Chapter 12

Introduction

This Chapter explores grooming as a concept and considers how, alongside other factors, it contributes to barriers to disclosure. The Chapter also explores challenges victim-survivors have experienced in disclosing child sexual abuse.

‘Grooming’ refers to how a perpetrator manipulates a child, family, institution or community to enable their offending behaviour. ‘Disclosure’ refers to when a child conveys or attempts to convey that they were sexually abused. Grooming can create barriers to disclosure, including normalising the sexual abuse, making it unlikely that a child will disclose the sexual abuse or will be believed if they do.

Grooming behaviour

Understanding grooming

The Board of Inquiry has adopted the same definition of grooming as the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Royal Commission):

As this definition makes clear, grooming targets not only the individual child but also those around them, such as their family and the perpetrator’s workplace.²

Grooming does not always lead to child sexual abuse, and child sexual abuse can occur in the absence of grooming.³ Perpetrators may also use tactics such as force and threats to inflict child sexual abuse.⁴ Research suggests, however, that child sexual abuse in schools almost always begins with grooming.⁵

The concept of grooming only emerged in academic publications in the 1980s.⁶ In his evidence to the Board of Inquiry, Professor Patrick O’Leary, Co-Lead of the Disrupting Violence Beacon and Director of the Violence Research and Prevention Program, Griffith University, explained that the way grooming was understood evolved with better knowledge about child sexual abuse — including that it was not a ‘rare event’ and was not only perpetrated by strangers.⁷

The lack of understanding and awareness of grooming in the 1960s to the 1980s increased the vulnerability of children.⁸ As Professor Lisa Featherstone, Head of School, School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry, University of Queensland, explained in her evidence to the Board of Inquiry, without an understanding of grooming, parents may have been encouraged ‘to leave their children with men who showed an interest in their child’, for example, in the context of sports coaching or music lessons.⁹

The Board of Inquiry heard evidence about a number of strategies and behaviours that are typically used by perpetrators to groom children. These include:

• creating a trusted relationship with the child, parents and co-workers
• small and progressive breaches of the child’s boundaries, such as non-sexual touching
• introducing the child to sexual content, such as talking about sex or showing the child pornography
• involving the child in rule-breaking behaviour, such as taking alcohol and drugs
• making the child feel loved, special or fearful.¹⁰

Professor O’Leary gave evidence to the Board of Inquiry that grooming may be gendered, with different tactics used to groom boys and girls. He explained that the tactics that may be used to groom young boys include:

• providing special privileges, such as selection in sports teams
• providing access to adult themes, such as through pornography
• forging positive relationships and generating the belief that the child is ‘special’.¹¹

For girls, grooming often involves emotional manipulation (such as through gift-giving), rather than strategies focused on ‘prestige or privilege’.¹²

At the time grooming is occurring, grooming behaviours can often be perceived as ‘normal’ or ‘helpful’.¹³ Professor O’Leary explained that ‘it is much harder to recognise grooming behaviours as they are occurring’, rather than retrospectively, because they can be legitimate behaviours.¹⁴ For example, research indicates that spending time with children outside of the classroom or holding hands, on their own, could be seen as signs of going ‘above and beyond’ and being interested in a student’s development.¹⁵ Analysis from the Royal Commission suggests that such behaviours, when only seen as individual actions instead of collectively, do not give rise to a need to examine the conduct in more detail.¹⁶

Despite the concept of grooming not being understood in the 1960s and 1970s, the victim-survivors who shared their experiences with the Board of Inquiry described conduct by the alleged perpetrators that meets the description of grooming, as outlined below.

Alleged perpetrator behaviour

This section of the report examines the types of behaviour and techniques victim-survivors recalled being used by the alleged perpetrators, rather than the experiences of sexual abuse shared by victim-survivors, which is considered in Chapter 7, Experiences of sexual abuse and its impact in childhood(opens in a new window). The behaviours and techniques described by many victim-survivors meet the description of grooming, as discussed below.

