Anglican Children's Home in Lismore subject of third public hearing of national Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse Media Release 16 September 2013:

The third public hearing in November is to examine the handling of complaints and civil litigation concerning child sexual abuse in the North Coast Children’s Home by the Anglican Diocese of Grafton in 2006 and 2007.

Brief background included in this ABC News article and NCV post:

Anglican Diocese of Grafton apologies to North Coast Children's Home victims

Another perspective on the Reverend Hon Pat Comben - former Clarence Valley councillor (2008-2010)

UPDATE

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse INTERIM REPORT VOLUME 1 30 June 2014:

Case Study No 3

The public hearing examined how the Anglican Diocese of Grafton in New South Wales handled claims of abuse from former residents of the North Coast Children’s Home, including whether policies and procedures were applied consistently and fairly.

Forty claimants, half of whom claimed to have suffered sexual abuse, brought a group claim against the Diocese.

It reached a settlement with most claimants in 2007, but later received further claims from new claimants….

Findings have not yet been made in this case study.

Excerpt from North Coast Children's Home Inc. trading as Child & Adolescent Specialist Programs & Accommodation (CASPA) v Martin [2014] NSWDC 125 8 August 2014:

The North Coast Children's Home was first set up in 1919, when two young orphaned and neglected children were given into the care of the Vicar of St Andrews, the Reverend A. R. Ebbs. Those children were given temporary shelter until a local resident, a Mr George Barnard, offered the children the use of a house which he owned in Lismore, free of rent. There was public interest in the establishment of an orphanage in the town of Lismore. The placement of children at the Home continued, but its structure was not formalised until 1951, when a constitution for the home was prepared (Exhibit F to the affidavit of Mr Todd Yourell, 3 July 2014). The Management Committee was not incorporated, until 16 May 1989, when the relevant documents were lodged at the Corporate Affairs Commission registry in accordance with the Associations Incorporations Act 1984 (NSW).

Mr Yourell's affidavit sets out that the Church of England's role in relation to the Home continued, but on a restricted basis. Since 1989, the Bishop of the Diocese of Grafton has held powers enabling him to appoint up to four members of the Board of Governance, which is responsible for the affairs of the first plaintiff (hereafter referred to as "CASPA"). The Board of Governance is responsible for the affairs of CASPA and acts in the interests of CASPA. Prior to incorporation in 1989 the Anglican Diocese of Grafton was responsible for the affairs of North Coast Children's Home.

It was while the Anglican Diocese of Grafton was responsible for the affairs of North Coast Children's Home, prior to 1989, that substantial and serious abuse of children at the home occurred. Orphaned and neglected children in the care of the home were victims of sexual, physical and psychological abuse. As is common in relation to victims of institution-based abuse, there were few complaints at the time, and those which were made were ignored, disbelieved and/or discouraged.

The Anglican Diocese of Grafton received a number of complaints in 2006 about historical acts of physical, sexual and psychological abuse at the North Coast Children's Home in Lismore, all of which occurred between the 1940s and 1980s. Thirty-nine of those claims were settled through negotiated payments. Two of those persons did not participate in the settlement, and instead brought proceedings. Seven others later came forward with similar claims. The Right Reverend Keith Slater, who acknowledged that he did not pass on all the complaints to the Church's Professional Standards Director as was required, resigned as Bishop in May 2013.

While the nature and extent of the abuses which occurred are the subject of current inquiry and evidence, the nature and extent of the inquiry currently being undertaken by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse ("the Royal Commission") relates to periods well before the employment of the second and third plaintiff, and well before the first plaintiff, which is no longer a part of the Anglican Church but a separate organisation. It is neither controlled by, nor answerable to, the Anglican Church. As Mr Yourell points out in paragraphs 20-24 of his affidavit (Exhibit F), the Royal Commission is considering a case study of the home during its operation by the Anglican Church in the 1960s and 1970s, more than 40 years ago, but not into its present operation.

Royal Commission final report on the hell that was the Anglican North Coast Children's Home between 1940 and 1985 and continuing abuse of known adult victims who later sought assistance from the Grafton Diocese

Excerpts from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Report of Case Study No. 3 Anglican Diocese of Grafton's response to child sexual abuse at the North Coast Children's Home, 27 October 2014:

The North Coast Children's Home was set up in Lismore in 1919 to house children who were orphans or wards of the state, or had been abandoned or placed there by their parents. 

