before they have the confidence and ability to handle groups of children and while we continue to employ Matron’s Assistants, who rarely remain for more than two years, this will be a continuing problem.”[129] Mr Young further stated that a small group of emotionally disturbed youngsters in the hostel were “extremely difficult to control” and only experienced staff working with small groups were likely to be able to achieve worthwhile results.[130] The difficult group of youngsters included three State wards.

148. While Van Asch and Kelston recognised that high turnover and calibre of hostel staff contributed to the problems in the hostels, there does not appear to have been any recognition that the method of teaching contributed to the inability to communicate with children and young people and their behavioural difficulties. That is the case despite staff knowing that the children and young people communicated with each other using New Zealand Sign Language.

149. A combination of high staff turnover, untrained staff and insufficient staff numbers provided for by government funding meant that overall staffing was inadequate to ensure that children and young people were safe, particularly in the hostels. The schools’ annual reports suggested this in 1969 when Kelston Principal Alan Young said he needed extra staff in the evenings when the children were being bathed and put to bed, because young children weren’t getting the individualised attention they needed.[131] In 1961, Sumner School (later renamed Van Asch College) Principal Herbert Pickering observed the new matron in her first year “has shown a warmth and affection for children which was not always apparent in some of her predecessors”.[132] The above evidence suggests that hostel residents were often not receiving the individualised care and emotional support that they needed to thrive.

150. From the evidence received by the Inquiry, it is unclear what staff vetting procedures were in place at Van Asch and Kelston, if any.

Inadequate staff knowledge and training in relevant cultural practices

151. Although many rangatahi and tamariki at Van Asch and Kelston were Māori, particularly at Kelston, staff providing care to these tamariki and rangatahi were non-Māori. This was due to the lack of available Māori teachers. Further, Māori culture was not incorporated into the care of tāngata Turi Māori. There was little knowledge, understanding and acceptance of tikanga Māori and te reo Māori. Similarly, it appears there were few, if any, Pacific staff at Van Asch and Kelston and little was done to provide for and nurture unique Pacific cultures. This was due to the lack of available Pacific teachers and contributed to a lack of culturally informed practices in the provision of care at Van Asch and Kelston.

Institutional racism and discrimination towards tāngata Turi Māori

152. Tāngata Turi Māori children and young people at Van Asch and Kelston suffered more abuse and neglect than their Pākehā peers. Additionally, tāngata Turi Māori were expected to assimilate into a dominant Pākehā hearing culture with no access to te ao Māori. Tāngata Turi Māori were physically separated from whānau, but also linguistically and socially isolated from te ao Māori. Disregard of tino rangatiratanga meant the State did not consider funding iwi, hapū or whānau to provide efficient and effective education for their tāngata Turi.

153. The separation of tāngata Turi Māori from their whānau, hapū and iwi and their placement at Van Asch and Kelston was a transgression against whakapapa. The lack of visibility and public scrutiny over the lives of whānau members in care and their lack of rangatiratanga over the decisions impacting the lives of those whānau members prevented those with kinship links from upholding their collective whakapapa rights and responsibilities to those tamariki and whānau members in care. This likely contributed to an increased risk to tāngata Turi Māori as they were not only away from whānau who provide care, but whānau were unable to have oversight and protect them from harm.

Lack of diversity in staff and management

154. Due to a lack of availability and resources, the governance, management, teachers and staff of the deaf schools were predominantly hearing Pākehā with no lived experience of being Deaf, knowledge of Deaf culture, awareness of te ao Māori, or awareness of Pacific Peoples’ unique cultures.

155. The lack of diversity among staff and management contributed to the cultural neglect experienced by tāngata Turi Māori and Deaf Pacific children and young people at Van Asch and Kelston.

Complaints processes

Absence of complaints processes until 1994

156. Institutions should have complaints processes, including a policy that sets out the channels and methods the organisation will use to receive complaints and a detailed explanation of the complaints handling process. This should include:

a. who is responsible for decisions
b. a clear outline of the issues that may make a complaint high priority
c. timelines
d. recording the complaint on a centralised system
e. when a complaint should be escalated and to whom, including when complaints might be escalated to NZ Police
f. the consequences of not handling the complaint in a timely manner
g. regular reporting of the nature and extent of complaints.

157. Documentation received by the Inquiry indicates that up until 1994, neither Van Asch nor Kelston had a documented complaints procedure. Children and young people therefore did not have a formal or clear process for making a complaint.

158. Both Van Asch and Kelston reported annually to the Department of Education from at least the 1960s. In the annual reports the Inquiry has found no reference to complaints, complaints policies, or any indication of the oversight of complaints by the Department of Education.

Kelston introduced a complaints against staff members policy in 1994

159. From 1994, Kelston had a general complaints policy that covered complaints made against staff. [133] The policy had nine purposes, the first two of which were “to ensure minor concerns are not blown out of proportion putting the staff member under undue stress” and “to ensure individual staff members are not unfairly harassed or unreasonably impeded from carrying out their allotted tasks”.[134] This demonstrates that the policy was geared towards protecting staff and minimising reputational damage rather than ensuring children and young people had a safe environment for disclosing abuse.

