STATEMENT OF MAJELLA RYAN
I, Majella Ryan, of care of Level 11, 50 Ann Street, Brisbane, Assistant Executive
Director, Child Safety in the State of Queensland state as follows:
I. I have been employed by the Department of Communities, Child Safety and
Disability Services since 1981 in its various forms.
2. I have been asked to provide a response to certain questions posed in a letter from
the Royal Commission dated 27 February 2014. I am in a position to respond to
Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and I 0 of that letter.
Question 1:
Governance and supervision at Neerkol
In the period in which Neerkol was in operation the relationship between the Sisters
of Mercy, the Diocese ofRockhampton, the Commonwealth of Australia and the
Qneensland Government Children's Department (as it was then) with regard to the
following topics:
a. Legal Relationship (legislative, contractual or other)
3. Archived records demonstrate that the St Joseph's Orphanage (formerly Meteor
Park Orphanage) was licensed by the appropriate State government authority.
4. St Joseph's Orphanage was first licensed under the Orphanages Act of 1879 on 11
December 1885 and the Rockhampton Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy were
invited to staff the orphanage. Under the Orphanages Act of 1879, the
management and supervision of licensed orphanages were subject to such control
as the Minister prescribed, including regular inspection by the Inspector of
Orphanages.
5. The State Children Act 1911 (QLD.0062.001.3210) repealed the Orphanages Act
in 1911. Section 14 of the State Children Act 1911 stated that all State institutions
established under any repealed enactment were deemed to be established for their
respective purposes under and for the purposes of the State Children Act 1911. As Page 1 of33
... /7@/ljf~-Majella '{jfan
STAT.0542.001.0001
such, St Joseph's Orphanage retained its licence under the State Children Act
1911.
6. The State Children Act 1911 (QLD.0062.001.3210) established the State
Children's Department. The Director of the State Children's Department became
guardian of all State children up until the age of 18 years under this Act. Under
the State Children Act 1911, the Governor in Council had the power to abolish
and establish orphanages (s14). At any time, on the advice of the Director of the
State Children's Department, the Governor in Council could cancel an
institution's licence if dissatisfied with its condition, management or maintenance
(sl8).
7. The governing authority of each institution, subject to the Minister, was
responsible for management of the institution and appointment of all staff
(sl5). Section 49(1) of the Act required an officer of the Department to visit every
state child at least once every three months to ensure their treatment was
satisfactory.
8. The Minister had discretionary powers to appoint employees of State institutions
and could also appoint a committee of management and prescribe powers,
authorities and duties to that committee (s8). In addition, the Minister could
appoint honorary visitors to assist in procuring and visiting 'boarding out homes',
and to supervise state children who had been placed in employment or discharged
or released on probation under the Act (s9).
9. The Commonwealth Minister oflmmigration delegated his powers and functions
to the Director of the State Children's Department under s.6 of the Immigration
(Guardianship of Children) Act 1946. Accordingly, the Director became
guardian of the British migrant children. Custodianship of these children was
given to the Bishop ofRockhampton by a delegation under s.7 (Forde report p.9)
(QLD.0062.001.3272).
10. The Children's Services Act 1965 replaced the State Children Act I 911
(QLD.0062.001.3210). Under the Children's Services Act 1965, the Governor in
Council could still establish or abolish institutions for the 'care, protection,
./71:1/;f dr/.. Majet'yan
Page 2 of33
Witness
STAT.0542.001.0002
education, treatment, training, control and welfare of children in care' (s30).
Institutions like St Joseph's Orphanage retained their licence under the new Act,
but were expected to meet higher standards of care (Report of the Children's
Commission (p.33) (QLD.0062.001.1036).
11. The governing authority, subject to the Director of the Department (the State
Children's Department was renamed as the Department of Children's Services),
had the sole management and supervision of their institution and control of the
appointment of all persons employed at such institution. The Director of
Department of Children's Services was to supervise the standard of care attained
in each licensed institution (s34). Under section 39, the Director could
recommend the Minister revoke the institution's licence ifthe standard of care
was unsatisfactory.
12. The Children's Services Act 1965 made it clear that the governing authority of
each institution was responsible both for its actions and omissions and for those of
any of its staff. It was no longer possible, in establishing liability, for the
governing authority or person in charge of the institution, to say that they did not
know about the misdeed or omission or to say they had instructed staff not to do
such things (Report of the Children's Commission (p.33) (QLD.0062.001.1036)).
13. The Children's Services Act 1965 provided it was an offence for a carer to ill
treat, neglect, abandon or expose a child in a manner likely to cause unnecessary
suffering or injury of physical or mental health.
14. The Children's Services Regulations 1966 (QLD.0062.001.3252) outlined
standards for the discipline and punishment of children.
15. Attachment 1 outlines the history of the relevant legislative framework during
the time that Neerkol was in operation.
16. The following list provides an historical overview of the agencies with
responsibility for child protection in Queensland:
Page 3 of33
Witness
STAT.0542.001.0003
b.
0 1879-1911 Public Instruction Department - Orphanages Branch
0 1911-1935 Home Secretary's Office - State Children Department
0 1935-1963 Health and Home Affairs Department - State Children
Department
0 1963-1966 Labour and Industry Department - State Children Department
0 1966-1987 Children's Services Department
0 1987 Family and Youth Services Department
0 1987-1989 Family Services Department
0 1989-1996 Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Department
0 1996 Department of Family and Community Services
0 1996-2001 Department of Families, Youth and Community Care
0 2001-2004 Department of Families
0 2004-2009 Department of Child Safety
0 2009-2012 Department of Communities
0 2012-2015 Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability
Services.
17. The following list provides an overview of the relevant govermnent agencies that
had control of St Joseph's:
o Public Instruction Department, Orphanages Branch (11/12/1885 - 1/12/1911)
o Health and Home Affairs Department, State Children Department (1/1211911 -
1/8/1963)
o Labour and Industry Department II, State Children Department (26/9/1963 -
1/8/1966) o Children's Services Department (1/8/1966 - 1/1/1985).
18. The following list provides an overview of the Queensland State Children's
Department Directors:
0 1911-1932 George A Ferguson
0 1933-1938 Herbert Clarke
0 1939-1952 William Smith
0 1953-1960 Harold Harris
0 1960-1974 Charles Clark
0 1975-1980 Robert Plummer
0 1981-1987 GrahamZerk
Financial Relationship
19. The St. Joseph's Orphanage had three main sources of income. The Orphanage
received contributions from State Govermnent Aid for Children, the
Page 4 of33
/@? Witness
STAT.0542.001.0004
Commonwealth Child Endowment and was also supported by the Catholic
Church. (Report of the Children's Commission p.25) (QLD.0062.001.1036).
20. The State Government provided regular financial support to St. Joseph's
Orphanage on a per capita basis as well as financial support for infrastructure and
maintenance undertaken at the home (Report of the Children's Commission p.25)
(QLD.0062.001.1036).
