Table Of ContentPUBLIC HEARING INTO THE RESPONSE OF THE SALVATION ARMY TO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AT
BOYS’ HOMES IN NEW SOUTH WALES AND QUEENSLAND
Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth)
Royal Commissions Act 1923 (NSW)
Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950 (Qld)
SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL ASSISTING THE ROYAL COMMISSION
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3
STRUCTURE AND HISTORY OF THE SALVATION ARMY .......................................................................... 5
STATE LICENSING AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ................................................................................. 8
THE FOUR HOMES ................................................................................................................................. 9
A. Riverview Boys’ Home ......................................................................................................... 10
B. Indooroopilly Boys’ Home ................................................................................................... 27
C. Gill Memorial Boys’ Home ................................................................................................... 32
D. Bexley Boys’ Home .............................................................................................................. 37
FIVE SALVATION ARMY OFFICERS ACCUSED OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE .............................................. 48
A. Victor Bennett ..................................................................................................................... 49
B. Lawrence Wilson ................................................................................................................. 52
C. Donald Schultz ..................................................................................................................... 62
D. John McIver ......................................................................................................................... 66
E. X17 ....................................................................................................................................... 72
Summary of other allegations ......................................................................................................... 76
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ARISING FROM THE EVIDENCE .................................................................... 77
68%0BDBB
SYSTEMIC ISSUES ................................................................................................................................. 79
A. Oversight by State Departments for Child Welfare ............................................................. 79
i. Salvation Army Boys’ Homes in Queensland ....................................................................... 79
ii. Salvation Army Boys’ Homes in New South Wales ............................................................. 85
B. Involvement of the Police .................................................................................................... 91
i. New South Wales Police Force ............................................................................................ 92
ii. Queensland Police Service ................................................................................................... 94
C. The role of managers and oversight by Divisional & Territorial Headquarters ................... 96
D. Inadequate complaints system.......................................................................................... 101
E. Training of staff and staffing numbers .............................................................................. 103
F. Transfer of officers ............................................................................................................ 104
G. Apologies by The Salvation Army ...................................................................................... 105
H. Attitude to an Enacted Redress Scheme ........................................................................... 108
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 108
2
68%0BDBB
INTRODUCTION
1. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (“the Royal
Commission”) conducted a public hearing from 28 January to 10 February 2014 into
responses to child sexual abuse in four boys’ homes operated by The Salvation Army (Eastern
Territory) until 1983 in New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland. The Royal Commission
heard from those who had suffered child sexual abuse at the homes, former officers of The
Salvation Army who had served at one or more of the homes, former State government
officials, serving police officers and senior representatives from The Salvation Army.
2. The four boys’ homes examined were:
a. Indooroopilly Boys’ Home (also known as Alkira Salvation Army Home for Boys) in
Indooroopilly, Queensland (“Indooroopilly”);
b. Riverview Boys’ Home (also known as Endeavour Training Farm) in Riverview,
Queensland (“Riverview”);
c. Bexley Boys’ Home (also known as the Charles Kolling Memorial Boys’ Home) at
North Bexley, New South Wales (“Bexley”); and
d. Gill Memorial Boys’ Home (also known as Goulburn Boys’ Home) in Goulburn, New
South Wales (“Gill”).
3. Riverview was established in 1898, Indooroopilly in 1922, Bexley in 1915 and Gill in 1936. All
1
four homes closed in a period of 6 years from 1977 to 1983.
4. Statements and oral evidence were given to the Royal Commission by boys who were
resident at each of the above homes, some of whom are now aged over 60 years old. The
evidence provided a graphic and shocking account of how these boys had been treated in
each of the homes. Many of the boys were the subject of brutal sexual abuse at the hands of
Salvation Army officers, sometimes accompanied by extreme physical punishment. Corporal
punishment was meted out to the boys regularly, before other boys, and often excessively.
The boys also suffered from cruel acts of emotional or psychological abuse.