Grooming children

The Board of Inquiry heard many accounts from victim-survivors that detailed how the alleged perpetrator made them feel ‘special’ and ‘loved’. Some alleged perpetrators used a child’s interest in hobbies, such as reading and sport, to endear themselves to the child and isolate them from other children.

One victim-survivor described how Darrell Ray used his interest in books to coax him into the library at lunchtimes, where it is alleged that he would sexually abuse him.¹⁷

Similarly, another victim-survivor recalled that Mr Ray used his interest in a particular hobby to entice him into the library at lunchtimes, where he said Mr Ray would sexually abuse him.¹⁸

Another victim-survivor told the Board of Inquiry that Mr Ray ‘groomed’ him as a ‘helper to put the books away’.¹⁹

Yet another victim-survivor recalled that he would feel ‘special’ when Graham Steele singled him out to help set up sports equipment.²⁰

A submission prepared by lawyers representing victim-survivors who were allegedly sexually abused as children by the alleged perpetrators includes an account of one victim-survivor who said he was a ‘shy and lonely boy’ and that Mr Ray befriended him when he would visit the library during lunchtimes.²¹ He alleged that ‘[a]fter several weeks to months of grooming’, Mr Ray repeatedly sexually abused him.²²

Many victim-survivors told the Board of Inquiry how the alleged perpetrators would use their positions as sports coaches to bring children within their orbit. As discussed in Chapter 11, The alleged perpetrators(opens in a new window), a number of the allegations of child sexual abuse made against Mr Ray involve abuse allegedly occurring in connection with sporting activities.

One victim-survivor, allegedly sexually abused by Mr Ray, told the Board of Inquiry that Mr Ray was one of the best coaches he had, and that he ‘blossomed’ as a footballer.²³

Mr Ray selected boys from Beaumaris Primary School to play in the St Kilda Little League Football Club.²⁴ One victim-survivor recalled that boys were ‘desperate’ to play in this league.²⁵

The Board of Inquiry was also told about experiences of child sexual abuse being normalised, which is a form of grooming. One victim-survivor told the Board of Inquiry that Mr Ray ‘always sort of had his hands on you’, and that this ‘normalised’ the physical contact. He recalled that the regular physical contact ‘became almost normal’.²⁶

Another victim-survivor recalled that while Mr Ray was sexually abusing him in the library, he continued to talk to him like it was ‘normal behaviour’.²⁷

Grooming families

As noted above, grooming does not only refer to the grooming of a child.²⁸ The Board of Inquiry heard evidence that perpetrators can also groom families and communities, and the institutions perpetrators work in.²⁹

Perpetrators may groom family members who offer safety and protection to the child, such as parents, siblings, other family members, carers and guardians.³⁰ For example, grooming may involve sharing part of the ‘caring burden’.³¹

Typically, perpetrators undertake the grooming of family members to increase the child’s and the family’s trust in the perpetrator and to create the impression that the perpetrator does not pose a risk to the child.³² Grooming families can also ensure that disclosures of child sexual abuse are not believed.³³

One victim-survivor recalled that he was often physically sick after Wyatt sexually abused him.³⁴ He recounted that on many occasions his mother was asked to come and pick him up from school and that Wyatt would flirt with his mother when she did so.³⁵ He told the Board of Inquiry that Wyatt was ‘methodical and knew what he was doing in striking this relationship with his mother’.³⁶

Another victim-survivor recalled that Mr Ray would often visit his home and was a ‘close friend of [his] parents’.³⁷

A victim-survivor, allegedly sexually abused by David MacGregor, said that Mr MacGregor would often visit her house and ‘gain trust’ and be ‘matey’ with her parents. She recalled that Mr MacGregor would sexually abuse her during music lessons after school.³⁸

Several victim-survivors told the Board of Inquiry that the alleged perpetrators would exploit ‘vulnerable’ families to gain access to children.