21. The Commission of Inquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions
found that the there was a lack of funding available to enable children to be cared
for in conditions of reasonable comfort by carers who were not over-burdened
(Forde report p.7) (QLD.0062.001.3272).
22. The State Children's Department Annual Reports included information in relation
to the state allowances and grants paid to the Orphanage (see the Children's
Commission Report p.25) (QLD.0062.001.1036):
o In 1947-48, the State Government paid orphanages an average of 10 shillings
per week for each child (approximately $1). The funding gradually increased;
by 1958 the State Government was contributing one pound fifteen shillings per
child each week (approximately $3.50). The payment was intended to defray
the cost of medical and dental treatment and provide the children with the
necessary school requisites.
o In addition to funding provided by the State Government per child, the State
Government paid half the cost of renovations at the orphanage.
o The Commonwealth Government initially paid 7 shillings per child per week in
child endowment. This contribution had increased by 1956 to 10 shillings per
child each week.
o Subsidies for British Child Migrants were paid by the British Government.
c. Governance of Neerkol
23. While a large proportion of the children resident at the St Joseph's Orphanage
were State wards, the orphanage also accepted a small number of British Child
Migrants and acted as a quasi-boarding school for children who were not in the
care of the State.
. /'JTJ ~4r.V Maf~yan
Page 5 of33
STAT.0542.001.0005
24. Archived records confirm an administrative reporting relationship between the
Sisters of Mercy Rockhampton and the State Children's Department as far back as
1915. Records contain reports and correspondence in relation range of
administrative matters, including:
o Information pertaining to the evidence of License of Institution
o Admissions Registers dating back to 1885
o Immunisation records, academic records and reports on their potential future
life course
o Financial records in relation to payments made by the Department relating to
expenses for the children, infrastructure and maintenance for the premises
o Inspections by the Department of Education of the 'school' at Neerkol
o Hiring out of children (placement in service)
o Leave arrangements for the Sister in Charge.
d. Pastoral Care
Education and employment
25. The school at the Orphanage was approved by the State Department of Public
Instruction and subject to inspections, which demonstrated the standards of
education provided were commendable (Report of the Children's Commission
p.26) (QLD.0062.001.1036).
26. The State Children's Department reported positively on the academic outcomes of
the students (State Children's Department Report 1954-55 (referenced in the
Report of the Children's Commission p.19) (QLD.0062.001.1036).
27. The teaching was carried out by the Sisters of Mercy and children were provided
with employment once they reached 14 years of age unless they had been
identified as suitable to undertake training for a trade or had passed the
Scholarship (Commonwealth Immigration Department Report (referenced in the
Report of the Children's Commission p.17)) (QLD.0062.001.1036).
28. In January 1956, the United Kingdom Goverrunent appointed a fact finding
mission to investigate the sending of British child migrants to institution
/J:l&dv.vv:. ' M~6'Ryan
Page 6 of33
Witness
STAT.0542.001.0006
Australia (Report of the Children's Commission (p.53) (QLD.0062.001.1036).
Representatives of the Mission visited all 'approved institutions', including the St
Joseph's Orphanage. The Mission noted that "children in isolated orphanages
suffered impediments in relation to education, employment and assimilation into
Australian life" (Report of the Children's Commission (p.59).
29. The Commission oflnquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions
found that the teaching regime at the Orphanage was based on physical
punishment and the humiliation of children (Forde report p.9)
(QLD.0062.001.3272). The levels of education were lamentable and some
children left the home barely literate (Forde report p. l 0). The Inquiry noted that in
1961, the District Inspector was reporting that the letters he received from
Health
children in employment indicated 'that they would have been fortunate to
complete fourth grade standard'. Further the Inquiry found that there was a lack of
specialist assistance available to children even until the 1970s (Forde report p.6).
30. The State Children's Department reported that a trained nursing sister was always
available at the Orphanage and that a medical and dental officers regularly visited.
All children were immunised against a range of diseases (State Children's
Department Report 1954-55 (referenced in the Report of the Children's
Commission p. 18-19) (QLD.0062.001.1036). The health of the children was
reported on favourably by the Department (State Children's Department Report
1959-60 (referenced in the Report of the Children's Commission p.20)
(QLD.0062.001.1036).
Behaviour management
31. At various stages throughout the operation of the St Joseph's Orphanage, there
were specific legislative provisions in place in relation to the punishment of
children.
32. Section 9 of the Children's Protection Act 1896 (QLD.0062.001.1664) outlined
the legal right of any parent, teacher or other person, having lawful control or
charge of a child, to administer reasonable punishment.
Page 7 of 33
STAT.0542.001.0007
33. Under section 1, it was an offence for any person having the custody, control or
charge of a child to wilfully ill-treat, neglect, abandon or expose a child in a
manner likely to cause such child unnecessary suffering, or injury to its health.
34. The Children's Services Act 1965 and Children's Services Regulations 1966
(QLD.0062.001.3252) created an offence for a child carer to ill-treat, neglect,
abandon or expose a child in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or to
injure his physical or mental health in any way.
35. The Regulation set out standards for the punishment of children and provided that
a child could be punished for a range of offences by special duties, forfeiting
privilege, properly supervised physical exercise or corporal punishment. Corporal
punishment was only to be inflicted by the person in charge or under his direction
and only by an "approved" leather strap applied over a child's ordinary cloth
trousers. It was not to be inflicted on girls, in the presence of other children and
was to be used as seldom as possible. It was a requirement that there be a suitable
witness and a punishment register.
3 6. The Commission of Inquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions
found that the punishments administered at the Orphanage were excessive by any
standard and did not accord with the Regulations in place under the relevant
legislative framework (Forde report p.3) (QLD.0062.001.3272).
Emotional wellbeing
3 7. A resident chaplain assisted in caring for the welfare of the children (State
Children's Department Report 1954-55 (referenced in the Report of the Children's
Commission p.19 (QLD.0062.001.1036)) and took a fatherly interest in the
welfare of the children (State Children's Department Report 1959-60 (referenced
in the Report of the Children's Commission p.20) (QLD.0062.001.1036)).
38. In January 1956, representatives of the United Kingdom mission visited all
'approved institutions', including the St Joseph's Orphanage. The report from
this mission noted that "children accommodated in large dormitories suffered
from institutional disadvantages including segregation from the community; a
~4:ia.~ ... Ma(;Ya.Ryan
Page 8 of33
STAT.0542.001.0008
lack of homely atmosphere, lack of privacy; and in some cases, the standard of
amenities and comfort was below tolerable levels".
