404. The Inquiry also considered other types of care, including State and faith-based adoption, transitional and law enforcement, health camps, and sheltered workshops.

Ngā whare mō ngā whāngaitanga me ngā māmā kiritapu
Adoption and unmarried mothers’ homes

405. The Inquiry heard from survivors who experienced abuse and neglect in unmarried mothers’ homes and in adoption placements.

406. Adoption rates were influenced by a number of social and legal factors, including societal beliefs around unmarried mothers and their children, financial support opportunities for unmarried mothers, and the availability of contraception. Racism and increased State control of Māori adoptions and whāngai also influenced shifts in the numbers of pepi, tamariki, and rangatahi Māori adoptions.

Te taurimatanga o ngā tamariki meamea
Adoptions of children born outside of marriage

407. Unmarried mothers experienced substantial scrutiny following the 1950s, which was largely motivated by fear of the so-called ‘moral decline’ and ‘female immorality’ that ‘illegitimate’ births were seen to symbolise.[524] 

The stigma surrounding pregnancy outside of marriage left women with little support.

408. As a result, pregnant single women often faced significant pressure, or even coercion, including through a lack of informed consent, to have their child or children adopted.[525] Section 8 of the Adoption Act 1955 continues to provide for the Family Court to dispense of the consent of a disabled parent or guardian is considered unfit. The Family Court must be satisfied that the disabled parent or guardian is unfit to care for the child because of "a physical or mental capacity", the unfitness is likely to continue indefinitely and the disabled parent or guardian has been provided with reasonable notice.[526]

409. Pressure to adopt came from family members, prospective adoptive parents,[527] authorities such as social workers and medical professionals like nurses and doctors. As discussed below, many of the unmarried mothers’ homes taking in pregnant woman also facilitated adoptions.

410. Pressure to adopt could be heightened for girls or young women who became pregnant while already in the care of the State themselves.[528] Māori survivor Ms LV , who has a learning disability, was readmitted into Lake Alice Hospital in Rangitikei, aged 24 years old with her 3-month-old baby. Her baby was taken away from her by a social worker two days after admission:

“I did not give informed consent to [my child] being adopted, I did not have any way of understanding what was happening and my rights.”^[529]

411. NZ European survivor Mr GZ was adopted at 6 weeks old in 1971 into a neglectful family and was later placed into a number of social welfare settings, including Waimokoia Residential School in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, Hamilton Boys’ Home, Epuni Boys’ Home in Te Awa Kairangi ki Tai Lower Hutt, and Kohitere Boys’ Training Centre and Hokio Beach School near Taitoko Levin. Mr GZ said:

“I’m not sure of the reasons for the adoption but I imagine solo mothers didn’t really keep their child or children back in the 1970s.

“If I was to look back and think about how I came into care, the catalyst would be my adoption and the dysfunctional family that I was brought up in.” ^[530]

Te kaikiri me te taunutanga pāpori ki ngā māmā kiritapu Māori
Racism and societal disapproval of unmarried Māori māmā

412. Racist and sexist attitudes towards Māori māmā existed in some survivors’ State files. In the records of Māori survivor Gwen Anderson, a child welfare officer wrote that the children appeared “happy and well adjusted” but described her mother as a “toothless shapeless hag” and the family home as “primitive and most pathetic”.[531]

413. Māori survivor Ms AF (Ngāti Tahinga, Ngāti Ira) shared that when her mother was 16 years old, she faced ‘collusion’ from social workers and doctors to put Ms AF up for adoption. Ms AF became pregnant at 18 years old:

“My [adoptive] parents sent me to a Catholic nun’s home for unwed mothers. I gave birth to my eldest child there and then I was forced to adopt him out 10 days later. I recall having a paper given to me after the birth and being told to sign it by my parents and the nuns. I had no idea what it was, I had no advice provided to me. The next thing I know my son had disappeared.”^[532]