A sibling of victim-survivors who were sexually abused by Mr Ray recalled that Mr Ray ‘saw a vulnerable family’ and ‘slowly worked his way in’. Mr Ray would come to their house and have cups of tea with their parents. The sibling recounted that Mr Ray used his position as a local teacher to establish trust and then offer to drive the children to sports training.³⁹

Another victim-survivor recalled that Mr Steele targeted him because he knew he was from a ‘broken home’ and his family did not have any money.⁴⁰

Grooming communities

At a community level, grooming is focused on establishing the perpetrator’s credibility in and service to the community.⁴¹ Professor O’Leary described this as ‘the positioning of oneself so that the community feels they have a need, and the person has stepped in at the right time’; for example, coaching a sports team.⁴²

Grooming communities can quell suspicions about a perpetrator’s offending and make it hard for community members to believe allegations of child sexual abuse.⁴³ Professor Featherstone gave evidence to the Board of Inquiry that ‘[t]his was particularly the case where the perpetrator was integrated into the community, such as where they were involved in sports coaching and had a wife and children’.⁴⁴

The alleged perpetrators falling within the scope of this inquiry were integrated in the community in various ways, but in particular through their positions as school teachers and sports coaches at the local primary school and through their involvement in local sporting clubs.⁴⁵

Professor Featherstone gave evidence to the Board of Inquiry that community integration enables perpetrators to have access to children both at school and after school, and to ‘have intimate access to children such as [in] change rooms and [while] driving children to and from sporting events’.⁴⁶

Community integration also assists a perpetrator to be considered a person of good character, or a ‘good bloke’.⁴⁷ Professor Leah Bromfield, Director of the Australian Centre for Child Protection and Chair of Child Protection, University of South Australia, explained that perpetrators of institutional child sexual abuse have shown themselves to be ‘highly skilled in grooming their colleagues, children’s parents and community members to enable them to access children and to be considered above reproach’.⁴⁸

This concept of being ‘above reproach’ means that perpetrators need make little attempt to conceal their behaviour; for example, they may perpetrate child sexual abuse in front of other people.⁴⁹

Being ‘above reproach’ may also mean that a perpetrator is considered of ‘good character’, which can reduce their punishment.⁵⁰ Professor O’Leary gave evidence to the Board of Inquiry that a ‘good character reference is all about … grooming’ and demonstrates how grooming can increase a perpetrator’s credibility and ‘social likeability’.⁵¹ In the case of Mr MacGregor, as discussed in Chapter 11(opens in a new window), charges relating to child sexual abuse under the Teachers Service Act 1981 (Vic) were found to be proved by the Department of Education (Department) in 1986.⁵² In considering Mr MacGregor’s penalty, the Department took into consideration a range of matters, including the evidence of character witnesses.⁵³ The Department determined that Mr MacGregor should not be dismissed from the teaching service, but instead appointed to a non-teaching role and banned from applying for another teaching position until late 1988.⁵⁴

One victim-survivor told the Board of Inquiry that, at the time, some students admired or looked up to the alleged perpetrators.⁵⁵ She hoped that this would not be the case again, now that more is known about the allegations of child sexual abuse.⁵⁶

Grooming in schools

Perpetrators may deliberately choose to work in schools because of the respect and authority teaching positions afford, as well as the access to children schools provide.⁵⁷

Professor Michael Salter, Professor of Criminology, School of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales, gave evidence to the Board of Inquiry that during the 1960s and 1970s, government schools were ‘attractive’ places for perpetrators to work as they provided access to ‘diverse cohorts of potential victims’.⁵⁸ Staff had authority over children and there were a range of opportunities to groom children and their families.⁵⁹

Similarly, Dr Katie Wright, Associate Professor, Department of Social Inquiry, La Trobe University, gave evidence to the Board of Inquiry that in schools there is an ‘institutional authority embodied in teachers’.⁶⁰ This was compounded in the 1960s and 1970s because of children’s ‘greater deference to adult authority’.⁶¹ This meant that children were expected to be compliant, and school staff ‘could exert considerable power over children’.⁶²

Teachers were regarded as ‘good people doing good work’, and male teachers were seen as ‘exemplary men helping young people’.⁶³ Professor Featherstone’s evidence was that these views made it difficult to criticise their behaviour.⁶⁴

Being part of a trusted institution meant that perpetrators were in a position to groom families and build trust and respect.⁶⁵ This could lead to perpetrators acting with a ‘sense of impunity’, meaning that they may take greater risks that could expose their behaviour.⁶⁶

Certainly, the child sexual abuse described by victim-survivors to the Board of Inquiry was often brazen. As discussed in Chapter 11(opens in a new window), for example, some victim-survivors recalled being abused in public. Many victim-survivors told the Board of Inquiry that they were deliberately sexually abused in front of other children, or that they witnessed this sexual abuse.