39. In response to the mission's report, the State Children's Director agreed "there
should be an adequate standard of comfort and amenity for children, but the
standard should not be overdone, lest a child on leaving the home, experience a
(lower) amenity at a new home" (Report of the Children's Commission (p.62)
(QLD.0062.001.1036). Further he noted that the geographic isolation of the
Orphanage was not considered to be problematic for the children, and he agreed
that the children should be encouraged to take part in normal community life
(Report of the Children's Commission (p.62).
40. The Commission oflnquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions
found that Neerkol was an entirely inappropriate location for an orphanage and
that its isolation deprived the children of any real opportunity to integrate into the
local community (Forde report p. l) (QLD.0062.001.3272). Additionally, the
setting gave rise to a closed community with a culture of its own (Forde report
p.2).
41. The Inquiry reported that during the period from the 1920s through to and
including the 1960s, management practices were designed to suppress
individuality and there was a climate of fear at the Orphanage (Forde report p. 2)
(QLD.0062.001.3272).
42. The Inquiry also found that there was no active encouragement for children to
maintain family relationships and that siblings were separated, causing significant
distress (Forde report p.3) (QLD.0062.001.3272).
Social and moral education
43. St Joseph's Orphanage was controlled by the Rockhampton Congregation of the
Sisters of Mercy and religious instruction was provided by the Sisters, with mass
held by a Priest at the Orphanage (Commonwealth Immigration Department
Report (referenced in the Report of the Children's Commission p.17
(QLD.0062.001.1036)).
./.l11ftthv'..'' Ma(ef Ryan
Page 9 of 33
STAT.0542.001.0009
44. The State Children's Department reported on the important contribution that
recreation activities made to the children's welfare. It was noted that special
lessons for physical education were provided and the children enjoyed outdoor
games and folk dancing. The achievements of particular children were outlined
and they were congratulated on their achievements (State Children's Department
Report 1954-55 (referenced in the Report of the Children's Commission p.19 and
State Children's Department Report 1959-60 (referenced in the Report of the
Children's Commission p.20) (QLD.0062.001.1036)).
45. Children were reported to be provided with opportunities for social activities,
such as attending the Annual Show and Eisteddfod, and attempts were made to
provide them the opportunity to experience 'a normal family home' through
fostering programs run during school holidays and trips to a holiday home at the
beach (Report of the Children's Commission p.14 (QLD.0062.001.1036)).
Additionally, the State Children's Department Director reported that children
were taken on outings and children from Rockhampton would visit the Orphanage
(Report of the Director of the State Children's Department to the Commonwealth
Department oflmmigrationl957 (referenced in the Report of the Children's
Commission p.21 (QLD.0062.001.1036)).
46. The Report of the Children's Commission (p.22) (QLD.0062.001.1036) provides
information from a former resident of the Orphanage which confirmed that
recreation activities were provided to the children, children were taken on outings
by community organisations and holidays at the beach were available for the
children.
4 7. The Commission of Inquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions
found that the spontaneity normal in childhood activities was not encouraged at
the Orphanage and there was little time for recreational activities (Forde report p.
2) (QLD.0062.001.3272). Where recreation time was allowed, there was a heavy
emphasis on organised sport as opposed to free play and in some cases even this
was considered punitive when children were forced to box each other (Forde
report p.2).
Page 10 of33
STAT.0542.001.0010
48. The Inquiry also found that children were not provided with adequate sexual
education, and as a result, children and young people were vulnerable to abuse
particularly when placed in employment at 14 years old (Forde report p.7)
(QLD.0062.001.3272).
Financial support
49. The Report of the Children's Commission (p.36)(QLD.0062.001.1036) outlines
the relevant provisions of the State Children Act 1911 (QLD.0062.001.3210)
which provided for trust accounts to be established and maintained for children
when they left school at 14 and were placed in employment.
50. Under the State Children Act 1911 (QLD.0062.001.3210) a portion of the child's
wage was paid in pocket money and deductions were made for tax and board.
The remainder was deposited in the child's trust account. When leaving state care
at 18 years old, a child could access 25% of the funds from their trust account.
The remaining money could be withdrawn when the child turned 21.
e. Development and Implementation of Policy
51. Archived records confirm that the State Children's Department had a role in
setting policies and procedures in relation to administrative issues i.e. the
procedure to ensure approval of payments and procedures relating to admission of
children. The Sisters of Mercy provided reports to the Department in relation to
these administrative issues.
f. Recruitment and training of staff or officers
52. Under the State Children Act 1911 (QLD.0062.001.3210), the governing authority
of each institution, subject to the Minister, was responsible for management of the
institution and appointment of all staff (s15).
53. Under the Children's Services Act 1965, the governing authority, subject to the
Director of the Department, had the sole management and supervision of their
institution and control of the appointment of all persons employed at such
institution.
,/.h'l~~. Maj~yan
Page 11 of33
../'.'.:. Witness
STAT.0542.001.0011
54. There are no departmental records that specifically outline recruitment processes
or detail training provided to staff.
55. A Commonwealth Immigration Department Report (referenced in the Report of
the Children's Commission p.15 (QLD.0062.001.1036)) outlines that the St
Joseph's Orphanage was staffed by the Sisters of Mercy who were qualified to
teach, nurse and care for young children and that adequate staff from the Order
were made available to the Orphanage when required.
56. The Report of the Director of the State Children's Department to the
Commonwealth Department oflmmigration 1957 (referenced in the Report of the
Children's Commission p.21 (QLD.0062.001.1036)) notes that the Orphanage
was adequately staffed and the Sisters were well equipped for their work. It is also
noted that the children were educated on the premises by the Sisters who were
qualified teachers.
57. In January 1956, the United Kingdom mission found there was no specialised
training in Australia for child care work and not all staff engaged in the Australian
establishments had sufficient knowledge of child care methods. In response, the
State Children's Director agreed that there should be adequate staff at each home
and outlined his view that the Sisters of Mercy were cultured women with years of
experience in child care (Report of the Children's Commission (p.62)
(QLD.0062.001.1036).
5 8. The Commission oflnquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions
found that the Orphanage was poorly staffed and was heavily dependent on the
work undertaken by children from an early age (Forde report p.2)
(QLD.0062.001.3272) .. Further, the Inquiry reported that the ratio of children to
staff was grossly inadequate and would have made individualised attention
impossible (Forde report p. 4 and 7).
59. The Inquiry also found that there were some nuns who were not suited to working
with children in need, but because of their vow of obedience they had no choice
but to go where they were directed (Forde report p.7) (QLD.0062.001.3272).
/771#~. Mai~yRyan
Page 12 of33
Witness
STAT.0542.001.0012
60. Further the Inquiry concluded that the orphanage was underfunded and
understaffed, and the nuns were expected to take in every child regardless of how
stretched their resources were (Forde report p.10) (QLD.0062.001.3272).
g. Supervision and oversight of children residing at Neerkol
61. The Director of the State Children's Department was the legal guardian of
children who became State wards and, through his departmental officers,
exercised a legal responsibly for them (Report of the Children's Commission
p.34) (QLD.0062.001.1036). The Director was also the guardian of the British
migrant children resident at the Orphanage (Forde report p.9)
(QLD.0062.001.3272).
