$10,000 after Horrific Abuse-inquiry

Sky News
April 7, 2014

http://www.skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=965456

A man who had cigarette butts put out between his toes when he was a child in the care of The Salvation Army was given $10,000 compensation, an inquiry into child abuse has heard.

The army had a system by which it measured what it offered abuse victims who came forward, the royal commission hearing in Sydney was told.

Daphne Cox, a major who met with abuse victims and reported back to the army's Personal Injuries Complaints Committee (PICC), said she always believed victims.

'We accepted what we were told. The fact that it hadn't been proven didn't indicate how much we offered,' she said on Monday.

A hearing held in February heard that EF, who was seven when he was placed in the Indooroopilly Boy's Home in Queensland in 1966, was violently punished and raped by Major Victor Bennett, who was the home's manager.

On Monday, the second hearing into the Salvation Army was shown a copy of a report which outlined EF's complaint including that Mr Bennett put cigarette butts out on the boy 'even between his toes'.

It also said Mr Bennett had pulled EF out of bed in winter and tied bricks around his feet and thrown him in a pool.

The report had 'allegations not proven' written beside these two claims.

Ms Cox said part of her role was to contact other officers who would have been at the home at the time.

One told her the only punishments that they could remember was boys being made to stand in the corner and write lines.

She repeated that the lack of evidence was not a consideration in the payout. She said several times she could not recall discussions around payouts.

The commission heard the army's payment 'matrix' was based on the age of the claimant when the abuse happened, the number of years they were in care and the type of abuse, physical and or sexual.

On the matrix, which was shown at the commission, payments varied from $5,000 to $80,000.

Commission chair Justice Peter McClellan asked Ms Cox if more should have been offered to EF.

'Yes,' Ms Cox replied.

'The next question is why wasn't it?' Justice McClellan asked.

Ms Cox said she did not know why EF was not offered more.

Justice McClellan asked her the 'allegations not proven' had influenced the offer.

'Well, looking at it now, yes it could have been,' she said.

Ms Cox was answering questions on the army's claims process at the hearing, which continues.