532. Faith-based entities must act to prevent further abuse and neglect of children, young people and adults in their care. In addition to recommendations above that include faith-based entities, the below recommendations are further steps which each faith-based entity must take to ensure factors that caused abuse are unable to persist.

533. This chapter responds to clause 32A of the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference, which relates to recommendations to ensure that the factors that allowed abuse and neglect to occur during the Inquiry period do not persist. As provided for in clauses 15A and 15B of its Terms of Reference, the Inquiry has considered issues and experiences after 1999 shared by survivors, including those set out below.[275]

Ngā wheako purapura ora mai i te tau 1999
Survivors’ experiences after 1999

534. Survivors told the Inquiry about a range of issues and experiences in faith-based care after 1999. These experiences included abuse, difficulties disclosing abuse and challenging complaints processes.

535. Pākehā survivor Rosanna Overcomer, former member of Gloriavale Christian Community located in Haupiri on the West Coast of the South Island, told the Inquiry she was sexually abused in 2000 or 2001 when she was 14 years old by another member of Gloriavale and that, when she disclosed this abuse:

“…[Howard Temple, Overseeing Shepherd of Gloriavale] told me that I had to stay away from [redacted] because he was doing stuff he should not be doing. I am not sure whether he said that I was the problem, but I felt like I was the problem and that I was making a problem. I understood that it was my fault that [redacted] was having this problem, and it was my responsibility to stay away from him. … It was then that the Leaders shifted [redacted] away to another farm up the valley.”[276]

536. Rosanna Overcomer provided evidence on behalf of the Gloriavale Leavers’ Trust during the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing and called for lasting change to provide a safe environment for their family members that still reside within the Gloriavale community:

“We can hope and heal and work for a better life. But we want lasting change for our families still inside. We want a safe place for our nieces and nephews to grow up in. We want them to have the same liberties, opportunities, education and care any New Zealander deserves. We need to know there will be significant changes to the systems and leadership that brought us here today.”[277]

537. Ms CU, who is Tongan, told the Inquiry about her experience of reporting the abuse of her 15-year-old niece by Father Sateki Raass to NZ Police and the Catholic Church in 2018. She explained that reporting threatened the vā or the cultural relationships between Ms CU and her family, and that this can be a barrier to Pacific Peoples reporting abuse:

“In Tongan culture, you become almost cursed for going up against the church. If you go up against the church and do something against what everyone believes in, anything wrong that later happens in your life or any problems that arise are considered to be a result of you speaking up against the church. There is a very powerful sense of being observed and judged by the Tongan community.”[278]

538. Ms CU also told the Inquiry that she found out about previous incidents involving Father Raass:

“A prominent Tongan leader told me that he had received a complaint about Sateki while he was working in Auckland. This leader took the complaint to a senior Tongan priest, who told him to take it to the Cardinal. He told me that he did that but nothing was done about it. It was about another young girl. It looks to me as though when the Church found out about the incidents involving Sateki and young women, they just shut it down and moved him on, shut it down and moved him on. If they had a process for dealing with this, they didn’t follow it.”[279]

539. In 2019, Pākehā survivor Annie Benefield made a complaint to the Catholic Church about being abused by a parish priest, which started in 2012 when she was age 19. Annie outlined her experience of disclosing abuse she suffered, the church’s response and her experience with the church’s redress process Te Houhanga Rongo – A Path to Healing:

“There also needs to be more of a deterrent for behaviours such as what [redacted] did. When I complained, all that happened was he went on a course and then returned to another parish. I don’t think this is enough of deterrent not to do what he did. … I am still concerned that [redacted] continues to travel to India to the very vulnerable communities he goes to.

