245. This chapter expands on the pathways into disability care settings. It covers large scale institutions, such as psychopaedic hospitals, smaller scale care and support settings and services, and certain education settings such as special schools and schools for Deaf, disabled children and young people.

246. The Inquiry heard from 158 survivors whose first entries into care were either Deaf or disability settings, including special schools. Twenty-three percent of these survivors were voluntarily placed in the setting by their parents. This was often due to parents not being supported to manage and care for their child, or parents experiencing mental distress. Some survivors also spoke about being unwanted by their parents. ^[311] A further 21 percent of these survivors indicated they were placed in care because authorities recommended it to their whānau as the best option, or their whānau felt like they had no other options.^[312]

247. Of the 158 registered survivors, 34 percent were taken into care by the State due to unsafe home environments including abuse at home, parental neglect, and troubled behaviour. ^[313]

248. This chapter considers the State’s policies about entry into disability settings, the influence of medical professionals, and the lack of alternative care or support options for whānau.

Ko te hāpai toiora i ārahi i te tūāpapa o te kaupapahere whakanoho a te Karauna
Ableism led to the State’s institutionalisation policy

249. From the 1950s to the 1970s, the State pursued a policy of segregated, often large-scale, institutional care for disabled people. ^[314]

It often involved being placed into large-scale residential facilities. From 1952 to 1972, the number of beds in psychopaedic hospitals increased from 549 to 2,017. ^[315] The 1953 Aitken Report recommended large-scale residential institutions, which could accommodate 400-500 children from the 5 years old, as the best model of care for children with learning disabilities. [316] This was despite international best practice that identified community care as the best model, and opposition from parent groups.

250. The types of residential institutions where Deaf and disabled people were placed included psychopaedic and psychiatric hospitals, specialist wards in general hospitals, education settings such as special schools and residential schools and occupational training centres. ^[317]

251. Disabled people were often identified as disabled at a young age. During the Inquiry period, the Mental Defectives Act 1911, Mental Health Amendment Act 1954 and the Mental Health Act 1969 classified different types of learning disability and some long-term health conditions. Social attitudes contributed to disabled people being considered less valuable than other people. ^[318] For tāngata whaikaha Māori and tāngata Turi Māori, this was further compounded by racism.

252. Medical professionals told parents that it was in their and their disabled child’s best interests that they be placed in a residential facility that offered specialised care. Sometimes this occurred as soon as the child was born. ^[319]  Advice was often based on beliefs that the disabled child was inferior to others and did not need to be included in society. Parents were told raising a disabled child would be a waste of the parent’s time and energy and that non-disabled children in the family would suffer if their disabled sibling was cared for at home. [320]

253. Other authorities such as NZ Police could also influence parents’ decision to place their child into care. The parents of Pākehā survivor Terry Le Compte, who lives with a learning disability, were threatened by NZ Police that if they did not admit their son to Sunnyside Hospital in Ōtautahi Christchurch, further action would be taken in relation to his “use of indecent language” and Terry “being difficult to manage”. ^[321]

254. Disabled people or people experiencing mental distress could be committed into hospital settings if they were considered by medical professionals and a judicial officer to require care and treatment for reasons related to their own self care, their personal safety or the safety of others. [322] Clinical psychologist Dr Olive Webb, who worked at Sunnyside Hospital from 1970 to 1993, gave evidence at the Inquiry’s Ūhia te Māramatanga Disability, Deaf and Mental Health Institutional Care Hearing, saying:

“Prior to [the 1970s], you could be formally committed to care if you were unable to live independently and make decisions about your life, and that was the legislation that enabled people to be committed or formally admitted to the psychopaedic hospitals, and in early years to Sunnyside Hospital, people with intellectual – learning disabilities.” [323]

255. At the Inquiry’s State Institutional Response Hearing, the State acknowledged that the 1973 Royal Commission into Hospital and related services found that the Crown’s policy of institutionalisation was inconsistent with international best practice. ^[324] From as early as the 1950s, groups were lobbying for community support as the best practice for caring for disabled people. Having engaged with international experts and the World Health Organisation from the late 1940s, the Intellectually Handicapped Children’s Parents’ Association[325] lobbied for community-based care and petitioned this in Parliament in 1950.[326] As discussed in Part 2, the 1959 Burns Report released by the Mental Deficiency Subcommittee of the New Zealand Branch of the British Medical Association also criticised the government's policy of institutionalisation and recommended community-based care.[327]

256. Overall, the State’s preference for institutionalising Deaf and disabled people occurred within the context of colonisation and societal ideologies, including ableism, disablism, racism, eugenics-based thinking and individualism. Prior to colonisation, separation of children, young people and adults from their whānau and placing them in institutions would have been considered contrary to tikanga. These discriminatory attitudes were embedded in the policies and practices of the State.^[328]

257. Placing people Deaf and disabled people into institutions led to a lifelong denial of personhood for many and being unable to realise their life potential or personal identity.^[329]

Te korenga o ngā kāinga rua me ngā kōwhiringa tautoko mā ngā whānau o te hunga whaikaha
Lack of alternative care and support options for whānau of disabled people

258. It was common for medical professionals to place pressure on whānau, making it hard to act against their advice, particularly in the absence of alternative support or care options.^[330] Whānau were often unsupported in their caregiving roles. Many schools would not accept children and young people with impairments, respite care was very limited and some parents had to give up work to provide care.^[331] Caregivers also placed high levels of trust in authorities and professionals. NZ European parent of a survivor, Bill McElhinney, sent his son to Templeton Centre in Ōtautahi Christchurch because he was having seizures. Bill told the Inquiry about his experience with mainstream schooling:

“Normal schools couldn’t deal with his medication and no other options were available. I recall other parents whose doctors recommended they take their child to Templeton then go away and carry on with their life. Doctors were considered God-like in those days, so that’s what the parents did.”^[332]

259. Some survivors told the Inquiry that parental physical health issues or mental distress contributed to them being placed in a residential disability care setting.^[333] NZ European survivor Ms SF was approximately 11 years old when she and her sibling were placed in Wilson Home in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland in 1979 after her mother contracted meningitis.^[334]

260. NZ European survivor Ms SS, who has an intellectual disability, told the Inquiry that in the mid-1960s, when she was about 9 years old, her mother had a ‘nervous breakdown’ and was unable to look after her.[335] Ms SS’s parents subsequently placed her in Tokanui Hospital south of Te Awamutu, where she spent the next 10 years. At that point Ms SS moved into a group residential Intellectually Handicapped Children’s Society (IHC) house.[336]