We heard evidence of frequent sexual, psychological and physical abuse at the Home between 1940 to 1985.

Former residents, Tommy Campion, CA, CB, CD, CH, CK, CN and two others, told us they were sexually abused by clergy, staff or other residents while living at the Home.

Finding 1: The physical, psychological and sexual abuse suffered by the former residents of the North Coast Children's Home who gave evidence to the Royal Commission had profound, long-lasting impacts on their lives and mental health….

Finding 2: At all relevant times, the North Coast Children's Home was:

* strongly associated with the Anglican Church and its predecessor, the Church of England

* controlled by the Board of Management, including the Rector of St Andrew's Church

Lismore in the Diocese of Grafton….

Finding 3: The Diocese of Grafton initially dealt with Tommy Campion's complaint by

providing a copy of the Pastoral Care and Assistance Scheme adopted by the Diocese in

2005. When faced with the group claim, the Diocese changed its response to Tommy

Campion's claim by stating that the Diocese and its Corporate Trustees had no legal

liability for sexual or physical abuse of a child by clergy, staff or other people associated

with the North Coast Children's Home…..

Finding 4: The Diocese of Grafton required group claimants to sign a deed of release

before counselling, acknowledgement, apology or financial settlement would be

provided, except for Tommy Campion, who was already receiving some counselling. This

was inconsistent with the Sydney Pastoral Care and Assistance Scheme that the Diocese of Grafton adopted in 2005….

Finding 5: By 10 October 2006, the Diocese of Grafton was not following its own policies

in its handling of the group claim as set out in the:

* Professional Standards Ordinance and Protocol for Dealing with Complaints of

Sexual Abuse, both adopted in 2004

* Pastoral Care and Assistance Scheme, adopted in 2005.

Finding 6: Bishop Keith Slater, then Bishop of Grafton, and the Diocese of Grafton should have managed the process under the 2004 Protocol for Dealing with Complaints of

Sexual Abuse when the group claim was being handled between the Diocesan and

claimants' solicitors.

Finding 7: The settlement negotiations on 19 and 20 December 2006 were conducted in

a hostile manner, contrary to the spirit of the 2005 Pastoral Care and Assistance Scheme

and the 2004 Protocol for Dealing with Complaints of Sexual Abuse….

Finding 8: The amounts offered to Tommy Campion, CA, CK, CL, CM and CN under the

group claim were substantially lower than if the claim had been resolved under the 2005

Pastoral Care and Assistance Scheme that the Diocese of Grafton had adopted. The

Diocese misled Tommy Campion and CA that the scheme would be followed.

Finding 9: In handling the group claim, the Diocese of Grafton did not apply the 2004

Professional Standards Ordinance and Protocol for Dealing with Complaints of Sexual

Abuse. As a consequence, it did not provide a sympathetic and proportionate pastoral

response to the group claimants.

Finding 10: By denying legal liability, on the basis that it did not control the North Coast

Children's Home, and not providing a pastoral response, the Diocese of Grafton's

response had a detrimental effect on abused former residents….

Finding 11: Bishop Keith Slater did not follow the Pastoral Care and Assistance Scheme in responding to Tommy Campion….

Finding 12: In 2012, when considering the request from Tommy Campion for information, Bishop Keith Slater acted to protect the interests of the former members of the Home's committee, including an elderly former member….

Finding 13: The Diocese of Grafton received further individual claims from former

residents of the North Coast Children's Home, but it did not deal with them in accordance with the Pastoral Care and Assistance Scheme or the settlement of the group claim….

Finding 14: Bishop Keith Slater did not refer either CB's or CC's claims to the Professional Standards Committee, which was contrary to clause 24(1) of the Professional Standards Ordinance 2004.

Finding 15: Between 2006 and 2012, the Primate advised Bishop Keith Slater that:

*  the group claimants should have their complaints properly heard and be offered

counselling and pastoral support

* he should seek out further people who had been abused at the North Coast

Children's Home

* he should inform the police of all criminal allegations which came to his attention

arising out of the North Coast Children's Home.

The bishop did not follow the Primate's advice….

Finding 16: Despite its knowledge of potential claims by 2005, the Diocese of Grafton did not make provision for settling child sexual abuse claims in its annual budgets for 2006, and 2008 to 2012.