I also believe the Church needs to consider the faith aspect with respect to the power imbalance that the clergy have. Lay people hold the clergy in such high regard and often do exactly what is asked of them. This aspect needs to be considered when a complaint of abuse is reported. It is a huge power imbalance … I believe each diocese needs their own safeguarding officer who people feel safe to go to and report abuse, for both lay people and priests.”[280]

540. Cooper Legal acted for 20 clients who suffered abuse in Presbyterian care.[281] In its statement to the Inquiry in July 2022, Cooper Legal noted the difficulty bringing claims due to the lack of consistency in the response to abuse claims across the different Presbyterian organisations. It told the Inquiry:

“Similarly, we have encountered some difficulty with bringing claims against the different Presbyterian Support organisations, because each take a completely different approach to responding to claims. For instance, we have previously settled three claims against Presbyterian Support Otago, but when we approached Presbyterian Support Northern about another client, it was clear that they do not have systems in place for responding to claims, meaning we essentially have to create a process with them from scratch. In addition, each organisation has different funding available for them to respond to claims, which seems to lead to inconsistent resolutions.”[282]

541. Survivors’ issues and experiences are echoed in independent and State-commissioned reports on care settings after 1999, which are discussed in Chapter 2.

Ngā whakatau e hāngai ana ki te katoa o ngā tira whakapono o Aotearoa e whakarato tiaki
Recommendations to all faith-based entities providing care in Aotearoa New Zealand

542. During the Inquiry period, faith-based institutions were largely left to design and implement policies and practices within their care settings. The State had little input into the way faith-based institutions provided care to children, young people and adults, even those who were State wards.

543. The following recommendations are for all faith-based entities involved in providing care directly or indirectly to children, young people and adults including pastoral care.

Me tōtika tonu ngā whakahaere e hāngai ana ki te rautaki āhuru mōwai i roto i ngā pūnaha taurima ā-motu a ngā hinonga whakapono, me te mau tonu ki te Ture Āhuru Mōwai Pūnaha Taurima
Faith-based entities to effectively implement the national care safety strategy and comply with the Care Safety Act

544. The Care Safety Principles for preventing and responding to abuse and neglect in care (Recommendation 39) and the national care safety regulatory system apply to all faith-based entities in Aotearoa New Zealand.

545. The Inquiry considers that faith-based entities involved in providing care, and all people in religious ministry and lay people (whether employed or volunteers) involved in providing care, will be subject to the national care safety regulatory system. This means they will need to comply with statutory requirements under the Care Safety Act (Recommendation 41), including complying with national care standards, accreditation, vetting and training.

Tūtohi 89 | Recommendation 89

All faith-based entities that provide activities or services of any kind, under the auspices of a particular religious denomination or faith, through which adults have contact with children, young people or adults in care, should comply with the Care Safety Principles (Recommendation 39), the National Care Safety Strategy (Recommendation 40) and all statutory requirements under the Care Safety Act (Recommendation 45), including care standards, accreditation and vetting. Faith-based entities in highly regulated sectors, such as schools and out-of-home care service providers, should also report their compliance to the religious organisation to which they are affiliated.

Tūtohi 90 | Recommendation 90

All faith-based entities should adopt the Care Safety Principles (Recommendation 39), the National Care Safety Strategy (Recommendation 40) and all statutory requirements under the Care Safety Act (Recommendation 45), including care standards, accreditation and vetting, for each of their affiliated institutions.

Tūtohi 91 | Recommendation 91

All faith-based entities should drive a consistent approach to the implementation of the Care Safety Principles (Recommendation 39), the National Care Safety Strategy (Recommendation 40) and all statutory requirements under the Care Safety Act (Recommendation 45), including care standards, accreditation and vetting, in each of their affiliated institutions.

Tūtohi 92 | Recommendation 92

All faith-based entities should work closely with the independent Care Safe Agency and independent oversight bodies to support the implementation of and compliance with the Care Safety Principles (Recommendation 39), the National Care Safety Strategy (Recommendation 40), and all statutory requirements under the Care Safety Act (Recommendation 45), including care standards, accreditation and vetting, in each of their affiliated institutions.