62. Section 49 of the State Children Act 1911 (QLD.0062.001.3210) required that
children receive at least one visit every three months from an officer of the
Children's State Department to ensure their care was satisfactory (Forde report
p.9) (QLD.0062.001.3272). The Regulation required an inspection of institutions
at least once per month.
63. The Children's Services Act 1965 required the Director to supervise the standard
attained by each licensed institution in achieving the purposes for which it existed
and provided the Director with the powers to enter and inspect the premises.
64. Basic reports were prepared by the State Children's Department outlining a level
of general satisfaction with the operation of the Orphanage (Report of the
Children's Commission (p.26)(QLD.0062.00l.1036)).
65. The State Children's Department Report 1954-55 (referenced in the Report of the
Children's Commission p.19 (QLD.0062.001.1036)) noted that the progress of the
school held on the premises was very satisfactory and provided details that eight
children had successfully completed the scholarship examination and were
attending secondary school. Information was also provided about infrastructure
improvements and the amenities available at the Orphanage. The school was
approved by the State Department of Public Instruction and subject to inspections,
which demonstrated the standards of education provided were commendable
(Report of the Children's Commission p.26). Page 13 of33
STAT.0542.001.0013
66. The Report of the Children's Commission (p.26)(QLD.0062.001.1036) states that
Government representatives, including the Government Medical Officer, the
Dental Officer and the local Children's Department Officers visited on a periodic
basis and that Mr Smith, the State Children's Director, personally visited the
Orphanage at least once every year (p.35).
67. During the 1950's, the State Children's Department employed four officers in
Rockharnpton. Their duties encompassed the State Government Receiving Depot,
liaison with the Orphanage and regular inspection of the home. The officers were
also responsible for the initial assessment of nominated British child migrants,
placement of children in employment, and local administration of children's trust
accounts (Report of the Children's Commission (p.35).
68. The Report of the Children's Commission (p.55) outlines that the State Children's
Director provided information to the United Kingdom mission in 1956 that
District Officers at Rockharnpton visit the Orphanage at least twice per year and
endeavoured to interview each child personally.
69. The Commission of Inquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions
noted during the period between 1920s and the 1970s there was a State Children's
Inspector stationed in Rockharnpton but few residents could remember actually
being spoken to (Forde report p.8) (QLD.0062.001.3272). Children were not
encouraged to talk to State Children's Department Inspectors and there was no
opportunity to report concerns (Forde report p.10). The Inquiry found that there
was no real interest on the part of the Departmental Inspectors in exploring the
conditions in which the children were living and the view was held that the nuns
should not be challenged in any way (Forde report p.10). The ratio of staff to
children at the Orphanage was grossly inadequate and must have been apparent to
those in charge of the Department (Forde report p. l 0).
70. The Inquiry found that the staff of the State Children's Department were not
adequately trained and they were considerably overworked. In addition, the
Department failed to ensure that there were staff with experience in child care and
m.Jt,~···· Page 14 of33
STAT.0542.001.0014
protection were employed in the Rockhampton office (Forde report p. l 0)
(QLD.0062.001.3272).
Question 2
In the period in which Neerkol was in operation, any policies or procedures applying
to the Director of the State Children's Department (as it then was), or its officers, in
relation to:
a) child protection;
b) the handling of complaints of child sexual abuse;
c) the discipline of alleged offenders.
a) Child protection
71. The provision of child welfare services in Queensland was governed by the State
Children Act 1911(QLD.0062.001.3210)until1965. Section lOoftheState
Children Act 1911 provided the Director of the State Children's Department with
control of all state children until the age of 18. Under section 18 of the Act, the
Director could request that the Governor in Council cancel an institutions licence
at any time if dissatisfied with its condition, management or maintenance. Under
section 49 of the State Children Act 1911, an officer of the Department was
required to visit every state child at least once every three months to ensure their
treatment was satisfactory. Archived departmental records demonstrate that
reports on the condition of institutions and the care of state children compiled by
various inspectors and departmental officers were provided to the Director
periodically.
72. At various stages throughout the operation of the St Joseph's Orphanage, there
were specific legislative provisions in place in relation to the punishment of
children.
73. Section 9 of the Children's Protection Act 1896 (QLD.0062.001.1664) confirms
the legal right of any parent, teacher or other person, having lawful control or
charge of a child, to administer reasonable punishment to a child.
74. Under section 1, it was offence for any person having the having the custody,
control or charge of a child to wilfully ill-treat, neglect, abandon or exposed a
/.Jv/;,;~ .... &Ila Ryan
Page 15 of33
STAT.0542.001.0015
child in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary suffering, or injury to its
health.
75. The State Children Act 1911 (QLD.0062.001.3210) was repealed by the
Children's Services Act 1965. Institutions like Neerkol retained their licence
under the new Act, but were expected to meet higher standards of care. Under
section 34 of the Children's Service's Act 1965, the Director of Department of
Children's Services was to supervise the standard of care attained in each licensed
institution. If the Director was dissatisfied with the management, maintenance or
condition of any licensed institution they could provide written notice of that fact
to the governing authority asking the institution to show cause why it should not
cease to be a licensed institution. If the institution did not show sufficient cause
within 2 months, the Director could then recommend the Minister revoke the
institution's licence under section 39 of the Act.
76. Archived departmental records demonstrate that District Officers of the
Department regularly communicated with the Director of the State Children's
Department to seek approval to procure necessary supplies and services for
institutions, to seek endorsement for either temporary or permanent changes in an
institutions governing authority (generally the Sister in Change) as per regulations
6 and 21 of the Children's Services Regulations 1966 (QLD.0062.001.3252) and
to share reports generated by various inspectors, such as the Inspector of Schools.
