Has 'Captain Catholic' and his merry band of Christian fascisti finally wrecked a proud tradition of secular public education in Australia?

The Sydney Morning Herald 27 August 2014:

The Abbott government is pushing ahead with a religious-only school chaplaincy scheme following a cabinet debate over whether secular welfare workers should be included in the program.

The government was forced to redesign the $224 million scheme after the High Court ruled it invalid in June for the second time in two years. The court found the Commonwealth had over-reached its funding powers by providing direct payments to chaplain providers.

In a bid to prevent another High Court challenge, the federal government will provide funding to state and territory governments to administer the scheme. This new arrangement strengthens the hand of the states and could see some demand an option for secular welfare workers or tougher qualification standards.

In a cabinet meeting on Monday, Abbott government ministers explored options to extend the scheme to include funding for secular welfare workers. This would have reversed the government's existing policy that funding should be restricted to religious chaplains. 

During the cabinet discussion, Mr Abbott argued that the government should stand by its existing policy. Mr Abbott argued the scheme's original intent was supporting pastoral care in schools and that should remain its focus….

The chaplaincy scheme was introduced by the Howard government in 2006. Labor expanded the scheme to include funding for secular welfare workers in 2011 – an option the government scrapped in this year's budget.

Both challenges in the High Court were brought forward by Toowoomba father Ron Williams, a secularist opposed to public funding for religious workers in public schools.

The government rushed forward its announcement about the new scheme on Wednesday afternoon after Fairfax Media revealed the story online. The government had hoped to avoid a distracting debate on chaplains during the introduction of its sweeping higher education changes into Parliament on Thursday.

Well worth repeating: The Age editorial 'Playing Games With Religion In Schools'

Playing games with religion in schools

Date August 1, 2014

The ancient book of Ecclesiastes teaches that there is a time and a place for everything. A time to be silent and a time to speak. There is also a time to pray, if that is what is needed. Whether there is a time and place for students to pray during school lunchtimes, however, is a matter that clearly causes some people enormous concern.

After state Education Minister Martin Dixon issued a ministerial direction about the rules and procedures governing the provision of special religious instruction in government schools, a cry erupted among some Christian groups claiming the rules encroach on basic human rights. Opponents of the directive say it amounts to an attack on religious freedom and free speech, and that it is a step towards outright bans on prayer in schools.

Their rhetoric is inflammatory, and their concerns are misplaced. The government is not banning prayer in school. It is not forbidding students to pray at lunchtime, if that is what they want to do with their meal break. It is saying that prayer forums ''cannot be led'' by teachers or other school staff, by parents, volunteers or visitors. Put another way, if there are prayer groups or meetings of student religious clubs during school hours, then they must not take the form of ''instructed'' prayer. That is a world away from imposing draconian curbs on the rights to religious freedom and free speech.

The rationale is simple. Government schools are secular environments and their primary aim is education. It has been that way since the Education Act of 1872 formalised that public education in this state should be free, secular and compulsory. In 1958, the law was amended to provide an exception allowing non-compulsory religious instruction classes to be held within schools, but on certain conditions and only by accredited providers. It should be noted the law does not bar religious instruction classes being held on state school grounds outside school hours.

The 2006 education legislation states that schools must ''not promote any particular religious practice, denomination or sect'', but it nevertheless allows schools to provide classes of special religious instruction during school hours, only by accredited representatives. To allow non-accredited instructors to supervise religious sessions at lunchtime would be to subvert the system entirely. Mr Dixon's directive provides a framework for schools to ensure they are abiding by the law and not inadvertently providing non-accredited religious instruction classes.

The Age has consistently argued that beyond reading, writing and arithmetic, there is room in schools for the study of the various belief systems and for informed and informative discussion about ethical choices. Education about religion should provide students with sound information about belief structures and religious practices that help shape our world, as well as provide historical context to the role played by religion in our world. A byproduct of all that might be greater social awareness and enhanced tolerance of diversity.

That does not, however, justify a state-backed religious agenda in education. A secular school system should not impose proselytising nor actively sponsor it. If religious instruction is to be conducted at all within the secular school environment, then there must be clear boundaries and rules. Where state schools do provide special classes in religious instruction, who teaches it, how, and when it is provided should all be carefully managed.