Te wāhi ki ngā hāhi
Role of faith institutions

414. As outlined in Part 2, the Anglican, Catholic and Presbyterian churches and The Salvation Army ran homes for unmarried mothers. The Catholic Church operated several homes for unmarried pregnant women. Survivor Maria Hayward stayed in one of these homes and told the Inquiry:

“This was in the 1970s in New Zealand, but at time it felt like it might have been Ireland of 100 years ago, but with kinder nuns. The walls, the secrecy, the denial of information, the daily chores (mostly cleaning and washing), which all made us feel as if we were being punished, these teleological features gave us a message: you have done something wrong, and the consequence is that you have lost your rights.”[533]

415. Barbara Sumner told the Inquiry she considered the role that The Salvation Army had in the facilitation of adoptions through its Bethany homes over a lengthy time period was akin to it running an adoption agency or programme.[534] With the introduction of the 1955 Adoption Act, private providers of adoption services had no statutory powers; only the State could approve adoptions.[535] In its 1999 report on the History of Adoption in New Zealand, the Law Commission:

• recognised that agencies such as Bethany performed a useful function.
• raised for consultation whether agencies that provided some adoption services should be accredited noting that, since the Adoption Act 1955, all adoptions in New Zealand were otherwise only able to be facilitated and formally approved by the Department of Social Welfare.

416. Many girls were sent to unmarried mothers homes by their families in the early stages of pregnancy.[536] Pākehā survivor Ann-Marie Shelley’s adoption pathway was intergenerational and included both the Catholic Church and The Salvation Army.[537] Her birth mother, who was herself adopted, was 17 years old when she was pressured to adopt Ann-Marie to a Catholic family. In 1973, when Ann-Marie fell pregnant at 18 years old she was placed in a home for unmarried mothers and ordered not to reappear in her hometown of Te Awa Kairangi ki Uta Upper Hutt in case her parents’ friends were to see her pregnant. Her parents did not visit her and demanded Ann-Marie adopt her son out.

417. Pākehā survivor Maggie Wilkinson was sent to St Mary’s Home for Unwed Mothers (Anglican) in Ōtāhuhu in 1964 at 19 years old. Maggie’s parents were ashamed and did not want to tell anyone that she was pregnant out of marriage, so they kept her hidden until their family doctor recommended St Mary’s.[538]

Tokomaha ngā tamariki kāore i whāngaihia ka whakanoho ki ngā pūnaha taurima ā-Kāwanatanga
Many children not adopted were placed into State care

418. Where babies could not be placed with adoptive families, they may have become State wards, and placed with foster parents or sent directly to State or faith-based institutions to be cared for and protected.[539]

419. Many children from unmarried mothers’ homes were placed into State care because they were not adopted.[540] At St Mary’s Girls' Home for Unwed Mothers (Anglican) in Ōtāuhuhu, newborn babies would be placed in the orphanage before being adopted. Maggie Wilkinson described St Mary’s as being “full of the ‘unadoptable babies” which were mainly twins and Māori children or children of mixed race.”[541]

420. Many babies were placed into foster care. In 1950, of the 1,848 notified ‘illegitimate’ (born outside marriage) births, 470 children were placed in foster homes. In 1967 the number of ‘illegitimate’ children was 7,783 and the number placed in foster care had grown to 2,716 children.[542]

421. Former social worker Denis Smith observed that older children (from about 7 years old) were very difficult to place, and “adoption was virtually an impossibility” for teenagers.[543] Smith explained that the exception to this was when a child had already been fostered for many years and the foster family applied to adopt them.[544]

422. Even in times of long waiting lists, some children were easier to adopt out than others due to discriminatory attitudes like racism and disablism. Māori, Pacific, or non-European or ‘mixed’ descent children were more difficult to find homes for than Pākehā children.[545] In a study of adoption delays in 1968 and 1973, ethnicity preference on the part of prospective adoptive parents was the second most common factor for the delay with the most common factor being the sex of the baby.[546]