Finding 17: Acknowledging that some assets might not be readily available, the Diocese

of Grafton had enough assets either in its name, or in the Corporate Trustees of the

Diocese of Grafton's name, to allow it to settle the claims of child sexual abuse made

between 2005 and 2011 consistent with the Pastoral Care and Assistance Scheme it

adopted in 2005.

Finding 18: The Diocese of Grafton did not make any financial provision for professional

standards matters. It prioritised the Clarence Valley Anglican School debt over its

financial obligations under the Protocol for Dealing with Complaints of Sexual Abuse and

the Pastoral Care and Assistance Scheme to pay abused former residents of the North

Coast Children's Home between 2007 and 2012….

Finding 19: The dioceses of Grafton and Newcastle could both have taken action in

response to the professional standards matters concerning Reverend Allan Kitchingman,

including his discipline. There was no clear system in place to determine which diocese

would assume responsibility.

Finding 20: From 2003 to 2013, Bishop Keith Slater was aware that Reverend Allan

Kitchingman had been convicted of sexual offences against a child, and had authority to

discipline him. Bishop Slater did not start disciplinary proceedings against the reverend.

Finding 21: From 2004, Reverend Patrick Comben was aware that Reverend Allan

Kitchingman had been convicted of sexual offences against a child but did not start

disciplinary proceedings against him.

Finding 22: In 2002, Archbishop Roger Herft, then Bishop of Newcastle, became aware

that Reverend Allan Kitchingman had been convicted of five counts of indecent assault

of a child at an Anglican home in the Diocese of Grafton. Between August 2002 and

February 2004, he did not start disciplinary proceedings against the reverend.

Finding 23: From 2006 to 2007, Philip Gerber, as Professional Standards Director of

Grafton and Newcastle, was aware that Reverend Allan Kitchingman had been convicted

of sexual offences against a child but did not start disciplinary proceedings against him.

Finding 24: The General Synod recommended guidelines for parish safety in 2009. The

Diocese of Newcastle did not adopt guidelines for managing people of concern until

around October 2013. As a result, there were no guidelines to manage any risk posed by

Reverend Allan Kitchingman's involvement in Newcastle Cathedral until October 2013.

Finding 25: From September 2005 until April 2013, no disciplinary action was taken

against Reverend Campbell Brown by the Diocese of Grafton or the Diocese of

Newcastle. During the same period, the Diocese of Grafton took no disciplinary action

against Reverend Winston Morgan.

Finding 26: From 2011 to 2013, Bishop Keith Slater did not refer allegations of criminal

conduct made by CB and CC to NSW Police. This was inconsistent with the 2004

Professional Standards Ordinance and Protocol for Dealing with Complaints of Sexual

Abuse….

Finding 27: The establishment of the National Register of the Anglican Church is a

positive initiative.

Finding 28: At the time of the hearing, the National Register of the Anglican Church did

not record the names of all people who might need to be registered because various

dioceses have been unable to review all their files to determine whether an entry should

be made….

In 2006, over 40 former residents began a group claim against the Diocese of Grafton. They claimed to have suffered physical, psychological and sexual abuse at the Home between 1940 and 1985. Twenty of those claims involved child sexual abuse by clergy, staff, foster parents and others.

On 5 January 2006, Simon Harrison, from the law firm Nicol Robinson Halletts, wrote to Reverend Comben about the claim. Mr Harrison advised that he had instructions to represent 20 former residents who had been abused.

He asked for help identifying some former staff and for some documents related to the Home. Reverend Comben opposed giving this information. He said that he did not want to give the claimants' solicitors 'honorary research assistance'.

On 16 January 2006, Reverend Comben wrote to Peter Roland, from the law firm Foott Law & Co, with instructions to act in the matter for the Church. He asked Mr Roland about raising 'legal cases which deny the liability of an employer for the criminal acts of employees'.

Reverend Comben said that he thought Bishop-in-Council was influenced by a potential claim for $4 million that had been mentioned in the media. He said that

Bishop-in-Council's position was: 'defend it'.

Reverend Comben said he felt 'disappointed' that the matter was proceeding through lawyers. He asked Mr Roland to seek further details so they could give 'a Christian response' along with the legal response.