Nothing bars students from organising their own religious groups at school; they are not impeded in practising their religion at school. Their fundamental rights are preserved. At the same time, the resources and facilities of the state education system must be directed primarily to education for all

Although the directive mentioned in this editorial applies only to Victorian schools, the debate concerning religion in schools is nation-wide.

For the second time the High Court of Australia rules the National School Chaplaincy and Welfare Program unlawful

Click on image to enlarge

This is the second time that the High Court of Australia has ruled that the Commonwealth funding of the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program was not supported under provisions contained in the Australian Constitution and/or flowed from unlawful legislation.

Time for the Abbott and Baird governments to finally recognise that religion has no place in public education and, that this particular program violates the principle of separation of church and state.

First High Court judgement in Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 23 (20 June 2012) and second judgement in Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] HCA 23 (19 June 2014).

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Cardinal George Pell exposed as being selective with the truth

The Sydney Morning Herald  11 March 2014:

Mr Ellis came away from a pivotal meeting with then Archbishop Pell in 2009 with the impression that the litigation had been “a runaway train with nobody at the wheel”. This was after years of legal action that had crippled Mr Ellis mentally and financially…
“No, it left me with the impression that Cardinal Pell was completely out of the loop on all of that decision making,” Mr Ellis said…

The Saturday Paper 15 March 2014:

But on Monday morning, just minutes before Ellis entered the witness box, counsel assisting the commission Gail Furness, SC, in her introductory remarks, dropped something of a bombshell.

She referred to a witness statement by Cardinal George Pell, not yet public because he was not due to appear until later in the week, in which he expressed “some concern” about the way the litigation between the church and Ellis had been handled. She quoted Pell:

“Whatever position was taken by the lawyers during the litigation, or by lawyers or individuals within the archdiocese following the litigation, my own view is that the church in Australia should be able to be sued in cases of this kind.”...

The Sydney Morning Herald 17 March 2014:

Monsignor Rayner who as Archdiocesan chancellor was the official church authority to deal with victim’s complaints, said he told Cardinal Pell about the amounts of money victims of sex abuse sought. But for an agreement to be reached, “finally the decision would have been made by the Archbishop himself”.

The Sydney Morning Herald 18 March 2014:

 Cardinal George Pell was calling all the shots in the notorious case in which the Catholic Church fought off the damages claim of abuse victim John Ellis, his solicitor has confirmed to the child sex abuse Royal Commission. The 2007 Ellis case established the defence which has insulated the church from paying damages to victims in similar cases ever since... 

 Cardinal Pell himself described the litigation against Mr Ellis as “legal abuse”, the Commission has been told. The case caused Mr Ellis harm and suffering, according to senior counsel for the Commission Gail Furness.

 For more than a week, before the Cardinal himself takes the stand, the Commission has been grappling with the question of how much Cardinal Pell knew. Now Paul McCann, the senior partner with Corrs Chambers Westgarth, which conducted the litigation for the church from 2004, has told the Commission he had no doubt the instructions he received through Cardinal Pell’s private secretary Dr Michael Casey came from the Cardinal himself. Cardinal Pell is due to appear early next week.

“What was your understanding of those instructions and whether or not they were informed by Cardinal Pell?’, asked commission chair, Justice Peter McClellan.

Mr McCann replied: “I didn’t have any doubt that the Cardinal was being kept up to date on developments in the case and it is obvious from some of the exchanges that he was in fact seemingly giving instructions as to various steps.’’

According to the solicitor, he was instructed by Dr Casey, who he believed was doing Cardinal Pell’s bidding in relation to several key decisions in the case. These included refusing Mr Ellis’ offer to mediate before the litigation, refusing a compromise offer to pay $750,000 plus costs before the case started and the decision not to put a counter offer to Mr Ellis….

ABC News 18 March 2014:

In a statement presented to the inquiry earlier this month, Cardinal Pell said he was not aware of ex-gratia offers made to Mr Ellis.

But Monsignor Brian Rayner, who represented the Sydney Archdiocese and Archbishop Pell in Towards Healing matters in 2004, has contradicted that statement.

Under cross-examination, Monsignor Rayner maintained the Archbishop was informed.

"I spoke to the Archbishop on every amount of money that was being offered to any particular victim," he said.