5. While the Royal Commission heard from a limited number of former residents it is clear from
documentary evidence that sexual abuse was widespread in the boys’ homes over the period
examined. The Salvation Army provided evidence at the request of the Royal Commission
that as of 14 January 2014 The Salvation Army had received 157 claims which involved child
2
sexual abuse. Of those 157 claims, 115 claims relate to claims of child sexual abuse made by
1
Riverview in 1977, Bexley in 1979, Gill in 1980, and Indooroopilly in 1983.
2
Ex 5 - 56 Commissioner James Condon, [4] and [5].
3
SUBM.0005.001.0003
3
former residents of boys’ homes. Oral evidence was given by former residents of sexual
abuse which occurred as far back as 1956, but there was documentary evidence tendered of
such abuse during World War II.
6. The next section of the public hearing focussed on five former Salvation Army officers who
worked in the homes who are alleged to be perpetrators of child sexual abuse. Those officers
are Victor Bennett (deceased), Lawrence Wilson (deceased), Donald Schultz, John McIver,
and X17. The evidence explored the allegations of child sexual abuse which arose against
each of these persons and the disciplinary measures, if any, taken against them. Both Victor
Bennett and Lawrence Wilson served at all four of the boys’ homes at different periods.
However, only one of the five men was the subject of disciplinary measures concerning child
sexual abuse during the time they served at the homes.
7. The hearing raised a number of important ‘systemic’ issues about the way in which The
Salvation Army operated its homes where child sexual assault occurred. The third part of
these submissions explores the following: oversight by the Queensland and NSW State
governments, involvement of the police, the role of the manager in the home and oversight
by The Salvation Army Divisional and Territorial headquarters, the management of
complaints, the training of staff for the homes, the transfer of officers, and related issues.
8. The public hearing was marked by a high degree of emotion as those who had suffered from
sexual abuse gave their evidence. Many of the witnesses were distraught while recounting
the nature of their abuse and openly wept before the Royal Commission. The most senior
officer of The Salvation Army (Eastern Territory) Territorial Commander James Condon also
cried when accepting responsibility for the abuse which occurred in the homes and
apologising to former residents. Major Peter Farthing said that the hearings of the Royal
4
Commission had “brought a great deal of disgrace and shame to The Salvation Army.”
9. The Royal Commission is not the first government inquiry to examine The Salvation Army
homes. In 1999 Ms Leneen Forde AC presented her report of the Commission of Inquiry into
Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions (the “Forde Inquiry”). The Forde Inquiry looked
at the incidence of abuse of all kinds in children’s homes including Riverview and
Indooroopilly. Further, in 2004 the Senate Community Affairs References Committee
3
Ex 5-56 Commissioner James Condon, [4]: The remainder concern allegations of child sexual abuse against girls, save for
one case.
4
T4655: 14 -15.
4
68%0BDBB
completed its Forgotten Australians: A report on Australians who experienced institutional or
out-of-home care as children. The report considered conditions and abuse in a large number
of homes including the four homes examined by the Royal Commission.
STRUCTURE AND HISTORY OF THE SALVATION ARMY
10. The Salvation Army was founded on 2 July 1865 when William Booth, a Methodist minister,
commenced work in East London preaching to the poor and underprivileged. In its initial
formation it was known as The Christian Mission and William Booth was its “General-
5
Superintendent.” In 1878, The Christian Mission adopted the name “The Salvation Army”
and in 1880 it instigated a practice of giving full-time ordained minsters the title of “officer”
and titles in the nature of military rank, according to seniority. The part-time ordinary
members were called “soldiers” and William Booth became The Salvation Army's “General.”
This remains the title given to the international leader of The Salvation Army. The Mission-
6
Stations (Churches) were henceforth entitled “Corps.” The Salvation Army first came to
7
Australia in 1880.
11. The Salvation Army’s structure can be separated into 4 levels: the International Level, the
8
Territorial Level, the Divisional Level, and the Corps Level.
12. Today, The Salvation Army’s International Headquarters (“IHQ”) remain in London and is
headed by its General, presently General André Cox. The second in command is the Chief of
Staff, who is appointed by the General and who implements the General's policy decisions
and liaises between departments. The main responsibilities of IHQ are dealing with strategic
planning, acting as a resource centre for The Salvation Army, being the facilitator of ideas
9
and policies, and allocating resources.