Mr Roland replied to Mr Harrison seeking more details about the assaults and perpetrators, and said that the Diocese was not a legal entity. He asked which people they proposed to hold liable for the assaults, and on what basis 'given the time which has elapsed'….

It was not until 2013 that the Anglican Church significantly revised its response to former residents of the Home. In May 2013, Ms Hywood, the new acting Registrar, reported to the Primate her concerns about the Diocese of Grafton's handling of claims over the previous six years. She noted that professional standards files were not properly kept or processed, and matters had not been referred to the Professional Standards Director.

Bishop Slater resigned as Bishop of Grafton on 17 May 2013. He issued a media statement apologising for not giving abuse claimants access to the Professional Standards Director.

In September 2013, the Diocese published an apology in several newspapers for the abuse at the Home and its handling of subsequent claims.

In October that year, Bishop-in-Council passed a revised Care and Assistance Scheme. This scheme is not as detailed as the Sydney Care and Assistance Scheme. The Diocese reviewed all claims that had not been investigated under the 2004 Protocol and has offered revised settlements.

Read the full report of Case Study no. 3.

Australia in 2017 - Violence Against Women

Australia in 2017  - known deaths due to violence against women  -  23 dead by July 12 [Destroy the Joint, 12 July 2017]

A rarely spoken about aspect of domestic violence…………………

"It is widely accepted by abuse experts (and validated by numerous studies) …..that evangelical men who sporadically attend church are more likely than men of any other religious group (and more likely than secular men) to assault their wives." [Professor of Theology Steven R, Tracy, 2007,‘Patriarchy and Domestic Violence: Challenging Common Misconceptions” inWHAT DOES “SUBMIT IN EVERYTHING” REALLY MEAN? THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF MARITAL SUBMISSION]

The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 July 2017:

Research shows that the men most likely to abuse their wives are evangelical Christians who attend church sporadically. Church leaders in Australia say they abhor abuse of any kind. But advocates say the church is not just failing to sufficiently address domestic violence, it is both enabling and concealing it……

In the past couple of years, concern has been growing amongst those working with survivors of domestic violence about the role the Christian church of all denominations can either consciously or inadvertently play in allowing abusive men to continue abusing their wives.

The questions are these: do abused women in church communities face challenges women outside them do not?

Do perpetrators ever claim church teachings on male control excuse their abuse, or tell victims they must stay?

Why have there been so few sermons on domestic violence? Why do so many women report that their ministers tell them to stay in violent marriages?

Is the stigma surrounding divorce still too great, and unforgiving? Is this also a problem for the men who are abused by their wives — a minority but nonetheless an important group?

And if the church is meant to be a place of refuge for the vulnerable, why is it that the victims are the ones who leave churches while the perpetrators remain?

Is it true — as one Anglican bishop has claimed — that there are striking similarities to the church's failure to protect children from abuse, and that this next generation's reckoning will be about the failure in their ranks to protect women from domestic violence?

A 12-month ABC News and 7.30 investigation involving dozens of interviews with survivors of domestic violence, counsellors, priests, psychologists and researchers from a range of Christian denominations — including Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal and Presbyterian — has discovered the answers to these questions will stun those who believe the church should protect the abused, not the abusers.

ABC TV 7.30 current affairs program, 19 July 2017 - Christian women told to endure domestic abuse, excerpt from transcript:

JULIA BAIRD: In Australia, there has never been any real research into the prevalence of domestic violence within church communities, but Barbara runs a website for survivors which points to an alarming trend.

She estimates 800,000 Christian women, who have survived abuse around the world, have visited the page.

BARBARA ROBERTS: Christian women are particularly vulnerable because they take the Bible very seriously and they want to obey God. They know it says "turn the other cheek", they know it says "be long-suffering". 

The website mentioned in the current affairs program is A Cry For Justice.

Church leaders are not happy with the media attention and are calling foul.

The Australian, 21 July 2017:

A spokesman for Sydney Anglican Archbishop Glenn Davies said it was “disappointing when important, public issues are subject­ to selective presentation of information, inaccurate reporting and opinion-based journalism which misrepresents the facts”.

“To make domestic vio­lence­ part of a culture war against evangelical Christianity does no service to the women who suffer this appalling treatment,” he said.