423. Children with obvious physical impairment or learning disabilities were also difficult to place with adoptive families. The increasing emphasis on screening the families of adoptive children (including for mental distress or the presence of hereditary conditions) further decreased the likelihood of some children being adopted on discriminatory grounds.[547]

I whai wheako ētahi purapura ora ki ngā nōhanga whakawhiti, ā-ture anō hoki
Some survivors experienced transitional and law enforcement settings

424. Transitional and law enforcement settings include police cells, being held in police custody (including being picked up by NZ Police on the streets) and court cells, and going to, between or coming out of State care settings.

Ka puritia ngā tamariki, ngā rangatahi ki ngā whare herehere pakeke
Children and young people held on remand in adult prisons

425. The Inquiry heard from survivors who were detained on remand in adult prisons when they were young people.[548]

426. Before the enactment of the 1989 Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act, it was lawful for young people on remand to be placed in adult prisons. Data on the number of young people on remand in adult prisons, or their ethnicity, during the Inquiry period was not comprehensively collected. There were, however, reports and inquiries from the mid-1970s to mid-1980s that investigated this practice. Those reports and inquiries provide an insight into how many young people spent time in in adult prisons. [549]

In December 1979, the Minister of Social Welfare George Gair answered a parliamentary question concerning the number of young people remanded at Mt Eden Prison. He responded:

“So far this year 163 young persons have been remanded by the Court to Mt Eden Prison. Of these, 143 were boys and 20 were girls. Two of the boys were aged 14, 38 were 15 and 103 were aged 16. Two of the girls were aged 15 and the remaining 18 were aged 16.”^[550]

427. Minister Gair explained that remands of this nature were generally short-term. He also noted that many of the young people did not spend the night at Mount Eden, as it was normal practice to transfer them to Department of Social Welfare residences whenever possible. Most of the remands involved young persons charged with serious offences that called for penalties under the Criminal Justice Act.[551]

428. Rangatahi Māori were disproportionately affected by this practice of remanding young people in adult prisons. In 1974, 269 young people were remanded to adult prisons; of these, 53 percent were Māori or Pacific.[552] A year later, that number had increased to 320 young people and the number of Māori or Pacific had risen to 57 percent.[553]

429. By 1977, the number of young people remanded to adult prisons had increased to 356, of which 63 percent were Māori.[554]

430. This increased over the decade as more and more young people were remanded to adult prisons. Further, the average time spent in prisons by young people in 1978 was 10 days.[555]

I tūkinotia ētahi tamariki, rangatahi hoki e ngā pirihimana
Children and young people experienced abuse by police officers

431. Several survivors spoke about the abuse they suffered as children and young people at the hands of police officers. Some spoke about being targeted and picked up off the street, others spoke about running away from abusive homes and abusive care settings and the abuse they suffered from NZ Police after being picked up.

Ko ngā puninga hauora he kōwhiringa taurimatanga paetata
Health camps were a short-term care option

432. Health camps were established as a short-term care option for children considered to be in need of rest, exercise, and nutritious meals.[556] The first health camp was established in 1919, and by the 1950s, seven permanent health camps had been established in Christchurch, Gisborne, Nelson, Otaki, Pakuranga, Roxburgh, and Whangarei.[557]

433. By the late 1930s, around 2,500 children and young people (about four percent of the primary school age population) annually attended health camps.[558] During the 1950s and 1960s children and young people were mostly sent to health camps for emotional or behavioural issues rather than malnourishment[559] with most referrals from family doctors or the school medical service.[560] By the 1980s the camps were providing short stays of six weeks on average as a ‘change of environment’ for children and young people with ‘social, emotional or psychological difficulties’.[561]