261. The Inquiry heard from siblings of disabled survivors who described their parents being driven to breaking point due to the lack of effective support to keep their disabled child at home.[337] Pākehā sister of a survivor, Anne Bell, whose sister has an intellectual disability, is blind, and has communication support needs was placed in the Kimberley Centre in Taitoko Levin. Anne described the lack of other alternative care options available to families, and the pressure their family faced from medical professionals:

“Sending children to institutions was very traumatic for families despite it being the only option for disabled children at the time. This was particularly so for people in rural communities. There was no playgroup, support, respite service; there was absolutely nothing. Families would receive medical advice to send their children away. I remember my mother telling me a story about how they went backwards and forwards to various specialists in Wellington. At one meeting the specialist used the cruel word ‘idiot’ to describe [my sister]. My mother said, while it was a terrible thing to say, it was what caused my father to realise that it wasn’t going to get better and that perhaps Kimberley was the best option”.^[338]

262. NZ European David Newman, a family member of a survivor who was diagnosed with an intellectual disability, autism, Tourette Syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorder and bipolar disorder told the Inquiry that his brother needed a lot of support and constant attention every day:

“He was demanding in his own way, that essentially fell to Mum and Dad”.[339]

263. Before his brother was placed in institutional care, David remembers the stressful situations at home, such as his brother constantly flooding the house and running away, sometimes onto main roads where he would disrupt traffic.^[340]

Nā te hāpai toiora i hua ai ngā paearu whakauru ki ngā kura motuhake me ngā kura mō te hunga Turi me te hunga whaikaha
Ableism created conditions for entry into special schools and schools for Deaf and disabled

264. The Education Act 1964 continued provisions that led to segregation and discrimination of Deaf and disabled children. The Act provided “every child of school age who is suffering from disability of body and mind”^[341] with alternative education pathways, where mainstream schools may not have provided suitable education that could meet their needs.

265. Children and young people, particularly disabled children and young people, often came to the attention of State authorities for assessment via mainstream schools, including school nurses.^[342] Assessment and classification of children and young people could trigger enrolment into a special school or into an occupation centre.^[343] Occupation centres, opened by education authorities in each of the main centres from the 1940s, provided day programmes for children with learning disabilities judged unlikely to benefit from other education programmes.^[344]

266. The Department of Education’s special schools, like Waimakoia Residential School in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, McKenzie Residential School in Ōtautahi Christchurch, Campbell Park School in Ōtākou Otago, and Salisbury School in Whakatū Nelson, took referrals for children and young people, including State wards, through the department’s Psychological Service or Child Welfare Division.^[345] Māori survivors Tanya and Gina Sammons (Ngāti Kura), along with their sister Alva, were taken into care at a very young age and raised by a foster family, where they were physically, psychologically and sexually abused.[346] In 1988, at the age of 14, Alva was referred to Salisbury School. Alva’s social welfare file noted that her foster family led “a fairly transient lifestyle” and that the children had attended many schools. Alva developed behavioural problems that gradually got worse. Alva was at Sailsbury School for two years. She took her own life at the age of 26.[347]

267. Some children from “satisfactory or better home backgrounds” also attended special schools.[348] Survivor Mr NV had “no formal status with the Department of Social Welfare” when he was referred to Campbell Park School by a psychologist through the Department of Education’s Psychological Service, because of “management difficulties”. His behaviour was deemed unacceptable for a “normal school setting”, so special education was considered necessary.^[349] Mr NV was assessed by a psychologist using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, with the psychologist’s referral letter concluding that he was:

“A ‘mildly retarded boy’ whose attainments were ‘even lower than would normally be expected for a boy of his ability’.”^[350]

268. A number of common factors influenced survivors’ placements into special schools, including specialist schools for Deaf or disabled children and young people, particularly in the first half of the Inquiry period. This included pressure from medical professionals on parents, social expectations that Deaf or disabled students should be taught separately from other students, and most commonly, a lack of alternative options and lack of State support for parents.^[351]

269. Māori survivor Gary Williams (Ngāti Porou), who has cerebral palsy, is a part-time wheelchair user and has a speech impediment. Growing up in the 1970s, Gary was treated as though he did not have a disability. He participated fully in whānau life on the marae and at the local mainstream school. After intermediate school, Gary wanted to attend the local high school with his friends. However, he was unable to attend, as the school was not physically accessible. Gary recalled:

“I believe the Education Board did not want to make school accessible for me because of the financial cost.”^[352]

270. As a result, in 1974, aged 13, Gary was sent to Pukeora Home for the Disabled located near Waipukarau, where he did his schooling via correspondence.^[353]

271. Families could also be approached by faith leaders who encouraged them to place their Deaf or disabled child into a special school or residential school, some of which were run by faith-based organisations. Survivors told the Inquiry they recalled nuns visiting their families and encouraging their enrolment in St Dominic’s School for the Deaf in Te Whanganui-ā-Tara Wellington.^[354]

272. Marylands School in Ōtautahi Christchurch opened in 1955 for boys with learning disabilities. It was run by the Roman Catholic Order the Hospitaller Brothers of St John of God. In a statement provided to the Inquiry, Sonja Cooper and Sam Benton of Cooper Legal noted a pattern in the accounts of Marylands School survivors they had represented:

“From what we have seen, many early placements [into Marylands, prior to 1970] were private or with the support of religious organisations such as Catholic Social Services and the Presbyterian Social Services Association.”^[355]

273. Survivors’ pathways into Marylands School and their experiences there are covered in the Inquiry’s interim report Stolen Lives, Marked Souls.