Me rite i ngā kaihautū hinonga whakapono, he akonga, tikanga mātai me ngā kaupapa tauārai e kimi putanga i ngā rīpoata mahi tūkino
Faith-based entities to put in place leadership training, monitoring and safeguarding specifically in relation to preventing and responding to reports of abuse

546. This Inquiry has found instances where religious leaders have perpetrated abuse on those in their care. Religious leaders have also made poor decisions regarding placements of abusers, destroyed evidence of abuse and have failed to adequately respond to reports of abuse.

547. Although safeguarding mechanisms and the handling of reports of abuse are now mostly managed by independent, specialised bodies, faith-based leaders remain engaged in both creating safer churches and are often directly involved in responding to reports of abuse. Some faiths continue to direct survivors to contact faith-based leaders in the first instance.

548. There is evidence of gaps in abuse prevention and response training provided to religious leaders, including both a complete absence of training and instances where the training is solely rooted in religious doctrine rather than evidence-based practices, such as trauma-informed and survivor-centric approaches.

549. It is imperative that faith-based leaders are provided with comprehensive training both prior to and during their appointment, that are survivor-centric and trauma-informed and that these leaders are consistently held to account to an appropriate authority or body specifically in relation to identifying, preventing and responding to abuse and neglect in care cultural awareness, and addressing prejudice and all forms of discrimination.

Tūtohi 93 | Recommendation 93

All faith-based entities should ensure their religious leaders are provided with leadership training both pre- and post-appointment, including identifying, preventing and responding to abuse and neglect in care, cultural awareness, and addressing prejudice and all forms of discrimination.

Tūtohi 94 | Recommendation 94

All faith-based entities should ensure that religious leaders are accountable to an appropriate authority or body, such as a board of management or council, for the decisions they make with respect to preventing and responding to abuse and neglect in care.

Me rite i ngā hinonga whakapono ētahi tikanga tōtika hei taki i ngā mahi mātai mo rātou i raro i te atawhai a ngā hāhi
Faith-based entities to put in place effective oversight and supervision mechanisms for those in religious or pastoral ministry

550. In addition to ensuring religious leaders are accountable to an appropriate oversight and supervision authority, those in religious or pastoral ministry must be subject to effective management and oversight bodies. This must include mandatory professional development delivered through professional supervision and annual performance appraisals, with compulsory components including in relation to boundaries, ethics in ministry, identifying and preventing abuse and neglect in care, cultural awareness, addressing prejudice and all forms of discrimination.

551. Throughout the Inquiry period, high trust has been placed in individuals within religious ministry. This unchecked trust has been identified as a contributing factor to the occurrence of abuse within faith-based institutions. Although improvements have been made internally by most faiths, the introduction of the new care safety regulatory system will provide the necessary shift towards more robust oversight and supervision mechanisms.

Tūtohi 95 | Recommendation 95

All faith-based entities should ensure that all people in religious or pastoral ministry, including religious leaders, are subject to effective management and oversight and undertake annual performance appraisals.

Tūtohi 96 | Recommendation 96

All faith-based entities should ensure that all people in religious or pastoral ministry, including religious leaders, have professional supervision with a trained professional or pastoral supervisor who has a degree of independence from the institution within which the person is in ministry.

Mā ngā hinonga whakapono anō e āta tiaki ngā take tōtara wāhi rua
Faith-based entities to manage conflicts of interest

552. At times, those in leadership positions within faith-based entities have struggled to act in the best interest of the complainant, instead prioritising or struggling to balance their obligations to provide support to alleged perpetrators and/or their longstanding relationships with alleged perpetrators. Faith-based entities need to develop a clear conflict of interest policy to ensure that no such conflict exists by those assessing the behaviour of others.

553. Although most faith-based institutions have established entities or committees that oversee and implement processes relating to abuse complaints, until the establishment of a national independent redress scheme, there will continue to be a risk of personal or institutional bias when responding to allegations of abuse. As an interim measure, faith-based entities must adopt conflict of interest policies that apply to all individuals who have a role in responding to complaints of abuse and neglect in care. This will ensure a more impartial and objective process when responding to survivors of abuse and neglect.