434. During 1983, 2,624 children aged from 5 to 12 years old attended one of the seven health camps around the country. Of these 39 percent were referred for ‘family reasons’, 31 percent for ‘health reasons’, and 30 percent for ‘behavioural reasons’.[562] Most of the children referred were boys and had been referred by a public health nurse or GP. Māori were over-represented in the health camps, 33 percent of health camp participants were Māori, compared to 44 percent Pākehā, six percent Pacific Peoples, and 17 percent of unknown ethnicity.[563]

435. The Inquiry heard from 51 registered survivors who had been through health camps. Of this number, 41 percent were placed in the health camp by the State due to abusive or neglectful homes, or troubled behaviour, and 31 percent entered through voluntary placements from their parents due to troubled behaviour, or for unknown reasons.[564]

436. Some survivors explained how their ‘troubled’ behaviours were often due to the abuse or neglect they had suffered. NZ European survivor Mr VL told the Inquiry had a good family life but was sexually abused by a family friend who lived with them. He was too scared to disclose the abuse because of the potential reaction from his father. He began acting out and was admitted to a health camp at 7 years old:

“I didn't want to lose my dad, because my dad's all I had in my life. I was acting out in school and they couldn't work out what was wrong with me. I got sent to a health camp in Rotorua, Princess of Wales Health Camp. And then it was also while I was there the first time that I experienced abuse.” [565]

437. Samoan and Scottish survivor William Wilson suspected he was placed in the Princess of Wales Health Camp in Rotorua due to his escalating behaviour at home, after he was sexually assaulted and not supported afterwards. Aged 10 or 11 years old, William was supposed to be at the camp for six months but stayed for a year. He experienced emotional abuse at the health camp.[566]

“I was bullied there and tried to run away. Because I tried to run away, they made me stay for another six months. I was told that I had to go to the health camp because I had to lose weight. But it felt like they were just moving me around because I had been playing up after what happened to me.”^[567]

438. Some survivors believed they were sent as respite for their parent, parents or caregivers, including when they were seeking help for their own wellbeing, such as for mental health or addiction issues.[568] NZ European survivor Philip Laws went to the Glenelg Children’s Health Camp in Ōtautahi Christchurch at 9 years old:

“My father had a drug and alcohol breakdown and decided he needed help. It was not a foster care facility, but it provided respite care. I was there for 12 weeks while my father spent three months in a rehabilitation facility in Hanmer. The first time I was sexually assaulted was in Glenelg.” ^[569]

439. Children and young people were often referred by schools, district health nurses or family doctors after coming to their attention for health or behavioural reasons.[570] Of the survivors the Inquiry heard from, 16 percent noted that authorities recommended they be placed into health camps.[571]

440. For most survivors who spent time in health camps, this represented their first out-of-home care experience, and they were subsequently placed into other social welfare, youth justice and / or faith-based settings.[572] NZ European survivor Ivan Mason was placed in care and progressed ’through the system’, via a health camp, family homes, foster placements, girls’ homes and a Salvation Army home. He told the Inquiry that with respect to his adoption placement at birth:

“It would be fair to say that I was not physically abused but through the lack of mental stimulation and behavioural support during my preschool and early primary school days I had developed some serious behaviour and learning issues. By the age of 7 these problems became unmanageable for my parents and after some intervention from the family GP and school these issues were brought to the attention of the State.”[573] 

441. From the 1970s, some of the State-run social welfare residences ran their own outdoor camps. Camp Peek, one of Department of Social Welfare’s first such outdoor recreation programmes, ran for six weeks near Taitoko Levin and took a group of 16 boys at a time from the Kohitere Boys’ Training Centre in Taitoko Levin. The programme aimed to build ‘self-sufficiency and self-confidence’, physical fitness and positive relationships, through outdoor activities such as canoeing, bushcraft, and rock climbing, followed by placements in their home community.[574]

442. Hokio Beach School near Taitoko Levin sent its residents to camps at Paraparaumu from the 1960s. From the 1970s Hokio Beach School made use of the Camp Peek facility for regular camps.[575] Girls from Fareham House in Pae-Tū-Mōkai Featherston attended both Camp Peek and outdoor activity camps at Castlepoint during the 1970s. [576] Girls at Kingslea Girls’ Home in Ōtautahi Christchurch participated in Outward Bound courses in the 1980s. [577]