274. Disabled children in psychopaedic and psychiatric institutions had limited access to education, either because they were considered ‘ineducable’^[356] or there was no dedicated staffing for their education.[357] For much of the Inquiry period, the Department of Education kept no full record of the number of children and young people who did not attend any form of school at all due to their disabilities.[358]

I piki te wāhi ki ngā kura auraki i ngā tau 1980, engari i tū tonu ngā ara ki ngā kura motuhake
Move to increased mainstream schooling in 1980s, but pathways into special schools remained

275. The growing trend of mainstreaming education over the 1980s saw disabled students moving from special or residential school settings into mainstream school environments.^[359] The Education Act 1989 recognised the right of all disabled children and young people to enrol and receive an education at their local State school.^[360] However, some children with learning disability or neurodiversity were moved out of mainstream education settings to special schools, sometimes at the direction of the State, due to ‘challenging’ behaviour.^[361]

276. Although disabled students now theoretically had the same rights as any students to State education, the Inquiry heard from disabled survivors and their whānau who did not receive adequate support to attend mainstream schools. This could result in multiple shifts between schools. Mrs NS (NZ European), the mother of a disabled survivor, told the Inquiry that, during the 1990s her daughter attended one specialist kindergarten and four mainstream schools with specialist units before she started at a specialist school aged 18. Mrs NS said:

“There were a variety of excuses as to why they couldn’t provide the level of support [my daughter] required, but obviously in the interests of her safety and wellbeing and my sanity, it was time to move on again.”^[362]

277. The Inquiry heard from Ms VA, whose neurodivergent son Mr VB (Pākehā) was unable to attend their local school because the special class there was full.^[363] Instead, the only option was for Mr VB to board at an IHC hostel in another town and attend the special school there.^[364] In 1981, at 5 years old, Mr VB began boarding at the Seven Oaks IHC Hostel in Heretaunga Hastings, which accommodated predominately older children and which Ms VA described as “a mini institution”.[365] Two years later, Mr VB began boarding at Hōhepa Homes in Te Matau-a-Māui Hawke’s Bay where he attended special school and moved through different community-style group homes provided through Hōhepa.^[366] In these settings Ms VA began to suspect her son may have suffered abuse or neglect, due to his “changing and challenging behaviour”. After he began to lose weight and become increasingly anxious, Ms VA made the call to pull her son out of Hōhepa.^[367]

278. Deaf survivor Mr JS told the Inquiry that the mainstream education system did not support Deaf people and they “became violent from all the frustration”.^[368] Mr JS moved around several mainstream primary and intermediate schools before attending Van Asch College in Ōtautahi Christchurch in the late 1970s and early 1980s, where he was able to access language, Deaf culture and “a sense of Deaf identity”.^[369]

279. Many survivors found their pathway into special schools and Deaf schools traumatising and confusing. Some survivors, like Mr JS, found that entering a special school could be positive, sometimes providing access to friendships, community, language and a shared sense of understanding that they had never had before.

I pāngia ngā purapura ora whaikaha e te whai wāhi mauroa ki ngā taurimatanga a te Kāwanatanga me ana ratonga tautoko
Disabled survivors have experienced lifelong involvement with State care and support services

280. The Inquiry acknowledges that some survivors have never exited care. Some disabled people may remain in residential care settings and/or need support services for life.

281. Disabled young people who were State wards may have entered institutional care after they aged out of the social welfare system.^[370] For example, Murray Priest, born in 1942, lived in a range of foster homes as a child. When he was aged 21, he was told that he was no longer under the care of the Child Welfare Division and was offered a choice of hospitals in Wellington or Nelson to live in.^[371]

282. Even after the closure of large-scale institutions, disabled survivors continued to be placed in segregated employment, such as sheltered workshops,^[372] and entered smaller group homes where many faced exploitation, abuse and neglect.^[373]

Tinga o te whakanōhanga o ngā tāngata whaikaha ki ngā taurimatanga nā runga i te pakeke haere
Likelihood of disabled people being placed into care increased with age

283. Some disabled adults entered institutions for the first time in middle or old age as their aging parents struggled to continue caring for them.^[374] This was made worse for whānau who had received no financial or practical support to care for their disabled family member and found it increasingly difficult as their child aged.^[375]

284. In 1971, 45 percent of disabled people aged 15 to 29 lived in an institution.^[376] By the time a disabled person reached 30 years old or over:

• 56 percent were living in a residential institution
• 38 percent were living at home
• six percent were living in residential homes in the community.^[377]

I rere tonu te whakatoihara ahakoa ngā taurimatanga ā-hapori mō ngā tāngata whaikaha
Continued discrimination despite shift to community-based care for disabled people

285. From the early 1970s, the movement towards community-based residential services for disabled people, including shifting individuals out of large-scale institutions, gained momentum.^[378] The 1973 Royal Commission on psychopaedic hospitals recommended a shift from large institutions to community care. Provision for community-based services was introduced in the Disabled Persons Community Welfare Act 1975. This Act provided government assistance to families and people with disabilities.^[379] The pace of change was slow, and it was not until 1985 that the government formally adopted a policy of community living for disabled people.^[380]

286. There was very little infrastructure to provide disabled people with the supports they needed outside institutions. As large-scale institutions began to close, disabled people were shifted to smaller group residential homes.^[381] The Inquiry heard from families of survivors who were placed in the Kimberley Centre in Taitoko Levin as children and remained there until Kimberley Centre closed in 2006.^[382] The Inquiry’s case study on the Kimberley Centre, Out of Sight, Out of Mind, records that the closure process was very gradual and took more than 20 years. Dr Martin Sullivan stated that the process of deinstitutionalisation involved activism and advocacy from disability groups for change to eventually occur:

“Although the deinstitutionalisation movement started in the 1970s it took until 2006 and a march on Parliament for the last one, Kimberley, to close.”[383]

287. The shift away from large-scale institutional models of care was challenging for families who had been assured that institutionalisation was the best option. Bill McElhinney, who became the chair of the Templeton Parents Association during the shift towards community-based care in the 1990s, and who had a son at Templeton Centre near Ōtautahi Christchurch, said:

“When they officially announced Templeton was closing, we had parents crying and scared, saying if their kids could live in the community, they would have never sent them to Templeton in the first place. Their doctors had told them to put their kids there, and they felt guilty because they were now being told it was the wrong thing to do.”^[384]

288. Smaller group residential homes were primarily run by non-government organisations, such as the IHC and trusts.^[385] Disability advocate Leeann Barnett (Pākehā) told the Inquiry how her parents established Mount Cargill Trust and had opened several homes by 1999:

“At the beginning, the purpose of the Trust was to provide for boys with extremely high needs and behavioural issues. The boys would come from Auckland to Bluff. Over time, more and more young people with autism and other disabilities came into the care of the Trust. It gradually became a specialist care service for people with disabilities, with a particular focus on people with intellectual, learning disabilities and/or autism.”^[386]

Te whai wāhi o te tangata ki ngā ratonga tautoko e ai ki ngā aromatawai matea takitahi
Access to support services based on individual needs assessment

289. From the start of the 1990s, access to most disability support services became based on individual needs assessments done by State-contracted Needs Assessment and Service Coordination (NASC) agencies.^[387] Through this resource decision process, the State determines the type of care setting and support a person receives. People who acquired their impairment through an accident may receive support through services funded by the accident compensation (ACC) scheme instead.^[388]

290. The increase in service and support and the range of available supports in the 1990s also meant that disabled people were more likely to be able to reside in their own homes. However, discriminatory social attitudes against disabled people did not end with the closure of large institutions. Some disabled people continued to be congregated and segregated in residential group homes. Others, even if they lived in their own homes, experienced barriers to full participation in society due to inadequate supports and services.^[389]

Ko ngā kāinga ā-rōpū i whakakapi i ngā whakahaere nui hei wāhi aukati
Group homes replaced institutions as environments of exclusion

291. Deinstitutionalisation was intended to move disabled people into the community and foster social inclusion. Closure of the large-scale institutions, however, did not mean that institutional environments and practices were eliminated. Many disabled people moved from large institutions into residential group homes with other disabled people. Group homes became one of the few options for families who were unable to support their disabled whānau member living at home.

