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 The State Children Act 1911 (QLD.0062.001.3210) repealed the Orphanages Act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established under any repealed enactment were deemed to be established for their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