I to am a forgotten Australian and want to ask the question as to why in the early 1970s the Sisters of Nazareth were found unfit to care for children resulting in them having to close down all thier homes ect...
But the scariest thing is that now they are caring for the elderly who are just as, if not more helpless than children.
I ask how it is possible that this could even happen after they were found unfit to care for children let alone the elderly, so the question is now, who is looking after the elderly, checking in on them and thier needs ect..
I know i would never ever want to be in the care of these nuns when i am old and disabled and unable to protect myself against the nuns regime.
ALJAY

I TO WAS A FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIAN, I STILL SUFFER MY PAST AFTER MANY
YEARS BEING TOLD I WAS AND ALWAYS WOULD BE NOTHING IN THIS WORLD.
THEY SAY THE DRUGS ON THE STREET MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD, BUT THE DRUG THAT MANY OF US FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS DEAL WITH FOREVER IS ALWAYS TEARING AT OUR HEARTS AND YOU ARE NOT THERE TO SUPPORT US IN ANY WAY.
COME ON THIS IS AUSTRALIA AND WE NEED HELP DEALING WITH OUR PAST SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE FUTURE AND BE TREATED WITH RESPECT.

I am also a forgotton australian, I am 58 years old was in institutions from 4 till 18 years I cant let go of the past cause its haunting me, even more now that we have to deal with it. I cry on a regular basis I have night mares I smell I see I hear, I feel alone inside myself with my preditors, but who cares,this country doesnt give a damm so who r we kidding

I was greatly surprised and deeply disappointed by this article. It reads as classic, ideologically-driven rhetoric in which blame for a given social evil, in this case child abuse, is shifted away from individual perpetrators and onto “institutions”; a strategically useful political target for the time being (note the pre-election timing). The authors do not seem to have any empathy whatsoever with actual victims of abuse, but are instead concerned to use our sorry plights as missiles directed at governments they consider flawed. I am a victim of chronic and prolonged child abuse. I am not a football to be used ideologically. I deeply resent the approach of Prof Wilson, Ms Sdrinis, Dr Hil and Mr Rose.

A majority of the abuse I suffered was not institutional but was at the hands of a close family member. I have read the “Forgotten Australians report” and recognised completely the repeated pattern of the perverted need to dominate embodied via myriad forms of suppression, violence and coercion. In what way are the hundreds of thousands of abused Australians whose principal perpetrators were not employees of institutions better remembered than our institutionalised sisters and brothers? But of course I understand - if the authors included all victims of abuse in their alleged concerns they would lose ideological edge and political purpose, clearly the primary aim of the article.

Where are the individual perpetrators in the article by Prof Wilson, Ms Sdrinis, Dr Hil and Mr Rose? Absent. I urgently refer the authors, and all readers of this, to pages 194, 203-204, 212-213 and 225 of the report. Justice against institutions is a poor replacement for justice against perpetrators. This is where justice begins, and if achieved at this level can go a very long way towards healing the painful wounds. Each hateful, violent and dominating action was undertaken by an individual, an evil individual. Victims don't lie awake at night with the face of a faceless institution playing like a horror movie in front of our eyes, victims dreams aren't filled with nightmares of institutions raping them, threatening them . . .

and then simply lying with impunity to escape justice the authorities might have provided if the individual perpetrator had not been such an effective liar.

Yet, the saddest aspect of the article by Prof Wilson, Ms Sdrinis, Dr Hil and Mr Rose is that it generously provides succour to perpetrators desperate to offload their guilt rather than facing either truth or justice. My suggesting that ill-considered ideology such as this article in fact comforts and emboldens abusers is not merely speculative. I have recently become aware, through personal experience, of a growing phenomenon of known as “Perpetrator Reappearance” wherein perpetrators seek out their victims, maybe 10, 20 or even 40 years after the original abuse has ceased, in order to assuage their guilt. (A form of this type of meeting is described at page 237 of the Forgotten Australians report. While meetings of this kind do have a healing potential, this is only if the perpetrator is genuinely willing to accept responsibility for their actions, if the meetings are mediated by trusted professionals, and are held at the request of the victims).

However, much more frequent than any structured and mediated meeting is the isolated tracking down of the victim by the perpetrator. They typically seek contact on a false premise of contrition; most often but by no means always, it is fathers seeking out estranged daughters. Yet, when in the company of the victim they seek to have the victim agree with them that others are really to blame for the abuse. Often commensurate with this blame-shifting is the re-establishment of a relationship of coercion and abuse; the renewed abuse is typically of a non-violent psychological kind, but can also involve complex strategies of exploitation and suppression via financial and other means. In extreme cases the victims’ children are drawn into this abusive web of blame, lies and exploitation.

From my perspective the one positive aspect of this article is that it has inspired me to discuss and publish my own experiences of chronic childhood abuse, and to join in support of justice for other victims of Perpetrator Reappearance

Dr Justin Rose says this article is “…classic, ideologically-driven rhetoric in which blame for a given social evil, in this case child abuse, is shifted away from individual perpetrators and onto ‘institutions’…”

He introduces the classic diversion. Why is the article only about children abuse in institutions when there were many who were abused outside institutions, Rose asks.

He answers his own rhetorical question: “…if the authors included all victims of abuse in their alleged concerns they would lose ideological edge and political purpose, clearly the primary aim of the article.”

He offers no evidence of political motivation except the timing of the publication. Should OLO cease publication during an election or publish only articles that are to Rose’s liking?

The more obvious, and correct, answer is that the article is about the Senate report on the ‘Forgotten Australians’ which was confined to children who experienced institutional or out-of-home care. That was their task.

On the one hand, Rose berates the authors for not including people like him who were victims of abuse in families. On the other hand, he ‘deeply resents’ that the authors are using people like him as ideological footballs.

As if to lend authenticity to his argument that the focus should be on individual perpetrators rather than on institutions, Rose refers us to specific pages of ‘Forgotten Australians’. I have just re-read these pages and can find nothing there that supports his proposition.

Page 194 is about the competing views on apologies to victims.

203-204 discusses statutes of limitations on prosecution of offenders, the reasons why victims take a long time to come forward, and how the delays prejudice trials.

212-213 summarises the difficulties applicants have in making a case.

225 is about monetary compensation issues.

It’s ridiculous to expect the authors to deal with individual perpetrators. The courts do that – and some perpetrators are serving long sentences. More should follow, without question. Guilty individuals should be punished to the full extent possible.

But why exonerate institutions which failed to supervise evil individuals or bring them to account when children complained? Liability is shared.