Jan Hamilton completely rejects as false, malicious and defamatory the statements made by Michelle Ring in the Federal Parliament. Those allegations were made in Parliament and so are accorded parliamentary privilege. All Ms Ring’s allegations are completely denied. They are baseless and degrading.

Michelle Ring is lying in her presentation to the Senate inquiry. She is pursuing a dishonest agenda for her own personal motivations which have nothing to do with any harm she claims to have suffered in Kenja. For many years after leaving Kenja she had nothing but praise for the organisation and how it had helped her in her success up to that point. Her conduct is completely shameful, and disrespectful of people who have genuinely suffered sexual abuse. Ms Ring appears to believe that she has a superior right, or privilege to be believed. She does not.

Furthermore the allegation that other adults were aware of alleged abuse is similarly baseless. This is a terrible smear on people’s good character.

On previous occasions when Ms Ring was a successful investment banker overseas she returned to give evidence in 2 trials on behalf of Mr Dyers and said she had never suffered any ill-treatment by Mr Dyers and would have told her parents and friends if any such thing had ever occurred. Ms Ring's sworn testimony is available if you seek it.

Parliament should not be made a vehicle for the making of personal allegations of a criminal nature, and efforts by members of the public to galvanise police action for the purpose, as stated, of "gaining leverage" to force the group into joining the National Redress Scheme. It is a complete subversion of the proper legal process and the role of parliament.

Our added viewpoints:

Kenja has previously indicated it does not intend to join the National Redress Scheme.

As Senator Ruston recently stated, “we're also very mindful of the voluntary nature of the scheme”.

Seeking to utilise the parliamentary inquiry in relation to the National Redress Scheme to promote action by the police, is totally inconsistent with the principles of the Scheme. The Attorney General for NSW, Mr Mark Speakman stated in relation to the Scheme,

“Importantly... a finding or determination made by the Scheme about an application is not a finding of law or fact for the purposes of civil or criminal proceedings, and so does not determine a person's or institution's guilt in a criminal sense.”

Ms Ring's statement to the parliamentary inquiry was completely inconsistent with the objective and underlying rationale of the Scheme and highly inappropriate in terms of the proper administration of justice and the rule of law.