Two former students at a school where Wyatt worked told the Board of Inquiry that they observed Wyatt sexually abusing children in front of them.⁶⁷ One former student said they had clear memories of what happened in Wyatt’s classroom.⁶⁸

A number of victim-survivors also recalled Mr Ray sexually abusing children during classes and in front of other children.⁶⁹

The varied ways in which perpetrators groom children, families, institutions and communities is relevant to understanding if, how and when children disclose sexual abuse. The very nature of grooming establishes barriers to disclosure. Other barriers to disclosure are also discussed in the next section.

Barriers to disclosing child sexual abuse

Common barriers to disclosure

As noted earlier, ‘disclosure’ refers to when a victim-survivor conveys, or attempts to convey, their experience of sexual abuse. Disclosure is often an iterative process rather than a single event.⁷⁰ It can occur in different ways to different people, and can happen throughout a victim-survivor’s life course.⁷¹ It may be intentional, accidental, partial or complete.⁷² It may take many forms and might be verbal or non-verbal; for example, it can be conveyed through behavioural cues such as heightened anxiety.⁷³

Disclosure is important.⁷⁴ It may be the first step to stopping the child sexual abuse, preventing its perpetuation and ensuring access to support services.⁷⁵

Yet research suggests that a large number of victim-survivors do not disclose child sexual abuse until years after the abuse occurred.⁷⁶ For example, based on the experiences of the 6,875 victim-survivors that the Royal Commission engaged with through private sessions, it took an average of 23.9 years for victim-survivors to disclose child sexual abuse.⁷⁷ Men generally took longer than women to disclose — the average was 25.6 years for males and 20.6 years for females.⁷⁸

In the course of this inquiry, many victim-survivors said that they did not disclose their experience of child sexual abuse until many years after it occurred, and in some cases, decades. Professor O’Leary also gave evidence to the Board of Inquiry that ‘many victim-survivors of child sexual abuse delay their disclosure well into adulthood’.⁷⁹ There are multiple reasons why a child may not disclose sexual abuse, including:

• feelings of guilt and shame
• the child’s inability to comprehend what child sexual abuse is and the gravity of the abuse
• threats by the perpetrator
• grooming, such as control and manipulation
• intimidation, such as corporal punishment⁸⁰
• loyalty to the perpetrator
• fear of not being listened to or believed.⁸¹

The response of the person to whom disclosure is made is often just as important as the disclosure itself. Negative responses to disclosure can cause children to withdraw their disclosures.⁸² Children can feel further guilt and shame, and their experience of sexual abuse can be minimised.⁸³ In addition, the disclosure itself can be traumatic.⁸⁴

Conversely, reasons why victim-survivors may disclose their experiences of child sexual abuse while they are still children include understanding what child sexual abuse is, and being directly asked if they have experienced sexual abuse.⁸⁵

This Chapter focuses on disclosure as it relates to victim-survivors who have engaged with the Board of Inquiry. It includes a discussion of barriers to disclosure in the 1960s and 1970s.

Barriers to disclosure in the 1960s and 1970s

As discussed in Chapter 6, Time and place(opens in a new window), there were a range of sociocultural factors in the 1960s and 1970s that shaped attitudes towards children and understandings of child sexual abuse. For example, there was a power imbalance between children and adults that worked against children speaking up and raising issues that affected them.⁸⁶ In a school context, teachers held positions of authority, and used forms of corporal punishment to discipline and control children.⁸⁷ These factors made it difficult for children to disclose sexual abuse.

