Contents

VOICES

Introduction

The Child Migration Scheme

Conditions in the Institutions

Bed Wetting

Punishment

Deaths of Migrant Children

Education

Food

Sexual Abuse

Dangerous Working Conditions

Wages

Complaints and the Statute of Limitations

VOICESVOICES was formed in 1991. It represents and supports men who were incarcerated in Castledare, Clontarf, Bindoon and Tardun orphanages, institutions conducted by the Christian Brothers in Western Australia. It was incorporated on 3 August 1992.277 men are registered with VOICES. Many came from UK and Malta under the Child Migration Scheme. We have been engaged in an emotional, difficult and polemic campaign, and like others involved in this issue, we have received serious threats of violence.Until November 1996, we operated from an office in Perth. This, together with clerical assistance three days a week, was funded by the law firm Slater & Gordon of Melbourne, which acted on behalf of VOICES. With the out of court settlement signed in 1996, this assistance from Slater & Gordon ceased. Apart from this financial assistance, VOICES has never had an income and survived entirely on public donations and fund raising activities. Funding has always been a major problem. Apart from the clerical assistant, no-one in VOICES has ever received any remuneration.VOICES produced a 12-page newsletter, VOICES, which appeared about six time a year. It had a circulation of 2,000 and was the largest single expense. Since the signing of the settlement, VOICES has continued to operate but at a much reduced level.VOICES has been accused of carrying out a vendetta against the Roman Catholic Church. This is not true and is strongly denied. VOICES was established to support a group of men who had suffered abuse and exploitation at the hands of those charged with their care. That those carers happened to be of a particular denomination is irrelevant.Those who joined VOICES were motivated by a desire to see the truth revealed and those who had abused them brought to justice. Most men registered with VOICES before legal action commenced.The Christian Brothers and others have claimed that the Men's primary reason for taking action was a desire for money. Due to their early years, many have lived hard and under-privileged lives and naturally, would have welcomed just monetary compensation. But they were not motivated by a desire for money. In September 1993, the Archbishop of Perth, Dr Barry Hickey, described a long meeting with executive members of VOICES as: ". . . frank, courteous and mutually respectful and that VOICES' concerns were genuine and credible. On the matter of compensation," he wrote, "I did not get the impression that VOICES were interested primarily in money."One victim, illiterate and under intense grilling by a QC in the NSW Supreme Court, replied emotionally: "No, I wasn't after the money at all. I am not after any money. I want to learn how to read and bloody write . . ."The men are disappointed by the terms of the legal agreement which they believe was forced upon them. They regard compensation for rape and serious sexual abuse, which ranged from nothing to $25,000, the majority receiving $6,750, as a gratuitous insult. They received no compensation for physical abuse and injuries, lack of education and lifelong psychological damage. They believe that justice still eludes them. They hope that his Select Committee of Parliament will expose the truth of their collective, life-long ordeal. If that is achieved, then they will feel that their fight for justice has been validated.

Bruce Blyth

Director

IntroductionDuring the last decade, the Christian Brothers in Western Australia have been subjected to serious allegations of child abuse, which, it is alleged, took place in institutions under their control. The four institutions most often mentioned are Bindoon Castledare, Clontarf and Tardun. The alleged abuse covers many forms, but can be classified under three general headings—psychological, physical and sexual. Allegations of abuse at these institutions cover the period from the 1930s to the 1990s. Christian Brother Carmody was convicted of sexually abusing a child at Clontarf as early as 1920. However, most of the allegations cover the post-war period when hundreds of children from Britain and Malta were placed in the institutions after arriving in the State under the Child Migration Scheme.That abuses did occur cannot be denied. In July 1993, the Christian Brothers published a public apology in the national press in which they expressed "deep shame and regret" that physical and sexual abuse had taken place in some of their institutions. A few weeks earlier, Provincial Brother Faulkner had admitted on a national TV programme that nine or ten Brothers had sexually abused children in their care, a few nights later on another programme he spoke of 14 or 15.The Brothers' official historian, Dr Brother Barry Coldrey, in a secret report meant for the executive of the Christian Brothers, wrote about sex rings in the orphanages with "monks doing the wrong thing with boys".Acknowledging that revelations of child abuse have damaged the Church in a scandalous and damaging way, the Archbishop of Perth has stated that "Justice must be done and those affected must be offered whatever help is possible"In an interim report, a panel set up by the Christian Brothers revealed that 32 religious and lay staff at the institutions had been accused of some form of abuse. One Christian Brother, Gerard Dick, was gaoled in 1994 for sexually abusing children at Castledare, the judge commenting: "It is difficult to contemplate a worse example of breach of trust."In this submission, we will show that migrant children (and others) placed in the care of the Christian Brothers were denied adequate education, were forced on to building sites with no wages and in demonstrably dangerous conditions, were brutally beaten and punished far beyond the normal standards of the time and as a consequence, have carried the scars for the rest of their lives. Many carry physical injuries which can be traced back to their time in the orphanages. Other have lapsed into alcoholism. Many suffer from low self-esteem. Many have found it difficult to establish and maintain relationships. Other have had difficulty establishing regular employment.We will also show that government departments and others failed to honour their responsibilities to the children who were mostly wards of the state. There is evidence to show that parents were deceived, that the callous slitting up of families was deliberate policy and that the appalling conditions in the orphanages were widely known to bureaucrats and others.The victims' efforts to obtain compensation and justice have been thwarted by the WA Statute of Limitations which precludes civil action being taken outside a six year period. This law has clearly prejudiced the victims' legal options and in our view, is unjust. We will show that boys in the institutions did complain about their treatment to school principals, to the police, to social workers, to families they spent holidays with and to employers. However, no-one would believe their word against that of the Christian Brothers who held a revered position in society.Some ex-inmates claim that either no abuses occurred or if they did, are now grossly exaggerated. VOICES respects their views and acknowledges that they may not have been abused themselves and could have been unaware of abuses which may have been taking place during their time in a particular institution. It is not difficult to find government and other reports favourable to the Brothers' institutions. Brother Barry Coldrey, the Christian Brothers' official historian has produced a number of books in which favourable reports about the institutions abound. However, they reflect no more than what should have been expected. It is the large number of damning reports covering almost every aspect of life in the institutions which reveal the true picture. The tragedy is that nothing was done to alleviate the terrible plight of children who no-one seemed to care about.Since 1992, VOICES has been seeking a full Inquiry the Christian Brothers' institutions. Thirty thousand Western Australians signed a petition supporting VOICES' call for a judicial inquiry, a call politicians chose to ignore. We welcome this opportunity to present our evidence to this Select Committee.

The Child Migration SchemeIn the 1930s, Brother P. Conlon travelled to Britain seeking boys to bring to Western Australia to be placed in orphanages run by the Christian Brothers. As a result of his efforts, 114 boys arrived in 1938-39 and were sent to Castledare, Clontarf and Tardun. However, his efforts were not totally successful and even at that early stage in the child migration scheme, some misgivings were evident. In spite of a meeting with Irish Prime Minister De Valera, the Irish government refused to participate in the scheme. In a memo dated 22 July 1938, the Department of the Taoiseach noted ". . . that Brother Conlon should be informed that the Government do not propose to participate in the scheme" and in a letter dated 16 August Brother Conlon was informed: ". . . that the scheme was not approved."When the scheme was resumed after the war in 1947, serious doubts about its validity began to surface. In a memo to the Minister for Social Services a month before the first post-war child migrants arrived, the Secretary wrote:

  "I have mentioned to you once or twice that I was a bit perturbed as to what may happen now that child migration was about to commence, as to whether there would be adequate machinery to see that the interests of the children were safeguarded after their arrival here. This was not so in the past...After listing some of his misgivings, be wrote:

  "The 1938-39 scheme in many ways was disastrous. Children brought out under this scheme became anti-social, anti-Australian, and anti-Christ, and some of them unfortunately have returned to the Old Country, not at all satisfied with the treatment received at the hands of the authorities here. This at all costs must be avoided in the future."At the foot of this letter, the Minister penned a note to the Minister for Lands:

  "I regard this matter as both urgent and important. I requested the Secretary to put his views. I feel his suggestions are extremely valuable and should be put into effect. The Education Department is also interested. Your views please."Two years later when there was acrimonious debate between the Department and Church authorities about the payment of wages and training programmes for the migrant boys, the same Secretary wrote to his Minister:

  "Of course, in the first instance it must be appreciated that the children whom Father Stinson, or the Roman Catholic Church for that matter, appears to be so greatly concerned about are migrant children and Mr HE Smith is their legal guardian, having been so appointed by the Commonwealth Government..."