160. The policy provided for serious complaints to be investigated by the principal and a record of the response to be kept on the staff member’s personal file. A verbal warning would be given if the complaint was found to have some basis. A written warning was the next step if the behaviour or issue continued to cause concern. The final step was for the principal to make a recommendation to the school board. Nothing in the process prevented summary dismissal for serious misconduct. In the case of dismissal, the emphasis was on minimising potential reputational risk: “It may be appropriate to disclose certain information about the dismissal to reduce damage to the school, the employee or other employees. This should be done following consultation with the dismissed party and their advisors.”[135]

161. This policy, and the way it was later applied, was unduly weighted towards protecting staff and did not sufficiently recognise the interests of safeguarding children. Examples of its application to specific complaints after 1999 are set out in chapter six.

Barriers to making complaints for Deaf children

162. Survivors of Van Asch and Kelston often did not have the language to complain both to family and school management. Māori survivor Hēmi Hema (Whakatōhea, Ngāti Kahungunu) was repeatedly sexually abused by a staff member in his hostel room at Kelston at night but couldn’t complain: “This staff member was known to other children and young people as an abuser, but we did not have the language to describe what was happening to us, so we couldn’t speak up about this to the other staff.”[136]

163. This was compounded by the disconnection some felt to their families, and the limited ability to build a relationship with their parents due to the language barriers and time spent apart.

164. If children and young people did make a complaint to staff, they had no confidence it would be addressed appropriately. Children and young people felt that if they complained, staff would ignore their complaint or misinterpret what they were saying, and they would end up in trouble. The Deaf students who were often frustrated in their schooling were seen as the ones at fault for not conforming. Māori survivor Whiti Ronaki (Te Arawa) complained to the principal at Kelston about physical abuse but was not believed.[137]

165. NZ European survivor Mr JS described the environment at Van Asch in which children and young people tried to disclose abuse:

“You could tell that the hearing staff member was changing and twisting the story so you would look like a liar. Even when I could communicate, I was never believed. Most of the time, I would have no idea what was being said between the two adults but suddenly they would turn around and have a go at me. Suddenly I would be the one in trouble, but I had no idea what they had said. In fact, it felt like if you tried to stand up and push back, you were likely to be expelled. Van Asch seemed to expel so many students.”[138]

Barriers to making complaints for tāngata Turi Māori

166. Tāngata Turi Māori faced additional hurdles to making complaints due to the racism and discrimination they experienced. They were unlikely to have felt comfortable complaining, or being believed, by the hearing Pākehā staff responsible for their care.

Failure to report complaints to NZ Police

167. Despite the prevalence of abuse and neglect at Van Asch and Kelston, when abuse and neglect came to the knowledge of management or staff, they were not referred by management or staff to NZ Police, and therefore not investigated or prosecuted by NZ Police.

168. NZ Police Commissioner Andrew Coster gave evidence at the Inquiry’s State Institutional Response hearing and acknowledged a lack of support by NZ Police for the Deaf community:

“I acknowledge that the police has historically had relatively few policies, processes and procedures aimed at supporting the Deaf community and people with disabilities to engage with us. Police continues to work on the gaps which have existed and how we have engaged with some Deaf [survivors] and disabled survivors of abuse. We recognise we can do more to improve services and relationships with disabled people.”[139]

Oversight and monitoring

Inadequate staff supervision, particularly in boarding hostels

169. Abuse was prevalent in the boarding hostels attached to Van Asch and Kelston. Some hostel staff physically and psychologically abused children and young people in plain view of other staff. Peer-to-peer physical, psychological and sexual abuse was also common and happened in an environment of inadequate staff supervision and oversight.

170. It appears that the most at-risk children and young people were left in a boarding situation. In 1969, Kelston Principal Alan Young wrote that some parents had moved to centres where their children could attend as day pupils. However, Mr Young stated: “It is now apparent that a greater number of our hostel children come from the lower socioeconomic group and a high proportion of these children have had little or no effective home training before coming to school. Coping with these youngsters is an extremely difficult task and requires a great deal of skill, patience and effort by our hostel staff.”[140]

Systemic factors that caused or contributed to abuse and neglect

Insufficient oversight and monitoring by the Department of Education

171. A formal relationship existed between the schools and the Department of Education and its Special Education Unit. From the 1960s, the principals of Van Asch and Kelston produced and submitted annual reports to the Department of Education. However, from the records received by the Inquiry, critical oversight and monitoring of the schools created and funded by the Government appears to have been minimal. The little monitoring and review that did occur was more concerned with funding, administration and logistics rather than educational achievement, safety and wellbeing for Deaf children and young people.

