“I’d been introduced to the Dilworth boys who’d hang out at Richard’s place which was a Dilworth-owned place on the school grounds,” Allison told the Herald.
He said some Dilworth boys were also abused near the school at an Epsom property on Market Rd which he described as “the most disgusting horrible place” run by a man called Ken.
That’s understood to be the late Ken Wilson.
The independent review into historical sexual offending at Dilworth said he was a collaborator with his brother Ian Wilson, with Rex Clarence McIntosh, and with Galloway, all of whom the review said sexually abused Dilworth boys and partied together at Galloway’s flat.
The inquiry said Galloway had a Dilworth rental on the boundary of the school with Mount St John Avenue.
Dilworth Trust Board chairman Aaron Snodgrass said Dilworth sought feedback on the proposed redress terms from former students who were abused and from their legal representatives, others affected by abuse and the wider Dilworth community.
“This feedback was used to inform the design and development of the Dilworth redress programme terms, which were finalised by the redress panel and have guided their work.”
Snodgrass said those terms stated the programme was for old boys, although the estate of a deceased former student who was abused could also apply to the redress programme.
“As a courtesy, Dilworth School offered Mr Allison – who was not a student at Dilworth – access to support through the listening service established to provide independent and confidential psychological support and other services to Dilworth Old Boys,” Snodgrass said in a statement.
Allison said: “The hardest thing for me to get my head around is they know what happened was wrong. They’re all fully aware of my case. It was talked about at the Royal Commission”.
On his exclusion from the redress programme, Allison said: “Maybe legally they don’t have to. But morally they do. But they don’t give a f**k.”
He added: “I don’t understand the logic behind denying it or leaving me out”.
Survivor ‘frustrations’
Survivor advocate Ruth Money said some Dilworth old boys had voiced frustration about the process.
“They’re incredibly frustrated about a number of things but particularly around the delays.
“There’s no reason why this hasn’t been addressed already. Evidentially, the abuse has been proven. There’s been an inquiry. Not only a criminal inquiry … but also the independent inquiry from Dame Silvia Cartwright,” she told the Herald.
She said the response to abuse had separated the inquiry team from the redress panel.
But she did not believe redress should go on indefinitely, such as by paying for long-term counselling or other support.
“It’s not unheard of that redress schemes can go on for a period of time but it’s more common that redress would be delivered and then that redress programme would come to a conclusion.
“So it’s probably not a fair expectation for a redress scheme to contribute in an ongoing manner for a number of years.”
Still, Money was concerned some survivors would die before getting redress.
“We have lost a number of survivors who were waiting for these people to get their A into G.”
She criticised the redress programme scope.
“The terms of reference, which we argued against, was you had to be a student at Dilworth who was abused, which is just utterly ridiculous, because in a court of law it’s been proven that Roger was offended against by Dilworth staff, Dilworth employees.”
Galloway was older than Moonie.
“Moonie was younger and he groomed, he met these boys, 13 year-olds, and took them back where they were abused as part of Galloway’s sick offending. Moonie was 18 or 19 and he was kind of the ‘cool guy’ who then groomed these kids.”
Money said the redress scheme had probably excluded more people she did not know about, or who had not come forward.
‘Pay-off’
Steve Brown, a former Dilworth Old Boys’ Association president, said some people had the perception a Dilworth redress payment was “a pay-off” to shut people up.
“While I acknowledge it is paying more than other schemes, it is also not transparent, so people do not really know what they’re getting redress for.”
He said survivors did not get any breakdown of why they were getting specific amounts.
“There is no appeal process. It’s a take it or leave it deal.”
Dilworth had revised upwards the number of former students entitled to redress for abuse, expecting to pay out $55 million, the Herald reported in August.
Snodgrass said the independent Dilworth redress panel, the programme administrator, and redress facilitators assisting former students worked within strict confidentiality provisions.
“There are robust consent protocols throughout the programme – for good reason, given the sensitive and personal nature of the information the programme is dealing with,” he added.
“There are points in the progress of an application when the applicant must take independent legal advice to ensure understanding and informed free consent.”
Snodgrass said each redress applicant and their families had their privacy protected, unless the redress applicant wanted to share details of their experience with the programme.
“This information is managed with sensitivity and respect. The Dilworth redress programme will not publicise details of any redress offers,” he added.
‘Institutional narcissism’
Old boy and abuse survivor Neil Harding was among several people who had been involved in the Dilworth class action.
“The scope of the class action was to get us to redress. That was pro-bono and they got to that point. We didn’t expect the resistance from Dilworth that they gave us.”
He said if someone accepted the Dilworth redress offer, they waived the right to take future action against Dilworth, including in the class action.
But despite getting to redress, Harding said he had concerns about the programme.
“It’s an absolute disaster as far as I’m concerned but all of the victims have a different attitude towards it. Some are quite happy.”
He added: “It was never survivor-led, never collaborative”.
He did not believe the redress panel was independent enough of the trust board, or transparent.
“The institution that harmed us put together this scheme. They’re not independent because all they’re doing is administering the scheme.”
But Snodgrass said the redress programme operated independently of the Dilworth Trust Board.
Harding said the Dilworth establishment had “institutional narcissism” and trouble acknowledging survivors.
“They just feel very, very uncomfortable with us being talked about.”
Harding said it was unfortunate Allison had been excluded.
“We fought really hard for him to be included but they just wouldn’t budge.”
John Weekes has worked as a Herald on Sunday court and consumer affairs reporter, Dominion Post crime and justice reporter, News Corp Australia court reporter, and has been writing about survivors for more than five years.