An ABC spokesman defended 7.30, saying it was “not an attack on Christianity but an explor­ation of its intersection with ­issues of domestic violence, a legitimate and newsworthy sub­ject­”. Wednesday’s report was the latest in a series. Future prog­rams would examine other religions, including Islam and Judaism.

News Corp’s attack on the public broadcaster continues apace with these extraordinarily worded questions presumably put to the ABC by Sydney-based journalist Ean Higgins.

ABC statement on 7.30 reports on religion and domestic violence, 21 July 2017, excerpt:

Response to questions from The Australian.

1. Why didn’t the ABC report the truth: that Christianity actually saves women from abuse?

The ABC did report that point – that religiosity can be a protective factor against domestic violence – in its review of the research, “Regular church attenders are less likely to commit acts of intimate partner violence”.

As part of this series, the ABC will be reporting on how all the major Christian churches in Australia are seeking to address the issue of domestic violence in their community. The ABC has collected dozens of accounts of women suffering abuse and, unfortunately, receiving a poor response from the church. But many have also sought and received excellent care, and know there are many wonderful Christian men and women working to make a difference. Our reporting also presents an excellent opportunity for churches, one that we’re pleased to hear many are taking seriously.

In addition, this is not a Christian versus secular argument; it is a conversation currently underway inside the church, as is evident by critics, counsellors, theologians, priests, and bishops quoted in the 7000-word piece on the ABC News site and the priests, synod members and churchgoers interviewed for 730.

2. Why did it instead falsely claim — and instantly believe — the falsehood that evangelical Christians are the worst abusers?

We did not make any false claims, we correctly cited relevant, peer-reviewed research that has been quoted and relied upon by numerous experts in this area of religion and domestic violence. Theology professor Steven Tracy is one of, if not the most authoritative and widely cited voice on this topic in America. We do not have the figures for Australia, as pointed out in the piece. We also pointed out that regular church attendance made men less likely to be violent. Again, this has all been included in the reporting.

Professor Steven Tracy found “that evangelical men [in North America] who sporadically attend church are more likely than men of any other religious group (and more likely than secular men) to assault their wives”. Tracy cites five other studies to support his claim: Ellison and Anderson 2001; Brinkerhoff et al 1991; Ellison and Anderson 1999; Wilcox 2004; Fergusson et al 1986.

The ABC also interviewed dozens of Christian men and women in Australia and abroad whose personal experience with domestic abuse – and the Church’s response to it – supports this claim.

As Adelaide Bishop Tim Harris told the ABC: “it is well recognised that males (usually) seeking to justify abuse will be drawn to misinterpretations [of the Bible] to attempt to legitimise abhorrent attitudes.”

Furthermore, since the article was published, many women have contacted the ABC to share similar stories of abuse by men (including religious leaders) who have justified their violence – and / or women’s subordination – with scripture.

However, the ABC agrees with dozens of academics and religious groups interviewed who argue that further research into the prevalence and nature of domestic violence in religious communities is needed – especially in Australia.

3. What does Ms Guthrie say to Bolt’s claim that “the ABC is not merely at war with Christianity. This proves something worse: it is attacking the faith that most makes people civil.”

The ABC is not at war with Christianity. It is reporting on domestic violence in religious communities, which it notes – and as two recent significant inquiries into domestic and family violence reported – has been under-discussed in Australia, particularity in light of the Royal Commission into Domestic Violence.

As part of its investigation into domestic violence and religion, the ABC is also examining other major religions, including Islam and Judaism.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-24/confronting-domestic-violence-in-islam/8458116

It should be noted that clergy from the Presbyterian, Anglican and Uniting and Baptist churches have written to the ABC thanking them for their reporting.

Mr. Higgins antipathy towards the ABC appears to be well-known.

Realising its first response was not the best response in the circumstances, organised religion began to back pedal a day later.

ABC News, 22 July 2017:

Australian church leaders are calling on Christian communities to urgently respond to women who are being abused in their congregations, with the most senior Anglican cleric in the country arguing victims of domestic violence deserve an apology from the Church.

An ABC News investigation into religion and domestic violence involving dozens of interviews with survivors, counsellors, priests, psychologists and researchers from a range of Christian denominations has found the Church is not just failing to sufficiently address domestic violence but is, in some cases, ignoring it or allowing it to continue.