77. There were no policies or procedures at the time of commencement in August
1966 of the Children's Services Act 1965 as the relevant standards and obligations
were set out under the act. Relevant provisions of that act provided:
Control of licensed institutions 33.(1) The governing authority of a licensed institution shall, subject to the director, have the sole management and supervision of such institution and control of the appointment of all persons employed at such institution. (2) In all respects not otherwise expressly provided for in this Act such institution and those within it or employed thereat shall be subject to the provisions of this Act applicable to institutions conducted and controlled by the department. Supervision of standard of care by director 34. The director shall supervise the standard attained by each licensed institution in achieving the purposes for which it exists and for this purpose shall have the right to enter (personally or by agents) upon the premises of
Page 16of33
STAT.0542.001.0016
such institution at all reasonable hours and to inspect the same and the activities carried on therein. Records of licensed institution 35.(1) The governing authority of each licensed institution shall cause to be kept at such institution a register of all children from time to time within such institution and to be entered therein-( a) the name of each such child; and (b) the age of each such child upon admission to the institution; and
( c) the date of admission of each such child to the institution; and (d) the names and addresses of each child's parents or, as the case may require, guardian if the same be known; and ( e) the dates and times of visits by any person to each such child; and (f) such other particulars as are prescribed. (2) The person in charge of a licensed institution shall-( a) enter in the register required to be kept under subsection(!) all particulars required by this Act to be entered therein; and (b) make such register available for inspection by the director, deputy
director or any person authorised in writing by the director. Duties of persons in charge of institutions 40. The governing authority and person in charge of an institution (whether or not established or licensed under this Act) having in its, his or her custody a child shall-( a) provide such child with adequate food, clothing, lodging and care;
(b) maintain every part of such institution at all times in a fit and proper state for the care of a child; ( c) secure for such child adequate education and religious training of
such a type and form as is approved by the director or, in the absence of such an approval as is in the best interests of such child; ( d) ensure that such child receives adequate medical and dental treatment; ( e) do, observe and carry out all acts, requirements and directions prescribed by this Act or by any order of the director in relation to the institution and the care of such child.
78. Departmental records do not provide details of any policies or procedures which
applied in relation to child protection, the handling of child sexual abuse or the
discipline of alleged offenders.
79. Searches have been conducted but policies and procedures applicable up to the
time of closure ofNeerkol in 1978 could not be located. A substantial number of
archived records of the department were destroyed when the basement of the
Brisbane headquarters of the department, where they were stored, was flooded in
the 197 4 floods.
·@l~··· Page 17 of33
STAT.0542.001.0017
b) The handling of complaints and child sexual abuse
80. Under section 49 of the State Children Act 1911 (QLD.0062.001.3210), an officer
of the Department was required to visit every state child at least once every three
months to ensure their treatment was satisfactory. Archived departmental records
show that reports and updates produced by departmental officers following their
visits would be provided to the Director as appropriate.
81. Under section 33 of the Children's Services Act 1965, the governing authority,
subject to the Director, had the sole management and supervision of their
institution and control of the appointment of all persons employed at such
institution. The Children's Services Act 1965 made it clear that the governing
authority of each institution was responsible both for its actions and omissions and
for those of any of its staff. It was no longer possible, in establishing liability, for
the governing authority or person in charge of the institution, to say that they did
not know about the misdeed or omission or to say they had instructed staff not to
do such things.
82. Under regulation 14 of the Children's Services Regulations 1966
(QLD.0062.001.3252) the governing authority of an established or licensed
institution was required to report promptly to the Director any illness or injury
suffered by a child in care resident in such institution.
83. Under regulation 23(9) of the Children's Services Regulations 1966
(QLD.0062.001.3252) every complaint received and punishment inflicted in
respect of a child was required to be recorded in a punishment book which could
be produced to the Director or an officer of the Department on demand.
c) The discipline of alleged offenders
84. Provision of child welfare services in Queensland was governed by the State
Children Act 1911 (QLD.0062.001.3210) until 1965. It was supplemented by the
Children's Protection Act 1896 (QLD.0062.001.1664) to provide for the
protection of children.
85. Section 1 of the Children's Protection Act 1896 (QLD.0062.001.1664) made it an
offence for any erson with the custody, control or charge of a child to ill treat,
/.h1 M#wv .. Maj:lltfy•n
Page 18 of33
">
Witness
STAT.0542.001.0018
neglect, abandon or expose such a child to unnecessary suffering or injury to its
health. Persons found guilty were subject to a fine or up to 6 months in jail.
86. Section 69 of the Children's Services Act 1965 provided that a child carer shall
not ill treat, neglect, abandon or expose the child in a manner likely to cause
unnecessary suffering or to injure his physical or mental health in any way.
Penalties under the Act included 12 months jail.
87. Regulation 23 of the Children's Services Regulations 1966 (QLD.0062.001.3252)
laid down standards for the punishment of children for misbehaviour or
misconduct. Regulation 23 indicated that one of the available punishments for an
offence listed in the regulation could be corporal punishment. It stated that
corporal punishment could be inflicted only by the person in charge or under his
direction and only by an 'approved' leather strap applied over a child's ordinary
cloth trousers; and that when inflicted, there shall be a suitable witness and
punishment register. Corporal punishment was not to be inflicted on girls or in the
presence of other children and was to be used as seldom as possible.
88. The Children's Services Act 1965 and Children's Services Regulations 1966
(QLD.0062.001.3252) created an offence for a child carer to ill-treat, neglect,
abandon or expose a child in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or to
injure his physical or mental health in any way.
89. The Commission oflnquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions
found that the punishments administered at the Orphanage were excessive by any
standard and did not accord with the Regulations in place under the relevant
legislative framework (Forde report p.3) (QLD.0062.001.3272).
90. Persons in authority at the Orphanage and elsewhere failed to act on complaints
made by children at the Orphanage (Report of the Children's Commission (p.12)
(QLD.0062.001.1036).
91. The Commission of Inquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions
found that there was no one available for children to report mistreatment, to and
that attempts by the nuns to intervene were futile, and in some cases ma
on .l171a.-,v.. . Maje~yan
Page 19 of33
Witness
STAT.0542.001.0019
resulted in repercussions for the nuns themselves (Forde report
p.4)(QLD.0062.001.3272).
92. The Inquiry noted that the response to allegations of sexual abuse made in the
1940s demonstrated a general unwillingness to accept that a man in a position of a
priest could behave improperly. The Inquiry found that this attitude and poor
responses to allegations of abuse, put children at risk of abuse (Forde report p.5)
(QLD.0062.001.3272).
93. The Inquiry was of the view that no child at the Orphanage could have faith that a
complaint of abuse would be received with compassion and concern (Forde report
p.5) (QLD.0062.001.3272).
Question 3
In the period that Neerkol was in operation, details of any complaints of child sexual
abuse provided to the Director of State Children's Department (as it then was), or its
officers, including "Mr Patterson" or "Mr O'Connor".
94. Searches of this Department's archived records and of the State Archives were
unable to locate any details of complaints made to a Mr Patterson or a Mr
O'Connor. Archived departmental documents refer to a Mr Timothy O'Connor
and a Mr J Patterson, however, it is uncertain whether these are the same
individuals to which the Royal Commission believes complaints may have been
made.
95. Archived departmental documents include correspondence addressed to and
composed by a Mr Timothy O'Connor between the period of 1966 and 1980.
96. Correspondence refers to Mr Timothy O'Connor as the District Officer for
Rockhampton.
Page 20 of 33
STAT.0542.001.0020
97. The correspondence is mainly addressed to the Director or the relevant Sister in
Charge of St Joseph's Orphanage.
