Catholic Church paid $276m to sex abuse victims in Australia

The Catholic Church paid $276 million to victims of alleged sex abuse committed by priests in Australia over decades, an investigation says.

Critics say the system of payments is unfair and not all victims receive the same opportunities or compensation.

Since 2013, the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has been holding hearings on alleged Catholic Church sex abuse of children – mostly boys.

“Catholic Church authorities made total payments of [AU]$276.1 million [US$213million] in response to claims of child sexual abuse received between 1 January 1980 and 28 February 2015, including monetary compensation, treatment, legal and other costs,” the statement from the commission said on Thursday.

Catholic Church sex abuse Australia Pope pedophilia

On average, sex abuse victims received AU$91,000 in compensation, it stated.

The Christian Brothers religious community “reported both the highest total payment and the largest number of total payments $48.5 million paid in relation to 763 payments at an average of approximately $64,000 per payment,” the document said.null

The report added that the Jesuits “had the highest average total payment at an average of approximately $257,000 per payment (of those Catholic Church authorities who made at least 10 payments).”

“Even though the church has paid $270 million and it took a long time to get its act together to do that, there’s no doubt the system of paying people and compensating them is best done independently of the church through a national redress scheme,”the Church’s Truth Justice and Healing Council chief executive, Francis Sullivan, told AAP.

Sullivan said that not all victims have equal opportunities or compensation.

“Some congregations pay far more than others. Some dioceses pay far more than others. It’s still not a fair system,” he added.

It’s a picture of great unfairness and inequity between survivors across Australia depending on where they placed their claim,” Helen Last, CEO of In Good Faith Foundation, which represents 460 abuse victims, told Reuters.

The commission was established in 2013 to investigate instances and allegations of child sexual abuse in Australia. This month’s report says that between January 1980 and February 2015, 93 Catholic Church authorities received claims of child sexual abuse from 4,445 people.

It managed to identify 1,880 alleged perpetrators, who included 597 (32 percent) ‘religious brothers,’572 (30 percent) priests, 543 (29 percent) lay people, and 96 (5 percent) ‘religious sisters.’ At least 90 percent of the alleged perpetrators were male, according to the report.

Sexual abuse scandals have long dogged the Catholic Church. In 2014, the Vatican said 3,420 credible accusations of sexual abuse committed by priests had been referred to it over the past 10 years, and that 824 clerics were defrocked as a result.

In January, Pope Francis called for “zero tolerance”towards sex crimes against children, and condemned it as “a sin that shames” both the perpetrators and those who cover up for their crimes.


RETRIEVED http://hangthebankers.com/catholic-church-paid-sex-abuse-victims-australia/

Redress application process

Would you like support?

Redress Support Services

Free and confidential Redress Support Services are available to help you.

If immediate assistance is required contact:

In an emergency, please call the police on Triple Zero (000).

Find a Redress Support Service

Apply for redress

To apply for redress contact the National Redress Scheme:

RETRIEVED https://www.qld.gov.au/community/getting-support-health-social-issue/support-victims-abuse/national-redress-scheme/redress-application-process

Recent reads …


Here’s just some of our highest viewed pieces:

learning-the-facts-is-the-first-step-to-preventing-child-sexual-abuse
FACT SHEET ON MEMORY: THE TRUTH OF MEMORY AND THE MEMORY OF TRUTH
ANTHONY KIM BRISBANE BUCHANAN – Sentence
Elite Sydney private schools face sexual abuse suits
Are You Overlooking or Rationalizing Abuse? That’s Denial!
Dubious BBC Staff