13. Below the international level exists a number of territorial headquarters. The Salvation Army
in Australia is divided into two “territories.” The Southern Territory is comprised of Victoria,
Tasmania, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory and has its
headquarters in Melbourne. The Eastern Territory is comprised of New South Wales,
10
Queensland, and the Australian Capital Territory and has its headquarters in Sydney. Each
5
http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/en/Who-We-Are/History-and-heritage/Origins-of-The-Salvation-Army/.
6
http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/en/Who- We -Are/History-and-heritage/Origins- of -The-Salvation-Army/.
7
http://salvos.org.au/about-us/our-history/125-years-in -australia.php.
8
http://salvos.org.au/about-us/our-people-and-structure/structure-and-membership.php.
9
http://salvos.org.au/about-us/our-people-and-structure/structure-and-membership.php.
10
http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/en/Who- We -Are/About-Us/Organisational-Structure/.
5
SUBM.0005.001.0005
territory is headed by a Territorial Commander and at the time of the public hearing, the
Territorial Commander of the Eastern Territory is Commissioner James Condon. The
Territorial Commander is assisted by a Chief Secretary, usually a Colonel, and other
departmental Secretaries who are responsible for overseeing the operation of The Salvation
11
Army's activities throughout the Territory.
12
14. The Salvation Army is structured according to rank from “soldier” to General. A soldier
“called” to be an officer goes to The Salvation Army Officers Training College and becomes a
Cadet. After 2 years of training he or she is commissioned (ordained) and becomes a
Lieutenant. After 5 years of service and advanced training studies a lieutenant is promoted
to Captain and after 15 years of service the officer is promoted to Major. Senior soldiers who
work for The Salvation Army but have not been to the College are called “Envoy.” Ranks
above that of Major are promoted and appointed by the General. This includes the ranks of
Lieutenant-Colonel and Colonel. Commissioners are also appointed and promoted by the
General and a Commissioner may also hold a senior rank. There may only be one General at
a time.
15. To be eligible for appointment as an Officer of The Salvation Army, a person needs to have
graduated from The Salvation Army’s Officers Training College. In the 1950s, upon
application to College, Cadets answered a questionnaire which included all relevant personal
details which, aside from date of birth and next of kin included:
a. Marital status;
b. If unmarried, whether the applicant would refrain from courtship during their
training;
c. Whether the person’s parents approved of them joining The Salvation Army;
d. Whether he or she was in debt, and if so for how much, and to whom;
e. His or her occupation and details of present employer.
16. According to structural documents provided to the Royal Commission by The Salvation Army,
the management of homes for children operated by The Salvation Army was divided by
gender in the period 1950 to 1983. The boys’ homes were overseen at Territorial
Headquarters by a Men’s Social Services Secretary and, in the case of girls’ homes, an
equivalent Women’s Social Services Secretary. The Social Services Secretaries reported
11
http://salvos.org.au/about-us/our-people-and-structure/structure-and-membership.php.
12
Ex 5-3, at EXH.005.003.0001.
6
SUBM.0005.001.0006
through the Chief Secretary to the Territorial Commander. The Social Services Secretaries
were assisted by a Queensland State Men’s and Women’s Social Secretary (but apparently
no NSW equivalent). Whereas the Territorial Social Services Secretaries, the Chief Secretary,
and the Territorial Commander were located in Sydney, the State Social Secretary from
13
Queensland was located at Divisional Headquarters in Brisbane.
17. Relevant to the present case study is the managerial structure of the homes. Each home had
its differences, but generally speaking the hierarchy within the four boys homes was as
follows:
The senior ranking Salvation Army officer in the home was the Manager. He was usually
of the rank of Captain, although sometimes a Major.
Most homes had a Matron, who was often the wife of the Manager, but who had a
limited managerial role.
Most homes had a Second Officer, being the second highest-ranking Salvation Army
Officer resident at the home. That officer was also often a Captain of less
standing/service than the Manager, or a Lieutenant.
