To each of our RCbbc Blog Readers who have-are-will submit an NRS Submission, it pleases me that I’m reaching a point in my Submission Drafting that my Counsellor & I will soon send it off to another agency. This may sound complex, yet it’s what a fair amount of the CSA Surviving-Victims require.
Although I had earlier been in contact with some of these same offices previously, I was approaching things in the wrong order. I now understand why some avenues suggest a ‘top down’ mentality, yet for the rest of us we’re happier with a ‘grassroots’ approach.
Approaching the end of June 20, it’s the rollover of another year on many levels. ‘Mid-year madness’ is a common title given to Sales, states-of-mind, emotions, shortest seasonal day (Winter Solstice), School holidays have begun, unexpected losses of home isolation & COVID19’s impact is expected to continue; contrasting with Australia & New Zealand being awarded the Womens’ World Cup 2023 by FIFA! So, life goes on.
In this Mid-year madness, we’re pleased to be bringing our growing audience (currently 1,422) the 2nd + 3rd in a series of 6 Editions of Anne Waldherr’s Unbiblical series. These may be suitably timed, as each of RCbbc’s releases have seen a global leap in readers of our site. There have been occasional messages, which allow conversations to be shared.
As seen by our planned eNews, there have been notable jumps in visitors + countries, related to the varying Topics. Since our last eNews, we have covered:
The understanding of a ‘Ripple effect’ of CSA Predators, continues throughout society. The resources to challenge this issue cannot be easily sorted. These pieces of data will continue to be shared. The imbalances that the church-military-politics have had for millenniums cannot easily be changed. These will be an unexpected form of ‘Let Honor Stainless Be’, by demanding justice for ourselves and our effected families.
Feedback Received – re: NRS
Anna Waldherr (avoicereclaimed & ‘unbiblical’) : It is good to know such a Scheme has been established. You may at times stand a lonely vigil. But the information you provide is essential.
This newsletter outlines arrangements for the second anniversary review of the National Redress Scheme (the Scheme).
Should you find any of the content in this newsletter confronting or distressing, remember support is available.To find out more, go to www.nationalredress.gov.au/support.
Second anniversary review
The Scheme was established on 1 July 2018. With the second anniversary approaching, an independent review is being conducted to consider how the Scheme is working for survivors and other stakeholders.
The review will undertake consultations from July 2020 until September 2020. Consultations will initially be in the form of a submissions process and a survey.
The review is wide-ranging and will consider the implementation and operation of the Scheme, how survivors experience the Scheme, access to Redress Support Services and to counselling and psychological care as well as financial arrangements.
An independent reviewer, Ms Robyn Kruk AO, will undertake the review. Ms Kruk was the Independent Assessor of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce and is currently the Chair of Mental Health Australia. In 2018, Ms Kruk was appointed as an Officer of the Order of Australia for distinguished service to public administration, including mental health reform.
To help us improve the Scheme, we encourage survivors, advocates and other stakeholders to share their experiences of the Scheme by making a submission to the review. It is critical that survivors are at the centre of the review and the review captures what matters to them most.
Information about how you can make a submission to the review will be provided at a later date.
Royal Commission understands that making contact with us can be very challenging for survivors.
Speaking out can be an important personal step, but it can also bring up mixed feelings such as relief, elation, disappointment and grief. Sometimes it can bring up strong emotions about the abuse you suffered, like anger, distress and fear.
It may be the first time you have told anyone about the abuse, or it may bring back memories which are very hard to deal with. If someone has supported you in the past you may find you may want to connect with them again for help.
Alternatively, if you need help to share your story or to cope with the feelings you are experiencing, a list of support services who can assist you is provided in this booklet.
After Australia’s July 2020 weekend of ‘Black Lives Matter’, ABC’s Afternoon Briefing had Patricia Karvelas interviewing US Prof. Goff (sp.?). For many Survivours of Child Sexual Abuse, much of these debates have carried the same passion as what we’ve felt throughout our lives. Ignorance & turning attention away from are even spoken against in the bible. School lessons. Child care. Sports practice. School camps. A pattern forming…?
News of Jeffery Epstein also forms ‘front page news’, including parts of the British Royal Family, upper levels of US & International society. At the targeted end of this game are low income, low SES (socio economic status) population & young adults/teenagers. Suitably, Australia’s Judicial System has begun to publicly deal with more allegations following 2013-17 CARC. Highest of these has been George Pell. Sound familiar…?