The Board of Inquiry heard from victim-survivors about the power imbalance highlighted above and the associated fear of speaking up. One victim-survivor recalled that children were not allowed to speak until they were spoken to. He added that in his experience children had to do what they were told, or they would get a ‘flogging’.⁸⁸

Another victim-survivor shared that growing up, ‘[m]y parents were pretty much of that view, kids don’t have rights, [you should be] seen and not heard, do what you’re told’.⁸⁹

Similarly, another victim-survivor recalled that people had so much trust in teachers that they did not question anyone in authority.⁹⁰ This meant that, even if a child did disclose sexual abuse, they would not necessarily be believed if it was a child’s word against an adult’s.

Other sociocultural factors that worked as a barrier to disclosure in the 1960s and 1970s included limited understandings of child sexual abuse, and sex and sexuality not being openly discussed.⁹¹ At this time, there was a reluctance to have open conversations about child sexual abuse.⁹² These factors contributed to feelings of shame and a culture of remaining silent.

Professor Salter gave evidence to the Board of Inquiry that another barrier to disclosure during this time was related to the prevalence of homophobia.⁹³ As discussed in Chapter 6(opens in a new window), homophobia prevented boys disclosing child sexual abuse because of the perception that they would be blamed or ‘under suspicion for homosexuality’.⁹⁴ Professor Daryl Higgins, Director, Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University, explained that homophobia made it ‘particularly difficult’ for children sexually abused by a person of the same gender to disclose, be believed, and receive appropriate support.⁹⁵

As Professor Bromfield indicated, in the 1960s and 1970s perpetrators were able to take advantage of the fact there was a low likelihood of a child disclosing, or being believed if they did disclose.⁹⁶

Experiences of barriers to disclosure

As discussed earlier in this Chapter, many victim-survivors do not disclose child sexual abuse until adulthood. Furthermore, research indicates that victim-survivors commonly repress memories, question whether the child sexual abuse happened, and feel uncertain about the accuracy of their memories.⁹⁷

Some victim-survivors told the Board of Inquiry that they had ‘buried’ or ‘suppressed’ their memories of the child sexual abuse, and that this only emerged in adulthood.⁹⁸ For example, one victim-survivor said that he had buried his experience so deeply, ‘it took my psychologist a heap of effort to get it out of me’. Once he had opened up, however, ‘it was like a bomb’.⁹⁹

For other victim-survivors, they had clear memories of experiencing child sexual abuse, but for a range of reasons they had not disclosed the abuse for a very long time.

As described below, the reasons for delaying disclosure vary, but they generally align with the literature on common barriers to disclosure. Many of these barriers to disclosure were significant, due to the social and cultural context of the 1960s and 1970s in Australia.

Internal barriers

One of the main reasons for victim-survivors not disclosing their experiences of child sexual abuse is related to internal barriers, such as feelings of shame, guilt and self-blame; that is, a perceived responsibility for the abuse.¹⁰⁰

A 2020 study conducted in the United States of America, involving 76 participants who had experienced child sexual abuse, found that the most common of these internal barriers to disclosure were feelings of shame, self-blame and fear of not being taking seriously.¹⁰¹

Similarly, a 2023 Irish study of 30 individuals who had experienced child sexual abuse found that a ‘prominent’ barrier to disclosure was self-blame.¹⁰² Some participants felt that their ‘inaction’ or ‘not fighting back’ led them to believe that the sexual abuse was their fault.¹⁰³

This research aligns with the experiences some victim-survivors shared with the Board of Inquiry.

For example, one victim-survivor told the Board of Inquiry that after he was sexually abused, he did not tell anyone because he thought that he would be humiliated. The victim-survivor thought that people would wonder why he did not stop the sexual abuse.¹⁰⁴

Similarly, a victim-survivor recalled that his ‘overriding emotions’ after his sexual abuse were ‘shame and confusion’. The victim-survivor said he ‘locked [the memory]’ and ‘put [it] aside’.¹⁰⁵

A further victim-survivor recalled that he did not talk about the child sexual abuse he experienced for many years because of the ‘shame and embarrassment’ he felt.¹⁰⁶

Another victim-survivor recalled going ‘bright red’ after he was sexually abused and feeling like he was doing a ‘walk of shame’. While the victim-survivor disclosed the sexual abuse to his mother, he ‘convinced’ her not to make a complaint as he ‘did not want the attention’.¹⁰⁷

Dr Rob Gordon OAM, Clinical Psychologist and trauma expert, gave evidence to the Board of Inquiry that sexual abuse can be perceived by a child as a violation of ‘basic hygiene and cleanliness’, which can make the child feel ‘disgusting’ and ‘dirty’ and contribute to poor self-esteem and self-loathing.¹⁰⁸ This can compound feelings of shame.