And a comprehensive survey conducted by ABC News into programs and protocols churches across the country have in place to address domestic violence — the first attempt to compile this information — reveals mixed responses from different denominations.

While many genuine efforts are being made, critics say there are no coordinated national approaches, and that collection of useful data is required along with a commitment to serious cultural change.

Now, senior members of the Church are urging that clergy and pastoral workers must acknowledge poor responses to domestic abuse and work to take meaningful action against it.

The Anglican Primate of Australia, Archbishop Philip Freier, said he supported an unequivocal apology expressed this week by an Anglican priestto victims of domestic abuse in the Church.

"I'm hoping that there will be some words of apology to people who have experienced domestic violence and any failure from the Church at our General Synod, coming up in September," the Archbishop said on The Drum.

The Archbishop said he "was moved" by the words of Father Daryl McCullough, who said in a statement on his website that he condemned men's misuse of scripture to justify abusing their wives.

"As a priest in the Church of God, I am truly and deeply sorry if you or anyone you love has been the victim of abuse and found the Church complicit in making that abuse worse," Fr Daryl McCullough said.

Update on Australian Cardinal George Pell: charged with mulitiple sexual offences by Victoria Police

Australian Cardinal George Pell, currently living and working in the Vatican, has been charged on summons by Victoria Police with multiple serious historical sexual offences.

WATCH the whole press conference where @VictoriaPolice announce Cardinal George Pell has been charged with historical sex offences. pic.twitter.com/kiyGv691Q9

— ABC News (@abcnews) June 29, 2017

 The Australian, 29 June 2017:

No-one with credibility in the church underestimates the damage caused by clergy abuse, a stain that could still be decades from being rubbed out.

This is the broader challenge facing the Catholic hierarchy.

An 18-month or two year court battle, regardless of whether or not it finds in favour of Pell, will mark more lost time as the church tries to deal with the aftermath of the abuse scandal.

This negative publicity will be compounded by the ongoing reporting of the child sex abuse royal commission, which is still to hand down major reports into the Melbourne and Ballarat case studies.

Pell, being the divisive figure that he is and has been, is receiving support from many of his senior peers but the church is also home to many who believe the institution can only move forward when it sees the cardinal’s back.

Perhaps a fairer perspective is to withhold judgment until the evidence is presented to the court.

It’s often been said but it is worth repeating; the least the victims deserve is the truth, which has been in short supply for too long.

BACKGROUND

Further to Cardinal George Pell’s evidence given to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse¹.

The Australian, 16 May 2017:

<

Lawyers representing George Pell have demanded an apology and retraction from Fairfax and The Guardian over articles ­repeating child sexual abuse alle­gations made in a new book ­described by the cardinal as a “character assassination”.

The legal demands were sent to the media outlets at the weekend after a book made a series of allegations against Cardinal Pell over his role in the sex abuse scandal engulfing the Catholic Church…..

MUP chief executive Louise Adler said the publishing house had received letters from Cardinal Pell’s representatives but no legal action had been threatened.

Crikey, 23 May 2017:

George Pell, both the man and his troubles with the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, might be affecting Australia’s representation in the highest council of the Catholic Church, the College of Cardinals — which elects the Pope — given Sydney (and Melbourne) once more missed out in the latest, very eclectic list from Pope Francis.

Seven News, 20 June 2017:

Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton told ABC radio Cardinal Pell's lawyers will be told first, once a decision is made whether to charge him.

"A decision is imminent," Mr Ashton told ABC this morning.

"There is a great deal of public interest in it [the George Pell case].

"We'll get something out soon."

It's the third time Mr Ashton has promised an "imminent" decision on the allegations after police got advice from the state's Director of Public Prosecutions on May 16.

On May 18 Mr Ashton said the process wouldn't take too long, and a decision would be reached within a few weeks.

A week later he told 3AW the decision was not too far off.

"The decision is imminent on that," Mr Ashton said on May 25.

On June 1 he described it as "fairly imminent".

The Australian, 24 June 2017:

Those closest to George Pell are increasingly pessimistic about his chances of avoiding charges over historical child sex abuse ­allegations.

The Weekend Australian has been told by multiple sources that — despite his vehement ­denial of wrongdoing — there is a growing resignation that ­charges will almost certainly be laid, plunging the church into what would be an unprecedented scandal.