From the topics presented since 2013, this RoyalCommBBC.blog has aimed to republish noteworthy journalism, factually-based info & ‘the other side of the coin’ POV. We don’t claim to be a Journalistic Reference to prove legal data; it isn’t to be used as an excuse or a bet; links can be arranged with suitable portals, where need be; as are related channels, following earlier BBC involvement of later ‘guilty’ Nudgee College staff. A later post will be arranged re: queries of Overlack. Seems too surreal…?
The Premier of NSW, Nathan Rees made an apology to the ‘Forgotten Australians’ on 19 September 2009. On 16 November 2009, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made a formal apology in the Federal Parliament to the ‘Forgotten Australians’. 500,000 people, including over 7000 former British child migrants were part of the apology, which acknowledged the many instances of neglect and abuse that was the result of their time in government institutions, church organisations, orphanages, homes or foster care. The plight of the ‘Forgotten Australians’ has been identified in three Senate committee inquiries, with each making unanimous calls for an apology.
FAIRBRIDGE FARM SCHOOL, MOLONG
The NSW Migration Heritage Centre supported the Fairbridge Heritage Association Inc.’s heritage project to record the experiences of former British child migrants at the Fairbridge Farm School, Molong, which documents a chapter of Australian migration and settlement history.
The Fairbridge organisation operated child migration schemes for underprivileged British children in Canada, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and Australia from 1912 until 1980. Parents were persuaded to sign over legal guardianship of their children, on the promise of a better life in these Commonwealth countries.
The isolated, rural Fairbridge Farm School near Molong in New South Wales operated from 1938 until 1974 during which time about 1000 boys and girls passed through the school and were trained to be “farmers and farmers’ wives”.
Many of those children, now aged in their 60s and 70s, are now talking for the first time about their experiences. Loneliness was rife. Food was often inedible. The standard of education was limited. Disturbingly, more than half of the 39 oral histories recorded by the Fairbridge Heritage Association Inc. document physical and sexual abuse. All the oral histories have been lodged with State Library of NSW and are accessible for research purposes.
The oral histories were subsequently incorporated in David Hill’s book The Forgotten Children and some of the accounts also appear in a documentary entitled The Long Journey Home screened on ABC Television on 17 November 2009.
Vincent McMullen came as a 7½ year old from Dumbarton in Scotland to Fairbridge in February 1961. He came to Australia as part of a later Fairbridge ‘Family’ scheme, with his mother and father, four brothers and two sisters and spent a total of 4 ½ years at Fairbridge. This interview was recorded in Vincent’s home in Sydney on February 6, 2006.
Stewart Lee came as a 4 year old from Manchester to Fairbridge with his three brothers, 11 year old Syd, 9 year old Graham and 8 year old Ian Bayliff, arriving in Sydney in March 1955. Stewart was to stay at Fairbridge for 13 years. This interview was recorded in Gloucester House at Fairbridge Farm Molong on February 9, 2006.
Eddie Baker came as a 10 year old from Winchester to Fairbridge arriving in Sydney in May 1948. He stayed 6 years at Fairbridge. This interview was recorded in Eddie’s house in regional New South Wales February 8, 2006.
Malcolm Field came as a 10 year old from England to Fairbridge with his 14 year old brother Laurie, arriving in Sydney in December 1952. His younger brother Keith, aged 6 and sister Jane, aged 5, were already at Fairbridge having been sent out in 1951. Malcolm was to stay at Fairbridge for 7 years. This interview was recorded in Malcolm’s home in regional New South Wales on February 17, 2006.
Margaret Watt left England for Fairbridge as a 10 year old with her 12 year old twin sisters Joy and June and 13 year old sister Rosemary in 1940. With the outbreak of the Second World War the party of 30 children sailed via Canada and was to be the last group of child migrants to Fairbridge for another seven years. Margaret left Fairbridge after 6 years in 1946 to be with her mother who had followed the children out to Australia. This interview was recorded in Margaret’s home in Sydney on January 31, 2006.
Scottish Margaret McLauchlan left Northumberland and came to Australia as 5 year old with her 6 year old brother Frank in 1938. Originally they were sent to the Northcotte children’s home in Victoria but were moved during the Second World War with 38 other children to the Fairbridge Farm School at Molong in 1944. Margaret left Fairbridge as a 17 year old in 1949. This interview was recorded in Margaret’s Sydney home on February 8, 2006.