FACT SHEET ON MEMORY: THE TRUTH OF MEMORY AND THE MEMORY OF TRUTH


DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEMORY

⚫️ Neuroscientific and other research confirm that memory is not a single entity and that different kinds of memory are stored in different parts of the brain.
⚫️In broad terms there are two types of memory. Explicit memory is conscious and can be expressed verbally, while implicit memory is largely unconscious and non-verbal.
⚫️Explicit memory requires focused attention to consolidate while implicit memory is encoded outside of awareness.
⚫️Both explicit and implicit memory also include subcategories. For explicit memory, these include declarative (also called `semantic’) and episodic (also called `autobiographical’ or `narrative’) memory.
⚫️Declarative memory (i.e. explicit memory type 1) is the only subcategory of memory that can be deliberately called up, i.e. consciously remembered. It conveys pieces of information to others and has been described as `cold’ for this reason (Levine, ibid: 15-16).
⚫️By contrast, episodic (i.e. explicit memory type 2, also called `autobiographical’ and `narrative’) memory can be described as `warm’ and textured (Levine, 2015: 16). Episodic memory `emerges somewhat spontaneously’, and can be `infused with feeling tones and vitality’ (Levine, ibid: 16-17). E.g. `I remember when I first saw the lake…’ It is less conscious than the `shopping list’ type of declarative memories but `more conscious…than implicit memories’. It forms `a dynamic interface between the `rational’ (explicit/declarative) and `irrational’ (implicit/emotional) realms’ (Levine, ibid: 16-17).
⚫️The subcategories of implicit memory can be described as `emotional’ and `procedural’. Emotional memory ( i.e. implicit memory type 1) puts us in touch with what we are feeling, helps us signal our feelings and needs to others, and is `experienced in the body as physical sensations’ (Levine, 2015: 22; emphasis added). It may also be elicited by an environmental cue such as a smell, sight or sound.

⚫️Procedural memories (i.e. implicit memory type 2.)`are the impulses, movements, and internal body sensations that guide us through the how to of our various actions, skills, attractions, and repulsions’ (Levine, 2015: 25). They help us carry out tasks automatically. Procedural memories may be further subdivided into three groupings of learned motor actions, hardwired emergency responses, and response tendencies of approach or avoidance and attraction or repulsion.
⚫️Everyday use of the word `memory’ (but also in psychology textbooks; Brand & McEwen, 2014) generally refers only to conscious, explicit memory which ignores the ongoing importance and various forms of implicit memories (Levine, 2015).

MEMORY, BRAIN DEVELOPMENT, AND PROCESSES

⚫️Implicit memory develops before explicit memory, as conscious recall depends on development of the hippocampus in the second year of life.
⚫️Conscious (explicit) memory, conscious thought and verbalisation are privileged both by health professions and by society in general (Levine, 2015).
⚫️Implicit, pre-verbal memories do not `disappear’ when the hippocampus develops but are stored in different neural networks and can manifest across the life cycle.
⚫️Memory is not `a discrete phenomenon, a fixed construction, cemented permanently onto a stone foundation’ (Levine, 2015: 2). Rather it is complex and involves different types and subcategories which function in different ways.
⚫️Memory is impacted by the processes of encoding, consolidation, and retrieval. Encoding (or formation) describes the original neural laying down of memory. Consolidation (or retention) describes the stabilisation and storage of memory (a process involving the hippocampus) after encoding. Retrieval (or recall) describes the remembering, revival or restoration to consciousness of memory first encoded and then consolidated.

⚫️`When memories are retrieved, they are susceptible to change, such that future retrievals call upon the changed information’ (Rydberg, 2017:94). Research substantiates that `[m]emory is a reconstructive process’, and that `no memory is a literal account, nor an exact replica, of an experience or event’ (Goodman-Delahunty et al., 2017: 46).

TRAUMATIC MEMORY

`REMEMBERING BY RELIVING’: TRAUMA, REPETITION & BEHAVIOURAL REENACTMENT

⚫️Current neuroscientific research confirms that trauma is often remembered through behavioural enactment (van der Kolk, ibid). Traumatised people are frequently unable to speak about their experiences and are `compelled to re-enact them, often remaining unaware of what their behaviour is saying’ (Howell, 2005: 56-57).

⚫️Remembering `in the form of physical sensations, automatic responses, and involuntary movements’ (Ogden et al, 2006: 165) is characteristic of trauma: `Traumatic memories may also take the form of unconscious `acting-out’ behaviours’ (Levine, 2015: 8).

⚫️The need to resolve traumatic experience can fuel repetitive and compulsive actions and behaviours (`Unresolved experiences tend to haunt us until they can be finished’; van der Hart et al, 2006: 246).
⚫️The relationship between repetitive, problematic behaviour and unresolved trauma needs to be recognised so that trauma survivors can be better supported towards recovery.

REMEMBERING & `FORGETTING’

⚫️While our brains are wired to remember experiences important to survival, under some circumstances survival may be assisted by `forgetting’ (Levine, 2015; Freyd & Birrell, 2013; Silberg, 2013).
⚫️As children depend on adult caregivers, `forgetting’ traumatic experiences can have survival value in preserving the attachment bond: `[F]orgetting abuse is a way to preserve the attachment relationship when the abuser is someone the victim is dependent on’ (Freyd & Birrell, 2013: 58); `Disruptions in memory may be adaptive… if trauma and caregiving emanate from the same source’ (Silberg, 2013: 12).

