St John of God Responds to Abuse Claims

By Chris Uhlmann
ABC - 7.30
December 6, 2012

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3649351.htm

[with video]

Transcript

CHRIS UHLMANN, PRESENTER: A short time ago I spoke with the Australian head of the Brothers of St John of God.

Brother Timothy Graham, welcome.

TIMOTHY GRAHAM, BROTHERS OF ST JOHN OF GOD: Thank you, Chris.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Can you imagine a worse crime that could be committed before the law or before your god than to sexually abuse an intellectually disabled child?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Absolutely not. I mean, ...

CHRIS UHLMANN: And yet members of your order did that.

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: And I think we're on the public record in the media over 20 years acknowledging that.

CHRIS UHLMANN: When did the order first become aware of the fact that it was taking place?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Complaints first started coming to us in about 1992.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And when did you first take a complaint to the police?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: It's a difficult issue with our men because they're historical allegations of criminal abuse and the men need to be the ones who make the choice to do that. We urge them to go to the police, but we can't compel them.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Could you not tell the police yourself if you were aware of a crime?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Again, it's up to the individual men given that it's a historical abuse claim to make that. Some choose not to go to the police; they don't wish to go to the police.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Can you imagine a time under the law in Australia where it was OK for anyone not to report a crime to the police?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: And I think that it should be mandatory for this to be reported.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And it should have been mandatory then.

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Yes, it should have been, but it wasn't.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And - but what I'm saying is though, at that stage, time doesn't excuse this. At that time, if you're aware of a crime, you should have reported it.

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Well, as I say, we took a pastoral approach where we urged these men to go to the police to report their issues. Some chose to do that, some chose not to do that.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Would you advise anyone else at that time or at any other time to behave in the same way?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: You know, it's difficult in hindsight. As I say, I haven't been involved at this since 2007. I don't know what the thinking was of the people managing at that stage. I would have thought that would be something that they should do, but again, you have to give the individual the choice as to whether they wish to be involved with the police.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Has the order moved to cover up for offenders?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Absolutely not.

CHRIS UHLMANN: You're quite sure of that?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Absolutely.

CHRIS UHLMANN: You say that in good conscience?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: I can say that in good conscience. I think we've been the focus of intense media scrutiny for 20 years. You know, we've been the focus of two serious police investigations - one in New Zealand, one in Victoria - and you can gather from the media now that obviously there's an investigation going on in the Hunter Valley.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Certainly say the order didn't cover-up, but you do say you're aware of crimes and you never reported them. Well, what's that?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Well I wouldn't call that a cover-up. I would say that we were dealing with these people's complaints in the best way that we could, in a compassionate way, with justice. Again, I keep getting back to this issue: current abuse - that's mandatory reporting in this state now. But historical abuse, I think the individual has to be given the choice whether they wish to go to the police or not.

CHRIS UHLMANN: How much money would you say that your order has spent trying to keep these issues out of court?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: We've spent millions of dollars paying just compensation with compassion to these men. I mean, we have - one of our issues is we don't wish to retraumatise these people by dragging them through courts. That's not our issue. We want some just, compassionate healing for them.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And you haven't paid any money to lawyers to try to make sure that matters are not brought before the courts?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Absolutely not. We pay lawyers money to support the people who are making complaints so that there is a just outcome for them.

CHRIS UHLMANN: You're not judged by the standards of the community though, are you? You're judged by a much higher standard.

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Absolutely.

CHRIS UHLMANN: How do you feel that you've gone against that higher standard that you bear witness to the truth?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: I believe that with great sadness we have to acknowledge that some brothers, stretching back to the 1950s, have done dreadful things. Again, we're on the public record apologising to people with profound regret.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And is it all over? Is that the end of it?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: In terms of the outcomes ...

CHRIS UHLMANN: In terms of the abuse, in terms of us hearing any more about what's happened in your order?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Well in terms of contemporary issues, we have not had a complaint, a contemporary complaint. Most of our complaints go back to the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Are you ashamed of the past?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Absolutely. Absolutely and completely.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And why shouldn't the order be disbanded in Australia?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Because when we talk about the order in 2012 we're talking about 28 elderly men, most of whom are retired, the majority of whom, I believe, have lived faithful lives of service, trying to support members of our society in Australia who are struggling.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And those that have retired but have committed offences, should their age be any bar in the law pursuing them?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Absolutely not. If the law needs to pursue them, they need to pursue them.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And will the order do everything in its power to make sure that the police are assisted in that?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: We have cooperated with the police on every encounter that they've investigated us to the fullest degree that we can.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Are you aware of any other cases that you should now, given the state of the law now, bring to the awareness of police?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Given the state of the law now and given that we fully follow the Towards Healing protocol - just recently the professional standards office of NSW referred two matters to the NSW police, who I understand will pass it on to the Victorian police.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And is that the first time that the order has done that?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: That's the first time, yes.

CHRIS UHLMANN: You also take a separate vow usually in the Catholic Church. It's poverty, chastity and obedience, isn't it? But your order takes another one. What is it?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: It's called hospitality.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And how do you think you've measured by the standards of hospitality, because it's much broader that what we'd understand hospitality to be?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: In relation to those men that have been harmed, we failed miserably. In relation to the good that's been done, I think that we've lived up to our vow well. But there's been an element in the order that has failed miserably and has caused tremendous harm.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And how do you think that God would judge this?

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: I can't say how God will judge. All I know is that it's indefensible.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Brother Timothy Graham, thank you.

TIMOTHY GRAHAM: Thank you, Chris.