Under the Official Information Act 1982, I respectfully request the following information regarding Mt Wellington Residential School (also known as Kohitere or the Special Residential School, Auckland), specifically during the period between 1958 and 1975:

Staff Qualifications and Training:

Records of staff employed during this period, including their roles and any formal qualifications or training in child care, education, or social work.

Any policies or requirements in place at the time regarding staff training or vetting.

Field Officer Reports and Concerns:

Any reports, correspondence, or internal memos from Auckland-based education field officers or District Child Welfare Officers expressing concern or suspicion of improprieties or abuse involving pupils.

Records indicating whether these concerns were investigated, and if so, the outcomes of those investigations.

Use of Isolation or “Time-Out” Rooms:

Documentation or policy guidelines regarding the use of isolation rooms or “time-out” spaces at the school.

Any records of incidents involving pupils being placed in such rooms, including duration and reasons.

Disciplinary Practices:

Any official policies or guidance on physical punishment or disciplinary practices at the school during this time.

Records of complaints, investigations, or disciplinary actions involving staff accused of excessive or inappropriate punishment.
Ross Stewart

Dear Enquiries National,

Under the Official Information Act 1982, I respectfully request the
following information regarding Mt Wellington Residential School.

Subject: Clarification and Refinement of OIA Request – Mt Wellington Residential School (1960–1978)

Thank you for your response and the opportunity to clarify my request.

To confirm: I am seeking information specifically about Mt Wellington Residential School, which was later known as Waimokoia Residential School, and not Kohitere Boys' Training Centre.

To assist with processing my request, I have refined and itemised the scope as follows. I am requesting information held by your agency relating to Mt Wellington/Waimokoia Residential School between 1960 and 1978, limited to the following categories:

1. Staff Qualifications and Training
A list of staff employed during this period, including their roles (where available).

Any records or policies outlining staff qualification requirements or training expectations in child care, education, or social work.

Any staff vetting or background check procedures in place at the time.

2. Field Officer Reports and Concerns
Reports, correspondence, or internal memos from Auckland-based education field officers or District Child Welfare Officers that raise concerns or suspicions of misconduct or abuse involving pupils.

Any records showing whether such concerns were investigated, and the outcomes of those investigations (if available).

3. Use of Isolation or “Time-Out” Rooms
Any documentation or policy guidelines regarding the use of isolation or “time-out” rooms at the school.

Any records of incidents involving pupils being placed in such rooms, including the stated reasons and duration of use.

4. Disciplinary Practices
Official policies or guidance documents on physical punishment or disciplinary practices in effect during this period.

Records of complaints, investigations, or disciplinary actions involving staff accused of excessive or inappropriate punishment.

I hope this clarification provides the necessary specificity to assist with your search. If any part of this request remains too broad or unclear, I would be happy to further refine it in consultation with you.

Thank you again for your time and assistance.

Kind regards

·
Ross Styewart

Y

Dear Enquiries National,

As of 5pm 26 Novemeber dealine required by law was not meet answering my questions I have offically laid a compliant with the Ombudsman

Yours sincerely,

Ross Stewart

Dear Enquiries National,
re:Re::OIA: GEMS-46075 – Request for Clarification on Records and Compensation
the following does not excist email does not excist so how on eart is it possible to reply with the details that have been requested as each time I have tried it has bounched back with the following details
>>> [email address] (after RCPT TO): 550 5.4.1 Recipient address rejected: Access denied. For more information see https://aka.ms/EXOSmtpErrors [SY3PEPF0000A725.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com 2026-01-20T05:10:53.003Z 08DE545CB1156032]

Yours sincerely,

Ross Stewart

Dear Enquiries National,
Reply to the Ministry’s Answers

Kia ora,

Ministry’s 2026 Response and Contradictions
1. Staff Lists

Ministry claim: They do not hold a staff list for the period (s18(g)).

Contradiction: They admit they do hold staff lists for certain years and are compiling a list from 1965–1978.