⚫️The impacts of stress on the brain, the different neural networks in which memory is stored, the differences between conscious, explicit and unconscious, implicit memory, and the capacity of the mind to compartmentalise and/or detach from experience (`dissociate’) help explain the phenomenon of `recovered’ memory (i.e. delayed onset memory recall).

RECOVERED MEMORY (DELAYED ONSET MEMORY RECALL)

⚫️The term `recovered memory’ describes sudden intrusion of memories which were previously unavailable: `[r]ecovered memories are those memories that have been forgotten for a period and then remembered’ (Barlow et al, 2017: 322).

⚫️Research confirms that trauma can disrupt memory in numerous ways and at any one or more of its various stages (‘If recovered memory experiences appear counter-intuitive, this is in part due to misconceptions about trauma and memory’;Brewin, 2012:149).
⚫️Delayed recall of traumatic, implicit memory usually occurs spontaneously, without warning, triggered by a prompt or cue. In trauma, these recovered memory/ies were previously dissociated (i.e. unassimilated and unintegrated) because they were too overwhelming to process.
⚫️The phenomenon of traumatic amnesia and subsequent delayed conscious recall of traumatic events is well documented in diverse populations (e.g. war veterans, Holocaust survivors, and survivors of natural disasters) as well as adult survivors of childhood trauma (van der Hart et al, 1999; Elliott, 1999).
⚫️Largely because of the founding of the so-called False Memory Syndrome Foundation in 1990 -on the premise that people were wrongly accused of sexual abuse on the basis of recovered memories -the term `false memory’ has come to apply solely to the context of recovered memories of child sexual abuse rather than other contexts as well.
⚫️Research establishes that recovered memories are no less likely to be reliable than explicit consciously recalled memories which were never forgotten (Barlow et al, 2017,ref. Chu et al, 1999; Williams, 1995; Dalenberg, 2006).
⚫️In the current period there Is a contrast between the `fantasy’ or `sociocognitive model’ (which proposes that recovered memories result from cultural/environmental influence and/or therapist suggestion) and `the trauma model’ (which notes the intrusion of memories unable to be assimilated because the experiences were too overwhelming (Vissia, Giesen., et al. 2016). The `trauma model’ contends that traumatic implicit memory/ies were dissociated or `split off’ from conscious memory and are recovered when they intrude.
⚫️Memories recovered in therapy represent a small proportion of the total recovered memory reports (Eliott, 1997; Wilsnack, Wonderlich, Kristjanson, Vogeltanz-Holm, & Wilsnack, 2002 cited in Dalenberg et al, 2012) Recovered memories tend to occur without warning and can certainly occur outside of psychotherapy or in its absence.

⚫️Strong, recurrent, and/or disabling, traumatic memories, including delayed onset recall (recovered) memories, may lead the person to become conscious of what they signify. While this experience can be destabilising at first, it can subsequently enable integration of the previously split off (dissociated) memory and pave the way for trauma recovery.

`BETRAYAL BLINDNESS’

⚫️’Betrayal blindness’, or ‘unawareness and forgetting’ has survival value. It stems from the concept of `betrayal trauma’, which assists understanding of how the `forgetting’ of early life abuse serves to preserve the attachment bond to caregivers on which children depend (Freyd, 1991) It also has wide application to a range of contexts: `Although there are various ways to remain blind to betrayal, perhaps the most effective way is to forget the event entirely’ (Freyd & Birrell, 2013: 58).
⚫️The `survival strategy’ of betrayal blindness applies to relationships in which dependence of some kind fosters the need to preserve the relationship and can `trump the need to take protective action’ (Freyd & Birrell, 2103, p.56)
⚫️’Not seeing’, `not knowing’ and `not remembering’ traumatic experience is not confined to children (`Adults are also prone to a kind of magical thinking …to gain a sense of control over overwhelming events’ (Chu, 2011: 34).

⚫️While `forgetting’ the trauma of betrayal (i.e. conscious explicit absence of recall as distinct from implicit memory of traumatic experience) potentially assists survival it can also threaten health if the trauma is not resolved.

THE DYNAMICS OF DISCLOSURE

⚫️The process of disclosing traumatic memory (i.e. when able to be spoken about, which involves a different area of the brain and depends on a number of contingencies) `is highly dependent on the reactions of others’ (Freyd & Birrell, 2013: 126).
⚫️`{M]ost people who experience childhood sexual abuse do not disclose it until adulthood, and many may never tell at all’ (Freyd & Birrell, 2013, p.123).
⚫️Disclosure is often not a single event, but rather a process affected by social context, issues of safety and the potential for adverse repercussions.