292. The Inquiry heard evidence that group homes continue to have some of the institutional environments and practices that were a feature of the large psychopaedic and psychiatric institutions, such as lack of choice about who people live with, segregation from society, and congregation with other disabled people.

293. The National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability noted in 2003 that residential group homes were intended to be one step along “a continuum of support moving from institutions to independent living” for disabled people. However, for many disabled people, they became the ‘end point’ of care.^[390] In its 2003 report, the National Advisory Committee noted that people living in such homes generally had “little or no choice over who they live with” and that it was ‘not uncommon’ for people to be moved between residential group homes without consultation, due to staffing or funding reasons.^[391]

294. In addition, accommodation services and supported living options for disabled people remained largely limited to what the non-government sector could offer rather than being reflective of need or demand.^[392]

I whakanauhia te mōtika o te Māori ki te tiaki i te tāngata whaikaha me ngā whānau whaikaha
Denial of the right for Māori to care for tāngata whaikaha me whānau hauā

295. The te Tiriti o Waitangi guarantee of tino rangatiratanga over kāinga provided Māori the full authority to care for and raise their own, including tāngata whaikaha me whānau hauā. The State’s policy and practice of institutionalisation of tāngata whaikaha me whānau hauā conflicted with this promise.

296. Dr Tristam Ingham (Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Porou), a member of the Kaupapa Māori expert panel for the Inquiry’s Ūhia te Māramatanga Disability, Deaf and Mental Health Institutional Care Hearing, told the Inquiry that the Crown’s failure to meet its obligations to tāngata whaikaha Māori “has not been a one-off or isolated incident” but is instead “a pervasive, long-standing, highly systematised, highly controlled approach over many decades, generations”.[393] Dr Ingham explained that this approach specifically included “segregation and removal of tāngata whaikaha Māori from their whānau, assimilation of Māori through suppression of cultural practices and attempts to systematically eliminate people who the Crown considered undesirables on the basis of policies underpinned by eugenic ideologies.”^[394] Dr Ingham told the Inquiry that “evidence has shown that these same government policies resulting in institutionalisation caused immeasurable damage, those lost from their whānau, those abused within Government owned and funded institutions.”^[395]

Te korenga o ngā ratonga whaikaha Māori e hāngai ana ki te ahurea
Lack of culturally appropriate Māori disability services

297. Whānau Māori have traditionally preferred to look after tāngata whaikaha at home, rather than placing them in external care settings.^[396]

298. Western models of care that focus on the individual in isolation from their surroundings did not align with Māori approaches to health and wellbeing that reflect a more holistic understanding of disability and uphold the collective identity of Māori as whānau, hapū, and iwi. The disability care system viewed disability as the defining feature of the person, which separated them from non-disabled people, whereas Māori viewed people as whānau who should be included and remain connected. These factors represented barriers for tāngata whaikaha to access culturally appropriate and adequate care and support services.^[397]

299. The lack of culturally appropriate Māori service provision to support whānau Māori to care for tāngata whaikaha Māori and whānau hauā was acknowledged by Director-General of Health Dr Diana Sarfarti at the Inquiry’s State Institutional Response Hearing:^[398]

“I acknowledge that health and disability care settings between 1950-1999 did not consistently and meaningfully ensure the cultural needs of all Māori were met, including providing culturally appropriate health care options, causing disconnection from their culture, identity, language, and communities. I acknowledge that these impacts are ongoing, and have also impacted not just those individuals, but also their whānau, hapū, and iwi.”[399]

300. A 1995 report prepared for the Ministry of Health into Māori disability, He anga whakamana: A framework for the delivery of disability support services for Māori, found there was a lack of available services "… although mainstream disability service providers had taken steps to become more culturally inclusive, more Māori disability providers were needed”.^[400]

301. In 2019 the Waitangi Tribunal found that:

• te Tiriti o Waitangi principle of partnership requires the Crown to consult and partner with Māori genuinely in the design and provision of social services such as health care, requires the Crown to be willing to work through the structures Māori prefer in the circumstances, and requires the Crown to partner with Māori in the development and implementation of policy^[401]
• te Tiriti o Waitangi principle of active protection includes the Crown’s responsibility to actively protect Māori health and wellbeing through the provision of health services^[402]
• part of the Crown’s active protection obligation is ensuring that health services are culturally appropriate
• the Crown’s approach to health care that assumes that the needs of all patients are largely the same undermines the recognition of tikanga Māori and may also result in a failure to recognise and provide for the particular health needs of Māori ^[403]
• te Tiriti o Waitangi principles of active protection and equity require that the Crown provide health services that Māori need, and that these services treat their patients equitably, are equitably accessible and equitably funded.^[404]

302. The State acknowledged to this Inquiry that there was no provision made in legislative policy or practice settings for kaupapa Māori standards of care or to uphold the Crown’s obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Crown has accepted that this was institutional racism.^[405]

I te hiku o te Pakirehua, i whakaurua ngā āhuanoho taurima e hāngai ana ki te ahurea mō te hunga Turi me te hunga whaikaha
More culturally responsive Deaf and disability care settings and services towards the end of the Inquiry period

303. Contemporary researchers and studies suggest that tāngata whaikaha face unique, forms of discrimination, including institutional racism and ableism.^[406] Alongside ongoing impacts of colonisation, these experiences are further barriers to accessing effective care and support.^[407]