Issue: You cannot refuse under s18(g) when you hold relevant information.

2. Staff Training and Qualifications

Ministry claim: No policies exist regarding staff qualifications or training (s18(e)).

Contradiction: Their own Annual Reports describe expectations, training gaps, and internal training.

Issue: If Annual Reports contain this information, then records do exist.

3. Staff Vetting

Ministry claim: No vetting or background checks existed between 1960–1978.

Contradiction: Even if no formal national vetting existed, schools still kept personnel files, references, and appointment records.

Issue: The Ministry does not explain whether these were searched.

4. Field Officer Reports and Complaints

Ministry claim: No reports or memos exist raising concerns about misconduct (s18(e)).

Contradiction: Their own Summary Report references:

A housemaster who attempted to kiss a pupil.

A handyman/housemaster whose room contained “items of concern.”

Issue: These incidents would normally generate internal documentation.

5. Timeout / Isolation Room

Ministry claim: No timeout room existed before 1979 (s18(e)).

Contradiction:

Survivor testimony confirms the room existed and was used in the 1960s–70s.

The Ministry’s own report states the timeout room was relocated in 1979 — meaning it existed earlier.

Issue: Their statements contradict each other.

6. Disciplinary Practices

Ministry claim: The school avoided punitive discipline and the headmaster opposed corporal punishment.

Contradiction:

Survivor testimony confirms corporal punishment was used by the headmaster.

The Summary Report describes disciplinary approaches, meaning records or accounts exist.

Issue: Survivor evidence directly contradicts the Ministry’s narrative.

7. Lack of Records

Ministry claim: No records exist for punishments, isolation rooms, or staff misconduct from 1960–1970.

Contradiction:

Government institutions were required to keep reports, logs, and correspondence.

The Summary Report references documents from this period.

Issue: It is implausible that a state institution operated for a decade with zero documentation.

Summary

The Ministry’s response contains multiple contradictions between:

what they claim,

what their own Summary Report states, and

what survivors experienced.

These inconsistencies raise serious concerns about:

the adequacy of their search,

the accuracy of their statements,

and whether relevant records have been overlooked or withheld.

Having read the Ministry’s response, I want to be absolutely clear about what your answers imply — and why I cannot accept them as accurate or complete.

From what you have stated, the Ministry appears to be saying that:

Children who did not meet the “expected average learning requirements” of the education system were removed from mainstream schooling and placed into a special experimental institution.

This institution was opened and operated with no trained staff, no child‑welfare qualifications, no vetting, and no background checks.

Staffing levels were low, staff were untrained, and many had no experience working with traumatised or vulnerable children.

Despite this, the Ministry claims there is no evidence of mistreatment, no records of punishment, and no documentation of staff misconduct for an entire decade.

The Ministry also claims there was no timeout room before 1979, yet in the same breath states that the timeout room was relocated in 1979 to under the boys’ dormitory.
To relocate something, it must first exist.

I can personally confirm that such a room did exist in the 1960s, because I spent hours in it.
It was attached to the maintenance shed directly across from the boys’ dormitory.
It had no natural light and no access to water.

Your answers therefore raise serious questions:

Why were untrained, unvetted staff allowed to run a residential school for vulnerable children?

Why were children labelled “disturbed” without any explanation of how that label was reached?

How can a government‑run institution operate for years with no records of discipline, punishment, or incidents?

How can the Ministry deny the existence of a timeout room before 1979 when both survivor testimony and your own report contradict that claim?

How can the Ministry claim the headmaster opposed corporal punishment when survivors experienced it directly from him?

The Ministry’s answers are inconsistent, incomplete, and in several places contradicted by both survivor experience and the Ministry’s own historical report.

I do not accept the suggestion that no records existed, no incidents occurred, and no documentation was kept.
I also do not accept the Ministry’s claim that the timeout room did not exist before 1979 when I personally experienced it in the 1960s.

These contradictions need to be addressed properly.

Yours sincerely,

Ross Stewart