⚫️’Nondisclosure, delayed disclosure, and retraction are particularly likely in cases in which the perpetrator is close to the victim’ (Freyd & Birrell, 2013, p.123).

THE RELIABILITY OF MEMORY AND THE ROLE OF SOCIAL CONTEXT

⚫️Depending on the context and conditions, both remembering and `forgetting’ (i.e. in the explicit, conscious sense because `the body remembers’ [Rothschild, 2000] at an implicit level) can be healing and/or destructive
⚫️Social contexts and power disparities, as well as neurological factors, affect the encoding, retrieval, and reliability of memory: `[s]ocial power not only dictates what is appropriate to say out loud, but even what it is appropriate to remember’ (Barlow et al, 2017: 320).
⚫️’Both internal and external processes operate to keep us unaware’ (Freyd & Birrell, 2013: 95); `To the extent that it is not safe to disclose externally, it is not safe to know, or disclose internally, to oneself’ (ibid: 116).

⚫️’Contrary to the widespread myth that traumatic events are seldom if ever forgotten, much trauma is not remembered until something happens to bring it to mind’ (Brewin, 2012: 165).
⚫️Current research establishes that memory is not fixed and unchanging and that all memory -implicit and explicit -undergoes a degree of reconstruction. This does not mean that either is necessarily unreliable.
⚫️Research has shown that recovered (implicit) memory can be as accurate as continuous i.e. (explicit, conscious) memory (Dalenberg et al. 2012): `Memories that are recovered – those that were forgotten and subsequently recalled-can often be corroborated and are no more likely to be confabulated than are continuous memories’ (Chu, 2011, p.80 citing Dalenberg, 1996; Kluft, 1995; Lewis, Yeager, Swiza, Pincus & Lewis, 1997); also Dalenberg et al, 2012).
⚫️Numerous legal cases in various parts of the world have demonstrated that recovered memories have been verified and corroborated by independent evidence, admissions of guilt by perpetrators, or findings of guilt by courts. https://blogs.brown.edu/recoveredmemory/case-archive/legal-cases/

⚫️’The cognitive processes that underlie everyday memory are the same processes that lead to errors in processing traumatic memories…Like any memory , the availability of memory for traumatic events depends on how it is assessed’ (Barlow, 2017: 323, referencing Sivers, 2002).
⚫️Assessment of the reliability of memory must take account of a range of factors. These include the social context of memory, the possibility of betrayal trauma, the survival value of (explicit, conscious) `forgetting’, the impact of power disparities, and the centrality of emotional and physical safety around recall and disclosure.

To read the full paper The Memory of Truth and the Truth of Memory – Different Types of Memory and the Significance of Trauma; click here

To read our four summary Fact Sheets on Memory – Classification, Understanding Memory, Understanding Traumatic Memory, Recovered memory, click here

Logo from document. (2020).

RETRIEVED https://www.blueknot.org.au/Portals/2/Fact%20Sheets%20Info/Fact_Sheet_Memory_and_truth.pdf

Recent surges …

WordPress Statistics (Retrieved 29.11.20)

Unsurprisingly (or suprisingly), depending from which POV it is viewed. These leaps in reviews may often indicate that there is greater interest in the topics covered. This melds well, with compared with 2020’s yearly stats (as follow). Notable leaps in ‘Statements’ (comments from other ‘Old Boys’/past BBC students) have a majority of comments, from either past students-family-relations. Through these, a consistent pattern of implicit learning to inherently have the occurrence of ongoing CSA remaining ‘hidden’ in targeted victims often remaining silent. As those who dared raise any objection were indirectly un-enrolled/removed-from-the-system, the multi-layered, hegemonic CSA structure continued. Ironically (?) it was our first female PM Julia Gillard (as pictured), who was able to call the essential Royal Commission (CARC 2013-17), from which we’re now in a ten year NRS.