Lack of open discussion about sex and sexuality

Another common barrier to disclosing child sexual abuse in the 1960s and 1970s related to a culture of not talking openly about sex and sexuality.¹⁰⁹

Research indicates that a motivation to disclose child sexual abuse ‘is not enough’, and there must also be someone who a victim-survivor trusts will listen to them and believe them.¹¹⁰ A 2020 qualitative meta-analysis of studies from 1998 to 2018 found that key enablers of disclosure included access to a trusted person and an expectation that disclosures would be believed.¹¹¹

Several victim-survivors told the Board of Inquiry that child sexual abuse was not something that was discussed at that time.

One victim-survivor reflected that ‘[b]ack then you didn’t really talk about it, didn’t even talk about it with your parents’.¹¹²

Similarly, a victim-survivor told the Board of Inquiry that sexual abuse was not talked about in the 1970s, and ‘[p]eople who did raise it weren’t listened to’.¹¹³

Another victim-survivor said that ‘[i]n those days you never spoke to your parents about these things’.¹¹⁴ He said this was especially the case in relation to the alleged perpetrator, because he was ‘in a trusted position as a school teacher’ and was a friend of the victim-survivor’s parents.¹¹⁵

One victim-survivor did recall telling his mother about being sexually abused, and told the Board of Inquiry that she did not take it seriously.¹¹⁶

Limited understandings of child sexual abuse

As explored in Chapter 6(opens in a new window), the widespread reluctance to talk openly about sex and sexuality in the 1960s and 1970s also contributed to society’s limited understandings of child sexual abuse.

Several victim-survivors told the Board of Inquiry that they had difficulty understanding, identifying and processing the child sexual abuse, which compromised their ability to disclose.

One victim-survivor told the Board of Inquiry that they ‘were not educated’ on child sexual abuse, and explained ‘while I knew it was inappropriate, I was not aware of the importance of notifying parents [and] teachers’.¹¹⁷

Similarly, another victim-survivor told the Board of Inquiry that he did not ‘have the skills to understand what was happening to [him], why, or what [he] should do about it’.¹¹⁸

Yet another victim-survivor shared that he felt anxious and afraid, and said that ‘[e]motionally I didn’t know how to cope’ with the child sexual abuse. At times, he would dissociate when the sexual abuse occurred.¹¹⁹

Other victim-survivors explained that they thought the alleged perpetrator’s conduct was highly unusual at the time, but they did not realise that it was sexual abuse.¹²⁰

There is evidence that even today, victim-survivors of child sexual abuse may not understand that the abuse was wrong at the time they experienced it.¹²¹ Research recognises that the realisation that child sexual abuse is ‘not normal’ is a factor that helps victim-survivors to disclose their experiences.¹²²

Threats and intimidation

The Royal Commission found that it was difficult for some children to disclose sexual abuse if they felt threatened by the perpetrator.¹²³ Similarly, an Irish study of 30 individuals who had experienced child sexual abuse found that a common barrier to disclosure was the fear that ‘things would get worse’.¹²⁴

Some victim-survivors who shared experiences of child sexual abuse with the Board of Inquiry explained that they were too afraid to disclose the sexual abuse as children because of the alleged perpetrator’s threatening and intimidating behaviour.