and later,

  "I do not think, when the Roman Catholic Authorities got approval to bring migrant children to the State, that they were fully aware of the Commonwealth Guardianship of Children Act or, for that matter, did they think it would be enforced or, further, an officer of the State Government would be appointed the guardian of the children. This is the score point. As these children have been brought out, it cannot be denied, by a private scheme I think, and I have every right so say to, that they naturally thought the children would be under the control of the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church. This not being so, of course, is not to their liking."In 1949, the Under Secretary for Lands Immigration wrote to the Minister for Lands and Immigration: "I am of the opinion that if the Imperial Government became aware of the existing conditions at Bindoon, the State will be called upon for more drastic control at that centre."These strong words from such a high authority should have put all those involved on high alert.Others were also apprehensive. Again in 1947, the Curtis Committee stated, ". . . this particular method of providing for the deprived child is not one we wish to see extended," and in 1949 an official of the Commonwealth Relations Office wrote, ". . . there is a school of thought in the country which is almost opposed to child migration in principal."In April 1948, the London correspondent of The Age (Melbourne) reported that sixteen British welfare associations were pressing the government to investigate conditions of 300 child migrants, as they had received adverse reports from both individuals and organisations. One welfare officer said: "Our greatest fear is that population needs of the Dominions are being put before the welfare of these children." It was claimed that many children were undergoing "a new life of drudgery with little thought to education".To the dismay of Father Nicol, who had been appointed to London in 1948 to co-ordinate migration of orphans to Catholic institutions in Australia, arrangements for the passage of 20 boys early in 1951 had to be cancelled after a Home Office circular questioned the quality of care in some orphanages in Australia.As recently as 1989 the Department of Community Services labelled the Child Migration Scheme as the "most terrible child welfare practice". There is evidence that children were sent to Australia without their parents' knowledge or authority, and that all contact with families was broken, perhaps to be resumed decades later.The separation of siblings was systematic and ruthless. In some cases, a brother and sister may have travelled to Australia on the same ship, but when the boy embarked at Fremantle, his sister would go to St Joseph's Convent or be carried on to Goodwood Orphanage in Adelaide and all communication would be lost, at least for years and sometimes permanently. "Brothers and sisters once separated would not see each other again until many months later."Add to all this the unashamed censoring and tampering with personal letters and all family ties, however fragile, were broken. Many men say they were told their parents were dead when in fact they were not. In a letter to VOICES, Mrs John Wedlock wrote: "They told him (her husband) his parents were dead and (he) had no other family. In 1988 we found his mum in Scotland, in 1993 we found a sister and four step brothers in London. He has never stepped into a Catholic church since he left the home."Beginning in April 1950, when the supply of children from British orphanages was drying up, about three hundred boys arrived from Malta. Their story is especially sad and differs from their comrades from Britain in at least one fundamental difference.Before arriving in Australia, nearly all the British children had spent their brief lives in institutions with no, or at best, little experience of family life. In Malta, however, most of the children were part of large and loving families. Parents, poor and with many mouths to feed, proved an easy target to fanciful radio advertisements and priestly persuasions which promised a good education and trade training for their son in an exciting new country. Arriving at the Australian orphanages must have been a devastating shock for these family boys. First, their smart clothes which their family had so proudly struggled to provide, were taken from them, never to be seen again.Their own language, even amongst themselves, was prohibited at the cost of a belting if caught speaking it. Graham Galea, who arrived from Malta when he was 13 years of age tells how Maltese boys were punished, often with strap and fist, when they were caught speaking their own language amongst themselves. Mario Mamo, also from Malta, told the Perth Sunday Times (19/9/93) how he and other Maltese boys, who spoke no English, were placed in classes with British and Australian children and forbidden to speak their own language. "—if we did we got the strap," he said. Telling how one particular brother beat him, Mario's Maltese friend, Tony Abela said: "We were just trying to learn English at the time, let alone spelling. He used to hit us all the time." Mario and Tony are still only in their 30s and were at Castledare and Clontarf in the 1970s.But perhaps worst of all, contact with their families was severed. Letters they wrote to their families did not leave the orphanage while letters from home were not given to them. Michael Greck found a number of letters in a drawer which had not been given to the addressees. As an adult, he made contact with his sister who told him that she had sent many letters to him but had never received an answer. Graham Galea says that letters from his mother were torn up in front of him before he had read them. The boys could not understand why they had been abandoned by their families and their frustrated families could not understand why their loving son, for whom they had sacrificed so much, did not answer their letters.In its interim report, the Independent Advisory panel lists intercepting and failing to pass on mail from child's parents as most serious emotional abuse.One Maltese boy said:

  On my first day at Bindoon, a Brother told me to get bricks and tiles and take them up to the building. I replied that I was going to be an engineer and with that comment he hit me on the head with his walking stick. While at Bindoon I was supposed to be trained as a plumber. This consisted of carting pipes around. One of the plumber's jobs was to clean out the septic tank. They used to cut out a 44 gallon drum in half and I had to climb inside and be lowered down into the tank to pass out full buckets which were used to "fertilise" the orchards. I fell into this mess several time—causing very bad outbreaks of boils—I carry some scars from these boils now.Eric Baguley, a retired NSW police inspector who spent four years at Clontarf, told us that shortly before leaving Clontarf, the principal, Brother Doyle, told him: "You are the boy most likely to end up in Fremantle gaol."Lionel Welsh, a survivor of Bindoon, recalls that Keaney would bellow at the boys: "All of you will finish up behind bars" and "Go back to the gutter where you came from." Other men have reported similar statements.The destruction of individual self-esteem appears to have been a deliberate policy. Many men tell of cruel and oft repeated remarks about their parents, terms such as sluts and whores being used. They were repeatedly told how the Brothers had rescued them from the slums of London and Birmingham. As recently as July 1993, the day after the Christian Brothers had published an apology in the national press, a Brother Kelly commented in a telephone conversation heard by five members of VOICES, that those making the allegations were either under psychiatric treatment or were alcoholics. "You only have to see them on TV to see what sort of people they are," he said. He referred to the street kids from the slums of Birmingham and London who had been rescued and brought up by the Christian Brothers.In recent years, the Christian Brothers have tried to distance themselves from the Child Migration scheme, but there is no doubt that they played a leading role in its promotion and execution. In The Record (18/9/93), Brother Faulkner said: "The child migration movement was not a Christian Brothers decision. The media seem to think it was." This statement is contradicted by another Christian Brother historian, Brother Richard Healey when he wrote: "The child migration scheme which was grafted on to the Tardun Farm Scheme seems to have originated with Archbishop Clune who was perhaps prompted by Brother Conlan."

Conditions in the institutionsIt is clear that conditions in the orphanages were appalling. Why such conditions were allowed to exist for so long is a strong condemnation of all concerned—Commonwealth and State politicians and bureaucrats, local government authorities and of course, the Christian Brothers. One strong thread running through the reports is the way recommendations by inspectors and others were repeatedly ignored. Much of the misery and abuse inflicted upon the children would not have occurred if those responsible for overseeing the institutions had acted responsibly. It seems that many lacked the will to "take on" the Christian Brothers and the Catholic Church.On 9 July 1948 and less than a year after the first post-war child migrants arrived in Australia, the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department and two of his officers inspected Castledare accompanied by the State Migration Officer. In their report four days later, they noted that boys were sleeping in dingy unattractive quarters with floors stained by urine-sodden mattresses, blankets miserably thin and in adequate, no hot water in the bathroom, lack of affection and care, no organised medical parade nor any woman qualified to attend to the welfare of the young children there. Perhaps it is worth noting that Castledare housed the youngest of the children in the Christian Brothers institutions.Two years later, in July 1950, Mr R W Gratwick, Commonwealth Migration officer, submitted a report on Castledare to the Under Secretary for Lands & Immigration in which he wrote:

  "...although for the last two years inspecting officers have brought to notice the absence of fly-proofing these conditions have been allowed to persist ...flyproofing of the kitchen area, which is a major consideration where young children are concerned, has been neglected,' He went on, 'Brother McGhie (sic) indicated in January 1949 that this work would be carried out immediately, but to date it appears that plans only have been prepared and work to start at an early date. This position is considered unsatisfactory and it would be appreciated if the Under Secretary, as the Minister's delegate under the Guardianship Act, will take the required action to have this necessary work performed by the Catholic Authorities."In 1948, three inspectors from the Child Welfare Department and a State Migration Officer voiced their disquiet about the lack of female presence so essential to small children. In their report, they wrote:

  "Castledare is catering for children who are still little more than babies, who need love, affection, care and attention, which a child of such age would get from a mother...It appears that the staff is insufficient and there is an immediate necessity for the 'touch of a woman's hand'...trained woman if possible—and strictly supervised organisation of clothing, washing, sleeping and general amenities for these children, who are, many of them, anyway, not long out of the kindergarten stage. Lacking proper facilities, care, attentions and opportunity, what will be the reaction later on of their citizenship value?"This lack of a female presence had long been recognised. In January 1951, the Officer of the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom wrote to the Acting Secretary of the Department of Immigration in Canberra, pointing out that as far back as 1944 he had discussed with the Archbishop the need to appoint sisters to the staff at Castledare, the Archbishop promising to see this was done before the reception of migrant children. In fact, no sisters were appointed to Castledare until March 1950, more than two and a half years after the first post-war migrant children arrived. After listing other shortcomings, he wrote:

  "...I am inclined to the view that we should not agree to any further children being sent to Castledare until it has been inspected by someone on our behalf...my own impression after reading through these reports and with vivid recollection of what the place looked like when I last saw it is that the authorities responsible for Castledare have been very dilatory in effecting essential improvements..."On 30 November 1950, Castledare was inspected by Mr G Bartley of the Commonwealth Immigration Department and Mr E Denney of the State Immigration Department. Finding the kitchen and dining room exposed to flies, they reported: "The provision of additional storage cupboards and facilities for the preparation of food is an essential improvement and in fact the respective Departments should perhaps have insisted that they be provided before any child migrants were admitted."The lack of female presence was also the subject of concern expressed by officers who inspected Bindoon. In a letter addressed to the Under Secretary for Lands dated 23 January 1948, the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department wrote: "...the home is entirely lacking in the necessary female staff..."Conditions at Bindoon in 1948 were so bad that the Under Secretary for Lands stated that he would arrange a conference between the Catholic Migration Authorities with reference to the vexed question of Bindoon.

The understanding of the importance of female presence expressed in these reports is borne out by the final report of the Independent Advisory Panel set up by the Christian Brothers.