Taking an ongoing interest in AK Buchanan, out of the moment, 2020’s current stats already show that there is a core interest in:

  • Taking an ongoing interest in AK Buchanan, out of the moment, 2020’s current stats already show that there is a core interest in:
  • Statements
  • Dubious BBC Staff
  • Other GPS Cases
  • Nick Lloyd’s awaited Trial

Preparation of final NRS stage

Having completed my initial NRS Experiences and Impact Statements (NRS Fact Sheet, 2019), it initially felt ironic that the most nerves I had felt was actually at the final stage: Apologies. Advice that has given earlier indicates that description of each individual instance, together with personal impacts from each of their ongoing effects supports the evidence throughout the Instances and Impact Statements. While I had previously had the wrong POV, that completing Instances and Impact Statements, my work would be over – taking a wider POV, it’s now clearer that each section confirms and complements related matters throughout the NRS Submission.

NRS icon

As exciting as all this may sound, the journey of its lodgement isn’t over. knowmore (Community Legal Service) is another body involved in the National Redress Scheme. There are also Senior Staff within Blue Knot, who are able to offer their advice into the fine-tuning/tweaking of the order, expressions, focus and editing of Preliminary NRS Submissions.

7-ways-family-members-re-victimize-sexual-abuse-survivors, 2018.

In working my way through some of the updated NRS data, I came across the following list of possible example list of impacts of CSA experiences (Describing Impact of your Application, 2019). In closer focus, it began to both horrify my and reminded me in the instance(s) that I’m drafting up a list of requested apologies. I also realise that I am ‘but one fish in the sea’ of previous CSA Assaults. Although I feel fortunate for the beneficial discussions I’ve had, my deepest request/suggestion goes out to any other Surviving-Victim of CSA: Seeking Help can be done anonymously! When you’re ready to take things further, Expert Guidance is available.

describing-impact-your-application (2019)
NRS banding

REFERENCES

Overlapping Institutions 2

Churches and Schools

Some Private Schools in NSW are supported outright by Religious bodies, also sharing traits with many of Brisbane’s CSA experiences (GPS). Coupled with the ‘Teacher-swapping’ habitus of GM Cujes and his involvement in the CARC, there’s been withdrawal of School Seniority from Catholic Schools and Change-of-Names. The ‘Christian Brothers’ (seriously, not satire) had withdrawn their church leadership (ABCNews 2019), appointing laymen to these Headmaster roles. As there had already been suspicious reputations of secrecy and cloister (ABCnews 2019 & BRA 2020). Thankfully the separations into ‘good’ Patients and ‘bad’ Patients extended to occasional medical checks at local hospitals. In keeping with canon law to remain completely anonymous to outside authorities (King 2019). Ironically the Patients who made the majority of the ‘bad’ group, were Catholic Christian Brothers. Seemingly, like persona forced themselves to flock together leading to give a negative impression on nurses who were used to serving a wider public audience.

Brother Lawrence Murphy (right) abused John Lawrence (sitting) while he was at the Castledare Boys’ Home.(Supplied: District Court Of WA). Image retrieved from Google search : Catholic _ icon/image.

Unsurprisingly, George Pell had perjured himself in his Defense of Gerald Ridsdale. As immortalised by the following photo, Pell would later be acquitted by an overruling Australian High Court (2020). Potentially on legal-technicalities, the multiple Judges overruled a previous Guilty Verdict of Pell. Now in the Catholic’s Vatican, Pell may be enjoying his escape from judicial trials yet as any CSA Victim-Survivour knows, their actions will leave their mark until the end.

George Pell (right) with now-disgraced priest Gerald Ridsdale in 1993

Ironically, GM Cujes (although denouncing CARC allegations, 2016) achieved Headmaster of Trinity College. Previously St Patrick’s College, later renamed Trinity Catholic College by the Catholic Church. Changing names (persons, businesses & institutions) is frequently associated with desires to create distance from historic events of the previous namesake. Psychology, Justice and other fields acknowledge these facts. Unsurprisingly, GM Cujes had preferred to be referred to by his middle name whilst Headmaster of BBC (1990-1996). Under Trinity appointment, Graham appears missing as their preference. AK Buchanan (‘Butch’) used similar choices between his hunting-playgrounds (BBC & IGS): (A) Kim at BBC and Anthony K at Ipswich Grammar School.


REFERENCES

National Redress Scheme – Newsletter


National Redress Scheme – Update

21 October 2020
This newsletter gives an update on the National Redress Scheme (the Scheme). It covers the launch of new Scheme resources, a second anniversary review update and recent data.

The update contains material that could be confronting or distressing. Sometimes words or images can cause sadness or distress or trigger traumatic memories, particularly for people who have experienced past abuse or childhood trauma. 

Support is available to help you if you need it. To find out more, go to www.nationalredress.gov.au/support.