172. The principal of Sumner School noted in its 1968 annual report that it was the first time the report had been directed to the Director-General of Education: “The writer can recall vividly a time when it was unusual for any aspect of the management of school for deaf to be dealt with by professional educationalists (other than those actually employed in the schools) either at head office or at local level.”[141] This comment indicates that deaf schools were not afforded the same degree of educational oversight as mainstream schools.

173. Management staff at Van Asch and Kelston were seen as pioneers and experts in their field, which may have led to deference by the Department of Education. The Ministry of Education’s 1991 review of Van Asch noted that the school was pioneering in the areas of speech language therapy for hearing children, assistance with Deaf adults, and the establishment of Deaf unit classes in mainstream schools and had working relationships across the education sector. The Ministry of Education review concluded a part of the report regarding the overlap of services by stating: “The experience and development of Van Asch College does put it in a special position which means it would be difficult to recommend any change to the current delivery of services.”[142]

174. Van Asch and Kelston were not required to have a complaints policy, or any policy that ensured the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. School principals made numerous references in their annual reports to the Department of Education about concerns relating to the boarding hostels. For example, in 1972 Sumner School (later known as Van Asch College) Principal Herbert Pickering wrote that “the hostel situation” was the most concerning aspect of Deaf education at that time, because of the inability to “recruit, train and retrain staff of the calibre to provide a home atmosphere for children who for up to 10 or 12 years of their lives for 40 weeks in each year will be required to live in a hostel”. He further stated that it was in their ability to communicate with Deaf children that hostel staff were most often found wanting.[143]

State policy of institutional care

175. State policy emphasis on institutionalisation for Deaf education contributed to the abuse that occurred at Van Asch and Kelston. Consistent with government policy towards disabled people throughout the 20th century, Deaf children who had disabilities were sent to psychopaedic hospitals, and those labelled ‘only Deaf’ were sent to deaf schools. This policy was clearly articulated in the Education Act 1901 and subsequent Education Acts, where separate compulsory education provision was provided for Deaf and blind children and young people.[144]

176. The original intention of the Sumner Institution for the Deaf and Dumb (later known as Van Asch College) in 1880 was to educate Deaf children so they could be productive workers in society. Boys were to be taught a trade, gardening or farming, while girls were to be taught home economics and needlework. It was considered that in order to be ‘productive’, Deaf people needed to be able to communicate with their employers and coworkers. The emphasis on productivity reflected the dominant Pākehā worldview.

177. The level of institutionalism experienced by survivors depended on whether they attended as day or boarders. However, common to all children and young people was the denial of Deaf language and culture through oralism, which was enforced by physical punishment. Those who boarded at the schools experienced similar abuse and neglect to those sent to other State institutions and for the same reasons.

178. State policy creating deaf schools in Aotearoa New Zealand had both positive and negative impacts. A positive impact was the development of Deaf culture and identity among students outside the classroom.

179. A negative impact, which contributed to abuse and neglect, was the congregation of young Deaf children, away from the support of their family or whānau as day or boarders. Children and young people were isolated and did not have the close support network of loved ones to protect them from abuse and neglect. Boarder students were particularly at risk of abuse due to their greater isolation and the unsupervised environment in the hostels.

Societal factors that caused or contributed to abuse and neglect

Societal attitudes relating to audism

180. Through the lens of audism, Deafness was considered a deficit by society. As hearing people are the majority and cannot communicate with Deaf people without learning Sign Language, Deaf people were discriminated against and considered to be unproductive members of society as they could not communicate orally. This reflected a medical model and attitude towards Deaf people that focused on their deficit in hearing and framed it as a defect of the individual.[145] This contrasts with a cultural-linguistic model that focuses on the strengths of being Deaf, and belonging to a linguistic minority group. This also contrasts with a human rights model, which directly recognises the full rights of the Deaf person, of which linguistic rights are a part.

181. An audist view was widely held and reinforced by specialists and educationalists. Parents of Deaf children reached out for support and guidance on how to communicate with their child as Deaf language and culture was not typically learned in the home. Both medical specialists and educationalists recommended that the best path for rehabilitation was for children to learn to lipread and speak, which in many cases led to their residential placement at a deaf school.

182. For decades in Aotearoa New Zealand, oralism was seen as the superior approach to education, which meant that Deaf people had to adapt to a hearing world rather than hearing people adapting to a Deaf world. The adoption of the oralism approach in the 1880s set the course of harmful educational practices for deaf children for more than a century to come.

Societal attitudes of not understanding te Tiriti o Waitangi

183. Societal attitudes that were ignorant of te Tiriti o Waitangi were reflected in Van Asch and Kelston. It was not well known in society at the time that te Tiriti o Waitangi provided for the active protection of Māori language and culture, requiring the Crown to take reasonable protective steps in the circumstances. It is likely this lack of knowledge was reflected at Kelston and Van Asch as Māori cultural identities, heritage and language were not understood or recognised.

Footnotes