NCCH Thoughts - Wednesday, July 04, 2007

(Followinj,T:,e•I with Richard Campion and his sister,~lc_A __ ~ with the support of her friend, • • • and Counsellor, Jenni Woodhouse.)

I. It ended on a good positive note. They had been very nervous to start with (as was I) but they opened up and told it to me the way that it was for them. They were courteous and not confrontational with me. They certainly asked some hard questions - they were put with energy but not in too volatile manner.

2. Towards the end they indicated that they were comfortable. I had Jistened carefully to them - and not tried to demolish them. I had respected their stories and been heard. In fact ICA I blessed me as we said good-bye; and Richard hugged me.

3. They were indicating that they would be keen to assist in finding a positive way forward which is not in the legal confrontational manner. They indicated that this was not helpful to them and they would not recommend that approach to the other persons who are beginning to present.

4. Anglican Church legally responsible? To date we have argued that the NCCH is not legally our responsibility, and yet on the other hand clergy licensed by the Bishop of the day were at least Chaplains to the Home, if not in a position of authority.

5. Richard indicated that he has found a person who believes that NCCH in its early days was run by the Anglican Church. The information seems to be that such Homes were either government or usually church homes. The informant seems to believe that the Anglican Church was regarded as the Jicensee ofNCCH. I have asked for this person, Tony, to forward such information to me.

6. If such is the case then this places an even greater responsibility upon the Anglican Church for those who claim abuse.

7. I listened to their stories - and I had read Richard's many times already in his letters - and in their telling it sounds like there was a significant amount of abuse doled out to these children. It seems the whole process was fairly secjve e.~ I they did not even know their second names until much later; why was CA given away (adopted) when this was not possible under the law at the time; w y was there not some investigation when Richard was sent back to the home; and why were members of families split up.

8. Both Richard andlCA ~ept tears of anguish and pain at the horror through which they had lived.

9. Having read Richard's story often in his letters, there did not seem to be any great elaboration and embroidering of the story. It seemed to ring true. I believe their story. It must have been horrid to live through such a time as a child and not to know the gift of love. We cannot disbelieve their stories when so many others have also come forward with various stories of abuse. It would seem that in the 50's and into the 60's abuse was endemic in the home- abuse meted out at least by the matron and clergy of the day. Abuse has been idicated as physical, psychological and sexual.

ANG.9320.01103.0542_R

10. Admittedly Richard also indicated that he was treated no better in the local school. They did tell some special stories: Richard anonymously rescuing a drowning boy at the pool. He was later identified and recommended for an award (by the NCCH Board) which seems never to have eventuated. ~telJs of some people who took an interest in her and tried to teach her ~the finer things of life e.g. etiquette and voice training; some teachers helped her enormously.

11. My cry in sitting with them was: What can we do to help you move past th.is pain and distress?

Whereto:

They both indicated that they would still like to receive some compensation. They had originally refused the pastoral care package because they wanted others to have the opportunity also. This then moved to the confrontational legal battle - which they again refused because they believe it to be a paltry compensation.

J.. Speak with Jenni Woodhouse - for her response -i Make an offer of a Pastoral Care Package to Richard and._lc_A __ _. ·i. Establish a different way of receiving these claimants - I personally think

that the initial conversation should be directly with the Bishop. Often people find it difficult to come forward and want to talk with the person in authority. Sometimes it is not about monetary compensation, but about being heard, receiving care and an apology. A 'round-table' conversational style seems to me to be a far better way than the legal confrontational approach

_. Richard says that there a number of other claimants who have approached him since he placed some notices in newspapers. He does not intend to act on their behalf, except to reassure them that they wilJ receive a generous response from the church. (They are adamant that Pat Comben not be party to any of these approaches, otherwise that would not recommend to these other persons to make s~ch an : il'01lclt.)

i. Jt seems that both Richard an CA have got to a point where they would be willing to work with me to nd a better way of dealing with claimants. They seemed very open to such an approach. Could we actually create a new and better way which will help these people to hope and healing?

~ This would also entail a different public profile approach.

Telephone call with Jenni Woodhouse - Thursday, July 05, 2007

Her observations: Good interaction Crying, yelled and swore before the meeting (Jenni met for 2 hours) Afterwards, Richard wondered if he had said enough - Jenni had reassured him. Relieved that I sat and listened

ANG.9320.01103.0543_R

Jenni' s suggestions: + Offer Care and Assistance Packages - encourage them to apply - Jenni could

assist them in the process of preparation - fly them to Sydney to meet the Panel ­Panel will probably offer them the full amount.

Richard has indicated that there are 4 definites and 2 possible claimants

8 x $75,000 = $600,000- worst case scenario

+ Letter from me

Options: + Offer nothing at all

Bishop offer - would appear not to be transparent Panel offer - external assessment

Telephone call with Richard Gerber - Thursday, July 05, 2007

He spoke of the Care and Assistance Package - recognizing that we need to balance with integrity the financial, legal and pastoral aspects of our response. He recognise the reality that we are not a large resourced Diocese such as Sydney, and that we may want to set our own maximum limits of claim for such a Package e.g. Tasmania is a lower figure.

How does that get around the possible bad press? Our possible line: Assests of NCCH went to incorporated body - did not come to the Church -we need to take responsibility for Diocese (good stewardship) - at the moral level we did not receive the assets - therefore we do not have resources to pay out such large sums.

Philip agrees that we could easily agree as a Diocese to set lower limits for our maximum payout - and continue to use Sydney Panel as our Panel - thus keeping in place an independent process- independent of the Diocese-this guards transparency.

My response to Richard and~ We feel what you are saying 'arurwe1wm work with it attempting to find other ways of responding - but we will need a time-frame - probably at least 6 months. I cannot proceed in such matters on my own - especially when there is money involved. I will need to speak with Bishop-in-Council in an attempt to find other ways of responding.

In preparation for Bishop-in-Council: Create a thlnk-tank with PhHlip Gerber, Jenni Woodhouse, Pat Comben and myself.

Both Jenni and Philip were sympathetic to the fact that Pat has become the brunt of the anger of Richard and ICA ~

ANG.9320.01103.0544_R