I whakanōhia ngā tāngata whaikaha ki ngā rōpū mahi haumaru
Disabled people were placed in sheltered workshops

443. Like North America and Europe, sheltered workshops were established in Aotearoa New Zealand to provide employment opportunities for disabled people at a reduced wage. In many cases, these workshops became the main source of employment for disabled people.[578]

444. Disabled people could be placed in sheltered workshops from other care settings, where they would often undertake repetitive, menial tasks for minimal or no wage.[579]

445. The Inquiry heard that disabled people came from psychiatric and mental health care institutions, smaller group homes, and sometimes even from their family home, to work at these workshops during the day.[580] A former staff member from Templeton explained:

“Once the children reached their late teens, many would be transferred from the training centre to work in the industrial workshop at Templeton. This is where many of the adult residents at Templeton worked, particularly those with physical disabilities and wheelchair users.” [581]

446. While some survivors described positive experiences in these workshops,[582] they were a continuation of a segregated and exploitive environment, and therefore abusive in nature.[583]

447. During the Australian Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, the continuation of segregation was named the ‘polished pathway’. This term describes the relative ease of transition from special or segregated education into supported or segregated employment and congregated housing. During an Australian Royal Commission hearing, the polished pathway was described as:

“Particularly segregation from a very early age into segregated education and the way the systems all work together to make it easy to stay in those systems and to move from school into segregated - to other segregated settings, including segregated employment.” ^[584]

Ngā whakataunga mō ngā whakanoho ki ētahi atu momo wāhi taurima
Conclusions on placements into other types of care settings

448. The Adoption Act 1955 remains in place today. Its influence, and societal attitudes towards unmarried mothers during the Inquiry period (despite changes over time), influenced the numbers of children that were put up for adoption.

449. Many children were adopted out from unmarried mothers. This was largely influenced by societal attitudes at the time, significant social discrimination, pressure and stigma, and little to no financial support available for single parents during the early parts of the Inquiry period. This discrimination was compounded by racism for unmarried Māori mothers.

450. Pathways into transitional and law enforcement settings were mostly through the courts or NZ Police. Young people were detained on remand in adult prisons and some experienced abuse during police interactions.

451. Health camps provided short-term physical, emotional, and behavioural support for children and young people. Survivors were often compulsorily required to enter a health camp by the State, due to abuse and neglect at home, or for troubled behaviour. Parents also voluntarily placed children and young people into health camps, sometimes for troubled behaviour, or as a form of respite.