Homes often had “house parents” being married and lesser-ranking Salvation Army
Officers, Envoys, or employees who resided in the dormitories with the resident boys.
Most homes employed a variety of other staff such as cooks, laundry staff, and
maintenance and farm hands depending on the nature of the home.
14
18. Boys resident at the homes were referred to as “inmates.”
19. The Manager was the ranking officer and was responsible for management of the home
including residents and officers, disciplining residents, the reporting of complaints, and
accountability generally. The Manager was monitored and inspected by those in Territorial
and Divisional Headquarters. Managers were ordered by and responsible to both the
Divisional and Territorial Headquarters who were in turn required to annually inspect the
homes they operated.
20. The managers had a very high level of control over the homes which they were able to
exercise with limited control by either Headquarters.
13
Ex 5-1: Tender Bundle Vol 1, Tab 9, at TSAE.9100.01086.0356.
14
Ex 5-1, Tender Bundle Vol 2, Tab 139, at TSAE.9100.01013.0001.
7
68%0BDBB
STATE LICENSING AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
15
21. In NSW, the Child Welfare Department was charged with administering the Child Welfare
Act 1939 (NSW). The Minister of the Department was responsible for licensing "Places
Established or Used for the Reception of Children apart from their Parents," which included
16
Bexley and Gill. An officer of the Department could enter relevant premises and inspect
them and the children to ensure the provisions of the Act, or the relevant conditions or
17
requirements, were complied with. The officer was able to be accompanied by a medical
18
practitioner, police constable or both, who could examine the children at such inspections.
22. In Queensland, boys’ homes such as Indooroopilly and Riverview operated under a licence
provided by the State Government under the Children's Services Act 1965 (Qld).
Queensland’s Department of Children's Services was responsible for monitoring the homes
19
and determining whether such licenses should be maintained or withdrawn.
23. According to the regulatory environment in each State, the manager of each home was
responsible for corporal punishment in the homes although he could also authorise others
to administer corporal punishment. In NSW, sections 56 and 57 of the Child Welfare Act 1939
(NSW) allowed for limited corporal punishment in exceptional cases: every effort was to be
20
made to enforce discipline without corporal punishment. Corporal punishment was to be
inflicted only with a cane approved by the Minister, inflicted by an officer or instructor
appointed by the superintendent and in his presence, not in the presence of other inmates,
21
and not to be inflicted on inmates under the age of 16 (for boys) and 15 (for girls). The
superintendent was also required to keep a punishment book and record particulars of the
22
punishment. It was explicitly stated that striking, cuffing, shaking, or any other form of
physical violence other than permitted in the Child Welfare Act 1939 (NSW) was prohibited
23
by law.
15
Also known as the Department of Child Welfare and Social Welfare, the Department of Youth and Community Services,
and the Department of Youth, Ethnic and Community Affairs.
16
Ex 5-39 Maree Walk, [6].
17
Ex 5-39 Maree Walk, [14].
18
S. 35 Child Welfare (Amendment) Act 1966 (NSW).
19
T4440: 23-36; see alsoT3866: 27- 37.
20
S. 56(4) Child Welfare Act 1939 (NSW).
21
S. 56(6) Child Welfare Act 1939 (NSW).
22
S. 56(8) Child Welfare Act 1939 (NSW).
23
S. 56(9) Child Welfare Act 1939 (NSW).
8
SUBM.0005.001.0008
24. In Queensland the Children’s Services Regulations 1966 (Qld) outlined the occasions and the
ways in which punishment may be administered in boys’ homes such as Riverview and
Indooroopilly. The Regulation stated that corporal punishment was the last method of
punishment for misconduct and “every effort should be made to enforce discipline without
24
the use of corporal punishment.” Corporal punishment was required to be “administered
25
as seldom as possible and only when absolutely necessary for discipline.” The regulations
set out that corporal punishment was to be administered by the use of a leather strap
approved by the Director or officer of the Department, applied over the child’s ordinary cloth
26
trousers, and not to be administered in the presence of other children. Punishment inflicted
at the home was to be recorded in a punishment book and to be produced at the demand of
27
the Department.
THE FOUR HOMES
25. The structure and functioning of the four boys’ homes was, generally speaking, quite
consistent over the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The four homes each operated under a manager
who was a senior Salvation Army officer and who was routinely rotated along with other
officers. Staffing levels also appear to have been both small and generally inadequate for
the number of resident boys. Each of the four homes were run along authoritarian ‘rule-
driven’ lines with very limited attention being given to individual boys and their emotional
needs. Rules were enforced by liberal use of corporal punishment, not always at the hands
of the manager. The provision of education was limited, particularly in the Queensland
homes where work on the farm or workshop took precedence over continuation of
schooling. The physical conditions of the homes varied but were generally sparse. Riverview
Boys’ Home stood out because of its rundown and dilapidated state over many years.
26. The culture of the homes was both consistent and repressive for the children forced to live
there. As Territorial Commander James Condon admitted, “The Salvation Army’s senior
leadership of the day allowed too many Managers to run harsh, overly regimented,
28
dispiriting, and even brutal homes.” As will be seen, it was within that environment that
child sexual abuse was able to flourish.
24
Reg. 23(4) Children’s Services Regulations 1966 (QLD).
25
Reg. 23(5)(d) Children’s Services Regulations 1966 (QLD).
26
Reg. 23(5)(b) Children’s Services Regulations 1966 (QLD).
27
Reg. 23(9) Children’s Services Regulations 1966 (QLD).
28
T4795: 9 - 13.
9
SUBM.0005.001.0009
27. Resourcing for the homes was very sparse. Many of those ex-residents giving evidence spoke
of being perennially hungry - especially at the Queensland homes in the 1950s – and needing
to steal food. The boys were provided with uniforms which often did not include shoes,
except for church on Sundays and formal occasions. This meant the boys had to walk
barefooted to school. EG recalled walking barefoot on the shale driveway to and from school,
29
exacerbating an existing foot condition. FP, one of the residents at Riverview, said that
when he was up early to milk the cows, “It was bloody cold down there sometimes, s o you'd
30
stand in cow shit just to keep your feet warm.”
A. Riverview Boys’ Home
28. Riverview Boys’ Home operated between 1898 and 1977. In 1969-70 it changed its name to
“Endeavour Training Farm.” Riverview was originally meant to be a “midway institution”
between the Industrial School for Boys at Indooroopilly and Westbrook Farm for Boys, an
institution to which boys who had been convicted or were on remand were sent. After the
placement of migrant boys from the United Kingdom ceased in 1960, The Salvation Army’s
policy was to accept “delinquent” or “semi-delinquent” boys at Riverview.
31
29. From 1965 to 1977 Riverview was home to between 50 and 60 boys. The home took wards
of State, boys suffering from familial abuse or neglect, and boys abandoned by their
32
parents. Riverview also received boys sent by courts who had committed various criminal
offences. A survey conducted by the Queensland Department of Children’s Services in 1974
indicated the majority of such convictions were for breaking and entering – stealing, and car
theft. A small proportion of the boys surveyed had been convicted for “sex offences.” If the
statistical records kept with respect to Indooroopilly Boys’ Home in the early 1970s are
33
anything to go by, about 26% of inmates were Aboriginal.
30. While The Salvation Army described it as a “training farm,” both training and educational
opportunities were very limited. The farm comprised a dairy, a piggery, a metal workshop,
34
and a market garden. The evidence revealed that the training consisted of “hands on”
experiential learning in the workshops and parts of the farm. While some younger boys were
29
Ex 5-5 EG, [14]; T3941: 47- T3942: 30.
30
T3980: 1 - 6.
31
Ex 5-8 EY [9]; See also Ex 5-5 EG [9].
32
Ex 5-5 EG [7]; Ex 5-4 Raymond Carlile [6]; Ex 5-7 FP [4].
33
Ex 5-1 Tender Bundle Vol 5 Tab 83, at TEN.0003.001.0122.
34
Ex 5-10 EE [48]; [55]; Ex 5-11 ES [29].
10
SUBM.0005.001.0010