Gwen Miller came as a 10 year old from Grimsby to Fairbridge with her 7 year old sister Kath and her 4 year old brother Reg and 9 year old Doug, arriving in Sydney in June 1952. An older brother, 14 year old Hughie, joined them at Fairbridge in July the following year. Gwen stayed at Fairbridge for 7 years. This interview was recorded in Gloucester House at Fairbridge Farm School Molong on February 9, 2006.
Peter Bennett came from Suffolk to Fairbridge as a 6 year old in 1940 with his 9 year old sister Marie. With the outbreak of the Second World War Peter and Marie sailed with 28 other children via Canada in what was to be the last group of child migrants to Fairbridge for another seven years. Peter was to stay at Fairbridge for 10 years. This interview was recorded in Peter’s home in Sydney on February 15, 2006.
Joyce Drury came to Fairbridge as a 10 year old from Birkdale, Lancashire arriving in Sydney in June 1938. She was to stay at Fairbridge for 7 years. This interview was recorded with Tony Myers at Joyce’s home in regional New South Wales on February 21, 2006.
Dennis Piercy came to Fairbridge as an 8 year old with his 5 year old brother Barnie, arriving in Sydney in May 1955. Dennis stayed at Fairbridge for 9 years. This interview was recorded at Gloucester House, Fairbridge Farm School, on March 3, 2006.
The newsletter gives an update on the National Redress Scheme (the Scheme). It covers the First Interim Report of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme and recent data on application progress.
The newsletter 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.
First Interim Report of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme
The First Interim Report of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme was released on 3 May 2020. The report is available here. The report includes 14 recommendations concerning the implementation of the Scheme. The recommendations are now being considered.
The Joint Select Committee was established in September 2019 to inquire into and report on:
the Australian Government policy, program and legal response to the redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, including the establishment and operation of the Commonwealth Redress Scheme and ongoing support of survivors
any matter in relation to the Royal Commission’s redress related recommendations referred to the committee by a resolution of either House of the Parliament.
Application progress as at 24 April 2020
As of 24 April 2020, the Scheme:
had received 6,716 applications
had made 2,093 decisions, including 1,751 payments totalling over $136.8 million
had made 370 offers of redress, which applicants have six months to consider
was processing 3,843 applications
had 859 applications on hold, including 526 because one or more institution named had not yet joined.
1.1The Joint Select Committee (Committee) was formed to inquire into the Australian Government policy, program and legal response to the redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, including the establishment and operation of the Commonwealth Redress Scheme and ongoing support of survivors. 1.2The Committee is required to table its final report in May 2022.1.3Section 192 of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 (the Act) provides that the relevant Minister must conduct a review of the National Redress Scheme (NRS) as soon as possible after the second anniversary of NRS operation. The Committee notes that the NRS commenced 1 July 2018, and as such, the review must commence prior to 30 June 2020. 1.4Early in its deliberations, the Committee resolved that its first priority should be to review the early experience of survivors with the NRS and use their evidence to identify priority issues that should be addressed by the second anniversary review. 1.5It is the Committee’s expectation that the Minister for Families and Social Services and the Department of Social Services (DSS) accept the findings in this interim report and ensure that the matters identified are incorporated into the terms of reference and design of the second anniversary review as a matter of priority.
Objectives and Scope1.6On 2 April 2020, the Committee announced that it would table an interim report into the implementation of the NRS to reflect the evidence received so far by the Committee.11.7It remains the Committee’s intention that this report will inform the work and priorities of the legislated second anniversary review of the NRS which is to commence after 30 June 2020.1.8The Committee has resolved to finalise a second interim report before tabling its final report in May 2022.
1.9On 13 February 2020, the Committee issued a media release announcing initial public hearing program. Due to matters associated with COVID-19 on 16 March 2020, a separate media release was published noting the hearing program would continue as advised via teleconference.1.10Since the establishment of the Committee, six public hearings have been held. Transcripts can be found on the Committee website and a list of witnesses that appeared is at Appendix A.1.11The Committee invited submissions to be received by 29 May 2020, noting that submissions could be received after that date. The Committee also informed people that confidential and name withheld submissions would also be received. To date the Committee has received 20 submissions, which are listed at Appendix B.