98. The letters and memos relate to matters including: children unable to be accepted
into St Joseph's; notifying the Director of changes in the Sister in Charge due to
holidays or illness; correspondence about a misplaced license for Neerkol (which
was subsequently found); providing an Inspector of School's report to the
Director and the purchase of school supplies or a vehicle.
99. Archived departmental documents include correspondence addressed to and
composed by a Mr J Patterson between the period of 1915 and 1953.
100. Correspondence refers to Mr Patterson as the Inspector, State Children's
Department for Rockhampton.
101. The correspondence is mainly addressed to the Director or the relevant Sister in
Charge of St Joseph's (previously Meteor Park Orphanage).
102. The letters and memos relate to matters including: maintenance and building;
notifying the Director of changes in the Sister in Charge due to holidays or illness;
transfer of children; purchase of school supplies; request and refusal for a
domestic science teacher to be provided by the State; evacuation plans and the
provision of identification discs for children during the war.
103. A substantial number of archived records of the department were destroyed when
the basement of the Brisbane headquarters of the department, where they were
stored, was flooded in the 197 4 floods.
/if.14~ ... ~~j6Z~yan
Page 21 of33
~ Witness
STAT.0542.001.0021
Question 4
When and in what circumstances did the Queensland State Government first become
aware of allegations of child sexual abuse at Neerkol during the period 1993 to
present?
104. Broken Rites Australia is an organisation made up of people who have
experienced abuse. Broken Rites began researching abuse cases in 1993. Broken
Rites launched its national telephone hotline in September 1993. Callers included
former residents of St Joseph's Orphanage, Neerkol.
105. I am informed that Broken Rites referred these callers to the Queensland Police
Service.
106. In Queensland, community concern about the quality of care provided to children
resident in institutions grew following the 1996 Wood Royal Commission into
Police Corruption in New South Wales, the 1996 West Australian Government
Select Committee on Child Migration and the 1997 National Inquiry into the
separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their families.
107. In May 1996, in response to revelations emerging from the Wood Royal
Commission a Child Sexual Abuse Hotline was established in the then
Department of Families, Youth and Community Care by the Government of the
day. Over 10 weeks approximately 300 calls were received, of which, nearly 70%
of callers reported being abused when they were children. However the number
of callers who resided in institutions as children was not recorded.
Question 5
During the period 1993 to present, the steps taken by the Queensland state
government on becoming aware of allegations of child sexual abuse at Neerkol
including details of any Ministerial statements, statutory appointment, report,
commission of inquiry, media releases, acknowledgement or apology or other
assistance provided to former residents and the reasoning behind any action taken by
the Queensland state government.
.. ,/JJJ !11,:h:V .. Majelli{jiyan
Page 22 of 33
Witness
STAT.0542.001.0022
108. On 13 September 1996, Borbidge Government Minister for Families, Youth and
Community Care, Mr Kev Lingard MLA, made a statement
(QLD.0062.001.0370) in Parliament regarding alleged abuse of children resident
at St Joseph's Home, Neerkol. He stated that calls had been received from former
residents ofNeerkol to the Child Sexual Abuse Hotline alleging physical and
sexual abuse. He advised Parliament that he would refer all matters to the
Children's Commissioner when that position was created and that all allegations
had been referred to the Queensland Police Service for investigation.
Subsequently, charges were laid relating to the sexual assault of residents. There
was extensive media coverage of the treatment of children at Neerkol.
109. In November 1996 the Children's Commission was established and immediately
started receiving and documenting complaints from former residents ofNeerkol.
110. In February 1997, Task Force Argos was established by the Queensland Police
Service, targeting paedophiles. The task force investigated matters relating to the
institutions ofNeerkol, Silky Oaks Haven for Children, Nazareth House, Church
of England Boys Home, Enoggera and Petford Training Farm.
111. During 1998, former residents of Westbrook Training Centre, Karrala House,
Silky Oaks and Neerkol commenced legal action against the State. The then
Department of Families, Youth and Community Care and its predecessor agencies
were named in 4 Supreme Court writs relating to Neerkol alleging institutional
abuse, of which one alleged sexual abuse at Neerkol. Two of the writs, which
were both filed in 1997 had 37 and 8 plaintiffs respectively but the plaintiffs did
not take any further action in those matters beyond the initial filing of the writs,
which did not specifically allege sexual abuse.
112. In relation to the one claim alleging sexual abuse, the State pleaded a limitation
defence to the action due to its historical nature and this was accepted by the
Supreme Court and by the Court of Appeal. The judgement dismissed the
complainant's application for an extension of time on the basis that the defendant
was prejudiced and unable to prepare a defence because many of the persons
.ar?k~. Maj;l~yan
Page 23 of33
STAT.0542.001.0023
associated with the institution had either passed away or were incapable of giving
evidence.
113. The defence of such claims, using a limitation defence, is the position adopted by
the State of Queensland in accordance with the State's published response to
recommendation 39 of the Forde Inquiry. It provides that any claims for
monetary compensation would need to proceed through normal legal processes,
and in accordance with the State's model litigant principles.
114. In relation to the claims brought forward from former residents ofNeerkol, the
Sisters of Mercy, who operated Neerkol, decided to settle the claims out of court.
I am informed that in their Deed of Settlement with the claimants, a condition was
included requiring the existing actions against the State be discontinued.
115. In 1998 the then Children's Commissioner, Mr Norman Alford, made a public call
for an inquiry into the allegations of the abuse against children in Queensland
institutions, stating that the revelations about abuse at Neerkol had led to
numerous allegations of abuse from former residents of other institutions. In
response to Mr Lingard' s undertaking in Parliament on 13 September 1996
(QLD.0062.001.0370) to refer matters to the Children's Commission, the
Commission prepared a report, dated July 1998, that detailed the allegations of
abuse of former residents at Neerkol and outlined government child welfare
policies (QLD.0062.001.1036).
116. Following a change of government, Premier Peter Beattie and Anna Bligh,
Minister for Families, Youth and Community Care and Minister for Disability
Services made media announcements, in July 1998, indicating that Cabinet would
soon consider the best mechanism to investigate the allegations of abuse.
117. On 4 August 1998, Anna Bligh, Minister for Families, Youth and Community
Care and Minister for Disability Services tabled in Parliament the Children's
Commissioner preliminary report on allegations of abuse of former residents of St
Joseph's Orphanage at Neerkol, Rockhampton, in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s
(QLD.0062.001.1036). The Commissioner noted in his covering letter that a
comprehensive report could not be completed due to legal proceedings c rrently
. /.JJJ,A; 44-vv:. Majet16?an
Page 24 of33
Witness
STAT.0542.001.0024
before the courts; and limitations on the Commission's ability to access
departmental records due to the confidentiality provisions of the Children Services
Act 1965. The Minister acknowledged that the department's policies, practices
and training needed to be reviewed so that the Children's Commission and its
associated tribunals could properly fulfil their primary role as an external review
mechanism. The confidentiality issues were rectified by subsequent amendment.