  "A number of ex-residents stated that throughout their lives they had difficulties in relating to women. These men believed that this was directly due to the lack of female contact throughout their childhood. Others spoke of difficulties in forming loving relationships generally (eg with former partners, their wives and children) and attributed this to lack of affectionate contact in their childhood."In 1942, Clontarf was taken over by the Royal Australian Air Force. In 1994, Senator Ray, Minister for Defence, was asked: "Did...the findings of the Court show that it was necessary, on occupation...to carry out a general cleaning of the whole premises and to fumigate them to eradicate bugs and vermin?" and "Did Captain CL Thorpe, Acting Assistant Director Army Hirings, Western Command, on 27 November 1945 note that the beds and bedding of the orphanage were so verminous on the take over that they were condemned by hygiene officers of the RAAF command?" Senator Ray answered "yes" to both questions.A health inspector from the Canning Road Board wrote a scathing report on conditions at Clontarf on August 30, 1949. After complaining about effluent discharges on the edge of playing field and offensive odours, he wrote:

  "Series of manholes along entire length of (sewage) line are without concrete covers, pieces of Iron and board being used as substitutes. Size and depth of these manholes provide dangerous conditions."Facilities provided for preparation and consumption of food came in for special attention: "...most unhygienic and unsatisfactory." In summing up, he wrote:

  "Many aspects of essential sanitation are neglected in this establishment. A systematic survey of all sections of the institution, followed by a policy of progressive elimination of all defects evident in these sections, is urgently required."Bindoon was not exempt from harsh criticism either. The Secretary of the Child Welfare Department wrote to the Under Secretary for Lands and Immigration on 23 January 1948, saying:

  "I have never been very happy about Bindoon and if the migrant boys are to remain there and receive their due in respect to clothing, food, education and recreation, a great improvement will have to be effected."Institutions Officer Marriot went so far as to say: "No more children should be admitted to Bindoon while the present conditions prevail."

A few days before, Bindoon had been inspected by Inspector G. Stewart and two other officers. The comprehensive, four page report prompted the Under Secretary for Lands and Immigration to write to the Acting Commonwealth Immigration Officer and the Acting Secretary of the Child Welfare Department, asking them to attend a meeting in his office to discuss the report. The Secretary of the Catholic Immigration Association was also asked to attend. The letter to the Commonwealth Immigration Officer said: "This report discloses a very unsatisfactory position."Later in the same year, the Secretary wrote to the Under Secretary again, saying:

  "Furthermore, I was not very happy about the working clothes provided for these boys. I saw some boys about the farm wearing trousers that were at least two or three sizes too large for them. The boys did not appear to wear any socks and the clothes they were wearing appeared to me to be of secondhand nature. This, in my opinion, is degrading."A few days later, the Secretary passed on these views to Father Stinson, the Director, Catholic Episcopal Migration and Welfare Association.There can be no doubt that conditions at the institutions were deplorable. It is clear from the mass of reports and correspondence which circulated in and between government departments, that there was concern, anxiety and misgiving on a large scale. It is also clear that the officers concerned were sincere and dedicated and genuinely worried about the overall situation. The Christian Brothers must be held responsible for the day to day atrocities and neglect which overshadowed their institutions. But it must also be said that the children involved were ultimately the responsibility of the government of the day. Where did it go wrong? Where did the system break down? Who, apart from the Christian Brothers, carries the guilt?

Bed wettingOn 5 July 1951, Mr McMinn, Secretary Child Welfare Department inspected Castledare with two of his inspectors, Mr Roberts and Miss Pigeon. They were accompanied by State Migration Officer, Mr Denney. Their report on the cubicles set aside for bedwetters paints a grim picture:

  "Generally dingy and in no way bright or attractive; floors stained under the beds by liquid, which undoubtedly was urine, which had dropped there through continually saturated mattresses. In several instances there was still a quantity of urine on the floor, which had not soaked away and no effort had been made to mop it up. Under one bed there appeared to be an area where the urine had dried out on the boards, leaving a salty crust. Many of the wire mattresses of these beds showed a rusty tarnish on the area of contact with urine sodden bed mattresses. The mattresses themselves were in a deplorable state. For instance, one appeared to have been thrown out to dry after continual bed-wetting and the dirt had become impregnated on the urine affected area. The mattress covering, practically in all cases, was grimy and dirty. The mattresses themselves were torn and in the first right-hand cubicle off the courtyard of the first block the mattress was nearly torn in half, exposing a mass of brown fibre filling. In this case the Manager, Brother McGee, admitted that a boy was using this bed—the boy's pyjamas, blankets and sheets were stacked on the door end of the bed—the sheets appeared to be fresh ones; were reasonably clean. However, it would not be possible for any person to sleep with any degree of comfort on such a mattress."On 18 August 1949, over twelve months later, Dr Alfred Jacobs of Narrogin wrote to Dr Cook, the Commissioner of Public health alleging similar conditions at Clontarf.

—"Dear Dr Cook,

  "A Narrogin girl who happened to visit this establishment on the occasion of a recent bazaar there happened, she states, to wander into a dormitory, which was open for public inspection. Beyond this, and adjoining it, she found another room, cement floored and stinking of stale urine, with which dirty mattresses lying directly on the floor were soaked. She disgustedly asked the raison d'etre of all this, and was informed that it was the dormitory used for sufferers from enuresis.

  "If this is true—and I cannot personally vouch for it, having got the alleged facts at second hand—it is Indeed a damning business; apart from the physical hardship imposed on these sufferers, the psychological damage can hardly be measured.

  "I suggest that the institution be inspected without warning—and perhaps to simultaneously other institutions of like kind."A few days later, on 29 August Clontarf was inspected by Mr Pilbeam, Chief Health Inspector Canning Road Board. He was accompanied by nurse Dorothy Railton who, in her report, said: "The segregation of children suffering from enuresis should not be permitted".Five months later, Mr Pilbeam complained: "Conditions remain approximately the same as reported
29/8/49." Commenting on the downstairs dormitory, he wrote: "used by sufferers of enuresis. Untidy conditions. Soiled and dirty pillows and bedding. Cleansing required."Lionel Welsh, who was an inmate at Bindoon from 1947-52, wrote:

  "Bed wetters were looked upon by the Brothers as filthy and too lazy to get out of bed. These unfortunate boys—were treated with contempt and humiliation. First, they would be beaten with a strap and, then, for one or two hours, would be left standing on the cold concrete veranda with the wet sheet draped over their heads to be mocked and scorned by all and sundry."Many men claim that children were dragged from their beds in the middle of the night and forced into cold showers and/or belted with leather straps.Claims made by apologists for the Christian Brothers that the problems of enuresis were not understood in the 1940s and 1950s are not valid. In 1938, The Child Welfare Department had produced a pamphlet on bed-wetting. In contained this advice:Punishments or ridicule are not of the slightest value, therefore never punish the child when he wets his bed but praise him when he does not do so. Remember he cannot help doing it as it is done in his sleep. These punishments and efforts to shame the child only make matters worse. Never speak of the child's habit before him. It is most important that the whole matter be ignored as much as possible.In 1993, Brother Coldrey cited the percentage of children in Christian Brothers institutions who were bedwetters as being 30 or 40 per cent. Although appearing grossly high, this figure does have some support in medical literature, Schaefer cites medical studies indicating that while 82 per cent of middle-class two-year olds wet the bed, this percentage declines to 49 per cent at age three, 26 per cent at age four, 20 per cent to 25 per cent at age four and five, 10 per cent of age six to ten years, and finally to about 3 per cent in the teen years and in adulthood. Twice as many "lower-class" children bedwet as do "middle-class" children and up to 30 per cent of institutionalised youth bedwet.Schaefer indicated that if a child was still wetting the bed frequently at the age of 5, the parents should seek professional assistance in implementing a treatment programme. He indicated that to wait any longer would be to "jeopardise the child's self-esteem, progress in school and his ability to make friends."Schaeffer described the 1904 introduction of a bell and pad conditioning machine. A pad was placed under a bedwetter's sheet and an electric wire connected it to batteries. Urine, containing salt and being an electrolyte, completed an electrical circuit making a connected bell ring upon the child's micturition. The arousal was designed to make the child cease the micturition, turn off the alarm, get out of bed and complete the micturition in the toilet. Later models ran off 110 volt AC current with a transformer to reduce the voltage to safe limits. Various improvements which followed were designed to reduce the possibility of electricity coming into contact with the child's skin which would produce sores and ulcers. Other improvements were designed to prevent the possibility of corrosion of the electrical wires, to increase the sensitivity of the machine to smaller amounts of urine and to eliminate the chance of shock or electrochemical burns to the child.The Christian Brothers had their own grotesque methods of treatment. In the 1992 Who Magazine article, John Lawrence describes how the principal Brother Bruno Doyle tackled the problem. "Doyle had a tape thing which he would tie around my penis . . . It had some sort of alarm on it and was connected to an electric current. The idea was that the alarm would sound and I'd get a small shock if I wet the bed. But I'd never wake up, and next thing he would be in the room to give me a terrible thrashing."In the same article, Brother Coldrey, the commissioned historian of the institutions, said: "As for allegations of electric shock therapy, I have heard about the technique of having a device attached to the rubber sheeting which would produce a shock when wet . . . I have not heard or read anything about a device tied to the penis. I would think that extreme."On a national TV programme in September 1996, Lawrence again discusses this electric shock treatment and was supported by another victim on the same programme who suffered the same treatment. Both saw it as a form of sexual abuse as Doyle obviously fondled the boys as he attached the device. On the same

PunishmentThe Christian Brothers' attempts to paint the 1950s and 1960s as an age of barbarism in schools are as dishonest as they are erroneous. Their claims that flogging children was not unusual in that era are not even plausible. How children could be punished was strictly governed by law and regulation laid down by The Child Welfare Regulations 19-22 of The Child Welfare Act which was promulgated in 1907.The Christian Brothers have long carried a reputation for strict corporal punishment which belied the beliefs of their founder, Edmund Rice who wrote:

  "Unless for some very serious fault, which rarely occurs, corporal punishment is not allowed" and "Blows are a servile form of chastisement and degrade the soul."Coldrey's A Most Unenviable Reputation is a typical example of how the Christian Brothers have tried to justify and rationalise the brutal corporal punishment which characterised life in the institutions.There have been numerous comments by public figures who have said that while they were physically punished when at school under the Christian Brothers, they justify it with comments such as 'i't never did me any harm" or "it was no more than I deserved". A WA Parliamentarian, Mr Ted Cunningham claimed that the "...only abuse (he) encountered was on a weekly, or most time bi-weekly basis, when he received six strokes on the hand". This means that he would have received more than 200 strokes over 40 five-day school weeks. Were all of these punishments inflicted on Mr Cunningham entered in the punishment book as required by regulations?Mr Brian Tennant, a social and law reform campaigner and an ex inmate of the institutions, in a letter to the Attorney General, Mrs Edwardes, wrote: "...(corporal punishment) was administered in several ways, such as the strap, the cane, a kick in the backside, a slap on the face, even a fight a few times in self defence. The above were the accepted standards of the day. This was not only in orphanages, but throughout schools the length and breadth of the Commonwealth."This, of course, is just not true. Regulations clearly stated that most of these methods of punishment were illegal and had a teacher in a government school employed them, he would have been severely dealt with. The regulations applied to all schools, public and private, in Western Australia.The Christian Brothers have consistently claimed that severe corporal punishment was normal in the 1950s. According to Coldrey:

  "...the fact is that in 1950, a teacher or a childcare worker who gave a disobedient child up to six strokes of the birch, cane, rod or strap on the hand, legs or backside—bare or covered—was giving a severe but normal punishment in a residential institution. Such punishment was not illegal, indecent nor against community standards."In fact it was clearly illegal. To suggest that the birch was legal is clearly absurd.In 1948, a mother complained that her son attending a country government school had been excessively caned by a teacher. After the police and a doctor had been called in, it transpired that two strokes had been administered with a standard type cane. The teacher was reprimanded and transferred, a verdict indicating the true picture of the times.As early as 1935, the Acting Chief Inspector of Schools told an inquiring parent that corporal punishment: "...should, as a rule, be inflicted after school has been dismissed and not in public." He also pointed out that details of all punishments should be entered in the punishment book immediately.

All of the men registered with VOICES tell stories of severe physical punishment and assault in the institutions. Thick leather straps were the most common instrument used for punishment, but allegations of assault by fist and boot are common.

Mr Bill Brennan, as a twelve-year old at Clontarf, was ordered to make straps to the specifications of individual brothers. These straps, he explains, were made of 2 or 3 layers of the best leather about 4 cms wide and 45 cms long. Some had bandsaw blades and lead pellets sewn into them and could inflict great physical and mental pain.This allegation is borne out in a feature article in The Sydney Morning Herald (7/9/96) in which Leo Schofield recalls his school days in Sydney under the Christian Brothers. He recalls with particular abhorrence a Brother, nick-named Itchy, who "...had his (strap) custom-made by the local boot-maker...Between the two pieces of thick boot leather, the cobbler inserted, under Itchy's watchful direction, two or three used hacksaw blades." Comparing Itchy's straps with those used by other Brothers, Schofield commented, "...Itchy's strap was rigid, heavy and hard, and few things in life seemed to afford him as much pleasure as using it."All Brothers in the WA institutions seem to have been armed with straps, which was clearly in breach of regulations.In a letter to an inquiring parent, the Acting Chief Inspector of Schools wrote on 23 September 1935: "One school cane only should be kept. That should be under the control of the Head Teacher, with the Punishment Book, and should be obtained from him by an Assistant to whom he may have delegated his authority."Public corporal punishments were almost ritual ceremonies at both Bindoon and Clontarf. Corporal punishment inflicted in public was specifically prohibited.At Bindoon and Clontarf, these public floggings took place on Sundays. They instilled terrible fear into children who never knew when it might be their turn to be called up and beaten on the bare buttocks before the entire assembly of children. As early as 1937, the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department wrote to Brother Keaney asking that he comply with Child Welfare Department regulations relating to corporal punishment, saying that such punishment may only be inflicted on the hands and not on the buttocks, and that also such punishment should be inflicted with a cane and not a strap. Until he died in 1954, Brother Keaney continued to publicly thrash boys on the buttocks with a strap.On 29 October 1940 the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department reported to the Minister two cases of over-severe punishment upon two wards at Clontarf said to have been inflicted by the manager, Brother Keaney. He said that he had seen the boys four days after the punishment and that he had been so struck by the severity of the punishment that he had told Archbishop Prendiville that he felt Brother Keaney was unfit to continue as manager and that he was considering taking proceedings against Brother Keaney for assaulting the boys.In Parliamentary Question 3035 of 13 June 1995, the Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Community Development said that the Reverend Father Johnson had viewed the effects of the punishment inflicted by Keaney on two boys and that he gave the opinion to the Archbishop that perhaps the boys' buttocks were too tender. The Secretary of the Child Welfare Department said that he was obliged to form the opinion that:

  "Brother Keaney's one object in life is to erect buildings and to work the boys as hard as he can to get the work done expeditiously and cheaply, and from (his) interview with the Archbishop I know that he is loathe to remove Brother Keaney."A week later, the Secretary of the Department wrote to the Archbishop saying that Brother Keaney refused to discuss the punishment of certain boys with two of his officers.On 5 December, Mr Roberts of the Child Welfare Department stated that Brother Keaney had told him he had inflicted two to six strokes of a strap according to the severity of the offence and that if he found misbehaviour on his journeys around the building he may cuff the offender with his open hand. He also told Mr Roberts that he had inflicted 12 strokes of the strap on the posteriors of each of five boys, that another had received four strokes and that another had received two strokes on two occasions for carelessness and that he did not consider the punishment unduly severe.The Secretary of the Department said in a letter to his Minister that he had seen the marks of punishment on the boys' buttocks and that he and his officers who had seen them considered the punishment was much too severe and was not permissible under Child Welfare regulations. He went on to say that if Brother Keaney would not refrain from punishing boys as he did on the occasions under investigation he should not be considered acceptable to the Government as manager of the orphanage.

In Parliamentary question 1316 the Minister agreed that the Archbishop of Perth objected to the officers sent by the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department to Clontarf to investigate over punishment of boys in November 1940. The Archbishop had scanned a public service list of officers to determine which officers he, the Archbishop, considered would be suitable to investigate Clontarf. The Secretary also noted that a Clontarf boy had been injured while working for Clontarf by salvaging building materials on a burnt-out Aherns warehouse in Victoria Park.In 1956, Mr J McCall, the Director of the Child Welfare Department was said to have hardly been on speaking terms with Brother Bruno Doyle, the Principal of Clontarf, as he had reprimanded him for beating a boy unnecessarily severely.In answer to Parliamentary Question 1882 the Minister for Community Services in letter 9016 13 March 1995 referred to a letter quoted by Brother Coldrey in The Scheme from Brother Joseph Doyle who was appointed manager of Bindoon over Brother Keaney because of Keaney's inappropriate behaviours regarding drinking parties, lack of religious training of boys, profane language, assaults of boys with his fists and with a piece of three by two wood. These details of Keaney's abuse of boys while they were in Doyle's letter to the Provincial Superiors of the Order of Christian Brothers in Sydney should have been sent to the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department as well (under Regulation 8 of the Child Welfare Act), but the Minister in letter 9016 indicates that there was no such information located on any file of the Department.Men who were at Clontarf in 1957 still talk about the brutal bashing dealt out to 13-year-old Hugh McConnell by the notorious Brother P.C. Mohen. During the assault, which took place outside the classroom during the night study period, Mohen bashed Hugh's head several times against the brick wall before hurling him onto the concrete floor. Mohen is remembered by many men as a brutal man who dealt out severe punishment in the classroom.Stories of brutal and excessive punishment at Bindoon are legion, but one in particular highlights the Brothers' contemptuous attitude towards authority.On 12 June 1946, the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department wrote to the manager of Bindoon complaining that some of his officers had noticed that certain boys had their hair very closely clipped and had been told that this was punishment for absconding. He said that: "I am very perturbed...and hesitate to believe that it is so."In his reply, the acting manager, Brother Wexted wrote, "Now when a boy is returned to the institution after absconding now just what would you do. Give him a kiss, a clap on the back and a bag of peanuts".The Department replied to Brother Newman, saying "...that if this practice were to continue and punishments other than those laid down in the regulations were inflicted, the Government may have to seriously consider refraining from allowing any wards to be sent to Bindoon'.In letter 3252 of 22 December 1993, the Minister acknowledged that in a report dated 16 August 1954, two members of the Children's Court who visited Clontarf, reported that Brother Doyle, the manager of Clontarf, had acknowledged that head shaving of boys as a form of punishment had occurred. There was no such record on the Department's files about Clontarf of the numbers of instances when such punishment occurred.Many men incarcerated at Bindoon still suffer the effects of the illegal punishments inflicted upon them. John McGillion from Ireland, was backhanded off a scaffold by a raging Keaney and landed on his back to spend six weeks in Royal Perth Hospital and a further five weeks at Shenton Park rehabilitating. When John died in 1996 at the age of 59 years, he had spent a long time on a pension with serious back and neck problems. Mick Searle from Scotland, still carries a deep scar across the top of his head where Keaney smashed his head open with his infamous walking stick. Although his head was split open and bleeding profusely, he got no sympathy or treatment except from his mates who could only bathe his head under the tap.In 1990, in a letter to VOICES, Brother Coldrey wrote:

"...I feel the picture of Bindoon given in Geondic, through the eyes of a boy, now a middle-aged man, is substantially accurate and is not contradicted by my own researches...things were out of control at Bindoon in that period at least."No amount of rationalising can minimise the blatant criminal acts committed in these institutions in the name of discipline. It is true that the cane was used in government schools much more frequently than in later years, but strict regulations governed its use. The strap, the favoured instrument in the institutions, was a violation of the regulations and was often the cause of serious psychological and physical harm to young children. If physical punishment had been restricted to the strap, it would have been bad enough, but other forms of brutality were commonly used, especially the hand and fist. The boxing of ears was specifically barred by regulation but was a common form of punishment.Keaney was renowned for striking children with his stick. Many men speak of being physically assaulted for giving incorrect answers to questions related to classroom work—assaults such as boxing, twisting and pulling of ears. Physical punishment for failure or inability to learn was prohibited by regulation and in any case, was obviously a poor educational practice. All punishments should have been entered in the punishment book provided by the Education authorities.In letter 3252 22 December 1993, the Minister representing the Minister for Community Development noted that Brother Bruno Doyle, the manager of Clontarf, had refused to let members of the Children's Court see the punishment book, but that Brother Doyle had admitted inflicting four strokes on the hands with a leather strap to absconding boys. When the punishment book was eventually seen by a Child Welfare officer on 10 September 1954, the last entry was dated 3 January 1942. The Minister said that the explanation given by Brother Doyle was that he had continued the practice set by his predecessors of not maintaining the punishment book.On 22 March 1994, the Secretary of the Country Women's Association wrote to the Director of Education expressing concern about "the use of punishment books being kept in schools as a record of children's behaviour." In his reply, the Director explained that the punishment book was an official document kept for protection of the children and/or the teacher and that in the case being queried, it was used for the protection of the teacher.In Parliamentary Question 3522 of 17 October 1995, the Minister representing the Minister for Community Development agreed that there had been a written complaint to the Child Welfare Department about the throwing of a boy over a balcony at Clontarf by Brother Keaney. The Minister agreed that there had been concern expressed by the Child Welfare Department about the number of accidents at Clontarf. The Minister also agreed that Brother Keaney, the manager of Clontarf, had been told that corporal punishment was to be inflicted with a cane and not a strap, and that punishment was to be inflicted on the hand and not on the buttocks.

Regulations re corporal punishment1. Corporal punishment is not to be regarded as a proper aid to teaching.2. It must not be inflicted for failure or inability to learn, for trivial breaches of school discipline or for neglect to prepare home lessons.3. All cases of Corporal Punishment are to be recorded in the Punishment Book at the time the punishment is inflicted. (Note—This applies to every punishment even if only one stroke of cane.)4. Corporal Punishment may only be employed for offences against morality for gross impertinence or for wilful and persistent disobedience. It should not as a role be inflicted in public.5. Corporal Punishment may be inflicted by the principal teacher only or by an assistant teacher under the direction and on the responsibility of the principal teacher.6. In the absence of the principal teacher the senior assistant is empowered to enforce obedience.7. Monitors are in no case allowed to resort to Corporal Punishment.8. The "boxing" of children's ears is strictly forbidden as is also the Corporal Punishment of girls of 12 years of age and over.These regulations were binding on all schools in Western Australia until superseded in 1987 when corporal punishment was abolished. They were certainly not enforced in schools conducted by the Christian Brothers.

Death of migrant childrenBetween 1943 and 1958, five migrant boys died in the institutions:

(a)  Charles Brunard, schoolboy, 13 years, died 17 October 1943 of a fractured skull said by the Coroner to have occurred by being run over by a motor truck at the St Mary's Agricultural School, Tardun. Death certificate 96/43 of the Geraldton Registry refers.

(b)  Kevin Leopold Glasheen, schoolboy, 12 years died 23 May 1949, of a fractured skull said by the Coroner to have occurred by being sustained when he fell from a balcony at St Mary's Agricultural School, Tardun. Death certificate 27/49 of the Geraldton Registry refers.

(c)  Anthony Gale, school pupil, died 10 April 1956 of peritonitis and intra abdominal abscess, at St Mary's Agricultural School, Tardun. Death certificate 27/56 of the Geraldton Registry refers.

(d)  Brian Duncan, student, 13 years, died 12 March 1957 at Boys' Town Bindoon, said by the coroner to have occurred of a fractured skull when the spring cart he was riding got out of control and overturned. Death certificate 37/57 of the Swan Registry refers.

(e)  Anthony Sullivan, scholar, 15 years, of Bindoon, at Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, 24 September 1958, said by the Coroner to have occurred of a fractured skull. Death certificate 2622 District Registry of Perth refers.Although each of the death certificates contains a statement by a coroner as to the cause of death, not one death was investigated by a coronial inquest. This is confirmed in a letter (20/5/93) from then Attorney General, Mrs Cheryl Edwardes who wrote: "...there is no record that any requests to hold an Inquest were made to the Attorney General concerning the children around the time of the deaths." She was referring to the deaths of Brian Duncan, Anthony Sullivan, Charles Brunard and Kevin Glasheen. It is surprising that most of these deaths were occasioned by violence to the skulls and ascribed to an accident without any collection of any evidence, and although suggestions of criminal neglect, or even criminal activity should not be lightly ascribed, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that had there been a coronial inquest into any or all of these accidental deaths there may have been coronial recommendations as to the conduct of the Christian Brothers' institutions.It is distressing to observe that all of these boys who died were child migrants, and not one of these deaths occasioned a coronial inquest. If these deaths had occurred in any other theatre of activity then there would have been an inquest; if these deaths had occurred on a mining site there would have been a Mining Warden's inquiry; had they occurred on any building site other than on the building sites that these boy's schools had become, there would have been recommendations made as to the safety of the working conditions. The absence of inquests into these boys' deaths indicated the lack of value that had been placed on their lives.There have been numerous complaints by ex-residents of accidents that they experienced as a result of having to work in these institutions: finger amputations, broken limbs, spinal injuries and lime burns are just some of them. In 1940, the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department expressed his concern at the number of accidents that were occurring at Clontarf when boys were being used on building sites.A serious accident occurred at Clontarf on 5 October 1950. Two boys were seriously injured when 19 boys, sitting on top of a load of wood on the back of a motor truck, were thrown off when the truck overturned. Some of the boys were pinned under the logs. James Smith, then about 14, suffered a fractured skull. Eric Baguley, about 12, suffered a fractured spine and was paralysed from the waist down, However, he still suffers great pain as a result of this accident. Seventeen boys were hurt and taken to either Princess Margaret Hospital or Royal Perth Hospital. According to a report in The West Australian the next day, this trip was taken weekly over a long period of time to and from a State sawmill, and the boys had always ridden the same way. The truck was driven by Brother Pat O'Doherty. Allowing a large number of boys to ride unprotected on top of a load of wood must be seen as negligent and irresponsible.Eric Baguley, a retired NSW commissioned police officer, suffers great pain as a result of this accident. Like many other boys who suffered accidents in the institutions. Mr Baguley received no compensation. He spent many months in hospital and reports that no-one from Clontarf came to see him during his time in hospital after the first few days when he and the other injured boys were the subject of media attention.

EducationToday, many men who attended the institutions claim that denial of an adequate education has caused them great hardships in life. Many complain that they left the institutions illiterate or at best, semi-literate.In its Final Report, the Independent Advisory Panel found:

  "Probably the most common theme related to the failure by the Christian Brothers to provide all the children with adequate education. Numerous ex-residents have expressed their discontent, embarrassment, low self-worth and sense of failure as a result of their poor literacy skills. The complaints regarding lack of education have not been confined to any one institution. It is not possible to deal adequately with the issue of educational neglect here."In a memorandum dated 28 July 1949, the Deputy Director of Education informed his Director that two classrooms at Castledare had 576 square feet of area for the 72 children therein where the area should have been 792 square feet, and that 42 children in the infants room were accommodated in an area of 288 square feet instead of the mandatory 462 square feet. He also pointed out that there was a lack of skilled teaching for children in the lower and infant grades. He considered the situation so serious that transport from Perth for a skilled infants teacher should be arranged if local accommodation was impossible.On 27 July 1951, District Superintendent of Education, H Jeanes noted that there had been reports on Castledare and other Christian Brothers child-care institutions in 1949 and 1950 which included special statements about the retardation of children, especially the British migrants; that there had been no especial drive to improve the position because infants boys were still being taught by Brothers whose training did not equip them; and that so long as they were being taught under those methods retardation would persist.

On 19 January 1948, Inspector Stewart inspected Bindoon accompanied by the Institution Officer and the Clerk-in-Charge of Records. The report is generally condemnatory. In regard to the education of the boys, they commented: "We saw one schoolroom. Conditions here were deplorable, and, apart from a piano, there were two tables, some forms, and a plank erected on bricks." They were also critical of the recreation room. This contained only two tables and a form. There were no books, handicraft materials, games or gymnasium equipment in evidence.It is obvious that the Christian Brothers placed little importance on education in the institutions. In his 1951 report on Bindoon, Superintendent Jeanes noted that at Clontarf the lowest and weakest grades were still being taught by an untrained laymen for whom the work had been far beyond his capabilities, and that at Bindoon, the staffing had not been of a nature to handle effectively the serious problem of junior grades. He also noted that a serious problem of the education of the lower groups in these schools was the narrowness of the curricula, commenting that not much outside the three Rs had been attempted. He also noted that so long as the infant boys, migrant or otherwise, entering Castledare were taught under the methods then present, it had to be anticipated that retardation would persist. Interestingly, he pointed out that girls in similar institutions received a full schooling suitable for their ages.Reporting on his visit to Bindoon on 19 January 1948, the Institutions Officer reported that it appeared to be policy at Bindoon to take all boys out of school and work them at Bindoon immediately they were of school leaving age and that he believed that the boys were not being given the opportunity of education because they were working for the benefit of the institution."In a letter (29/7/48) to Father Stinson, Director of Catholic Episcopal Migration, the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department wrote:

  "I think some of the boys being allowed to leave school too soon, that is, immediately they reach the age of 14 years. I think it was the consensus of opinion of all concerned who came in direct contact with the migrant children, that most of them were at least two years retarded in their educational qualifications, and this time should at least be made up by the children being allowed to remain at school until they are sixteen, if of course it would be of any advantage to the child.Brother Keaney was too intent on his building programme to be concerned about the boys' education. In 1948, he told the Institutions Officer Marriot that:

  ". . . he was under the impression that he could take the boys away from school as soon as possible as they were not likely to derive any benefit from further schooling and would better suited to learn a trade. In order to do this, he had put them to work." Marriot went on, if this is the case, I do not see how some of these boys, who are according to reports very backward, can hope to attain the necessary education standard for apprenticeship purposes. The boys at school at present only go up as far as Fifth Standard.Most of the men who passed through the institutions speak of fear dominating the classroom. The savage use of strap and open hand whenever spelling or mathematical responses were incorrect or unknown did nothing to advance the children's ability and confidence to learn. It is quite wrong to say that such behaviour was common in all schools. It was not. Not only did such behaviour breach regulations, but it also breached community standards of the day. Such brutal discipline instils fear and destroys confidence, especially in children who lack security or who already have learning difficulties or are in any way intellectually backward.