1.12Chapter 1 details the scope of the activities conducted to undertake the interim report and includes discussion of the Committees aims for the interim report. 1.13Chapter 2 provides a background to the development of the NRS, and discusses how the government has implemented the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse. Consideration of previous parliamentary committee findings is also included in this section. 1.14Chapter 3 examines the NRS application process. The three components of an offer of redress including monetary payment, counselling services and direct personal responses are also examined.1.15Chapter 4 considers NRS participation and examines factors that may be influencing a survivor’s decision on whether to apply for redress through the NRS. The number and rate of institutions joining the NRS is also discussed. 1.16Chapter 5 discusses the appropriateness of funder of last resort provisions within the Act.1.17Chapter 6 outlines areas that the Committee believe need to be examined in order to maximise the opportunities of the second anniversary review to deliver improved survivor experiences and outcomes from the NRS.1.18Throughout the interim report the Committee has included quotes that refer to the NRS as the scheme or redress scheme. The Committee has not amended these references.1.19Two appendices accompany this report and provide details on submissions received and a list of witnesses who appeared before the Committee. 1.20A copy of this report, transcripts of hearings and submissions received are available on the Committee’s website at www.aph.gov.au/redress.
The bench also said the jury should have entertained a doubt around Pell’s guilt with respect to each of the individual offences. Because there was reasonable doubt, the High Court quashed all of Pell’s convictions and ordered verdicts of acquittal be entered in its place.
It was not enough that the jurors found the complainant and witnesses to be believable, credible and honest.
Pell’s legal team, led by Bret Walker SC (Senior Counsel), argued it was “literally impossible” for the complainant to have been abused on the day in question and claimed a “formidable list” of factors and events providing Pell with an alibi.
Pell’s first appeal was shot down on a majority of two to one. This ‘botched decision’ by Victoria’s highest court left Pell in prison for an additional seven months for crimes he never committed.
Walker SC argued on behalf of Pell before a full bench of seven High Court judges in Canberra. Walker SC claimed that just because the complainant was believable, it shouldn’t discount other evidence placing Pell’s conviction in doubt.
The High Court decision does not deny the validity of the complainant, a former choir boy who testified he and a friend were sexually assaulted by Pell. Walker SC and Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Kerri Judd QC, agreed the choirboy was a credible, believable witness.
However, all seven High Court judges, Australia’s finest legal minds, decided in Pell’s favour.
Pell learned of his success from inside his isolated cell at Barwon Prison, home to some of Australia’s most dangerous criminals.
Although the MeetUp Group ‘Brisbane Abuse Survivours Network’, now seems to have closed – we’re experiencing larger + wider impacts with this RCbbc Blog. The growth, interaction + time required by these RCbbc Blog pages continue to outweigh any more time + costs taken by running a MeetUp Group as well.
We’ve now achieved at least 1,124 Subscribers, the ongoing impact + support is filling in a much-needed gap. Particularly direct families continue to be a cause of many surviving-victims not coming forth, I’m now in a position that I’ve recently had a 3rd body start guiding one of my parents through my CSA mess. It’s not a solution, yet it does feel relieving to have an unresolved misunderstanding taken off my shoulders. Please seek help, through a Counsellor!
Secrecy has-does-will have a power over our lives. It always will, yet we each have that same control over it. This is where Predators/Abusers/Facilitators have taken advantage of their assumed targets, typically manipulating their unawareness of their own rights (maturity, trust + secrecy). ‘The Power of Secrets’ in PsychologyToday begins by stating that Secrets can divide people. “They deter relationships. And they freeze development on individuals.”
Power of Secrets contains titles of: HOW SECRETS SABOTAGE, SHATTERING THE TRIANGLE, ‘DON’T TELL ANYONE OUR BUSINESS’, BREAKING FAMILY RULES, ROOM FOR REHEARSAL, FROZEN FAMILIES + RESPECTING TRANSITION TIMES. So enthralling are these, I’ll try to repost the entire page ASAP.
From the book The Secret Life of Families by Evan IrabetBlack, Ph.D. Copyright 1998 by Evan Imber-Black. Reprinted by permission of Bantam Books, New York, New York. All rights reserved. AmazonSpringerkobo
PHOTO (COLOR): Secrets are kept or opened for many reasons, from self-serving abuses of power to the protection of others. (Unavailable, yet text provided)
PHOTOS (COLOR): Family secrets are destructive and all families have some secrets from the outside world. Resist the temptation to handle them at transition times such as weddings, graduations, and new beginnings. (Unavailable, yet text provided)