Despite saying he did not have authority, Monsignor Rayner offered Mr Ellis a $5,000 increase on the $25,000 payment before gaining the approval of Catholic Church Insurance.

In a lively exchange with the Church's counsel Peter Gray SC, Monsignor Rayner maintained that he had informed Archbishop Pell of the ex-gratia offers made to Mr Ellis.

"My evidence is correct and I've seen the contrary thoughts of the Archbishop and the Archbishop also has occasions when his recollection of events is not clearly accurate," he said.

He also said the Archbishop was very involved in Mr Ellis' case… 

The Sydney Morning Herald 22 March 2014:

The Catholic Church's insurer insisted on being "kept in the loop" in the John Ellis case after lawyers expressed concern at Cardinal George Pell's "tooth and nail" approach, according to evidence at the child sex abuse royal commission.

Peter Rush, then general manager of Catholic Church Insurance Ltd, complained to the business manager of the Sydney Archdiocese about being "kept out of the loop" in the case and warned this could jeopardise the church's insurance, the commission heard…

Dr Casey testified that it was his job to convey instructions to the church's lawyers, Corrs Chambers Westgarth, but the instructions came from Cardinal Pell.

"The general instructions were to vigorously defend the claim and to defeat the litigation, is that right?" asked Gail Furness SC for the commission.

"Yes", Dr Casey replied…

At a 2009 meeting Cardinal Pell told him the church's move from mediation to vigorous pursuit of his case was "unfathomable", Mr Ellis said...

Anglican Church still crying poor

Yet another organised religion which allowed paedophilia to flourish within its clergy is attempting to protect its wealth.......

Newcastle Herald 17 February 2014:

THE Anglican Church has warned the royal commission into child sexual abuse not to assume multibillion-dollar church assets can be sold to compensate abuse victims.

The warning comes in a submission to the commission from the titular head of the Australian church, Brisbane Archbishop Phillip Aspinall, and two senior church officials.

They were responding to a finding by Simeon Beckett, counsel assisting the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, that the Anglican Diocese of Grafton had enough assets to settle abuse claims from former residents of an orphanage at Lismore in northern NSW.

From evidence presented at a public hearing in November, Mr Beckett found the diocese put its own financial interests above the needs of abuse victims.

The diocese pleaded poverty when it came to finding money for people subjected to horrifying abuse in the North Coast Children’s Home in the 1960s, yet sold considerable assets to service a debt incurred when it built a loss-making private girls’ school......

What the Anglican Church sees as appropriate compensation packages for those children physically and/or sexually abused while in the care of a church orphanage in the Grafton Diocese still does not go above $75,000 per adult survivor.

How the Anglican Church and its Grafton Diocese failed Northern Rivers communities

The Anglican Church North Coast Children’s Home has been the subject of eight days of evidence before the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses To Child Sexual Abuse.

Most of this evidence points to a manifest failure by the Anglican Church, its clergy and Grafton Diocese's administrative body to protect those children in its care and under its protection.

It comes as no surprise then to find that to date, despite his history while an active member of the Anglican clergy, now retired priest Allan Kitchingman’s name has never been entered onto the church’s own national register of all clergy against whom a notifiable complaint or a notifiable charge has been made.

BACKGROUND

Newcastle Herald, 6 August 2002, Page 7:

Judge Coolahan said he accepted that Father Kitchingham assaulted the boy during a 12-month period and had been of good character before and after 1975.

Newcastle Anglican Christ Church Dean Graeme Lawrence had spoken in support of Father Kitchingham [sic] in court.

References on Father Kitchingham's [sic] behalf were tendered from Bishops of Brisbane and Bathurst, which were not publicly available......

Anglican year books show Allan Kitchingman was at Singleton from 1963-66, Wallsend 1966-68, Lismore 1969-70, Eureka/Clunes/Dunoon 1971-72, Lismore 1973-76, Mullumbimby 1976-81, Tweed Heads 1981-88, Tamworth 1988-97, and Darwin 1997-2000 until he retired.

Newcastle Herald November 14 2010:

The names of a number of other former Newcastle Anglican members will be entered on the church's national professional standards register according to the terms of a church canon in 2007.