Tūtohi 97 | Recommendation 97

Each faith-based entity should have a policy relating to the management of actual or perceived conflicts of interest that may arise in relation to allegations of abuse and neglect in care. The policy should cover all individuals who have a role in responding to complaints of abuse and neglect in care.

Me rite i ngā hinonga whakapono ētahi tikanga tōtika hei āta wherawhera me te ako mahi tauārai ki ngā ākonga o te hāhi
Faith-based entities to put in place effective initial screening and safeguarding training for candidates for religious ministry

554. Throughout the Inquiry period, faith-based institutions were slow to implement both screening processes and safeguarding training for all staff, including religious leaders. This complacency was often caused by the prevailing belief that religious staff could be trusted to be good people. There was a reluctance to acknowledge the potential for misconduct or abuse, leading to a lack of proactive measures to safeguard against such risks.

555. Often there was a lack of formality and consistency with the selection of clergy and other religious staff, instead based on personal familiarity, informal recommendations and standing within the community.

556. Likewise, during the Inquiry period, most faiths did not have safeguarding training or boundaries training policies. The Salvation Army did not establish safeguarding training until 2010. Gloriavale did not introduce a safeguarding policy until 2019. The Plymouth Brethren currently do not require Elders to undergo any safeguarding training, but instead rely on religious scriptures to prepare for the role. Faith-based entities have acknowledged that the absence of such policies has contributed to the abuse suffered by those in their care.

557. Other issues acknowledged by faith-based entities is the siloing within branches or dioceses, which was acknowledged by the Anglican Church to be one of the biggest issues when dealing with abuse and redress.[283] The Anglican Church recognised a “fundamental need for safeguarding policies to be consistent across the core Church” and that the “approach of Anglican entities to safeguarding and redress does need review”.[284]

Tūtohi 98 | Recommendation 98

Each faith-based entity should ensure that candidates for religious ministry undertake minimum training on preventing and responding to abuse and neglect in care and related matters, including training that:

a) equips candidates with an understanding of the Care Safety Principles (Recommendation 39), the National Care Safety Strategy (Recommendation 40), and all statutory requirements under the Care Safety Act (Recommendation 45), including care standards, accreditation and vetting
b) educates candidates on:

i. professional responsibility, boundaries and ethics in ministry
ii. identifying and preventing abuse and neglect in care
iii. cultural awareness
iv. addressing prejudice and all forms of discrimination
v. policies regarding appropriate responses to allegations or complaints of abuse and neglect in care, and how to implement these policies
vi. how to work with children, young people and adults in care.

Tūtohi 99 | Recommendation 99

Each faith-based entity should require that all people in religious or pastoral ministry, including religious leaders, undertake regular training on the institution’s safeguarding policies and procedures. They should also be provided with opportunities for external training on best practice approaches to people safety.

Tūtohi 100 | Recommendation 100

Wherever a faith-based entity has children, young people or adults in its care, they should be provided with age-appropriate prevention education that aims to increase their knowledge of abuse and neglect and build practical skills to assist in strengthening self-protective skills and strategies. Prevention education in religious institutions should specifically address the power and status of people in religious ministry and educate children, young people and adults in care that no one has a right to invade their privacy and make them feel unsafe.

Me turaki e ngā hinonga whakapono ngā pou ārai whākinga tūkino
Faith-based entities to reduce barriers to disclosure

558. Faith-based institutions had unique barriers to reporting abuse or making complaints. There was often a strong preference for secrecy and silence and a lack of transparency. Due to the high moral regard that faith leaders were held in, many survivors simply did not think they would be believed. In some faiths, some survivors feared that disclosure would result in their excommunication from the faith and their community.

559. Barriers to disclosure were further exacerbated by daunting disclosure or complaint processes.

560. Trauma-informed and survivor focused approaches to disclosure require flexibility about how victims of sexual abuse can disclose their abuse, such as members having the option of disclosing to women and to be able to choose and direct with support how their disclosure of abuse is dealt with. Failure to accommodate a survivor’s preference can further traumatise that survivor or prevent disclosure.