FoodAll men associated with VOICES speak in the strongest terms about the poor quality and the frugality of food given to them in the orphanages.In a report on Clontarf dated 19 June 1940, the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department noted the diet of the children required investigation. He said that the children did not receive meat and vegetables as such, saying that the food diet of just soups and soft sweets appeared to be all wrong; the medical practitioners recommended a diet for children which included food to chew.But not only was the food of poor nutritional value. Many men incarcerated at Bindoon and Castledare tell of raiding the pig bins to stave off hunger.Dennis Clarke states: "At Clontarf we used to have to go to Aquinas College to collect their scraps for the pigs and the boys used to go through these scraps to find sausages or anything that we thought was edible."Other men have told how they competed for a place on the truck which made the weekly trip to Acquinas to collect the scraps for the piggery. Their reward was perhaps, a chunk of stale bread or an odd apple core. Others tell of going to the piggery at both Bindoon and Clontarf to get food from the bins.An apologist for the Christian Brothers put a different slant on the weekly Aquinas trip. In a full page article in the Sunday Times (25/8/91), Michael Dark talks about his life at Castledare and Clontarf. The article concludes when he says: "I was very lucky to have been taken in by the Christian Brothers—I owe them so much and now I just want to give some back."Earlier in the same article, he had said:

  "Every Thursday the slops truck used to come over from Aquinas College with 44-gallon drum of bread, grapes, rockmelon and peaches. This was meant for the pigs, but as Brother Angus drove up the driveway, he used to slow the truck over the cattle grid. There were always 30 or 40 boys in the trees above waiting to swoop on the truck and grab the food, so there was never much slops left when Pop Angus got to the pigs—and he could never work out why." He went on to explain: "There wasn't a lot of food around in those days so we were always pretty hungry. If someone was eating an apple we used to even ackie (queue) to eat the core."Lionel Welsh, incarcerated at Bindoon from 1947 until 1952 wrote:

  "We were always hungry, and to supplement our diet, we would go to the piggery and scrounge whatever we could, usually stale bread and dampers, or down to the dairy to steal the bran and pollard from the cow bins, the fresh cream coming from the separator or some full cream milk. The only time we ever tasted cream or full cream milk was when we stole it like this. It belonged to the Brothers. The skimmed milk was ours."Welsh goes on to explain how the boys would catch a rabbit or bobtail goanna and cook them on an open fire in the bush. Stealing from the kitchen store-room was a hazardous operation and only undertaken in utter desperation.He complains that the diet was far more frugal than the one he had endured in war-torn Britain. He goes on:

  "Here we were, living on a 17,000 acre property blessed with rich soil and good rainfall. It carried over one thousand sheep, thirty or more milking cows, two hundred pigs, countless chickens and turkeys and a sizeable herd of beef cattle. In addition there was a vineyard and a citrus orchard. I can think of no excuse for the frugal and poor quality of diet—we were growing boys driven to work hours and conditions which men in the workforce would not tolerate. At Christmas time, we killed hundred of chickens and turkeys and yet not one of these birds ever adorned our table. They were killed, cleaned and dressed by us and then sent to Keantey's mates in Perth, as were the rabbits we dug out, the mushrooms we picked and a large proportion of eggs and burner that were produced on the property."There could be no reasonable excuse for such a poor and frugal diet. Allowances were paid to the Christian Brothers by the Commonwealth and British governments. In 1957, institutions in Western Australia received much greater payments from government sources than any other State. The British Government paid 12/6 per child and the Commonwealth Government 10/-. But the Western Australian Government paid 29/9 per child, the next closest payment by a State government being 12/6 by Queensland. New South Wales paid a paltry 4/8. From the three government sources, approved institutions in Western Australia received a total of 52/3 per child per week, the next largest recipient being Queensland with 35/- per child. If the basic wage, which was designed to keep a family with a non-working wife and two children, was then about 12 pounds, it can be seen that an allowance of about 20 per cent of that sum was quite generous. It certainly should have provided adequate food and clothing for the children.In addition, large quantities of food in the form of broken biscuits from Mills & Wares and stale bread from sympathetic bakers were donated on a regular basis.

Sexual abuseThere is no doubt that many of the boys in the institutions were sexually abused by Christian Brothers and others in positions of care. In July 1993, the Christian Brothers published an apology in the national press in which they acknowledged that abuses had occurred and that as a result, some of the victims were still suffering.The Archbishop of Perth, the Most Reverend Barry Hickey has conceded on several occasions that sexual abuse occurred. In the Sunday Times (5/11/95) he was quoted as saying it was matter of shame and regret that incidents of child sexual abuse had been committed by church personnel and he promised help for victims of sexual abuse and their families.In its interim report of 1994, the Independent Advisory Panel reported that 32 lay staff and Christian Brothers had been named as abusers by ex-residents. It also reported that of the 58 men who called the panel and indicated their place of birth, 52 (90 per cent) were former child migrants.VOICES has a list of 157 men who allege that they were sexually abused by Christian Brothers who they named. One Brother, who is no longer in the Order, was named by 45 men, another by 15, another who was gaoled for sexually abusing boys in the institutions, was named by eight men and another who is still alive by 13 men. Of the 277 men who are registered with VOICES, 170 claim to have been sexually abused while in the institutions.When asked on a national TV programme in 1993 how many Brothers he suspected of sexually abusing boys, Brother Faulkner replied: "It seems to me from our research that it is probably nine or ten." When told on another national programme two nights later that 27 Brothers and two priests had been named as sexually abusing boys in the institutions, Brother Faulkner replied: "Our research doesn't indicate that at all. It indicates about half that number."Brother Barry Coldrey, brought to Western Australia to investigate allegations of abuse and exploitation in the institutions, has, from the beginning, acknowledged that many Christian Brothers were guilty of sexually assaulting boys in their care. He writes of this in his book, The Scheme, which was publicly touted as being "a warts and all, hide nothing" account of the orphanages and obviously meant to allay public misgivings in the face of mounting allegations of abuse in the orphanages. In the preface, Dr Coldrey wrote: "An unbiased reader would probably admit that the cause of truth has been well served by this book." He also claimed that the controversial issues are faced squarely—the allegations of physical abuse, of deprivation of the sexual underworld in the institutions, are faced squarely, and he went on: "It has been my objective to produce a balanced account in a controversial subject".But Dr Coldrey was far more forthcoming in correspondence to VOICES and even more so in a secret report meant only for the executive of the Christian Brothers.This report, Reaping the Whirlwind, a Secret Report for the Executive of the Christian Brothers—Sexual Abuse from 1930 to 1994, came to light when it was subpoenaed in the NSW Supreme Court in December 1994.In this report, Brother Coldrey wrote:

  The Scheme makes no reference to sex rings in the orphanages but that there is, in fact, evidence of rings at Bindoon during the migrant age, out at Casteldare in the early 1960s and The Scheme refers to five brothers as multiple abusers but it does not mention names and does not state the author's belief that men such as two brothers mentioned probably molested some 50 boys each, often the same boys and The Scheme gives the benefit of the doubt to alleged molesters where really there is no doubt that they offended and

  What I mean by the term "sex underworld" or "sex ring" in the province is that monks doing the wrong thing with boys—collaborating with one another in their activities. They know one another are acting against the rule and assist and cover for each other. In the orphanages they may have shared the same boys and

  In The Scheme, he avoided the mention of four brothers and that he said that the relevant section of The Scheme dealing with sexual abuse in the orphanages was crafted to make the minimum admissions necessary in get out of the problem and

  The situation in the orphanages was worse than the impression given in The Scheme, treatment of the sexual abuse.It is clear that Brother P A Conlon, First Consultor on the Christian Brothers Provincialate, and other Christian Brothers in positions of executive power knew that children in their care were being abused and that no adequate investigation of the extent of the abuse was ever undertaken.In The Scheme, Coldrey wrote: "Accusations against a particular brother were never investigated properly" and "rebukes, warnings and transfers to other schools were employed as responses to the offences," and "it is plain from the correspondence that some congregational leaders were aware of the ramifications of sexual abuse."Representing six plaintiffs in the NSW Supreme Court in December 1994, Mr Semmler QC, said:

  ". . . it is quite apparent both from the public and private account in the secret document that the people in Strathfield—were well aware of what a problem it was. They would write back to Dublin and talk about the problem. It is all there in the report—but they did not takes proper steps to reduce or eliminate the risk that these six plaintiffs would be subject to the same kind of abuse"

  and

  ". . . it is patently obvious that they knew and preferred to transport people, to give them warnings rather than look after the interests of the boys who were being repeatedly abused."While questioning Brother Pat O'Doherty in the NSW Supreme Court, Mr Semmler QC, read out an extract from a letter from Brother P L Duffy, an assistant to the Superior General in Ireland. This letter, quoted from page 56 of Coldrey's secret report was written in January 1954 and was addressed to Brother Carroll, a member of the local council in Melbourne. At that time, Brother O'Doherty was the Superior of Castledare. Brother Duffy had written:

  ". . . I think you would be well advised to let Brother L. O'Doherty know during the next visitation of the desirability of keeping Brother Lambert Wise away from all supervision of the boys except, perhaps, when they are in the field.