The Rule Of Law Institute Of Australia Incorporated (a somewhat obscure not-for-profit organisation registered in June 2010) also offered its mite on the subject in The Australian on 25 June 2017:

Victoria Police has been warned not to charge Cardinal George Pell over alleged child sexual abuse to clear the air, or to stage a show trial in response to intense public interest and anger over clerical sex abuse in general.

Lawyer Robin Speed, president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia said prosecutors should act against Cardinal Pell only if they were fully satisfied about the quality of the evidence.

“They should not act in response to the baying of a section of the mob,’’ he said…..

Mr Speed said that if the cardinal was charged and found innocent the drawn out conduct of the investigation over two years could warrant a judicial inquiry.

Footnote

1. Cardinal George Pell gave evidence from 29 February 2016 by video link from Rome concerning Case Study 35: Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and Case Study 28: Catholic Church authorities in Ballarat. Reports on Case Study 28 (Catholic Church authorities in Ballarat) and Case Study 35 (Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne) are yet to be published. 

Did Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on a taxpayer funded official visit to the United States intend to push a Pentacostal agenda?

Prime Minister & MP for Cook Scott Morrison has been outed in US media for apparently wanting Australian taxpayers to fund a trip to Washington DC for a named paedophile enabler.

The Washington Post,  20 September 2019:

Weeks before Mr. Morrison’s arrival in Washington, the standard advance-planning process hit a bump in the road.

Mr. Morrison was determined to bring as part of his delegation Hillsong Church Pastor Brian Houston —the man he frequently refers to as his “mentor” —but the White House vetoed the idea, telling his office that Mr. Houston was not invited, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

Brian Houston in 2015 was censured by the Australian government’s royal commission into child sexual abuse for failing to report his father, Frank Houston, to police for the alleged sexual abuse of children in his church. The highly publicized child abuse commission ran four years. Before his death in 2004 aged 82, Frank Houston confessed to sexually abusing a boy in New Zealand three decades earlier, and was immediately removed from ministry by his son.

Brian Houston defended his behavior at the time of his censure. He didn’t respond to a request for comment for this article.

After several rounds of discussions across the 14 time zones between Washington and Canberra, Mr. Morrison agreed to leave the pastor at home, according to several people familiar with the matter.

BACKGROUND

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Case Study 18: Australian Christian Churches, October 2015 Final Report - The response of the Australian Christian Churches and affiliated Pentecostal churches to allegations of child sexual abuse - includes William Francis “Frank” Houston and Pastor Brian Houston.

The Sydney Mornign Herald, 8 October 2014:

Hillsong Church leader Brian Houston allegedly told his father's sexual abuse victim that he brought the crime upon himself by tempting his abuser.

The victim, given the pseudonym AHA, told the royal commission into child sexual abuse he was molested by Mr Houston's father, Frank Houston, for a number of years from the age of seven......

In 1998, AHA's mother disclosed the abuse to a senior pastor at the Emmanuel Christian Family Church, who said she would refer it to the Assemblies of God hierarchy instead of the police.

Shortly afterwards, Frank Houston, then aged in his late 70s, got in touch with AHA to offer financial compensation.

AHA said Frank Houston told him: "I want your forgiveness for this. I don't want to die and have to face God with this on my head."

They met at McDonald's in Thornleigh where AHA was asked to sign a food-stained napkin in return for a cheque for $10,000.

When Brian Houston, the national president of the Assemblies of God in Australia from 1997 to 2009, became aware of allegations against his father he suspended him from the church.

The commission heard a meeting of senior Assemblies of God members was called and it was decided that the allegation would be kept confidential. When other allegations of abuse involving six boys in New Zealand came to light, it was decided that Frank Houston would retire, without the exact reason being made public.

Frank Houston, the founder of the Sydney Christian Life Centre which merged with the Hills Christian Life Centre to become Hillsong Church, died in 2004......

The Guardian, 21 September 2019:

Frank Houston abused up to nine boys in Australia and New Zealand.....

National Redress Scheme: Morrison Government's deviation from royal commission recommendations without sound evidence had been "to the detriment of the scheme and against the interests of survivors"

Sadly Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his political cronies continue to wage war on the poor and vulnerable without exception.

This time it is victims of insitutional child sexual abuse they are trying to deny access to compensation and to unfairly limit the amount of compensation recommended by the Royal Commission into Insitutional Response to Child Sexual Abuse.