They include Robert Ellmore, jailed for nine years for offences against children over more than four decades; trainee priest Ian Neil Barrick, jailed for two years for offences against a 14-year-old in 1998; Allan Kitchingman, jailed for offences against a 14-year-old in 1975; and Stephen Hatley Gray, 68, a former rector of Wyong given a good behaviour bond after sexually abusing a juvenile in 1990.

Newcastle Herald, 8 November 2013:

THE late Newcastle Anglican Bishop James Housden kept a ‘‘very careful watch’’ on Allan Kitchingman when the former ‘‘nightclub entertainer’’ and major record company public relations officer studied to be a priest at St John’s College, Morpeth, from 1960.

That was because of Kitchingman’s ‘‘earlier background and associations’’, the bishop said in a letter in 1968.

But when Kitchingman was charged with a ‘‘child sex matter’’ in 1968, the bishop offered his immediate support and pledged to keep him in the ministry ‘‘under a bishop who would be fully informed of the circumstances’’.

Two weeks later, in late December 1968, Kitchingman was interviewed by a Grafton Bishop and appointed to Lismore parish, which included the church-run North Coast Children’s Home.

In a letter to Kitchingman in January 1969 Bishop Housden wrote that he was ‘‘glad to know that the Bishop of Grafton was so kind and understanding’’.

‘‘I ... believe that you can and will have a happy and fruitful ministry there,’’ Bishop Housden wrote.

In 2002 Kitchingman pleaded guilty to five charges of sexually abusing a North Coast Children’s Home youth, 14, in 1975 and 1976. He was jailed for 18 months.....

Newcastle Herald 22 November 2013:

HISTORICAL Newcastle Anglican diocese files alleging ‘‘falsification of records’’, including those of child sex offender priest Allan Kitchingman, were found this year and referred to police, an explosive statement to the royal commission into child abuse has said.

Diocese professional standards director Michael Elliott has told the commission about an anonymous 2002 letter which said the ‘‘disappearance’’ of Kitchingman from a clergy list in 1968 and his subsequent move to the Grafton diocese ‘‘could today be construed as a type of cover-up’’.

‘‘This ‘disappearance’ was deliberate,’’ the  letter said.

In 1968 Kitchingman was convicted of an indecent assault on a male, although the commission heard on Monday ‘‘such an act is no longer a criminal offence’’.

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO INSTITUTIONALRESPONSES TO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE Public Hearing (Day 16) 18 November 2013:

Reverend Kitchingman was convicted in 1968 of one

count of indecent assault of a male while he was a priest

in the Diocese of Newcastle. He was sentenced at the

Newcastle Court of Sessions, placed on a recognisance and

given a two-year good behaviour bond. The Bishop at the

time wrote a reference for him, which he sent to the judge.

The offence did not apparently concern his priestly duties

and today such an act is not a criminal offence.

Nonetheless, Reverend Kitchingman was removed from his

position in the Diocese of Newcastle and the bishop

assisted him to find a place in the Diocese of Grafton.

The then Bishop of Grafton accepted him in the knowledge of

the offence and undertook to place him with an archdeacon

who understood the situation. Reverend Kitchingman then

moved to Lismore in the Diocese of Grafton where he became

assistant priest.

By 1975, he was the chaplain of the North Coast

Children's Home and had conducted evening services there

for several years. He had also had frequent access to

children in the home, teaching them music, drama and

performance, as well as in his pastoral duties.

In 2001, Reverend Kitchingman was arrested and charged

with a number of counts of indecent assault on a 12 and

13-year-old boy who was under his care at the time. The

indecent assaults involved Reverend Kitchingman

masturbating his victim and performing oral sex on him on

numerous occasions over a 12-month period.

He was sentenced on 5 August 2002 to periods of

imprisonment of 9, 10, 11 and 12 months for the first four

offences, to be served concurrently, and a partially

concurrent sentence of two and a half years for the fifth

and most serious offence. His non-parole date meant he was

to serve a maximum of 18 months' imprisonment.

At the time of Reverend Kitchingman's conviction the

then Bishop of Newcastle, Roger Herft, now the Archbishop

of Perth, was informed by an anonymous source that the 1968

conviction had not been put before the District Court. The

evidence is likely to reveal that he raised the issue with

the Office of Public Prosecutions.

The primary question for this public hearing with

respect to Reverend Kitchingman is whether steps were taken

to discipline him in the Diocese of Newcastle and in

Grafton after the conviction.

Reverend Kitchingman was resident in the Diocese of

Newcastle up until his conviction and then after his period

of imprisonment. Evidence will be adduced that during the

period 2002 to 2007 his name appeared in the Anglican

Directory as a member of clergy.

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO INSTITUTIONALRESPONSES TO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE Public Hearing (Day 23) 27 November 2013:

Q. Ms Cosenza has just received an email from your office

annexing, in relation to the national register, what

appears to be a national register report. I will just hand

up three copies for the Bench and one for Mr Drevikovsky.

The email we have received is from Ms Mary Phipps-Ellis.

Is that your executive assistant?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. You will see that this is a national register report

with respect to Reverend Kitchingman?

A. Yes.

Q. There is a note at the bottom there that says:

There is currently no information on the

National Register for a person with the

name ...

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. The information we had from Bishop Stuart was dated

14 November.

A. That's right.

Q. So do I take it that it is correct to say that

notwithstanding that communication from Bishop Stuart,

there does not appear to be an entry in the register for

Allan Kitchingman?

A. That is technically a correct conclusion, but I don't

know that it addresses the substance of what Bishop Stuart

has said.

When are organised religions finally going to freely admit the degree to which paedophiles and violent personalities number in the ranks of their clergy?

ABC News 27 August 2013:

The Anglican Church set up a national register in 2004 designed to provide a database for information if a member of clergy had a complaint or finding of abuse established against them.

The General Secretary of the Anglican Church Martin Drevikovsky told the Commission that right now there are hundreds of abuse investigations taking place nationwide.

"In the case of Sydney it was 600. In the case of Melbourne I know it was hundreds," he said.

He said the number of clergy to make it onto the register is expected to be far fewer when the review is completed in the coming months.

What ABC News is not saying is that in relation to abuse allegations the Anglican Church is understood to have a record of 122 clergy who are persons of concern and up to 209 more clergy who are under investigation in relation to emotional/physical/sexual abuse.

It would appear that some of these alleged offenders/members of the Anglican clergy were not reported to police until earlier this year – presumably only after the church realised that it could not avoid giving an accounting of it actions to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

UPDATE

The Daily Examiner 27 November 2013:

Martin Drevikovsky, General Secretary, General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia told the commission this morning that the register was incomplete.

He said that when the royal commission was announced, every diocese was given directions to "search for (complaint) files and review them to ensure all necessary steps had been taken and if not, to take immediate action".

As a result, Mr Drevikovksy said, "a large number of files have come to light".

He said an estimated 209 files were listed for review and expected that between 40 and 45 and "possibly more" names would be added to the persons of concern register.

Earlier, Grafton/Newcastle Diocese Professional Standards Director Michael Elliott said at least four names of concern from northern NSW region had not been added to the register including that of Allan Kitchingman, a former Lismore priest who was jailed in 2003 over the sexual assault of a teenage boy.

Mr Elliott also confirmed that along with the North Coast Children's Home files, there were between 10 and 15 files involving allegations against members of the Grafton Diocese which had yet to be reviewed.
The hearing continues

Rev. Pat Comben resigns from all duties to Anglican Church

www.abc.net.au

According to The Australian on 25 November 2013, former Clarence Valley Shire councillor and former registrar of the Grafton Diocese, Rev. Pat Comben has resigned from the Anglican priesthood:

He said on Monday he was quitting because history is being re-written by some members of the church.

Mr Comben said he had signed the letter of holy orders relinquishment outside the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses into Child Sexual Abuse on Friday. That was just before he took the stand to give evidence into the diocese's handling of allegations by former residents of the home.
"Fifty years in the Church and I do not know if I can even say I am a Christian," said Mr Comben outside the commission on Monday after he had completed two days of evidence.

By 7pm his resignation "minutes before" he was due to give evidence before the Royal Commission was confirmed in an ABC News broadcast.

Caught out in what appears to be a second instance of failure to report, one suspects the Anglican Church may have been grateful for this resignation.

1999

Mr Comben testified that he did not know why he asserted that ‘we’ know something. He said only he knew things and he erred in asserting that Cabinet had knowledge of what he knew….

He said that he had no specific knowledge about any matters involving child abuse.  Over some period of time he had received complaints at his electoral office about things that had allegedly occurred at the Sir Leslie Wilson Youth Centre, he had received complaints from homeless youths who had were detained at the John Oxley Youth Centre and had received ‘low grade scuttlebutt’ from some staff about children being inappropriately treated or inappropriately punished. He said that it was information of this nature which he had in mind when he referred to ‘child abuse’ in the statement broadcast in 1999. [State of Queensland,3(e) Report: Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry, June 2013]

2013

The Royal Commission into child abuse has heard a former Anglican Church official responsible for responding to historic abuse claims did not pass on allegations to police.

The former registrar of the Anglican Diocese of Grafton, Pat Comben, today took the stand for a second day at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Mr Comben, who had previously served as Queensland education minister under premier Wayne Goss, was the first to receive claims about the North Coast Children's Home at Lismore.

He has faced intense scrutiny about the evidence given to the commission by former residents of the home about the physical and sexual abuse they suffered between the 1940s and 1980s.

Witnesses at the commission last week criticised Mr Comben's handling of the allegations and subsequent negotiations for compensation, with his actions described as cruel and inappropriate.

Today counsel assisting the commission Simeon Beckett questioned Mr Comben about his actions.

"You were in possession of serious allegations of child sexual abuse made against a number of people, some named, some unnamed," Mr Beckett said.

"You did not provide that information to police. Why was that?" 
"I have no idea," Mr Comben said....[ABC News,25 November 2013,Anglican Church official Pat Comben quizzed in Royal Commission over response to child sex abuse at North Coast Children's Home]

"I became aware that (a convicted pedophile) Reverend Kitchingman, as he was, was still in the stud book...

 Mr Comben also told the commission that he subsequently took no disciplinary action against Reverend Kitchingman or another alleged pedophile priest at the home, Campbell Brown.
"I did nothing at all (about Kitchingman)," he told the commission. "I think we were too busy to take him on."
[The Australian,25 November 2013,I'm not sure I'm still a Christian, Anglican priest Pat Comben says]

* Day One (22 November 2013) of Mr. Comben’s evidence to the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses To Child Sexual Abuse,pp 64-115

* Day Two (25 November 2013) of Mr. Comben’s evidence to the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses To Child Sexual Abuse will be found here when transcribed.

Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses To Child Sexual Abuse: Anglican Rev. Pat Comben former Clarence Valley Councillor

The Northern Star on 22 November 2013, Page 6:

"REMARKABLE and distressing" is how a former Anglican chaplain has described the way she saw members of the Grafton Diocese respond to claims of child sex abuse.

Jennifer Woodhouse told the Royal Commission former Grafton Diocese registrar Pat Comben suggested "Grafton would be better off" if child abuse survivor Richard 'Tommy' Campion was offered up to $50,000 in compensation rather than the opportunity to tell his story to an independent panel of professionals.....

Ms Woodhouse described the first response as "caring and warm" but said she found it remarkable and distressing that by 2006, after Mr Campion had unearthed several other victims, Mr Comben appeared "more concerned about the finances of the dioceses than he did about the many people who had been abused at the North Coast Church of England Children's Home".

Evidence given to the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses To Child Sexual Abuse, between 18 and 21 November 2013:

** A. .....We walked in to an office, a fairly large office. We had a number of tables put together. The Reverend Comben, as I recall, when I walked into the room, was sitting on a chair with his hands behind his head and with his feet up, which I interpreted as being something of a machismo role that he was trying to play out.

I put my hand across the table and shook hands with him, although the orphanage boy and the Celt in me felt like kicking the chair from underneath him, quite frankly.

He was showing a level of disrespect that I'd not come across in negotiations previously. Certainly I was there representing 41 people who were in various states of decompensation, and to be met with that level of what I perceived as ignorance --

Q. All right. In terms of the negotiations that occurred over the days 19 and 20 December, did Mr Comben's behaviour change from that early episode you've just described?

A. No. Mr Comben's feet remained in a prostrate position throughout most of the conference.....

Q. Sorry, was that inappropriate or an appropriate - I didn't quite hear?

A. Well, the poker playing is a given part of any settlement negotiations, effectively. When it comes to matters like this, I felt that that wasn't necessarily the appropriate way to proceed. But the Reverend Comben came back at one point and said, "Look, I've been back to" - I forget who he had called; I think it was Bishop Slater - "and the maximum we can go for each of these individuals is $10,000", and that if we were not going to settle, then, in Clint Eastwood style, he said, "Bring it on", which again I felt was inappropriate, but was consistent with the previous references to Tommy Campion as being a ringleader and other derogatory remarks that were made throughout the course of the process.

Q. What did he mean by "Bring it on", to your understanding?

A. Oh, again, his macho bravado was taking over and he was effectively telling us to bring these matters before the court, because he knew that we'd have significant

difficulties if they were not going to waive limitation periods to allow us to properly explore these matters and have some real transparency.

** Mr Harrison told me that Reverend Comben had been very rude in that meeting, and said, in reference to the group of victims, that we "should have been happy to have had a roof over our heads".

** Q. What I am interested in is whether that was an issue - that is to say, the association between the Anglican Church and the North Coast Children's Home - prior to the group claims, namely, when [CH]'s litigation was being discussed?

A. Yes, my best recollection was that it was always being said by Grafton that it really wasn't their home, you know, that it was not an Anglican home.

Q. In that period prior to Mr Campion's claim, who was the main proponent, if you like, of that particular view?

A. Oh, Pat Comben.

** The diocese, through its registrar, Reverend Pat Comben, indicated to the media that the claimants had substantial hurdles to overcome. He also questioned the factual basis for some of the claims and said that the home was a great North Coast community facility.

** Q. So just returning to that issue, what were the main concerns of the claimants about that interview?

A.  I wonder if you could refer me to the exhibit itself?

Q.  Yes. Sorry, it's not on the screen. SJH-15.

A.  Well, there were a number of concerns.

Q.  Could we have the whole page, please, on the screen.

A.  It certainly wasn't an appropriate vehicle to be discussing these matters. This wasn't to be a trial by media. It was very much a self-serving article that Reverend Comben was trying to put out there, and he was also, in my view, trying to rally the community behind himself as if he was some knight in shining armour. He'd said in the fifth paragraph towards the bottom:

Increasingly I see these matters as being a challenge to the very community of Lismore.

They weren't. They were a very challenge to the Reverend Comben, not the community itself, in my view.

** 1 October 2006 media release distributed by Rev. Pat Comben:

ANG.9320.01802.0631

The Anglican Diocese of Grafton has been provided with 600 pages of statements and documents containing allegations of abuse to 42 former residents of the North Coast Childrens Home.

It is understood that a number of the claims go back more than fifty years and cover matters including discipline in the home and sexual assaults.

Diocesan Registrar Rev Pat Comben said he was surprised at the amount of personal detail of the material while "substantial threshold legal and responsibility questions remain totally unresolved."

The Church has been asked by the claimant's solicitors to respond before the 20th October, a date Rev Comben says is unrealistic.

"It has taken the solicitors for the claimants almost twelve months to collect and collate this material and we will require time to properly assess it and respond," Rev Comben said.

"Our legal advice is clear that there are substantial hurdles to be overcome by the solicitors for the claimants.

"I would hope that these issues can be resolved before increased costs are borne by the individual claimants supplying further personal and medical information which may not be needed because no claim can be made.

"I am concerned that a number of people mentioned as alleged perpetrators are not and never were staff members of the home or even church workers.

"These individuals, many of whom are still living, named as alleged perpetrators have a right to state their response to the allegations and even have their day in court.

"There are also, I believe, substantial factual errors in the material given to us about the home and its management.

"Increasingly I see these matters as being a challenge to the very community of Lismore.

"We have a wide range of evidence that points to the home being a great North Coast community facility, run and 'owned' by the community, with tremendous support from individuals and service clubs.

"Some of the matters complained of might have been standard practice in Australia some decades ago.

"Some of the complaints being raised are a potential affront to all those individuals who willingly gave their time and money to a home that In their eyes did an essential and great job.

"The Church will do all it can to speed the matter up, but in view of the legal uncertainties will continue to contest the matters as presently put to us In the name of all former staff, the wider community of Lismore and the church itself," Rev Comben said.