  His relations with boys have given rise for concern before and for everybody's sake the greater care should be taken to protect both him and the boys."Answering Mr Semmler, Brother O'Doherty said that he had never been made aware of this letter. In answer to the question: "Were you ever, in fact, told during a visitation or otherwise of the need to keep Brother Lambert Wise away from supervision of boys?" Brother O'Doherty replied: "No Sir".Since the existence of the secret report was revealed, the Christian Brothers have done their best to belittle it and to distance themselves from it. Brother Julian McDonald, the NSW Provincial, was quoted in The West Australian (9/9/95) as saying that it was overstated, gratuitous, distorted and might have to be relooked at. Brother Faulkner damned the report by claiming that it was full of personal opinions and conclusions without detailed or conclusive evidence.This is not convincing in view of Brother Faulkner's views when Brother Coldrey was first summoned to Western Australia to write his history of the orphanages. Then Brother Faulkner wrote:

  ". . . I know from previous work that Brother Coldrey has done, that his research techniques and his writing skills are of top quality. I certainly have confidence that he will produce a very useful and enlightened history of the complex period that we are talking about. At the very least, I am prepared to give him all the support that he needs and to keep an open mind on the questions at stake."It should be noted that Brother Coldrey approached his involvement in this issue with impeccable credentials. A PhD with long experience of teaching politics, history and English at Teachers Colleges and Universities, he is an historian with an international reputation. He has written some twenty books, including one on the link between education and revolution in Ireland and is a member of the Australian Institute of Authors, the Royal Australian Historical Society, the Australian Institute of International Affairs and the Australian Political Science Association.VOICES has been critical of Brother Coldrey's role in this affair, because he used uncritically slabs of the self-congratulatory writings of other Christian Brothers to support the contention by the Christian Brothers Provincialate that the victims were not speaking truly; that The Scheme, contained the most confirmed material he had, when in fact he knew that much more was revealed in the Secret Report; and that he made only selective use in The Scheme of available archival material about the orphanages.In several letters to VOICES, Brother Coldrey indicated that his inquiries had confirmed that some Brothers had sexually assaulted boys. In 1990, he wrote:

  ". . . On the matter of sexual abuse—Br L H Murphy was the one who abused—and to whom I referred in an earlier letter, not mentioning the name L H Murphy. I am still not happy with the explanation as to how men such as "Pop" Angus and L H Murphy were able to practice their activities for so long: is it staff ignorance; staff loyalty etc etc. In what circumstances (eg "Pop" Angus: in his workshop, bedroom) did they carry out their activities, sexually abusing the kids?—I do know L H Murphy forced at least one boy (now a Brother; still a brother) to sleep with him, many times."In September 1993, Mario Mamo and Tony Abela recounted graphic accounts of physical and sexual abuse at Castledare and Clontarf in the 1970s. Their story, with pictures, was published in the Sunday Times (19/9/93). Mr Abela recalled:

  "One night about 12.30, I saw a Brother coming past. He was walking naked through the dormitory. He was going between the corridors of the beds playing with the kids. He came up to me and struck his hand there. I did not say anything but I was crying inside. I was thinking 'Please don't do it' but I could not yell out."Two days after his story was published, VOICES received a copy of the article, sent by Brother Coldrey. In the margin he had written: "Who abused them? These two seem for real. Probably—You might care to let me know: one of these four: J P Murray, K M Fitzgerald, G Dick, K Foley."

Another victim wrote:

  "No, I didn't miss out on being sexually assaulted. Brother Beedon used to get me on his knee in his room and play with my penis. In that time, I thought he was showing affection towards me. You must remember that was the nearest I got to love and affection, him touching and rubbing my private parts. That was the second time in my life that I was held in someone's arms. Years later I found out what he had done to me."In June 1994, Brother Gerard Dick was gaoled for three and a half years for sexually abusing boys aged eight to ten years at Castledare in the 1960s. Dick had pleaded guilty to the charges.Twelve months earlier, in June and July 1993, 16 men associated with VOICES laid complaints with the Police Child Abuse Unit, claiming they had been sexually assaulted by Christian Brothers while they had been in the institutions. In a letter to VOICES in 1994, Mr Wiese, the Minister for Police informed us that 36 individuals had made complaints, 18 of which were still proceeding. Thirty-three current or former Christian Brothers had been nominated as suspects, 12 being deceased, four could not be located and the 13 who had been interviewed had either declined to comment or had denied the offences. One, Gerard Dick had been gaoled, two were living in Victoria and one had not yet been interviewed. To date, only one of the Christian Brothers named has been charged.Many of the victims have found it difficult to accept that those who abused them as children are not brought to justice. In its interim report, the Independent Advisory Panel commented on page 19:

  "Whilst it is important for mechanisms to be in place to protect, the accused from unjustified and malicious accusations, it is also important for victims to believe that obstacles are not being placed in the way of the truth being revealed."and on page 15:

  "Many men—expressed frustration, anger and concern over the lack of criminal charges against alleged past perpetrators of abuse. One Brother and one ex-Brother have been a particular target of this criticism. The charging (and conviction) of even one or two alleged offenders would have therapeutic value for many of the victims, as it would validate their accusations."The same report clearly states that the abuses inflicted on children in the institutions have had long-lasting and damaging effects on the victims. For example:

  ". . . the counsellors did establish links between the clients' identified problems and their childhood experience. Whilst traumatic incidents occurred both prior to and after the client was in the care of the Christian Brothers, it became clear to the counsellors that significant traumatic experiences occurred whilst the clients were in the care of the Christian Brothers."The same report noted:

  "A sub-group of the reported symptoms (e.g. low self-esteem, emotional instability, flashbacks, nightmares etc) are typical of victims of childhood abuse. Whilst it cannot be inferred that for every caller these symptoms are directly linked to abuse as a child, the counsellors believe that for many there is a direct link, and that the callers' reports as a whole indicate that a large number of men are experiencing long-term after effects of childhood abuse."

Dangerous working conditionsThe number of accidents and deaths reflect the dangerous and difficult conditions under which the children worked.In a letter to The Under Secretary for Lands and dated 23 January 1948, the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department raised a number of issues which were obviously causing him concern.One of his officers, Mr R Marriot reported:

  ". . . the boys are expected to work under practically any conditions. The day we visited was cold and windy with the rain almost continuous throughout the day, yet normal building operations were being carried on. Admittedly most of them were under some form of shelter but still conditions were extremely bad and I feel sure that most building operations under private contractors would have been suspended in these circumstances."The scaffolding was especially dangerous and the cause of several accidents. Photographs clearly show this. Brother Keaney's attitude to those in authority is demonstrated by a story in a biography sub-titled The Orphan's Friend, an undated manuscript in the R G Library by Brother Tevlin, an executive councillor of the Christian Brothers who made inspectorial visitations of Brothers' institutions.

  "He was usually canny and friendly with the various inspectors who would come to judge the efficiency of his building methods, but should an individual who had not known him previously, invoke hauteur to awe Br Paul, he found himself facing a belligerent opponent who refused to accept an unfavourable ruling from such an officious person. On one occasion he not only declined to adopt the decision of an inspector of scaffolding, who seemed extreme in his requirements, but he practically chased him off the property."A cursory glance at photographs of the scaffolding will reveal that the inspector's concern was not misplaced (See photo A). The laws covering such behaviour were specific and carried considerable penalties. Impending and instructing an inspector, making a false reply and using any threat or abusive or insulting language to an inspector were all deemed to be outside the law. Where an inspector found scaffolding that was 'dangerous to human life and limb' he could order work to cease forthwith.Photograph B shows a particularly hazardous operation devoid of any regard for the boys' safety. The horse is engaged to a running tackle to hoist a wheelbarrow full of concrete to the top where the boys will wheel it across a narrow plank to be tipped for the form work of the suspended slab. The wheelbarrow can be seen halfway up. It is not difficult to imagine what would have happened if the rope had snapped under the strain. The boys on the left mix the concrete and load the barrow. Note especially the bare-footed boy in charge of the horse. What would his fate have been had the chain snapped? How old was he and shouldn't he have been in school? This operation was supervised by Brother Keaney himself who can be seen wearing the white hat. It is doubtful if any adult workers would have been allowed to work under such dangerous conditions. These workers were only children, most child migrants from Britain. This photo dates from 1948.But these massive building operations, far beyond the capacity of children, were not confined to Bindoon. During the summer of 1957-58, the child migrants at Clontarf built a swimming pool. Just how cheap labour was when the Christian Brothers embarked upon one of their building projects can be seen in photograph C taken during the operation. In this photograph, the primitive working conditions are plain to see. All earth was moved by hand—not a truck or even a wheelbarrow in sight. Note the small groups of boys shovelling soil into bags which were carried up the ricketty and dangerous planks.Mike O'Donoghue told VOICES:

  "Brother Doyle used to work us up to 9 or 10 o'clock at night under lights and used to sneak in and out of the dark and beat us with a stick to get us to work harder. One night he beat me with a stick across the backside and back. I went down on the ground and raised my left arm to protect myself when he kicked me in the chest and lifted me off the ground with his boot. Today, I still have pain in the chest."

WagesThis issue of wages was always a matter of contention. As early as 1946, the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department wrote to his Minister:

  "With the introduction of the Roman Catholic Scheme for child migration I had the highest hopes of something like the Fairbridge Scheme, but apart from the fact that the child Welfare Department funds provided a similar weekly payment for boys of school age to that paid to Fairbridge the two schemes are as far apart as the Poles. I have been disappointed in the Roman Catholic Scheme and have discussed it with the Rev Brother Doyle (one of the Principals in Australia). Mr McMinn discussed it with the Rev Brother Kennedy (one of the Deputy Principals who rule the Order from Ireland throughout the world).