One victim-survivor recalled that after she complained about Mr MacGregor’s sexual abuse to an adult, Mr MacGregor approached her in the schoolyard and warned her about telling people about his behaviour.¹²⁵

Another victim-survivor told the Board of Inquiry that Mr Steele took him and several other children to an abattoir, where they witnessed the slaughtering of animals. The victim-survivor perceived this as a warning that they must not disobey Mr Steele.¹²⁶

Yet another victim-survivor shared that when he tried to disclose child sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated by Mr Steele, Mr Steele threatened him and said: ‘it’s only going to make it worse for you [and your family]’.¹²⁷

As discussed in Chapter 7(opens in a new window), some victim-survivors also recalled the use of corporal punishment to instill fear and discomfort in children. Several victim-survivors recalled Wyatt’s physical abuse and intimidating behaviour. One victim-survivor said that Wyatt would ‘inflict the strap on him’ before sending him out to the corridor, where he would sexually abuse him.¹²⁸ He shared how Wyatt would raise the strap above his head and then use ‘force’ to strap it down onto his palms.¹²⁹

Another individual told the Board of Inquiry that Wyatt appeared to enjoy the fear he instilled in children by threatening to use the strap.¹³⁰

One victim-survivor recalled that Wyatt would kick boys and physically abuse them in a violent manner.¹³¹

Another victim-survivor told the Board of Inquiry that Wyatt would threaten him and tell him he would be harmed if he told anyone about the sexual abuse.¹³² He also shared that Mr Ray would threaten him with physical harm if he spoke out.¹³³

Yet another victim-survivor recalled the excessive physical abuse that Mr Steele would inflict on him with a ruler. Mr Steele would strike him across the back and bottom with the ruler, and then proceed to sexually abuse him.¹³⁴

Responses to disclosures

As explored earlier in this Part, some children, parents and teachers tried to raise their experiences of, and concerns about, child sexual abuse at or around the relevant time.

The Board of Inquiry heard that parents raised concerns with teachers about the alleged perpetrators’ behaviour, and that teachers raised similar concerns with their colleagues and a principal.

Numerous adults reported Mr Ray’s child sexual abuse to the principal of Beaumaris Primary School, Mr Vern Hussey, in the mid-1970s. Available records reveal that the principal’s response diminished the seriousness of the allegations. Mothers of students were encouraged to ‘help out in the library’, where it was alleged Mr Ray’s child sexual abuse took place, and Mr Ray’s keys were confiscated to prevent him accessing the library on the weekends.¹³⁵ However, nothing else was done. There is very little evidence of whether or how the principal escalated the concerns that were raised with him. As discussed in Chapter 11(opens in a new window), a former assistant principal recalled that, on one occasion, a district inspector was called in to investigate a complaint by the parent of a student. The former assistant principal assumed no disciplinary action occurred and there is no record of an investigation.¹³⁶ The Board of Inquiry has received no primary evidence that Mr Ray was investigated in response to these complaints. He remained a teacher in Victorian government schools until 1979. Accordingly, although it appears the principal acknowledged that Mr Ray posed a risk to children, the ultimate response to the allegations against Mr Ray was completely inadequate.

In another incident, as discussed in Chapter 11(opens in a new window), several parents informed the Department that they had made complaints about Mr MacGregor’s behaviour to Victoria Police.¹³⁷ It appears that the responsibility of keeping the Department informed about Mr MacGregor’s criminal charges was shouldered by those parents. Due to the parentsʼ persistence, the Department finally took action and temporarily transferred Mr MacGregor to a non-teaching role.¹³⁸

Despite concerns being raised at the time about the conduct of alleged perpetrators, the Victorian education system failed to adequately respond. The Department’s complete absence of relevant policies and procedures in the 1960s to the 1990s, as well as a lack of staff training in respect of child sexual abuse, meant that there was no guidance in relation to how to identify and respond to allegations of child sexual abuse.¹³⁹ This meant that individuals were often unable to identify child sexual abuse, and even if they did, there was no clear process for them to report or otherwise deal with their suspicions.¹⁴⁰ The lack of policies and procedures also served to create the impression that child sexual abuse was not a serious matter in need of a robust response.

As a result, the education system itself did not adequately guard against the risks of child sexual abuse; nor did it adequately respond when the risks were brought to its attention.

The lack of appropriate responses to disclosures and complaints further stifled people’s willingness to disclose.