If you need immediate support, 24-hour telephone assistance is available through:


Improvements to the National Redress Scheme

The Australian Government is committed to continually improving the Scheme for survivors.

Announced in the 2020-21 Budget, a further $104.6 million will be invested in the Scheme to improve and stabilise the operation of the Scheme and better support survivors to ensure the Scheme meets their expectations.

Redress Support Services play a critical role in providing timely, trauma-informed and culturally appropriate support to survivors. This includes providing emotional support for survivors, as well as practical support to complete an application and interact with the Scheme.

The department is aware that several Redress Support Services are experiencing increased demand. This funding will minimise the number of people applying without support and ensure that appropriate assistance is available to survivors.


Institutions

The Scheme is continuously working with institutions that have been named in applications or identified by other means to encourage them to join and participate in the Scheme.  To date the Commonwealth, all state and territory governments and 288 non-government institutions covering around 53,300 sites such as churches, schools, homes, charities and community groups across Australia are participating.

A further 117 institutions have committed to join and finalise on-boarding by no later than 31 December 2020.

For the latest information about institutions, visit our website: https://www.nationalredress.gov.au/institutions

National Redress Scheme Review Feedback Study

The National Redress Scheme review is seeking responses from survivors and support services, carers and advocates to a feedback study on experiences with the Scheme and especially with the application process.

The findings from this study will inform the findings of the review and are therefore very significant.  The study is being conducted by the University of New South Wales and is confidential.  The review needs your input to inform its findings and recommendations to improve the operation of the Scheme.  There is one for survivors and the second is for survivor supports including advocates, carers, family members and support services.  Please have your say.  The study is open until 23 October 2020 and links to the study are as follows:


Application progress as at 9 October 2020

As at 9 October 2020, the Scheme:

  • had received 8297 applications
  • had made 4670 decisions, including 3826 payments totalling approximately $315.1 million
  • had made 615 offers of redress, which are currently with applicants to consider
  • was processing 3215 applications.

Find out more

To find out more about the Scheme, go to www.nationalredress.gov.au or call
1800 737 377 from Australia or +61 3 6222 3455 from overseas.


RETRIEVED 21st Oct 2020, via eMail

‘Statements’, Visible, CARC & RCbbc

It should be made clear, that from the range of ‘Statements’ collected, that most “Institutions” overseen by the 2013-17 CARC continue the traditions of:

  • Hegemony,
  • Class-dynamics (IE low-0SES),
  • Layered-secrecy (‘secret societies’)

Numerous others exist, yet these have been highlighted in the Admin of this RCbbc Blog. Through the inclusion of the UK’s Visible Program, further explanations are able to be shared. Hopes continue that similar Australian/NZ bodies may join RCbbc’s goals. The current NRS is Australia’s victim-survivours to seek Redress 2018-28. ABC have already released provocative Series on 4Corners (St. Kevin’s) + Revelation (Catholic Church).

‘Free-balls’, until 2002?

Until 2001/2 there appears to have been no Government controls over most Private Schools. Known as “Accreditation of Non-State Schools”, until the introduction of the 2006 Act, all that appears to be available was the ‘Education (General Provisions) Act 1989 (Qld)’. Memories of Buchanan and Bradley seemingly rubbing the noses of their victims, in BBC’s non-inclusions of the 1989 Act were experienced by many. Each of these Victims do have NRS Compensation-Support-Apologies available to them (minimum).

Of particular note in Qld Gov’s Objectives of the 2017 version: “to maintain public confidence in the operation of non-State Schools”. How much does this seem defensive, of the decades + decades of abhorrent ‘kiddie-fiddling’ which ran riot in our ‘Elite Schools of Excellence’?


The following processes, must now be provided to all students:

  • a. the reporting, by a student to a stated staff member, of behaviour of another staff member that the student considered inappropriate
  • how the information reported must be dealt with
  • the reporting, by a staff member to the School’s Principal, of harm of which the staff member is aware, or the staff member reasonably suspects to have been caused to a student under 18 years
  • the reporting of harm or suspected harm by the Principal to a relevant State Authority.

Available via LIBRARY (pdf) …

CARC. (2017). Case Study 34: INQUIRY INTO THE EXPERIENCE OF BRISBANE GRAMMAR SCHOOL AND ST PAUL’S SCHOOL IN QUEENSLAND.

Education (General Provisions) Act 1989. Queensland Parliament. The Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel.

Education (General Provisions) Act 2006. Queensland Parliament. The Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel.

Education (General Provisions) Act 2017. Queensland Parliament. The Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel.