Chapter 5 - Why abuse occurred and was able to continue
We had no one to turn to...No
one believed us, not the teachers at school, not the police, no one.[245]
5.1
When faced with graphic descriptions of abuse and
assault is it difficult to conceive that such actions were able to continue
unchecked and unpunished. It is also apparent that abuse continued for many
years: it was not an isolated, one-off occurrence, rather it was endemic in
some institutions over long periods of time. The following discussion looks at the
lack of public and official responses to allegations of abuse; the part played
by staff employment practices in allowing abuse to continue; and reactions to
disclosures of abuse.
Stories only recently coming to light
5.2
In recent years more and more care leavers have come
forward and told their stories. In some cases the stories go back to the 1930s,
1940s and 50s. This is a result of a number of factors. First, the media has
taken up stories of specific groups, for example, child migrants with the Leaving of Liverpool television
documentary. Public interest was also heightened through various State
inquiries such as the Forde Inquiry in Queensland.
In addition, there have been a number of high profile events overseas including
the establishment of an inquiry into abuse in homes in Ireland,
the Canadian inquiry into residential care and the law suits brought against
the Catholic Church in the United States.
Care leavers have also become a more cohesive group with the establishment of
various lobby and support groups.
5.3
As a result of these factors, the move to tell stories
of abuse while in care and to seek redress has gained momentum. However, while
at first glance, it would appear that stories of abuse have only recently come
to light, this has not been the case. Reports of inquiries into care and
conditions in institutions have appeared regularly over the decades. The
Committee has referred to some previous inquiries in chapter 1 and the apparent
lack of action taken to implement the findings of some of those inquiries. One
problem was that these inquiries focused on the problems of a particular
institution, for example, the inquiry into the Parramatta Girls Home after the
riots of 1941 rather than institutional care in general.[246]
5.4
Media reports have also appeared regularly. The
Committee received copies of a number of articles which exposed abuses in
various homes. The Sun in 1957, for
example, reported the escape of four girls from Lynwood Hall who detailed the
harsh conditions at the home. There was also extensive coverage of the riot at
Parramatta Girls' Home in 1961. However, in general there seems to have been a reluctance
by the press to report abuse allegations in orphanages.
The Goulburn Penny/Evening Post's editors, reporters and
staff all knew of the terrible happenings in this orphanage [Gill Memorial
Home] and even though they received letters, signed and unsigned, they
suppressed it all. After I left the orphanage, I wrote a letter to this paper,
outlining the activities within the orphanage. I received no response apart
from a reply that to publish such a letter would be bad for the Salvation
Army's money appeal.[247]
Such inquiries seemed to
localise the problem as being the behaviour at a particular institution. There
did not appear to be any extrapolation nor thinking that if such problems are
occurring at one place, could such problems have also been occurring elsewhere.
In any event, such press stories had limited life and little follow up of
stories eventuated.
Culture of the institutions, organisations, churches
5.5
Abuse seemed to be able to thrive and survive in institutions
over such a long period due to a combination of reasons that centred around a
culture of silence, of power and personal control.
5.6
A constantly recurring issue was that children would not
be asked for their view or opinions on anything. If any complaints were made or
issues of abuse raised by children with those whom they considered to be
responsible adults, they were summarily dismissed. The child was not believed
and usually accused of lying - often accompanied by a beating. The maxim that
children should be seen and not heard reigned supreme!
...these unfortunate things occurred over a long period of
time and if you said anything, you were lying and were told that if you said
anything it will be worse. So what were the children to do but to take it. (Sub
324)
5.7
Children were rarely given any information about what
was happening, where they were going, where their parents and siblings were and
when they would next see them.
I was taken back to the homes, I was taken to Lynwood Hall
at Guilford. Again it was traumatic
for me. Just sleeping with bars on the windows and having to line up to go to
the dining room for your meals. Just going back to an institution and being
treated as a number. Living with fear and just wanting to be with my brothers,
sisters and mother. I wish I would know where they were. Why? Why? Why didn’t
anyone in the child welfare department ever feel that it would benefit these
children if they knew why they were where they were! And for what reason. The
system chose the worst possible way to treat these children. I know it wouldn’t
be ideal to tell younger children too much but as teenagers I would have loved
to hear anything, to know why I was where I was at that time. (Sub 271)
Bullying
5.8
Bullying seemed a prevalent part of the culture in many
institutions. It was not just the behaviour of older, more experienced
children, in some institutions it was seemingly sanctioned as a form of control.
Often bullies had a brother or senior staff member as a patron. One care leaver
stated:
Older girls who were favourites of the nuns - women entrusted to
care for us - would bash the younger children when ordered by other members of
the staff.[248]
5.9
Certain children would be given jurisdiction over
groups of younger children for chores or other work tasks, and abuse them in a
manner that replicated the abuse that had been inflicted upon them in earlier
days. Stories were told of these bullies being given the run of the
institution, operating in packs that singled out younger children who they
would brutalise.
5.10
In some institutions there was an almost cyclical
tradition whereby older children would punish and abuse younger children
because that was what had happened to them and it was possibly the only way
they knew how to behave.
I had a letter from the child of a girl I used to bully
fearsomely-I am ashamed of it now. She said that her mother had all sorts of
problems because of her upbringing in Burnside. I think that a
lot of it was because we bullied her. There was never a staff member about and
we could easily find a place to go and bully her. There was no staff member
there to intervene and say, ‘That’s not the way you behave.’ We were only
behaving in the way they behaved to us. We were always told to be grateful for
the care that we were given and that we were so lucky to be there, blah, blah,
blah. ‘Ungrateful wretch’ is a term that I heard regularly.[249]
5.11
There were also many stories of those who were just
bullies throughout their childhood and who assaulted younger or weaker children
in the institution.
5.12
Bullying also continued when children were retained or
employed as handymen or to work on the property after concluding their time in
care and who subsequently abused and assaulted the next generation of children
placed in that institution.
5.13
Other sub-groups within institutions that were
described in submissions were the 'squealers' and the 'pets'. Squealers were
those who reported any misbehaviour or negative comments to the senior staff in
the hope of gaining rewards of extra food or favourable treatment. The pets
were the favourites of a particular staff member and would be shown kindness in
public and given lollies or other rewards. In many cases there was a sexual
motive behind the adoption of a pet.[250]
Isolation
5.14
One particular feature of institutions was their
isolation. They were isolated in the community as buildings and grounds were
either hidden behind high fences and gates or placed at a distance from towns
and other dwellings, for example Bindoon in Western Australia. Often the
younger children were provided with schooling at the home. While older children
where sent to government or religious schools there were very few instances of
children joining in any out-of-school activities except those provided at the
home. For example, the Committee received evidence that students were bussed to
and from school and were thus prevented from having any interaction with other
students.
5.15
In the church homes, the isolation was exacerbated by
the employment of members of church congregations whether they were lay or
religious members. Few 'outsiders' were employed or visited homes. This
resulted in a very closed community with very few external influences being
allowed. There was excessive trust in the 'goodness' of the religious
administering homes and they were allowed to operate virtually without
question.
5.16
A lack of government regulation added to the isolation
of care establishments. The Committee received evidence from witnesses whose
recollections of visits or inspections by welfare officers to institutions and
foster homes are varied. Some care leavers do not recall welfare ever visiting;
others remember being dressed up for the occasion but never spoken to; and
others commented that they did speak with visiting officers but with little or
no result.
Whenever VIP's would attend, Mrs
Davies would have a quarter of an apple and
orange handed out to the girls and we were instructed to make sure we behaved
ourselves whilst they were there or we would be in trouble when they left. It
was the only time we saw a piece of fruit. (Lynwood
Hall - Sub 272)
when welfare came, you never told them about the beatings
etc as you wouldn’t be believed and would just get flogged again. When welfare
did come, they used to dress us up and give us shoes to put on. They would also
put dolls on the beds and cloths on the tables in the dining room. (St Joseph's
Subiaco - Sub 172)
No one came out from the children Services to talk to the
kids as we were all dressed up when visitors came and got back in our yard
clothes again as soon as they left. (Neerkol - Sub 361)
The Child Welfare Department of the day contributed to this
abuse and neglect by its own carelessness in never properly examining the moral
and psychological conditions under which its charges were incarcerated. They
may have examined the physical aspects, perhaps even the health (though
doubtful) aspects; never to my knowledge did they ever question any of their
wards, in private, or for that matter even in the presence of the Brothers,
about the moral actuality of their (for many) miserable existence.[251]
5.17
The lack of inspections allowed poor practices to
continue. When inspections did occur, a lack of in depth investigation also
hampered change. For example, it was quite common that those care leavers who
recollect inspections, indicated that they were always in the presence of
institutional representatives or a foster parent. As VANISH asked, 'How could
they verbalise their concerns or discontent?' If they did they were seen to be
lying, ungrateful or being troublesome and in some cases retribution was swift
and brutal. Departmental officers were often younger social workers with less
developed views who arguably made decisions coloured by their own value
judgements rather than what may have been in the best interest of the child.[252] The
Committee makes further comments in relation to inspections in chapter 7.
Institutional staff and other carers
I can honestly say that none of the [carers] were a good
role model or compassionate, they were an authority figure to be feared and
obeyed at all times or you would be punished severely. (SA, Camberwell - Sub
266)
I found it very much a fact of life that people who were put
in charge of the welfare of others were of two kinds - those who had problems
themselves and were totally unsuited to their work or those who just wanted to
vent their anger or frustration on someone else. (Sub 320)
The so-called staff carers responsible for our wellbeing as
children have a lot to answer for where our care and nurturing were concerned.
It is simply a joke but with a very sad and very dark punchline.[253]
5.18
Dr Joanna
Penglase in her thesis on home children in
NSW from 1939 to 1965[254] examined
staffing in homes and noted that:
the attitudes of staff to children set the tone of the
environment in which they lived...the person in charge has the power of total
disposition of inmates and the power to make their lives bearable or not.[255]
While staff were the key to the treatment and care provided
in a home, in many instances the staff lacked the training and vocation
necessary to provide care for large numbers of children. Homes, particularly in
the non-government sector, were also significantly under funded and offered
only low pay. Thus, they could not attract or keep suitable staff or maintain
an appropriate level of staffing.
5.19
The evidence presented to the Committee provided many views
about those who staffed children's homes. Submissions commented that many
carers were decent people who had the children's best interests at heart.
Reference was made to specific people including cottage parents, religious and
other staff workers whose kindness was still remembered many years later and
who were very good hardworking people doing an extremely difficult job and who
devoted their lives to the care of children over many years. The Committee does
not wish nor intend to denigrate the work undertaken by these good people. However,
more commonly staff were described as authoritarian, cold and uncaring at best,
or brutal, sadistic predators at worst.
Lack of staff education and training
5.20
It is evident that many of the staff employed in homes
were untrained and unsuited to the work they were undertaking. It appears that
often people sought employment in homes when no other employment was available
and homes would turn a blind eye in order to have a vacant position filled. Dr
Penglase interviewed a number of staff for her thesis and found that there were
instances where church Homes in rural areas approached locals 'not necessarily
with any particular qualifications' or accepted people who approached them.
None of the interviewees had received training in any branch of child care or
child welfare, although some had been trained as nurses. She commented 'this is
not surprising, given the period' and includes a comment from the Association
of Children's Welfare Agencies:
there was no award and no training for child care workers, and
agencies weren't keen on an award because costs would go up. Staff didn't
organise either as there was a charitable aura about the work - you were
supposed to be doing it out of love for children, as 'good work', if you were
religious.[256]
5.21
The lack of appropriate qualifications or training was
exemplified in comments by a person who worked as a cottage supervisor:
"Don't ever forget this is an institution." These
are the first words of advice the Superintendent gives me, brandishing his keys
like a sword. "Tie them to your belt and never forget this is an
institution."
Reiby Training
School has called me on the phone this afternoon
to say I have the job as youth worker. The interview was over a week ago and
I'm surprised they called me. I'd thought the interview was a disaster. 'What
are your qualifications for working in a residential institution?" they
asked me. I have none. My Diploma of Teaching another zero. Three years'
training for nothing. I can't even get a teaching position! But surprise,
surprise, here I am, being escorted around my new workplace. Not on duty yet,
just checking out the scene. (Sub 389)
5.22
Wesley Dalmar
also commented that:
The necessity for detailed scrutiny and training of applicants
for jobs involving the care of vulnerable children has only been recognised in
recent years. Our records seem to indicate that in the 1950s and 1960s there
was a belief that references from upright citizens were sufficient to ensure
that suitable people were recruited to do this work.[257]
5.23
In other cases, former residents were employed in the
home once they had completed their time in care:
The Orphanage staff had no training in childcare and knew little
about raising children. Most of them lived in at the Orphanage full-time, and
had little or no time off. Many were themselves graduates of the Orphanage or
others like it doing a status U-turn in their late teens. These attendants - I
struggle to find the right term: 'carers' is not right - were merely doing a
job, arranging the routines to get through each long day with the least trouble
to themselves. With such a large number of children, there was no sense of
purpose other than to keep kids in and lock parents out...[258]
5.24
It appears that government also did not place too great
an emphasis on the need for properly trained staff. For example, under the New
South Wales Child
Welfare Act 1939, training for children institutions' staff was not
necessary:
...the Department of Child Welfare in this period required nothing
other in the way of qualifications. Training of any description is not
specified in either the Child Welfare Act
1939 (NSW) or in its Regulations.[259]
5.25
Dr Penglase
also pointed to the licensing practices in New South Wales
under section 28 of the Child Welfare Act which related to the running of private
homes. She commented that any person could apply to run a home for children,
provided they met the legal requirements of the Act. The licence would specify
how many children could be accommodated, according to the space available,
amenities of premises and number of staff employed. Regulations stipulated the
type of registers that had to be kept.
5.26
As to suitability, an application for a licence to run
a private home, had to be accompanied by a certificate signed by a justice of
the peace, medical practitioner, minister of religion, member of the police
force or 'other responsible person'. The certificate attested to the fitness
and respectability of the applicant, her husband (it was assumed that the
applicant was a woman), family and home. It had nothing to do with their
capability to actually manage a children's home. Dr Penglase noted that 'there
is no reference in the Act or the regulations to any personal or professional
qualifications required of applicants' apart from fitness and respectability
both of which were 'measurable by reference to others deemed respectable
because of their position in society'.[260]
Suitability of staff
5.27
In some homes, the staff provided a level of care and
attention for the children but in others, staff were totally indifferent to the
children's needs. The evidence received points to an emphasis on orderliness,
respect, discipline and 'toeing the line'. Dr
Barry Coldrey
noted 'control was paramount; care was not and the welfare of the child as an
individual was a secondary consideration'.[261] The staff
were for the most part unaccountable for their actions as inspections by child
welfare authorities were infrequent and ineffective. When children did complain
they were usually not believed, even where there was evidence of physical and
sexual abuse.
5.28
The Forde Inquiry also noted that the problem of
staffing was linked to funding. Many homes were run by voluntary organisations
and the organisations received little funding from State governments. As a
consequence, agencies were reliant on volunteers prepared to work long hours in
the homes for minimal remuneration.[262]
5.29
Residential care held a low status and there was an
inability for these institutions to recruit and hold quality staff because of
poor salaries, poor accommodation, unsocial hours and the isolation of the institutions.
Dr Coldrey
wrote:
In the world of idealised fantasy surrounding the carers, and in
view of the pervasive difficulty of recruiting staff for residential duties, it
is clear that some of those hired were maladjusted, anti-social and deviant. In
the isolated world of the institutions it was all too easy for the misfits, the
sadists and the perverts to mistreat and exploit the children. The consequences
were many and severe.[263]
5.30
The personality defects of those attracted to work in
institutions was also commented upon in a number of submissions:
The people put in charge had controlling personalities that
would not be tolerated anywhere else. They only got away with it as they were
dealing with children. (Sub 344)
Although I behaved myself, some of the officers managed to
find fault, because they had a sadistic streak. I'm afraid it is a fact of
life, that the sort of work they were doing attracts people who want to lord it
over others in a vulnerable position. (Sub 284)
5.31
Children in institutions were isolated and vulnerable. Dr
Coldrey noted that 'the scene was ripe for
the penetration of residential care by paedophiles or homosexuals seeking
partners among the older teenagers'.[264]
5.32
Dr Coldrey
commented that many Catholic institutions were poor and relied on the religious
congregations, supported by voluntary lay assistance. The church relied on the
congregate care model while other agencies relied on the cottage system. Abuse
still occurred 'but the risks were less' in the latter model. Brothers found
themselves caring for small boys, a role for which they had neither training
nor aptitude. Nuns, on the other hand, could find themselves looking after
teenage boys with only the assistance of groundsmen. Both situations ran the
risk of physical and sexual abuse.
5.33
Churches also had a tendency to place their least
qualified members on the staff of children's homes. In the religious orders it
was often the unqualified 'lay' brothers and sisters who formed the majority of
the staff of institutions. In addition, Dr
Coldrey noted that:
In addition before the Brotherhood established specialist aged
care facilities for their own members:old, sick, odd and mentally unstable
members were commonly "hidden" in institution communities, where a
limited form of care could be provided by the orphanage domestic and medical
staff. Brothers and sisters who worked long years "on the orphanage
circuit" had low status within their Congregations.
The Brothers and Sisters had little power in their own lives and
a great deal of power over the children. In this atmosphere the abusers
appalling misuse of power was itself a response to the lack of freedom in the
rest of their lives.[265]
5.34
One example of inappropriate staffing outlined by Dr
Coldrey was the case of the chaplain
(1959-63) at St Vincent's Orphanage. The chaplain was
placed in the orphanage and 'it was clear that this priest was an acute
embarrassment to the church authorities throughout the 1950s - if not before.
He had been accused of "spiritual neglect, financial dishonesty, drug
addiction, forgery and sodomy" and had been forced to leave parish work in
1954'.[266]
The Committee heard stories of brothers or other staff being simply moved when
complaints were made about them.
5.35
In some instances, those who entered the traditional
congregations of teaching Brothers did so under duress, through family
pressure, an inability to find employment or the economic stress of the
depression and as a consequence could take their frustrations out on the
children in their care.[267]
5.36
A very graphic and disturbing account was provided to
the Committee of life trained in an order, the influence on carers and the long
term impact on their lives.
During my childhood and teenage years, I spent time in
church run institutions (Catholic Nuns Novitiate and Convents).
My experience of institutional life has left me with health
and wellbeing problems. I was recruited as a child straight from school into a
lifestyle of harsh living conditions, sexual repression, social isolation from
my family and friends and constant humiliating practices aimed at breaking my
will and destroying my self esteem. This Church "sanctification" process caused me much pain and disillusionment until I left the Order penniless,
homeless and disorientated.
I believe some answers to the abuse of children in Church
care may come from the harsh, repressive religious formation of the nun, brother
and priest carers, teachers, pastors and novice mistresses themselves - a cycle
of harshness and abuse.
After much thought I submit my story as a gateway for many
more children and minors in my situation to tell their stories and receive a
hearing. These children including my late father - recruited among hundreds by
the Brothers at 14 years of age and other colleagues who began priesthood
training at 12 years of age...
I am in contact with others who were in Catholic institutions,
many of whom are left scarred by this experience and are now over fifty and
suffering poor mental and physical health, unemployment, insecure housing and
social isolation etc. A significant number prior to leaving were treated in
Catholic psychiatric hospitals with shock treatment, lobotomies and drug
therapy. Others took their own lives or died younger than average from stress
related disorders. Their birth families, husbands, wives and children suffered
also and need to be heard.
The Catholic Church has never publicly researched the
wellbeing of those it recruited, used for unpaid labour and allowed to leave
without support.[268]
5.37
Dr Coldrey
observed that many nuns 'were so personally and educationally deficient that
they were inadequate to care for children'. Both Dr Coldrey and the Forde Report
commented on the large number of Irish nuns (for example, the Sisters of Mercy
at St Vincent's, Nudgee) who were not only untrained but also came from an
environment that experienced harsher living conditions than those of Australia
and who were accustomed to the rigorous discipline of their Order. Most,
although not all, carried this over to the duties in relation to the children
in their care.[269]
5.38
It was often raised that irrespective of these
rationalisations of poor education, lack of training, and foreign and harsh
conditions for carers, they nevertheless were looking after children, and
especially for the religious, they should have been expected to show some
degree of compassion. Many care leavers commented that irrespective of these failings,
they were no excuse for the humiliations, punishment and abuse they received at
the hand of these carers. 'The system' itself could also exercise a form of
control over even the most well-intentioned. These carers could either
toe-the-line or they could leave powerless and disillusioned, as was reported
in a few submissions.
...there were some kind nuns who tried to help us, but they
couldn't do much to change things. (Sub 172)
A hard core of staff stayed forever but otherwise there was
a high turnover and constant shortages of staff. Anyone with any humanity
couldn't bear to stay after they saw what the Orphanage was like and what they
were expected to do to keep the children under control. (Ballarat Orphanage -
Sub 18)
5.39
Dr Coldrey
also commented on the inability of those who did not take part in the abuse to
curb or expose those 'who were doing the wrong thing, those whose behaviour was
illegal or beyond the standards of the day'. He pointed to fear of retaliation
and fear of not being believed as some of the reasons that abuse was not
reported.[270]
Many care leavers commented that they believed staff would just turn a blind
eye to the treatment of children by other staff:
Some of the Brothers and Nuns were nice to the boys, but you
can't honestly tell me that they wouldn't have known what these depraved
cowardly adult men were doing to the most vulnerable of children, and yet they
turned a blind eye to it. When there were too many complaints about a certain
brother...he was just up and sent to another Boys Home to wreck a few more
children's lives. (Sub 359)
I know one woman that I met up with after I got out of Parramatta.
I was invited around to her place; she was lovely. She left, and the reason she
left was that she could not handle seeing what was happening. But she still did
not speak out. I backtracked and went to Hay about 15 years ago, or it could be
longer. I saw someone there who was an officer. I got invited into his home
because I was one of the girls. He was a good officer, but it was his job. What
happened there happened. That was the way it was written. That was the way it
was run. He was from Hay and that was his job, but he did not like what
happened.[271]
5.40
Reports of church officials at least occasionally pointed
to problems with staff in homes. Dr Coldrey
referred to a report from the Superior General of the Christian
Brothers in 1948 about Bindoon which noted
that the staff were very weak. Three years later another report on Bindoon
stated 'this place has a staff of oddities and if they knew I was writing this
they wouldn't much care'.[272]
5.41
Official action against perpetrators of abuse and assault
was rare to non-existent although there were some care leavers who remembered
action being taken.
One carer at the Home...was often cruel to us girls. She would
pick on them, especially on my sister. I remember her beating Marlene
one day and she had bruises all over her. But she was sacked for doing this.
(Launceston Girls Home - Sub 182)
5.42
Mr Peter
Quinn, a former long-time DoCS officer,
advised the Committee that in New South Wales
staff accused of assault would be allowed to resign before a formal inquiry.
I think that the department followed a double standard in
relation to this. Superficially, anybody who was caught assaulting a girl would
be dealt with under the Public Service Act and there would be an inquiry. My
view is that, unofficially, it was permitted as long as you made sure you did
not do it in public. I have been unable to find a single instance of anybody
being charged criminally with assaulting an inmate of an institution, even
though there was provision in the legislation from 1905...Typically there would
be a move towards establishing an inquiry under section 56 of the Public
Service Act, but quite often the person would be allowed to resign ahead of the
inquiry.[273]
However, Mr Quinn
recollected only one incident in the 1960s and one in the 1970s when this
happened. A further example was also given to the Committee by a resident of Philip
House, Gosford, who had been told that a
former House Parent 'was given the opportunity to retire early or he would be
sacked'.[274]
5.43
The lack of training of staff not only meant that there
was minimum of care and nurturing but also staff were unable to help children
who were traumatised or came from an abusive family. This resulted in children
being doubly harmed: not receiving care and not receiving assistance to
overcome their trauma. One care leaver stated:
For me personally and also, I suspect, for a lot of other
women-and, probably, men - staff were not trained to deal with disclosures of
sexual abuse...I was abused by my father on a visiting day and systematically
abused after that and I played out a disclosure but the staff did not know how
to deal with that and did not believe that it had happened. I was labelled a
filthy little wretch and no other children were allowed to play with me,
because it might be contagious. Because I was four or five years old, I
believed them.[275]
5.44
The Forde Inquiry noted that it was not until the mid
1960s that the need for support and attention for children who had come from
dysfunctional families was recognised. The sisters on the staff at St
Vincent's Nudgee, for example, were largely untrained in child
care until the late 1960s, 'a situation common throughout the child welfare
sector prior to that date'. Forde concluded:
The lack of specialist training in child care and adequate
resources, as reflected in low staffing levels, militated against providing a
loving and caring environment for individual children within the orphanage
system.[276]
5.45
While there was increased training of staff from the
late 1960s, the Forde Inquiry found that problems still existed throughout the
1970s. Although there was a move to the cottage system, financial constraints
and the lack of suitable houseparents were common. Excessive use of corporal
punishment and high turnover of staff was noted by Forde. In addition, chronic
under-funding of institutions was reflected in 'staff-child ratios that were
inconsistent with proper care'.[277] The lack of
staff was commented on by one care leaver who noted:
There were 500 children in Burnside at any one
time but not all in one building; they were in about 12 different buildings.
The little kids homes had 30 children with three staff and the older kids homes
had 30 children with two staff. In each case one of the staff members was the
cook and so was not actually involved much in care. There was one boys home
that for some reason had 50 boys and two staff...
There was the occasional kind staff member but because the child
to staff ratio was so ridiculous, kindness was spread fairly thinly.[278]
5.46
The impact that an individual superintendent in a home could
have was shown regularly in evidence to be crucial, with some witnesses noting
that homes were not too bad in certain periods but at other times the regime
was very strict or harsh. One witness stated of a particular superintendent
'they were petrified of the man. That period of time was like a 14year window
in Dalmar. Before and after that superintendent was there, they did not suffer
to the same extent.'[279]
Deception of parents and children
5.47
An especially telling reason why abuse was able to
continue in institutions was the power they wielded in deceiving parents who
knew of abuse not to take the matter further.
I showed my mother when she came for a visit, the welts and
bruises, she was going to complain, but was told by another mother not to as it
would make it worse for us. (St John's
Goulburn - Sub 297)
My mother used to visit us when she could, sometimes with my
Gran. She knew we were being beaten and saw the bruises on us but couldn't do
anything. (Parkerville - Conf Sub 44)
Reaction to disclosures about institutions
5.48
The theme of the forgotten Australians comes very much
to the fore in society's attitude to children raised in care over a period of
many years. If these children were considered at all it was usually in a
negative manner. One care leaver argued this strongly:
It was also my experience of an unfriendly callous society
that looked down on Homeboys as the dregs of society, by-products of a decaying
social fabric, troublesome, illegitimate, and mostly bullied at school, a class
destined to the bottom of the social economic ladder. All quite logical if one
accepts that history is littered with examples of the need to dominate through
suppression and coercion. As such children raised as orphans, and or in
institutions, don’t rate high on the radar of social sympathy. (Sub 401)
5.49
When society does become aware of stories about care
leavers through media stories that are becoming more prevalent, commonly
encountered responses of people to the stories of abuse of children in
institutions have been:
-
the children were better off, lucky to be there
and should not complain;
-
the times were different in 'those days',
standards of discipline were different then and what is now perceived as
'abuse' was then 'discipline'; and
-
these people should get on with their lives.
5.50
It is argued that these responses seek to justify
treating vulnerable children as second class citizens. All children are
entitled to the same standard of care - that a child should be treated
differently on the basis of his or her parents or socio-economic circumstances
at birth is abhorrent. No child should be expected to be grateful for the
opportunity to be abused.[280]
Children were better off in care
5.51
That these children were better off in homes than they
were with their own families or previous life and were lucky that well-meaning
churches, charities or governments had stepped in is a common response to
stories of institutional abuse and neglect. It is arguable that a majority of
children placed in institutions did require care, and were catered for
materially by being fed, clothed and educated, albeit to varying levels and
standards. However, CLAN has asserted that:
But to use this as an argument to deny the effects of
institutional care is to conflate two aspects of the story that do not go
together. Children were emotionally neglected in institutional care regardless
of the intentions of the organisations which set up the institutions, and the
effects of that emotional neglect continue to have profound consequences for
those who experienced it.[281]
5.52
Apparently good intentions do not cancel out bad
outcomes, nor can they be used to excuse blatant abuse of children. This raises
the huge irony underlying the treatment and care of children in institutions.
