Christian Brothers back down on survivor payouts after property transfer backlash

The Christian Brothers have done what institutions usually do after a public relations disaster becomes a legal one: they have changed the plan. After weeks of criticism over property transfers and a compensation proposal that looked designed to shield assets, the order and Edmund Rice Education Australia have now agreed to a revised scheme for survivors of historical abuse.

The shift follows the Christian Brothers’ announcement last month that they were going broke and could not meet civil claims. Their earlier proposal was to sell 36 properties worth about $217 million and distribute the money among creditors, even though survivors were estimated to be owed $774 million. That arithmetic was never going to satisfy anyone, least of all the people who had already waited far too long.

The controversy deepened when attention turned to the relationship between the Christian Brothers and the Trustees of Edmund Rice Education Australia, or EREA. The body was created in 2007 to take control of former Christian Brothers schools, and over more than a decade the order gifted it property holdings worth hundreds of millions of dollars for sums of $1. Survivors were told those assets were off-limits. EREA had also refused to replace the Christian Brothers as the defendant in court claims, while survivors were seeking a court order to force exactly that.

Now both entities say the arrangement has changed. In statements released on Friday, they said Edmund Rice had agreed to help compensate victims and survivors of historical abuse claims against the Christian Brothers in full. Dr Stephen Brown, chair of the Trustees of Edmund Rice Education Australia, said the organisation was committed to supporting those who had suffered abuse and that the revised scheme was the right way to provide a just and sustainable pathway.

Brown also linked the deal to the organisation’s educational role, saying it would support the long-term sustainability of the ministry, which includes more than 44,000 students under EREA’s stewardship. The language is carefully chosen, as these things tend to be once lawyers have joined the room.

Under the new proposal, the Christian Brothers’ remaining 36 properties will still be sold. The proceeds would pay survivors who already have outstanding settlements or judgments, including claims for legal costs. Those whose claims are not yet crystallised would be able to sue EREA or seek redress through the government-run national redress scheme, and EREA would consent to replacing the Christian Brothers as defendant in such cases.

The Christian Brothers said the revised arrangement means current claimants with settlements or judgments will be paid in full, while EREA will take on responsibility and liability for current and future legal proceedings, as well as claims before the national redress scheme. Rightside Legal, which represents dozens of people with claims against the order, called the reversal a significant win for its clients. Grace Wilson, a partner at the firm, said survivors had fought for the result and that other orders should not imagine moving wealth away will spare them from legal or moral obligations.

The details are still being worked out. The two entities have up to two months to finalise the proposal, after which creditors will vote on it and the court will still need to approve it. That is where these disputes usually end up: in a mix of accounting, procedure and the awkward discovery that property transfers are not quite the shield some hoped they were.

The latest move also comes against a grim backdrop. Earlier this month, Guardian Australia reported that the Christian Brothers had kept nine brothers convicted of child sexual abuse within the religious order because it said it had a Gospel imperative to care for all Brothers and the needy. It also reported that the order was using its property portfolio to house two brothers with severe histories of child sexual abuse, including one who preyed on orphans and another who remained in teaching positions for almost three decades after senior officials became aware of his offending.

None of that disappears because a new compensation scheme has been announced. But the order has now accepted, under pressure, that the people it harmed cannot simply be left to fight over whatever assets were not moved out of reach. The next test is more prosaic: whether the creditors and the court will sign off on the revised deal, and whether the money, at last, follows the liability.

Written by Sandy van Dongen sandy.vandongen@alpineweekly.com