304. A report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for its Health Kaupapa inquiry found that “by the 1990s there was increasing recognition that Māori faced particular barriers to accessing disability services”.[408] The report listed several cultural barriers such as “the inadequate use of te reo Māori, lack of encouragement of whānau involvement and lack of integration between the social services supposed to serve Māori were so significant in preventing Māori accessing disability services, that they result in whānau hauā only using them in times of extreme need”.^[409]

305. From the 1980s, and particularly during the 1990s, more culturally responsive programmes were introduced.^[410] The closure of institutions and the transition to community care in some cases created new opportunities. Kaupapa Māori disability care services began to emerge that incorporated the use of tikanga Māori, rongoā (traditional Māori medicines), and the therapeutic use of ngā toi Māori (Māori arts) and ngā mahi a rēhia (Māori games and pastimes).[411]

306. The establishment of kaupapa Māori disability care services, as part of a broader spectrum of community care services from the 1980s, enabled some tāngata whaikaha to access Māori services.[412]

307. During the Inquiry period, health and disability services for disabled people did not typically reach Pacific disabled people or support them adequately, as the services were not culturally appropriate and were not directed at them, their kāinga (family), or their community.^[413] The Inquiry recognises that there was, and continues to be, a gap and need for tailored disability services for Pacific communities.

Nā te kaikiri i whakaahua te urunga o ngā tāngata Turi ki ngā kura noho
Racism characterised entry of tāngata Turi into residential schools

308. The Inquiry heard from survivors and their whānau that tāngata Turi Māori faced intersectional discrimination, including ableism, disablism and racism:

“For most of us as Deaf tamariki, our parents were told that their only option was to send us away to Pākehā Deaf schools”.^[414]

309. In deaf schools, tāngata Turi Māori were unable to learn te reo Māori as well as New Zealand Sign Language. Many whānau were told that their only option was to send tāngata Turi Māori away to deaf schools as there was no assistance available for them to raise and educate their children at home.[415] These deaf schools were predominantly staffed by Pākehā teachers with limited understanding of tikanga and te reo Māori.

310. Māori survivor Eddie Hokianga (Ngāti Kahungunu), who is tāngata Turi, was sent to Sumner School for the Deaf in Ōtautahi Christchurch in 1968 but had no understanding at the time of why he was sent there. There was no one to teach or support his whānau in learning how to have a Deaf whānau member:

“I remember being sad because I could not understand why I was sent away and it was the first time I was away from my family. It was not until later that [I understood] it was because I was Deaf.”^[416]

Te korenga o ngā momo tautoko, ratonga rānei mā ngā whānau nō Te Moananui-a-Kiwa ki te manaaki i ngā tāngata whaikaha i ō rātau nā hāpori
Lack of support or services for Pacific families to care for disabled people in their communities

311. Pacific disabled people were often cared for within their kāinga (families), rather than through external or specialist care.^[417]

312. Samoan survivor Lusi Faiva touched upon some of the issues Pacific kāinga faced when needing support to care for disabled fanau (children), tagata talavou (young people) and tagata matua (adults):

“I was two years old when I was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. There was little support for disabled children and their families when I was little. The doctor instructed my mum for me to go to an institution, he said, ‘it would be better this way’. Soon after I was moved to Kimberley centre.”[418]

313. Some Pacific kāinga faced pressure to put their family members into State-run disability care facilities and were not offered resources, information, or education about disability to support informed placement decisions.[419] In addition, for Pacific kāinga – many of whom hold respect for authority as a central cultural value – felt that questioning the advice and diagnoses of medical professionals was sometimes difficult.[420]

314. These issues were affirmed by Acting Chief Executive of Whaikaha Geraldine Woods in the Inquiry’s State Institutional Response Hearing:

“Some of the operating practices within the health and disability care settings between 1950 and 1999 did not always ensure whānau care arrangements were considered before disabled people were placed in health and disability care settings. I acknowledge that families in need were not always provided with support and extended family, whānau, hapū and iwi were not always supported to care for their disabled people safely in their communities.”[421]

Ngā whakataunga mō ngā whakanoho ki ētahi atu momo wāhi taurima
Conclusions on the circumstances that led to Deaf and disabled people being in care

315. Disabled people were classified by their impairment or condition by medical professionals at a young age, sometimes from birth, based on pathological definitions. In the era of large-scale institutionalisation, medical and other professionals in highly trusted positions of power often presented institutional care as the best option for whānau of disabled people. Due to a lack of other practical options or financial support, this was often the only care option whānau could pursue.

316. Similar factors influenced survivors’ placements into special schools, deaf and blind schools, particularly in the first half of the Inquiry period. This included pressure from medical professionals, ableist, disablist and audist attitudes, and social expectations that disabled or Deaf students should be taught together. Most commonly, there was a lack of alternative options and lack of State support.

317. The growing trend of mainstreaming education over the 1980s saw disabled children and young people moving away from special or residential school settings to mainstream school environments. However, the Inquiry heard from disabled survivors and their whānau who did not receive adequate support when attending mainstream schools and this could prompt multiple shifts between schools.

318. Prevailing and entrenched negative, discriminatory societal attitudes towards Deaf and disabled people did not end with the closure of large institutions. Some remained congregated and segregated in smaller group homes.

319. The State’s institutionalisation policy and approach to the care of tāngata whaikaha me whānau hauā conflicted with its te Tiriti o Waitangi promise of tino rangatiratanga over kāinga. Māori had been guaranteed the full authority to care for and raise their own, including tāngata whaikaha me whānau hauā. The establishment of kaupapa Māori disability care services, as part of a broader spectrum of community care services from the 1980s, enabled some tāngata whaikaha to access Māori services.

320. Pacific kāinga (families) faced pressure to put their disabled family members into State care facilities with limited information or support provided to enable them to make informed decisions about placement. Health services for disabled people did not typically reach Pacific disabled peoples or support them adequately, as the services were not culturally appropriate and were not directed at them, their kāinga or community.