Tūtohi 101 | Recommendation 101

All faith-based entities should revise their policies to reduce high barriers to disclosure including through flexibility for disclosures of abuse.

Tūtohi 102 | Recommendation 102

Each faith-based entity should make provision for family and community involvement by publishing all policies relevant to preventing and responding to abuse and neglect in care on its website, providing opportunities for comment, and seeking periodic feedback about the effectiveness of its approach to preventing and responding to abuse and neglect in care.

Me rite i ngā hinonga whakapono ētahi tikanga hautū kōamuamu tōtika
Faith-based entities to put in place effective complaint handling policies

561. This recommendation is in addition to Recommendations 65–68 above on effective complaints processes for both State and faith-based entities.

562. During the Inquiry period, the responses to disclosures of abuse and approaches to redress has largely been inadequate and inappropriate. As explained in He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu: From Redress to Puretumu Torowhānui, survivors of abuse in faith-based institutions have often faced minimisation or denial of their abuse allegations.

563. The Inquiry found evidence of attempts to hide or cover up abuse within the Anglican Church. Religious leaders within the Catholic Church were found to have repeatedly failed to act on known allegations of abuse, destroyed reports of abuse without investigation and moved perpetrators between its institutions. Presbyterian Support Otago destroyed records except for registers of names and dates. Survivors in Gloriavale Christian Community were actively prevented from reporting their abuse throughout the entire Inquiry period.

564. The Plymouth Brethren do not have any policies (written or otherwise) relating to responding to reports of abuse at either a national or assembly level and instead rely on religious doctrine.

565. These failures to respond to reports of abuse, or to do so adequately, have left survivors with feelings of powerlessness, isolation and have led to further emotional distress and retraumatisation. The failure to address reports of abuse has also led to the continuation of abuse and harm, where perpetrators have remained in positions of power or are reemployed or relocated within the faith-based entity.

566. Although most faith-based entities are learning lessons from the past and making improvements to complaint handling processes by establishing specialised independent bodies to manage the reports of abuse, there is still more to be done. There must be a shift away from prioritising institutional protection and using legalistic, disciplinary focused complaints process with unrealistic standards of proof. There is a need for faith-based entities to have more accessible and survivor-focused complaints processes with an emphasis on survivor safety and the minimisation of harm to the people in their care.

Tūtohi 103 | Recommendation 103

All faith-based entities’ complaint handling policies should require that, upon receiving a complaint of abuse and neglect in care, an initial risk assessment is conducted to identify and minimise any risks to children, young people and adults in care.

Tūtohi 104 | Recommendation 104

All faith-based entities’ complaint handling policies should require that, if a complaint of abuse and neglect in care against a person in religious ministry is credible, and there is a risk that person may come into contact with children in the course of their ministry, the person be stood down from ministry while the complaint is investigated.

Tūtohi 105 | Recommendation 105

All faith-based entities should, when deciding whether a complaint of abuse and neglect in care has been substantiated, consider the principles set out by the courts in applicable case law in accordance with the seriousness of the allegation.[285]

Tūtohi 106| Recommendation 106

All faith-based entities should apply the same standards for investigating complaints of abuse and neglect in care whether or not the subject of the complaint is a person in religious ministry.

Tūtohi 107 | Recommendation 107

Any person in religious ministry who is the subject of a complaint of abuse and neglect in care which is substantiated on the balance of probabilities, applied flexibly according to the seriousness of the allegation in accordance with the principles set out by the courts in applicable caselaw, or who is convicted of an offence relating to abuse and neglect in care, should be permanently removed from ministry. Members of the Church should be notified of the persons permanent removal from ministry. Faith-based entities should also take all necessary steps to effectively prohibit the person from in any way holding himself or herself out as being a person with religious authority.