Herald Sun, 4 April 2019:

THE Federal Government must explain how it capped National Redress Scheme payments to child sex survivors at $150,000 rather than a recommended $200,000, said a parliamentary committee left "deeply dissatisfied" when it was unable to find an answer during a review of the scheme.

The $150,000 cap was rammed into legislation after the Turnbull Government warned any push to lift it would delay the scheme's implementation by 18 months.

But the committee's unsuccessful attempts to solve the mystery has left survivors believing $150,000 was chosen because it matched Anglican and Catholic maximum payments, a joint select committee reviewing the scheme found.

"The committee is deeply dissatisfied that the maximum payment amount has been reduced and that no clear explanation has been provided about why this occurred or who advocated for this reduction," the report released on Wednesday said.

"The committee has tried to ascertain the reason for the reduction in the maximum payment and has put this question to various witnesses, including Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services on numerous occasions. 

However, apart from acknowledging that $150,000 was the amount agreed to between the Commonwealth, states, and territories, the committee has not received any explanation or rationale about this discrepancy."

The committee, headed by Senator Derryn Hinch with Newcastle MP Sharon Claydon as deputy chair, was told more than 3000 people had applied for redress by February 28 after its launch on July 1, 2018, but only 88 cases were finalised, with fewer than 10 survivors paid between $100,000 and $150,000.

At least one person received the maximum $150,000.

"The committee recommends that the government clearly and openly explain how the maximum payments came to be set at $150,000 rather than $200,000, and the rationale for this decision," it said in one of 29 recommendations. The committee recommended amending legislation to lift the cap to $200,000.

The cross-party committee made up of four Liberal members, three Labor, one Green and Senator Hinch issued a damning assessment of parts of the redress scheme that vary from recommendations by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2017.

They include an assessment matrix that restricts maximum payments to penetrative child sexual abuse, counselling capped at $5000 and excluding people with serious criminal convictions or making applications from jail.

The criminal conviction and jail exclusions would "disproportionately impact" Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who made up almost one third of survivors seen by royal commissioners during private sessions in jail.

"This is an alarming statistic," the committee said.

Ms Claydon said the Federal Government's deviation from royal commission recommendations without sound evidence had been "to the detriment of the scheme and against the interests of survivors".

BACKGROUND

Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse:

On 20 June 2017 the House of Representatives agreed to a Senate resolution that a joint select committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse be established following the tabling of the final report of the Royal Commission.

Excerpts from Joint Committee's report:

Intrinsic to a survivor's access to redress are the institutions responsible for the sexual abuse and their decision to join the scheme. While all states and territories are now participating in the scheme, there are no mechanisms to force private institutions to join the scheme. Yet survivors will not be able to obtain redress if the institution responsible for their abuse refuses to join the scheme. This is both unfair and unacceptable. Plainly, more needs to be done to pressure non-participating institutions to join the scheme, and provide survivors with access to redress....

Central to the redress scheme are the survivors. Wherever possible, the scheme should be an inclusive scheme that does not exclude groups of survivors. Currently, certain groups of survivors are either not eligible for redress or are subject to potentially arbitrary decisions when seeking permission to apply for redress. The government has suggested that some of these exclusions are necessary to protect the scheme from particular risks, such as fraud, while others are necessary to ensure the efficient administration of the scheme. These are not sufficient justifications to unilaterally exclude large groups of survivors, who would otherwise have a legitimate claim, from accessing redress.

Recommendation 14
8.94 The committee recommends that the government clearly and openly explain how the maximum payments came to be set at $150 000 rather than $200 000, and the rationale for this decision.

Recommendation 15
8.95 In line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the committee recommends that Commonwealth, state and territory governments agree to increase the maximum redress payment from $150 000 to $200 000.

Recommendation 16
8.100 In line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the committee recommends that Commonwealth, state and territory governments implement a minimum payment of $10 000 for the monetary component of redress, noting that in practice some offers may be lower than $10 000 after relevant prior payments to the survivor by the responsible institution are considered, or after calculating a non-participating institution's share of the costs.

The full April 2019 Joint Standing Committee report can be read here.

NOTE:

The Anglican Diocese of Grafton on the NSW North Coast has now joined the National Redress Scheme.