Footnotes

[311] DOT Loves Data, Analysis of pathways into care counts (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2023).
[312] DOT Loves Data, Analysis of pathways into care counts (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2023).
[313] DOT Loves Data, Analysis of pathways into care counts (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2023).
[314] Mental Health Amendment Act 1954 (1954 No 66).
[315] Hutchinson, C, Cropper, J, Henley, W, Turnbull, J & Williams, I, Services for the mentally handicapped: Third report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Hospital and related services (The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Hospital and related services, 1973, page 14).
[316] Kaiwai, H & Allport, T, Māori with disabilities (Part two): Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Health Services and Outcomes Inquiry (Wai 2575), (Waitangi Tribunal, 2019, pages 27–28); Tennant, M, The fabric of welfare: Voluntary organisations, government, and welfare in New Zealand 1840–2005 (Bridget William Books, 2007, page 156).
[317] Kaiwai, H & Allport, T, Māori with disabilities (Part two): Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Health Services and Outcomes Inquiry (Wai 2575), (Waitangi Tribunal, 2019, page 28).
[318] Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu: From Redress to Puretumu Torowhānui, Volume 1 (2021, page 40).
[319] Swarbrick, N, Care and carers: Care of people with disabilities (Te Ara – The Encylopedia of New Zealand, 2011), https://teara.govt.nz/en/care-and-carers/page-4; Aitken, RS, Caughley, JG, Lopdell, FC, McLeod, GL, Robertson, JM, Tothill, GM & Hull, DN, Intellectually handicapped children report: Report of the consultative committee set up by the Minister of Education in August 1951 (Department of Education, 1953, paras 6, 7, 25, 40, 46); Witness statement of Sally Champion (23 August 2022, page 2, para 5).
[320] Kaiwai, H & Allport, T, Māori with disabilities (Part two): Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Health Services and Outcomes Inquiry (Wai 2575), (Waitangi Tribunal, 2019, page 28).
[321] Witness statement of Judy McArdle (9 October 2020, para 3.1.1).
[322] Mental Defectives Act 1911, section 2; Mental Health Act 1969, sections 2, 19, 22/24; Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, section 2.
[323] Transcript of evidence of Dr Olive Webb at the Inquiry’s Ūhia te Māramatanga Disability, Deaf and Mental Health Institutional Care Hearing (13 July 2022, page 203).
[324] Hutchinson, C, Cropper, J, Henley, W, Turnbull, J & Williams, I, Services for the mentally handicapped: Third report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Hospital and related services (The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Hospital and related services, 1973).
[325] The Intellectually Handicapped Children’s Parent’s Association (now called IHC) was founded in 1949 and advocated for schools and community facilities to keep their children out of institutions.
[326] Millen, J, Breaking barriers: IHC's first 50 years (IHC New Zealand, 1999, pages 22–28).
[327] Burns, C, The mental deficiency services: An analysis of existing policy and the community’s requirements, (Mental Deficiency Sub-committee, British Medical Association, New Zealand Branch, 1959, pages 2 and 20–24).
[328] Aitken, RS, Caughley, JG, Lopdell, FC, McLeod, GL, Robertson, JM, Tothill, GM & Hull, DN, Intellectually handicapped children report: Report of the consultative committee set up by the Minister of Education in August 1951 (Department of Education, 1953).
[329] Aitken, RS, Caughley, JG, Lopdell, FC, McLeod, GL, Robertson, JM, Tothill, GM & Hull, DN, Intellectually handicapped children report: Report of the consultative committee set up by the Minister of Education in August 1951 (Department of Education, 1953).
[330] Witness statements of Dr Hilary Stace (2019, para 14) and Lusi Faiva, (15 June 2022, page 1); Hutchinson, C, Cropper, J, Henley, W, Turnbull, J & Williams, I, Services for the Mentally Handicapped: Third report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Hospital and related services (The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Hospital and related services, 1973).
[331] Witness statement of Margaret Priest (28 January 2022, para 1.9); National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, To have an ‘ordinary’ life: Kia whai oranga ‘noa’: Background papers to inform the National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability (2004, page 29); Mirfin-Veitch, B, Tikao, K, Asaka, U, Tuisaula, E, Stace, H, Watene, FR & Frawley, P, Tell me about you: A life story approach to understanding disabled people’s experiences in care (1950–1999), (Donald Beasley Institute, 2022, page 107); Witness statements of Kylee Maloney (31 March 2022, para 2.43); Paula Waby (26 August 2022, paras 1.14, 1.15, 2.26) and Gary Williams (6 September 2022, para 1.11); Brief of evidence of Eddie Hokianga, Waitangi Tribunal (Wai 2575, #F28), (22 July 2022, para 13); Collective statement of Tāmaki Makarau Whānau Hauā (September 2022 page 2); Witness statement of Anne Bell (16 May 2022, para 2.6); Timutimu-Thorpe, H, “Ngā tangi a te whānau: Raising a child who has a disability,” in Ballard, K (ed), Disability, family, whānau and society (Dunmore Press, 1994, pages 95–116).
[332] Witness statement of Bill McElhinney (3 March 2022, para 2.6).
[333] Witness statements of Margaret Priest (28 January 2022, para 1.9) and Matthew Whiting (22 November 2021, paras 1.13 and 2.1).
[334] Private session transcript of Ms SF (24 March 2021, page 5).
[335] Witness statement of Ms SS (23 November 2021, paras 3.1–3.3).
[336] Witness statement of Ms SS (23 November 2021, paras 3.1–3.3).
[337] Witness statements of Anne Bell (16 May 2022, paras 2.2–2.3) and David Newman (18 February 2022, para 5.4).
[338] Witness statement of Anne Bell (16 May 2022, paras 2.2–2.3).
[339] Witness statement of David Newman (18 February 2022, para 2.13).
[340] Witness statement of David Newman (18 February 2022, paras 2.12 and 2.14).
[341] Education Act 1964, sections 113–114.
[342] Appendix to the witness statement of Tyrone Marks (5 March 2001, pages 1–2); Psychology Service Report of a survivor from the Department of Education (Department of Education, 18 February 1981, pages 1–2).
[343] Department of Education, Child welfare: State care of children, special schools, and infant-life protection report (1958, para 20); Aitken, RS, Caughley, JG, Lopdell, FC, McLeod, GL, Robertson, JM, Tothill, GM & Hull, DN, Intellectually handicapped children report: Report of the consultative committee set up by the Minister of Education in August 1951 (Department of Education, 1953, pages 10–11); Education Act 1914, section 127; Education Act 1964, No 135, section 144; Education Act 1989, section 9.