Te kore o ngā hinonga whakapono e tohe i te hunga kaihara kia tapaea mo a rātou mahi hē
Faith-based institutions not holding convicted perpetrators to account

567. Faith-based institutions have often failed to respond adequately to reports of abuse and have prioritised support for perpetrators even after they had been convicted of sexual or violent offences. Perpetrators remained unaccountable by being regularly moved around the care settings, while leaders escaped accountability for enabling the cover-ups. This impunity, combined with the extreme efforts to protect the institution’s reputation and prioritising perpetrators’ interests over survivor well-being, led to abuse within these religious communities.

568. Convicted perpetrators were allowed to return to ministry. Catholic Provincial Father Frederick Bliss of the New Zealand province of the Society of Mary appointed Father Alan Woodcock to a teaching position at St Patrick’s College, Silverstream, knowing he was a convicted sex offender.[286] Hopeful Christian was able to return to his role as leader of the Gloriavale Christian Community when he was released from prison after being convicted of sexual offending.[287]

569. In 2011, Bishop Patrick Dunn, Emeritus Bishop of Auckland received a complaint of sexual abuse against a priest, Father Sateki Raass. While the complaint was still being investigated in 2012, Bishop Dunn offered Father Raass to minister as a parish priest in another location within the Auckland Diocese. In late 2012, Bishop Dunn appointed Father Raass as a parish priest in Mt Albert with the 2011 complaint still under investigation. After an apology from a delegate of the investigating committee, the adult complainant did not wish to take the matter further, instead seeking forgiveness directly from Father Sateki Raass. A further complaint was made about Father Raass in 2018, this time to National Office of Professional Standard and then the Police. Bishop Dunn was questioned about Father Raass at the Inquiry’s Faith Institutional Response Hearing and was comfortable with his decision to take a pastoral approach.[288]

570. The safety of the community and particularly those in the care of faith-based entities must be paramount. There have been devastating consequences when reputation management, pursuing perpetrator rehabilitation and religious reconciliation have been prioritised over survivors’ wellbeing.

571. There must be a move toward the implementation of an absolute dismissal policy that unequivocally states that any individual in religious ministry convicted of an offence relating to abuse and neglect in care must be permanently removed. The inherent risks associated with the high levels of trust and access granted to those in religious ministry must be acknowledged. A zero-tolerance approach will not only serve as a deterrent and protect congregants from potential harm but will uphold the ethical standards and values that form the foundation of religious communities.

572. Similarly, when faith-based entities become aware that any person attending any of their religious services or activities is the subject of a substantiated complaint of abuse and neglect in care or has been convicted of an offence of this nature, their first priority must be the safety of the complainant and any other congregants. Safeguarding must take precedence over the interests of the person who is the subject of the complaint or prior conviction. There is a need to reassess current practices, such as temporary removal or confinement, to ensure the safety of those at risk.

573. In addition to the safeguarding mechanisms referred to in the preceding paragraphs, there is a need for a centralised register that includes reports of misconduct, behavioural concerns, reports of abuse and convictions. This will enable faith-based entities to conduct thorough background checks and risk assessments before appointing individuals to positions within the religious community.

Tūtohi 108 | Recommendation 108

Any person in religious ministry who is convicted of an offence relating to abuse and neglect in care should:

a) in the case of Catholic priests and religious, be dismissed from the priesthood and/or dispensed from his or her vows as a religious
b) in the case of Anglican clergy, be deposed from holy orders
c) in the case of an ordained person in any other religious denomination that has a concept of ordination, holy orders and/or vows, be dismissed, deposed or otherwise effectively have their religious status removed.

Tūtohi 109 | Recommendation 109

Where a faith-based entity becomes aware that any person attending any of its religious services or activities is the subject of a substantiated complaint of abuse and neglect in care, or has been convicted of an offence relating to abuse and neglect in care, the faith-based entity should:

a) assess the level of risk posed to children, young people and adults in care by that perpetrator’s ongoing involvement in the religious community
b) take appropriate steps to manage that risk.

Tūtohi 110 | Recommendation 110

Each faith-based entity should consider establishing a national register which records limited but sufficient information to assist affiliated institutions identify and respond to any risks to children, young people and adults in care that may be posed by people in religious or pastoral ministry.