Footnotes

[524] Dalley, B, Family matters: Child welfare in twentieth-century New Zealand (Auckland University Press, 1998), pages 216–218.
[525] Dalley, B, Family matters: Child welfare in twentieth-century New Zealand (Auckland University Press, 1998, pages 223–224); Else, A, A question of adoption: Closed stranger adoption in New Zealand, 1944–1974 (Bridget Williams Books, 1991, page 27).
[526] Adoption Act 1955, section 8.
[527] Witness statement of Ms CI (10 August 2022, para 18).
[528] Witness statements of PH siblings on behalf of their sister (21 April 2023, paras 24–27, paras 39–46) and Ms WC (1 November 2022, pages 4–5, para 2.14–2.25)
[529] Witness statement of Ms LV (14 February 2023, para 23).
[530] Witness statement of Mr GZ (22 June 2021, para 6).
[531] Witness statement of Gwen Anderson (30 December 2021, page 2).
[532] Witness statement of Ms AF (13 August 2021, paras 8.1–8.2).
[533] Letter in support of group submission for inquiry into forced adoptions (n.d, page 33).
[534] Sumner, B, Royal Commission on Abuse in State Care: External consultation to assist in the Inquiry’s reports (15 August 2022, pages 19–21).
[535] New Zealand Law Commission, Preliminary Paper 38 – Adoption: Options for Reform (NZLC PP38), History of adoption in New Zealand (October 1999, Chapter 2, para 110); Sumner, B, Royal Commission on Abuse in State Care: External consultation to assist in the Inquiry’s reports (15 August 2022, page 19).
[536] Else, A, A question of adoption: Closed stranger adoption in New Zealand, 1944–1974 (Bridget Williams Books, 1991, page 33).
[537] Witness statement of Ann-Marie Shelley (6 August 2020, pages 7–8).
[538] Witness statement of Maggie Wilkinson (17 September 2020, paras 10–16).
[539] Else, A, A question of adoption: Closed stranger adoption in New Zealand, 1944–1974 (Bridget Williams Books, 1991, pages 106–108); Dalley, B, Family matters: Child welfare in twentieth-century New Zealand (Auckland University Press, 1998, page 233).
[540] Witness statement of Maggie Wilkinson (17 September 2020, para 23).
[541] Witness statement of Maggie Wilkinson (17 September 2020, para 23).
[542] Department of Education, Child welfare: State care of children, special schools, and infant-life protection report (1950); Department of Education, Child welfare: State care of children, special schools, and infant-life protection report (1967).
[543] Witness statement of Denis Smith (15 December 2021, para 16).
[544] Witness statement of Denis Smith (15 December 2021, para 16).
[545] Else, A, A question of adoption: Closed stranger adoption in New Zealand, 1944–1974 (Bridget Williams Books, 1991, pages 73–74); Department of Education, Child welfare: State care of children, special schools, and infant-life protection report (1959, page 4).
[546] Else, A, A question of adoption: Closed stranger adoption in New Zealand, 1944–1974 (Bridget Williams Books, 1991, page 107).
[547] Else, A, A question of adoption: Closed stranger adoption in New Zealand, 1944–1974 (Bridget Williams Books, 1991, pages 74–77).
[548] Witness statements of Brent Mitchell (15 April 2021, para 126); Peter Jones (12 October 2022, paras 44–47) and William MacDonald (4 February 2021, paras 60–61).
[549] Powles, G, Ombudsman draft report: Children and young persons on remand in penal institutions, unpublished (5 April 1977); Smith, MP, Study of young persons remanded to a penal institution, Study Series (Department of Justice, 1979); Wallace, GCPA, Report to the Secretary for Justice on the Enquiry into ACORD Complaints Concerning Detention of Young Persons (21 November 1984); Auckland Committee on Racism and Discrimination, Children in State custody (November 1979, revised 1981).
[550] Question for oral answer, Hon Mrs TWM Tirikatene-Sullivan (Southern Māori) to ask Hon GF Gair (Minister of Social Welfare), (14 December 1979).
[551] Question for oral answer, Hon Mrs TWM Tirikatene-Sullivan (Southern Māori) to ask Hon GF Gair (Minister of Social Welfare), (14 December 1979).
[552] Witness statement of Dr Oliver Sutherland (4 October 2019, para 18). Data from Powles, G, Ombudsman draft report: Children and young persons on remand in penal institutions, unpublished (5 April 1977), in which Dr Sutherland based his calculations on described children as ‘Māori and ‘other Polynesian descent’ and grouped them together as ‘non-Europeans’ for the purposes of calculating percentages.