[344] Department of Education, Child welfare: State care of children, special schools, and infant-life protection report (1958, page 2); Aitken, RS, Caughley, JG, Lopdell, FC, McLeod, GL, Robertson, JM, Tothill, GM & Hull, DN, Intellectually handicapped children report: Report of the consultative committee set up by the Minister of Education in August 1951 (Department of Education, 1953, pages 10–15).
[345] Witness statement of Anthony Price (23 September 2021, paras 5.1–5.3); Paeroa Child, Youth & Family files of Alva Sammons (2 November 1992).
[346] Witness statement of Tanya and Gina Sammons (24 February 2020, paras 2–3).
[347] Paeroa Child, Youth & Family files of Alva Sammons (2 November 1992, page 51).
[348] Parker, W, Social Welfare residential care 1950–1994, Volume II: National institutions (Ministry of Social Development, 2006, page 99).
[349] Department of Education, Psychological Service: Psychologist Report (18 February 1981, pages 1–2).
[350] Department of Education, Psychological Service: Psychologist Report (18 February 1981, page 2).
[351] Witness statements of Kylee Maloney (31 March 2022, paras 2.4, 2.5, 2.43); Paula Waby (26 August 2022, paras 1.14, 1.15, 2.26) and Gary Williams (6 September 2022, paras 1.11, 1.4–1.5).
[352] Witness statement of Gary Williams (6 September 2022, para 1.11).
[353] Witness statement of Gary Williams (6 September 2022, paras 2.1–2.2).
[354] Witness statement of Jarrod Burrell (9 August 2021, para 2.2) and Ms JR (16 February 2022, para 1.7).
[355] Witness statement of Sonja Cooper and Sam Benton of Cooper Legal relating to the inquiry into the Order of the Brothers of St John of God at Marylands School and Hebron Trust (8 October 2021, page 5, para 21).
[356] Burns, C, The mental deficiency services: An analysis of existing policy and the community’s requirements, (Mental Deficiency Sub-committee, British Medical Association, New Zealand Branch, 1959, page 5, para 5a).
[357] Aitken, RS, Caughley, JG, Lopdell, FC, McLeod, GL, Robertson, JM, Tothill, GM & Hull, DN, Intellectually handicapped children report: Report of the consultative committee set up by the Minister of Education in August 1951 (Department of Education, 1953, page 8).
[358] Aitken, RS, Caughley, JG, Lopdell, FC, McLeod, GL, Robertson, JM, Tothill, GM & Hull, DN, Intellectually handicapped children report: Report of the consultative committee set up by the Minister of Education in August 1951 (Department of Education, 1953, page 4).
[359] Witness statement of Ms Bielski (18 Oct 2021, paras 1.6–1.8).
[360] Education Act 1989, section 8.
[361] Witness statement of Bill McElhinney (3 March 2022, paras 1.6–1.9).
[362] Witness statement of Mrs NS (24 April 2023, para 9.5).
[363] Witness statement of Ms VA (2 February 2023, para 2.11).
[364] Witness statement of Ms VA (2 February 2023, para 2.11).
[365] Witness statement of Ms VA (2 February 2023, paras 2.12–2.21).
[366] Witness statement of Ms VA (2 February 2023, para 2.39).
[367] Witness statement of Ms VA (2 February 2023, para 2.70).
[368] Witness statement of Mr JS (27 May 2022, para 2.10).
[369] Witness statement of Mr JS (27 May 2022, para 2.28).
[370] Millen, J, Breaking barriers: IHC's first 50 years (IHC New Zealand, 1999, page 52).
[371] Millen, J, Breaking barriers: IHC's first 50 years (IHC New Zealand, 1999, page 53).
[372] Witness statements of Miss VK (14 February 2022, para 2.30) and Claire Ryan (16 November 2022, page 4).
[373] Witness statements of Allison Campbell (15 February 2022, page 16); Matthew Whiting (22 November 2021, page 4); Ms LO (3 May 2023, page 5-6); Ms OQ (19 July 2022 page 7) and Ms SS (23 November 2021, page 5).
[374] Morrison, A, Beasley, D & Williamson, K, The intellectually handicapped and their families: A New Zealand survey (The Research Foundation of the New Zealand Society for the Intellectually Handicapped, 1976, pages 77 and 85).
[375] Millen, J, Breaking barriers: IHC's first 50 years (IHC New Zealand, 1999, page 2).
[376] Morrison, A, Beasley, D & Williamson, K, The intellectually handicapped and their families: A New Zealand survey (The Research Foundation of the New Zealand Society for the Intellectually Handicapped, 1976, pages 77 and 85).
[377] Morrison, A, Beasley, D & Williamson, K, The intellectually handicapped and their families: A New Zealand survey (The Research Foundation of the New Zealand Society for the Intellectually Handicapped, 1976, page 85).
[378] Hamilton, C, Institutionalisation in twentieth-century New Zealand: Intellectual disability in the twentieth century (Policy Press, 2019, page 154).
[379] Stace, H & Sullivan, M, A brief history of disability in Aotearoa New Zealand (Office for Disability Issues, 2020).
[380] O’Brien, P, Thesing, A, and Capie, A, Living in the community for people with a long history of institutional care (Auckland College of Education, 1999).
[381] Witness statements of Ms SS, (23 November 2021, paras 4.1–4.4) and Alison Adams, (6 December 2021, para 2.1); National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, To have an ‘ordinary’ life: Kia whai oranga ‘noa’: Background papers to inform the National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability (2004, page 35).
[382] Witness statements of Anne Bell (16 May 2022, para 4.12–4.26) and Margaret Priest, (28 January 2022, para 2.33–2.36).
[383] Stace, H & Sullivan, M, A brief history of disability in Aotearoa New Zealand (Office for Disability Issues, 2020).
[384] Witness statement of Bill McElhinney (3 March 2022, paras 1.3 and 2.20).
[385] Millen, J, Breaking barriers: IHC's first 50 years (IHC New Zealand, 1999, pages 29–41).
[386] Witness statement of Leeann Barnett (20 June 2022, paras 2.9–2.10).
[387] National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, To have an 'ordinary' life: Kia whai oranga 'noa': Background papers to inform the National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability (2004, page 48); Burgess, M, The power of freedom: How personal budgets for social services are transforming lives, (The New Zealand Initiative, 2021, page 9).
[388] National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, To have an 'ordinary' life: Kia whai oranga 'noa': Background papers to inform the National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability (2004, page 45).
[389] Transcripts of evidence at the Inquiry’s Ūhia te Māramatanga Disability, Deaf and Mental Health Institutional Care Hearing of Paul Milner (12 July 2022, pages 127–128); Dr Olive Webb (13 July 2022, pages 213–215) and Allison Campbell (11 July 2022, page 6).
[390] National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, To have an ‘ordinary’ life: Kia whai oranga ‘noa’: Background papers to inform the National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability (2004, page 47).