  "It has been pointed out to these reverend gentlemen that the interests of the boys who came to Western Australia in 1938 and 1939 were not safeguarded; that instead of them being placed out in employment they have been retained in connection with building operations for which in the main no wages have been paid them, or if placed out they have rarely received a full wage, and worse still, these lads have had no bank account when they have reached the age when they have more or less finished with the Christian Brothers."Further on, the Secretary wrote:

  "Until the advent of Brother (Joseph) Doyle at Bindoon no pocket money was paid to boys there. He instituted the system of paying them 5/- weekly, but I have since been informed that only delinquent boys at Bindoon participate in this and that other boys there receive nothing, unless they have been placed on the staff at the Home, when they receive a weekly wage.

  "I have given you some idea of the present two schemes for bringing migrant children from Britain. Each has its own faults. Unfortunately the Roman Catholic Scheme broke down with the initial experiment. I am of the opinion that something should be done to adequately protect the interests of any other children coming to Western Australia, whether in connection with the Fairbridge Scheme, the Roman Catholic Scheme, or any other scheme which may arise in the future. It may be that the Immigration Authorities in this State should be the responsible party, or perhaps the child Welfare Act should be amended so that there is a right of over-sight and supervision of such children."These opinions and observations, expressed about a year before the first group of post-war child migrants left Britain, had little noticeable effect in later years.The exploitation of the child migrant children continued unabated. Working in dangerous conditions, deprived of education and denied payment for their labour, their plight continued to be the subject of endless reports and condemnations. During his inspection of Bindoon in 1948, two years later, Mr Marriot reported to his supervisor that he had asked Brother Keaney: "Whether any of the working boys were given any monetary reward for their labour. He told me that they were not but this matter was under discussion. All of the children we questioned on this as well and they had no knowledge of any payments."Mr Marriot was also concerned about the trade training the boys were receiving. Brother Keaney assured him that through Mr Dunphy, ex-president of the Arbitration Court, arrangements had been made for the boys to be placed out as apprentices according to their degree of efficiency. Marriot could not see how this could be done, particularly with the boys over 16 years of age.

  "It is the usual practice to allot one apprentice to a number of tradesmen but in this case we have 30 boys under three Brothers and three Italian tradesmen and it is doubtful whether all these would be recognised as tradesmen by the Unions."In his report, Mr Marriot recommended that all boys over 16 years of age should be removed from Bindoon forthwith and brought to Perth to be outfitted and placed in positions.In a letter to the under Secretary for Lands and Immigration dated 23 July 1948, the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department wrote:

  ". . . boys reaching 14 years of age are apparently leaving school immediately they turn that age and are working at the institution; therefore I think that some scale of wages should be provided for these boys,"and a few days later he wrote to Father Stinson:

  "I think if boys are to leave school at fourteen and remain in the institution for further training, then some scale of wages should be drawn up."In 1948, the Under Secretary for Lands and Immigration wrote to his Minister, explaining that: ". . . all the boys over 14 years of age are out working at Bindoon and not receiving school tuition. The reports indicate that no payment is being made for the work done."In a letter to his Minister dated 22 April 1949, the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department discussed the appointment of an Employment Officer to assist in the placement of boys and girls in suitable employment, under suitable home conditions and with suitable wages.

  "These are the same facilities which we must give to the migrant children and I trust, therefore that the Government will in no way agree to give way by raising the age to 18 years. I do not question that perhaps something would be done for the boys at Bindoon, but any training received there, in my opinion, would be a very minor one, and if the boys who have already reached the school-leaving age are working round about Bindoon, and they are, then in my opinion they should be placed in private employment and earning wages for themselves. It has always been a very strong bone of contention that boys and girls who have been kept at the various homes after reaching school-leaving age and prior to their sixteenth birthday, in very few cases have ever received any wages and I know the late Minister for Child Welfare, the Hon Mr J T Tonkin, had very strong views along these lines."In the same letter, the Secretary wrote:

  "At the present time there are not, and it cannot be denied, sufficient instructors or teachers at Bindoon or, for that matter, the facilities or equipment to properly train boys and I have seen no move made to improve the conditions there along these lines since the first batch of boys arrived in 1947."On 30 June 1952, the Premier, the Hon R McLarty, sent to the Prime Minister's Department answers to a United Nations questionnaire on the Institutional Care of Children. To question 24, which concerned the requirement of children to work for the institutions and payment for such work, the answer given by the Premier was "No".In a letter to the Under Secretary for Lands and Immigration (28th June 1949) the Acting Secretary of the Child Welfare Department expressed his concern about an Inspector's report which stated that 'no boy over the age of 14 years is attending school, and yet subsidy has been paid for all lads under the age of 16 years on the presumption that they were attending school.Eighteen months earlier, in January 1948, and only a few months after the first migrant boys had arrived at Bindoon, the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department had recommended that: "The subsidy which has been paid from 1 January last for the twenty boys between the ages of 14 and 16 years be refunded," and "A system of payment to be instituted for all boys engaged in work at the Home.'' He was concerned enough to write: "No more children should be admitted to Bindoon while the present conditions prevail."It seems that not only were the migrant boys at Bindoon not being paid wages, but they were being taken from school at 14 years when it was presumed by their guardians that they were at school until they turned 16. The morality of collecting the subsidy is another issue.The situation at Bindoon was so bad that the Acting Secretary of the Child Welfare Department wrote on 24 June 1949:

  "Although I realise that if these recommendations are carried out the Institution will be deprived of a considerable amount of labour, I am afraid that if something is not done to rectify the present position both this Department and the Bindoon authorities will have themselves open to a charge of exploiting child labour."

Complaints and the Statute of LimitationsThe Statute of Limitations, as it is applied in Western Australia, prevents civil action being commenced six years after an assault or offence has occurred. In all other States of the Commonwealth similar statutes exist but with one significant exception—by their wording and construction they allow people to go to court and put forward good reasons why their claim should be heard after the time limitation has expired. For this reason, proceedings against the Christian Brothers were commenced in New South Wales to avoid the strict limitation laws that exist in Western Australia.However, the Christian Brothers made an application to transfer the claims against them from New South Wales to Western Australia. Our legal advice was that because the abuse was suffered in Western Australia, the Christian Brothers would submit to the court that the cases were essentially Western Australian cases and should be transferred to that state. If this argument had been upheld, and it may well have been, the case would have been, in the words of Justice David Levine when considering a similar appeal by the Brothers in the NSW Supreme Court, "dead in the water". And there could be no appeal against such a decision.While claims for compensation would be ruled out by this State's limitation laws, it would also have been likely that a case for Breach of Fiduciary Duty would also have fallen foul of the same laws.This was a gross injustice to the victims represented by VOICES. Many did complain. Complaints were made to principals of the institutions, to police and welfare workers when they escaped, to families who they spent weekends with and to employers when they had left the institutions. When returned to the institution after escaping, they were brutally flogged, sometimes publicly. And worst of all, no-one would ever believe them. No-one. This in itself was cruel.VOICES believes that the present laws in Western Australia are unjust, but especially to these particular men.Ted Davis writes:

  "On two occasions I ran away from Clontarf and I went to the police station to report that I had been beaten. I found it very hard that the police would not taken any notice of what I said because you were a nobody if you came from Clontarf. They would take you straight back to the orphanage and the Brothers would make out that they were going to look after me but as soon as the police were gone I got another beating."In 1946, the Secretary of the Child Welfare Department wrote to his Minister:

  "Some of the boys concerned have complained most bitterly at the treatment meted out to them. The Department has a record of such cases. The list is not large, but I should say that for each one who has complained to the Department there must be a number of others who have not so complained. It has been common knowledge that a lot of the buildings erected at Clontarf, Bindoon and Tardun have been erected with the aid of the migrant boys, that without the migrant boys the building operations would have been retarded."Many men tell of running away from the orphanages and the cruel punishment inflicted upon them when they were returned by the police. No-one would believe them. The families, almost always Catholic, who took them for weekends and holidays, and the social workers and police who caught them as escapees, would not believe an orphan boy's word against that of a Christian Brother, especially when the stories were so "unbelievable", perhaps even bizarre. After leaving the institutions, the boys were often placed on farms as cheap labourers where many were shamefully exploited, and the mostly Catholic families were impervious to stories of alleged brutality by the Brothers.In The Sydney Morning Herald (7/9/96), Leo Schofield explains how difficult it was to tell even parents about the abuses inflicted upon him and his school mates who attended a fee-paying, Christian Brothers school. He wrote:

  ". . . I can only ascribe the reluctance to do so (to tell parents) to fear of reprisals. Many parents would not have believed the stories anyway. They saw the Brothers as living saints, holy men who had given up their lives and the prospect of parenthood to the thankless talk of educating children, to maintaining the Faith."If the parents would not believe their own children, it is not surprising that "orphan boys" would not be believed.So the "orphan boys" soon learnt to say nothing rather than be labelled as liars and ungrateful trouble makers. Some were successful, some established stable relationships, but many others, with no known families and no real knowledge of who they were, found themselves adrift in a world for which they were so woefully prepared.Many feel betrayed by the recent out-of-court settlement and a justice system which proved unsympathetic to their plight. For them, there never has been justice. Even changes to the State's time limitation laws, which many believe blocked their path to justice, will come too late. Nearly 500 of these boys came from Britain. Many have only recently been able to claim their British citizenship. Many, thanks to the work of Margaret Humphreys and The Child Migrant Trust have found families they never knew existed. In 1996, a similar report to this one was presented to a Select Committee of the Western Australian Parliament, some members of VOICES presenting evidence. However, the Committee was aborted before it could present a final report. This was a bitter blow to VOICES and the victims who had fought so hard for justice. They are now putting their trust in this Committee, established by the Parliament of their Mother country. It is their last chance that they may now achieve some tangible recognition as they enter the last stages of their embittered and tragic lives.