118. Another key document was the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children from their Families. The report by the National
Separation Inquiry entitled Bringing Them Home (QLD.0062.001.0512) was
tabled in Federal Parliament on 26 May 1997 and focused on the forcible removal
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people under Aboriginal Protection Acts.
The report contains claims of abuse and neglect suffered by children in
dormitories on Aboriginal reserves across Australia, including Queensland. It also
contained 54 recommendations, of which two related to reparations for victims
and affected families, communities and descendants. The recommended
reparations included an apology, a guarantee the policies wouldn't be repeated,
measures of restitution and rehabilitation, and monetary compensation.
Establishment of the Commission of Inquiry into abuse of children in Queensland
institutions (the Forde Inquiry)
119. It was identified by government that the form of any inquiry needed to consider
the sensitive nature of the topic, the need for natural justice, other criminal and
civil actions that may be underway, accessibility for people, the need for the
inquiry to address broad systemic issues and the cost. A Commission oflnquiry
established under the Commissioner of Inquiry Act 1950 was the option selected
as it provided a quasi-judicial style that equipped the Inquiry with a range of
powers that reflected the seriousness of the allegations. It also reflected that the
issues were complex and involved an examination of past conduct, often of a
criminal nature.
120. The Terms of Reference for the Inquiry were to investigate whether there had
been abuse, mistreatment or neglect of children in Queensland institutions
established or licensed under the State Children Act 1911(QLD.0062.001.3210),
Children's Services Act 1965 or Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (State Childre Page 25 of33
.. ~/JJ1 /&;4x/.. Majella~an Witness
STAT.0542.001.0025
or registered under the Infant Life Protection Acts 1905 prior to being licensed
under a State Children's Act.
121. The Terms of Reference covered 159 licensed govermnent and non govermnent
institutions. These institutions included orphanages, family group homes,
industrial schools and detention centres operating during the period 1911 to 1999.
122. Under the Terms of Reference not all forms of out-of-home care were covered. It
excluded unlicensed institutions; foster care; institutions providing care for
children with disabilities; holiday and respite care facilities; hospitals or mental
health institutions in which children with acute or chronic health problems were
admitted for treatment; and dormitories on Aboriginal reserves (not licensed under
the State Children's Acts).
123. On 13 August 1998, the Commission of Inquiry into Abuse of Children in
Queensland (the Forde Inquiry) commenced.
124. On 8 October 1998, the Governor in Council made the Commissions of Inquiry
(Forde Inquiry- Evidence) Regulation 1998 (QLD.0062.001.1670). This
regulation enabled persons who were subject to the provisions of the Children's
Services Act 1965 and the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 to provide information that
would otherwise be subject to secrecy provisions, to the Forde Inquiry.
125. The Queensland Govermnent funded an interim counselling service to support
victims who came forward to the inquiry. This service continued after the inquiry.
Outcomes of the Forde Inquiry.
126. The Report of the Forde Inquiry was tabled in Parliament on 8 June 1999 and
made 42 recommendations relating to contemporary child protection practices,
youth justice, service provision and redress for past abuse.
127. The Queensland Govermnent accepted and over time fully implemented 41 of the
42 recommendations. The Government response (QLD.0062.001.1601) was
published in August 1999. The recommendation not accepted related to the
.. /.h1Awh-v.. Majel;~ o/an
Page 26 of 33
/,,t-" .. / Witness
STAT.0542.001.0026
Government's decision to construct a new youth detention centre at Waco!
(Recommendation 14).
128. Oversight of the Government's implementation of the recommendations was
provided by the Forde Implementation Monitoring Committee (FIMC) which was
required to report annually to Parliament until 2001.
129. Recommendation 39 stated that "the Queensland Government and relevant
religious authorities [should] establish principles of compensation in dialogue
with victims of institutional abuse and strike a balance between individual
monetary compensation and provision of services".
130. The Government's initial response to Recommendation 39 committed it to
establishing a trust fund to provide services to support former residents in
rebuilding their lives. The Forde Foundation Trust Fund was established and the
Government contributed $4.15 million to the fund over time. The Government's
published response to Recommendation 39 was also that any claims for monetary
compensation would need to proceed through normal legal processes.
131. On 25 August 1999, following the Forde Inquiry, a joint statement of apology by
the Queensland Government, Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane, Anglican
Archbishop of Brisbane, Moderator of the Uniting Church in Australia
(Queensland Synod), Commissioner and Territorial Commander, Australia
Eastern Territory of The Salvation Army, President of the Baptist Union of
Queensland, and the Conference President of the Churches of Christ in
Queensland was tabled in the Queensland Parliament to those harmed in
Queensland Institutions during their childhood. A function was held at Parliament
House by the Minister for Families, Youth and Community Care, for former
residents to deliver the apology.
132. In August 1999, the Queensland Government commenced funding to
Relationships Australia to provide counselling and support services to former
residents through the Aftercare Resource Centre.
./.l.!1.~~ Maj:11#an
Page 27 of33
STAT.0542.001.0027
133. In September 1999 the Queensland Government commenced funding to Project
Micah (later known as Esther Centre) to provide advocacy and support to victims
of institutional abuse. Esther Centre is responsible for the facilitation of the
Historical Abuse Network (HAN), which at that time was known as the Network
of Former Residents.
134. In December 2000 the Queensland Government released the closed report on
Neerkol and Karrala House by the Forde Inquiry (QLD.0062.001.3272). This
report had been withheld until certain criminal proceedings had been finalised.
The Inquiry found that the State had failed in its duty of care of the children
resident at Neerkol.
13 5. In September 2001 regular meetings between representatives of HAN and the
Director General, of the former Department of Families commenced.
136. In October 2001 the Queensland Government provided funding to HAN (auspiced
by Esther Centre) to provide a formal peer network for former residents of
Queensland institutions.
137. In 2001and2004, the Lost Innocents Report (QLD.0062.001.1672) and Forgotten
Australians Reports were presented to the Australian Senate. Both reports
advocated strongly for an apology to Forgotten Australians and Former Child
Migrants, as well as for concrete measures to acknowledge the harm suffered by
children whilst in care.
138. In August 2003 a ceremony took place to mark the dedication of the Neerkol
memorial (funded by the Federal Government as part of package of measures
responding to the Lost Innocents: Righting the Record report
(QLD.0062.001.1672) recommendations).
139. In September 2003 the first annual Queensland Child Protection Week
Remembrance Day event took place funded by the Queensland Government.
/JJJJ.u~ ... F~·laRyan
Page 28 of33
Witness
STAT.0542.001.0028
140. In December 2004, an event was held to mark the commemoration of the child
statue in Emma Miller Place, Brisbane to acknowledge the experiences of former
residents. The statue was funded jointly by the Brisbane City Council and
Queensland Government and designed in consultation with former residents.