[553] Witness statement of Dr Oliver Sutherland (4 October 2019, para 18).
[554] Witness statement of Dr Oliver Sutherland (4 October 2019, para 18).
[555] Smith, MP, Study of young persons remanded to a penal institution, Study Series (Department of Justice, 1979); Witness statement of Dr Oliver Sutherland (4 October 2019, para 107).
[556] Tennant, M, Children's health, the nation's wealth: A history of children's health camps (Bridget Williams Books, 1994). Witness statement of Philip Laws (23 September 2021, paras 2.9–2.17); Private session transcript of Ms UX (21 June 2022, pages 7–8).
[557] Wojnar, A, Children’s health camps in New Zealand: An overview of current programs and issues (SIT – New Zealand, 1998, page 10).
[558] Tennant, M, Children's health, the nation's wealth: A history of children's health camps (Bridget Williams Books, 1994, page 113).
[559] Tennant, M, Children's health, the nation's wealth: A history of children's health camps (Bridget Williams Books, 1994, page 9).
[560] Tennant, M, Children's health, the nation's wealth: A history of children's health camps (Bridget Williams Books, 1994, page 147).
[561] Craig, T & Mills, M, Care and control: The role of institutions in New Zealand (New Zealand Planning Council, 1987, paras 37–38).
[562] Craig, T & Mills, M, Care and control: The role of institutions in New Zealand (New Zealand Planning Council, 1987, page 47).
[563] Craig, T & Mills, M, Care and control: The role of institutions in New Zealand (New Zealand Planning Council, 1987, paras 47–48).
[564] DOT Loves Data, Analysis of pathways into care counts (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2023).
[565] Private session transcript of Mr VL (6 July 2020, pages 6–7).
[566] Witness statement of William Wilson (6 July 2021, paras 23–24).
[567] Witness statement of William Wilson (6 July 2021, paras 21–22).
[568] Witness statements of Mr DM (23 June 2021, para 18) and Philip Laws (23 September 2021, paras 2.9–2.10).
[569] Witness statement of Philip Laws (23 September 2021, paras 2.9–2.12).
[570] Tennant, M, Children's health, the nation’s wealth: A history of children’s health camps (Bridget Williams Books, 1994); Witness statements of Mr KA (7 February 2023, paras 9–11) and Ms I (17 September 2020, para 3.2); Private session transcript of Melissa Peters (1 May 2019, page 5); Private session transcript of Mr VM (3 March 2020, page 17).
[571] DOT Loves Data, Analysis of pathways into care counts (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 2023).
[572] Witness statement of Daniel Gaffey (4 May 2023, paras 19–21) and Desmond Adams (8 June 2022, para 3.7).
[573] Written account of Ivan Mason (1 July 2021, page 9).
[574] Carson, R, New horizons: A review of the residential services of the Department of Social Welfare (Department of Social Welfare, 1982, page 139).
[575] Parker, W, Social Welfare residential care 1950–1994, Volume II: National institutions (Ministry of Social Development, 2006, page 83).
[576] Parker, W, Social Welfare residential care 1950–1994, Volume II: National institutions (Ministry of Social Development, 2006, page 169).
[577] Parker, W, Social Welfare residential care 1950–1994, Volume II: National institutions (Ministry of Social Development, 2006, page 223).
[578] Millen, J, Breaking barriers: IHC's first 50 years (IHC New Zealand, 1999, page 48).
[579] Millen, J, Breaking barriers: IHC's first 50 years (IHC New Zealand, 1999, page 48); Witness statement of Enid Wardle (13 October 2021, para 6.6).
[580] Witness statements of Enid Wardle (13 October 2021, paras 6.3–6.6); Mr DM (23 June 2021, paras 118–119) and Timothy George Morgan ( 21 January 2022, paras 67–69).
[581] Witness statement of Enid Wardle (13 October 2021, para 3.12).
[582] Witness statement of Bill McElhinney (3 March 2022, paras 2.8 & 2.9).
[583] Witness statement of Tony Ryder (28 February 2022, page 7); Transcript of evidence of Mr EI at the Inquiry’s Ūhia te Māramatanga Disability, Deaf and Mental Health Institutional Care Hearing (11 July 2022, page 51).
[584] Transcript of Chief Executive Catherine McAlpine for Inclusion Australia at the Royal Commission Into Violence, Abuse, Neglect And Exploitation of People with Disability Public Hearing 22 (11 April 2022, page 41).