It is an unanswered and possibly unanswerable dilemma that was raised by many
care leavers. For children to be taken away from parents or family because they
were neglected or uncontrollable or were placed in care by a parent who had
problems coping financially or socially, why did they not receive the improved
life that was the intention behind their removal rather than the treatment they
did in these institutions or homes? If not physically beaten and sexually
assaulted, they were totally deprived and neglected emotionally. The
expectation that the 'well meaning' welfare would provide appropriate care and
nurturing that was not possible in the family or previous environment proved to
be far from the reality.
A child who suffers at the hands of his parents, such that
he has to be removed from them, is all the more entitled to a caring childhood
which attempts to compensate him for that devastating loss. It does not mean
that he should be grateful that he is cared for at all and should therefore put
up with whatever else comes along with that care, subject to the whim of his
carers.[282]
Standards were different then
5.53
The response that times were different and that
standards and people's thinking and understanding of children's needs have
changed, fails to explain or recognise the severity of the documented
behaviours. Corporal punishment may no longer be in vogue. But when do a few
whacks with a ruler become assault? When do the oft documented beltings and
floggings become criminal assault? When did the 'standards of the time' change
that condoned the perpetration of neglect, cruelty, psychological abuse,
sadism, rape and sodomy?
In response to the statement that standards were different "back
then". The acts which it has been alleged to have occurred in institutions
were the very same standard of acts which, if perpetrated by a parent or
relative, would have resulted in the child being taken into state care in the
first place. Parents were not allowed to deny their children education or send
them to work or allow them to mix with known criminals, yet the protection
system did this on a regular basis. Many institutions did not have educational
facilities and therefore, a child who had been taken into care due to truancy,
may well be denied an education even when taken into state care. A child taken
into care because their parents kept them from school in order to work may well
find themselves at the age of eleven or twelve working in an industrial laundry
for a religious order. Finally, a child taken into care because one of his or
her parents was a convicted criminal may well be accommodated in an institution
where they mixed with, indeed lived and worked with, children committed to
state care as a result of criminal activity.
Many of the policies which led to children being placed in
institutions were short sighted and hypocritical in effect. Hindsight will
enable the current generation to understand and accept where past policies were
flawed. Hopefully we can use this information to create better and more
effective child protection systems which do not simply involve repeating past
mistakes.[283]
They should get on with their life
5.54
Many care leavers recounted to the Committee that they
had received little sympathy for the abuses suffered while in care and that
they were usually told that they should forget the past and get on with their
life.
Society continually tells victims to 'get over it', or 'it’s in
the past'. I can assure you that the treatment of those of us who survive will
not be 'in the past' as long as one of us draw breath, for we suffer the
consequences every second of our existence. (Sub 20)
And for those who say it was in the past and should get on with
life, should take a close look at many families who find it hard to let go of
family hurts and disappointments. As a child raised in an institution, I have
no sense of belonging or a family experience to share. (Sub 166)
People who haven't had this life don't understand. Your life
is ruined as a child and then when you grow up it is still with you, it never
leaves you. I would not like my life all over again! (Rebecca,
aged 89 - Sub 367)
I thought to myself..."Shouldn't we move forward and
leave that garbage behind?" Now aged seventy one I find that I have not
advanced one bit away from that physically, emotionally and sexually abused
little boy (Sub 320)
Some people may say others have had a harder bringing up and
have gone on to achievement in life. The point is this. We are individuals and
what one can endure could be the death of another because we are all different.
(Sub 405)
5.55
The argument that people should get on with their lives
totally fails to comprehend the severity of the impact that the childhood
experiences have had in shaping the adult person. It is not just a matter of
ignoring some 'events' in the distant past. These events have fundamentally
shaped and are seminal to the adult person. Their whole personality, their
emotional and psychological being and in some cases physical condition, are a
manifestation of these past events. To move forward requires recognising,
confronting and addressing the demons of the past into a manageable form.
Many boys will assert that despite what happened to us in the
institution some have succeeded but we were not able to achieve our full
potential. It was hard and is still hard. The nightmare is always with us and
will follow us to the grave. (Sub 282)
I'm at a standstill in life now not knowing where this
journey will take me. We all have to know our past before we can continue into
the future. And if I can't get answers, this is where I will stay, for ever.
(Sub 303)
The cumulative effect of this experience, is so pervasive, that
today, I'm 52 years old, and still a state ward! (Sub 321)