[391] National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, To have an ‘ordinary’ life: Kia whai oranga ‘noa’: Background papers to inform the National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability (2004, page 45).
[392] Moore, A & Tennant, M, Who is responsible for the provision of support services for people with disabilities? A discussion paper commissioned by the National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability (1997).
[393] Transcript of evidence of Dr Tristram Ingham from the Kaupapa Māori Panel at the Inquiry’s Ūhia te Māramatanga Disability, Deaf and Mental Health Institutional Care Hearing (20 July 2022, page 634).
[394] Transcript of evidence of Dr Tristram Ingham from the Kaupapa Māori Panel at the Inquiry’s Ūhia te Māramatanga Disability, Deaf and Mental Health Institutional Care Hearing (20 July 2022, page 634).
[395] Transcript of evidence of Dr Tristram Ingham from the Kaupapa Māori Panel at the Inquiry’s Ūhia te Māramatanga Disability, Deaf and Mental Health Institutional Care Hearing (20 July 2022, page 634).
[396] Gassin, T, Māori mental health: A report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry (Wai 2575, B26), (Waitangi Tribunal, 2019, pages 6–7); Kaiwai, H & Allport, T, Māori with disabilities (Part two): Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Health Services and Outcomes Inquiry (Wai 2575), (Waitangi Tribunal, 2019, page 77); Hickey, H & Wilson, D, “Whānau Hauā: Reframing disability from an Indigenous perspective,” Mai Journal 6, Issue 1 (2017, page 83).
[397] Kaiwai, H, & Allport, T, Māori with disabilities (Part two): Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Health Services and Outcomes Inquiry (Wai 2575), (Waitangi Tribunal; Ministry of Justice, 2019, pages 17–18); Ingham, TR, Jones, B, Perry, M, King, PT, Baker, G, Hickey, H, Pouwhare, R & Nikora, LW, "The multidimensional impacts of inequities for tāngata whaikaha Māori (indigenous Māori with lived experience of disability) in Aotearoa, New Zealand," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(20): 13558 (2022, page 12).
[398] Brief of evidence of Director-General of Health and Chief Executive Dr Diana Sarfati for the Ministry of Health at the Inquiry’s State Institutional Response Hearing (17 August 2022, para 2.8).
[399] Brief of evidence of Director-General of Health and Chief Executive Dr Diana Sarfati for the Ministry of Health at the Inquiry’s State Institutional Response Hearing (17 August 2022, para 2.8).
[400] Ratima, M, Durie, M, Allan, G, Morrison, P, Gillies, A & Waldon, J, He anga whakamana: A framework for the delivery of disability support services for Māori, a report to the National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services (Massey University, Department of Māori studies, 1995, pages 36–37).
[401] Waitangi Tribunal, Hauora Report: Stage One of the Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry (Wai 2575), (2019, page 31).
[402] Waitangi Tribunal, Hauora Report: Stage One of the Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry (Wai 2575), (2019, page 31).
[403] Waitangi Tribunal, Hauora Report: Stage One of the Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry (Wai 2575), (2019, pages 31–32).
[404] Waitangi Tribunal, Hauora Report: Stage One of the Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry (Wai 2575), (2019, page 34).
[405] Closing submissions for the Crown at the Inquiry’s Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit Inquiry Hearing (29 June 2021, page 930).
[406] Ingham, TR, Jones, B, Perry, M, King, PT, Baker, G, Hickey, H, Pouwhare, R & Nikora, LW, "The multidimensional impacts of inequities for tāngata whaikaha Māori (indigenous Māori with lived experience of disability) in Aotearoa, New Zealand," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(20): 13558 (2022, page 11); Hickey, H & Wilson, D, “Whānau Hauā: Reframing disability from an Indigenous perspective,” Mai Journal 6, Issue 1 (2017, page 85).
[407] Ingham, TR, Jones, B, Perry, M, King, PT, Baker, G, Hickey, H, Pouwhare, R & Nikora, LW, "The multidimensional impacts of inequities for tāngata whaikaha Māori (indigenous Māori with lived experience of disability) in Aotearoa, New Zealand," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 (20): 13558 (2022, page 11); Hickey, H & Wilson, D, “Whānau Hauā: Reframing disability from an Indigenous perspective,” Mai Journal 6, Issue 1 (2017, page 85).
[408] Kaiwai, H & Allport, T, Māori with disabilities (Part two): Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Health Services and Outcomes Inquiry (Wai 2575), (Waitangi Tribunal, 2019, page 27).
[409] Kaiwai, H & Allport, T, Māori with disabilities (Part two): Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Health Services and Outcomes Inquiry (Wai 2575), (Waitangi Tribunal, 2019, page 36).
[410] National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, To have an ‘ordinary’ life: Kia whai oranga ‘noa’: Background papers to inform the National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability (2003, page 36).
[411] Gassin, T, Māori mental health: A report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry (Wai 2575, B26), (Waitangi Tribunal, 2019, page 8).
[412] Robson, B & Harris, R, (eds), Hauora: Māori Standards of Health IV – A study of the years 2000–2005 (Te Rōpu Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pomare – School of Medicine and Health Sciences University of Otago, 2007, page 913).
[413] Bathgate, M, Donnell, A & Mitikulena, A, The health of Pacific Islands people in New Zealand: Analysis and monitoring report 2 (Public Health Commission, 1994); Pacific Peoples’ experience of disability: A paper for the Pacific Health and Disability Action Plan review (Ministry of Health, 2008, page 29).
[414] Collective witness statement of Ōtautahi Tāngata Turi (7 September 2022, paras 5–6).
[415] Collective witness statements of Tāmaki Makaurau Whānau Turi (30 September 2022, pages 5–6) and Ōtautahi Tāngata Turi (7 September 2022, pages 1, 5).
[416] Brief of evidence of Eddie Hokianga, Waitangi Tribunal (Wai 2575, #F28), (22 July 2022, paras 13 and 16).
[417] Huakau, G & Bray, A, Talking disabilities from a Pacific perspective (Donald Beasley Institute, 2000).
[418] Witness statement of Lusi Faiva (15 June 2022, page 1).
[419] Witness statement of Lusi Faiva (15 June 2022, page 1).
[420] Transcript of evidence of Folasaitu Dr Julia Ioane at the Inquiry's Tulou – Our Pacific Voices: Tatala e Pulonga (Pacific Peoples' Experiences) Hearing (30 July 2021, page 695).
[421] Transcript of evidence of Acting Chief Executive Geraldine Woods for Whaikaha – Ministry of Disabled People at the Inquiry’s State Institutional Response Hearing (17 August 2022, page 215).