141. In 2006, the Esther Centre was renamed as Lotus Place and in May 2006 the
opening of Lotus Place at South Brisbane took place. Lotus Place is a dedicated
one stop shop support service and resource centre for Forgotten Australians and
Former Child Migrants funded by Queensland Government. A total of 48 British
child migrants were admitted to St Joseph's Home, Neerkol between 1950-51 and
1958-9.
142. On 24 March 2010 a statement of Apology by the Queensland Government was
made to former children under state care who were inappropriately placed in adult
mental hospitals.
Question 10
Redress
The nature and scope of any redress (compensation, counselling, apologies or other
support) offered to the victims and their families.
143. In August 1998, the Queensland Government established the Commission of
Inquiry into the Abuse of Children in Queensland (the Forde Inquiry) to
investigate whether there had been abuse, mistreatment or neglect of children in
Queensland institutions established or licensed under the State Children Act
1911(QLD.0062.001.3210), The Children's Services Act 1965 or Juvenile Justice
Act 1992 (State Children's Acts) or registered under the Infant Life Protection
Acts 1905 prior to being licensed under a State Children's Act.
144. The terms of reference covered 159 Government and non-Government institutions
licensed under the State Children's Acts. These institutions included orphanages,
family group homes, industrial schools and detention centres operating during the
period 1911to1999.
/J/lkd-ri/. ... ~•&Ryan
Page 29 of 33
STAT.0542.001.0029
145. The terms of reference were primarily contained in institutions licensed under the
State Children's Acts because the allegations and police investigations related to
the institutions that were licensed under these Acts.
146. The Forde Inquiry made 42 recommendations to Government, of which 41 were
accepted and have been fully implemented over time.
14 7. Recommendation 39 related to establishing principles of compensation in
dialogue with victims of institutional abuse and striking a balance between
individual monetary compensation and provision of services. The Queensland
Government's initial response, in August 2000, was to contribute $1 million
dollars to establish a Trust Fund, the Forde Foundation Trust Fund, to provide
services to support former residents. Additional amounts were contributed to the
Forde Foundation by the Government of $1 million in 2001, $900,000 in 2005
and $1.25 million in 2006.
148. Under Recommendation 40, the Queensland Government established and funded
counselling and services to support victims of abuse.
149. In 2001, in response to the Forde Inquiry Implementation Monitoring Committee
final report, the Government committed to address past disadvantages associated
with childhood institutional care through the provision of improved access to
Government services.
150. The Government's final response to the recommendations to the Forde Inquiry's
report was to establish a $100 million dollar redress scheme to provide ex-gratia
payments to former residents who were victims of childhood institutional abuse or
neglect. As the redress scheme was a direct response to recommendation 39, the
eligibility criteria to the redress scheme was aligned with the Terms of Reference
of the Forde Inquiry.
Establishment of the Redress Scheme
151. The Governments' September 2001 Commission of Inquiry into Abuse of
Children in Queensland Institutions Progress Report was to commit to ongoing
dialogue with victims, give consideration to the issues of priority to access the
01~ ... ~Ila Ryan
Page 30 of33
Witness
STAT.0542.001.0030
provision of ongoing funding to further develop counselling, support, advocacy
and pier support services.
152. The Historical Abuse Network (HAN) was established in 2002 as a network of
people who had experienced abuse in institutions, detention centres and foster
care in Queensland. HAN's primary aim was to advocate for ongoing dialogue,
with Government, regarding the Forde Inquiry recommendations.
153. Between 2002 and 2007 HAN actively advocated for the Government to review
its decision relating to Recommendation 39 of the Forde Inquiry.
154. In 2004, HAN developed a Charter for Redress which included the call for
financial compensation, provision of services and public reconciliation events.
The Charter was provided to all Members of Parliament and Members of the
Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee for consideration.
155. In response and in view of the Government's position that monetary
compensation was a matter for the courts, investigation of an alternative option to
redress past abuse and disadvantage through funded priority access to essential
services was undertaken.
156. The Redress Scheme was announced by the Queensland Government as part of
the 2007-08 Budget, as the Government's final response to the Forde Inquiry.
The Government allocated up to $100 million dollars to provide ex-gratia
payments to former residents who were victims of childhood institutional abuse
and neglect.
157. The redress scheme opened on 1 October 2007 and closed on 30 September 2008.
158. The Scheme was administrative in nature and provided two levels of redress: a
Level 1 payment of$7,000 to applicants who met basic eligibility criteria, and a
Level 2 payment of up to $33,000 for eligible Level 1 applicants who were
assessed as having suffered more serious harm. Level 2 applications were
assessed on a case-by-case basis by an independent panel of experts against the
STAT.0542.001.0031
Release indemnifying and releasing the State from current or future legal action
for matters which fall within the scope of the scheme. The scheme included
funding of up to $500 per applicant for legal advice on the Deed of Release with
payments made directly to solicitors for the applicants.
159. The Redress Scheme included funding for application assistance provided by
MICAH and Relationships Australia to establish people wishing to make an
application for a redress payment.
Eligibility for the Redress Scheme
• The Redress Scheme was established in response to Recommendation 39 of the Forde
Inquiry. Consequently, the eligibility criteria for the scheme was limited to people
who: experienced abuse and neglect as children in institutions covered by the terms of
reference of the Forde Inquiry; and were released from care had turned 18 on or before
31December1999.
160. The restrictions of the age, eligibility and cut-off data criteria were developed in
consideration of:-
(a) the age cut-off of 18 was consistent with the definition of a child in the Children
Services Act 1965;
(b) the cut-off date of 31 December 1999 was considered an appropriate point of
delineation between past legislative regimes (which were the subject of the Forde
Inquiry) and the introduction of the Child Protection Act 1999; and
( c) the legal barriers associated with bringing personal injuries proceedings against
the State were likely to be less for younger people exiting care after 1999,
Closure of Redress Scheme
161. The Redress Scheme closed on 30 September 2008.
162. Over 10,200 applications were received by the closing date with more than 7 ,400
applications being assessed as eligible for a Level 1 payment under the Scheme.
Of those a further 3 ,481 applications were assessed as qualifying for a Level 2
payment of between $6,000 and $33,000 on the basis of more serious harm.
Page 32 of33
~ Witness
STAT.0542.001.0032
163. As at 30 June 2010, over $100 million dollars had been allocated under the
Scheme, with more than $51.76 million provided in Level 1 payments, $46.8
million in Level 2 payments and $3.46 million in legal expenses for eligible
applicants.
I make this statement of my own free will believing its contents to be true and correct.
Dated at Brisbane this E?, £ day of March 2015.
/kf,//;/ar.-v. ... Maj&Ryan
STAT.0542.001.0033