The Australian Government announcement of an inquiry at the
national level through the establishment of a royal commission into child
abuse caught many of us by surprise. In case anyone has been hiding in the middle of the Simpson desert since then, here's an update with links to some of the more thoughtful commentary and a couple of early questions about the problems about the conduct of such an exercise.
It will probe a wide range of organisations from the Catholic Church and
other religious organisations, through state authorities to the Scouts and
sports groups. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/child-abuse-inquiry-reaches-wide-20121112-298kg.html There is an ecumenical openness here that tries to ensure that the exercise is not and is not perceived to be a sectarian affair. The question has also been raised as to whether the terms of reference will include allegations relating to minors in the Australian Defence forces and refugees in care.
The inquiry into institutional responses to abuse will not
just deal with instances of abuse, but will also explore how institutions
responded, or failed to respond to reports of abuse and will also look at how
the police have responded to the problem. The Government is currently drawing
up a detailed terms of reference for the inquiry and making decisions on its
timeframe, resourcing and the identity of the Royal Commissioner, or
Commissioners. Given the potential scope of the inquiry they may well have difficulty getting people to agree to participate. It will take a strong sense of vocation to commit yourself to an inquiry that may well run for at least five years.
Commentators have suggested that the likely scope of the
inquiry will be similar to that of the inquiry in Ireland that ran for over
nine years. While a Royal Commission is inquisitorial in character and has
wide-ranging powers, it will report back to government with findings that set out
what it has established about the extent and character of child abuse, as well
as making recommendations to address the problems that it has explored.
Its truth seeking and policy recommending functions are
central to the Commission’s character and activities. The commission has no
judicial functions, however and any criminal activity that it identifies will
need to be referred to the police for investigation and prosecution.
The announcement has attracted a good deal of comment from a
variety of interested groups. See the links at the Age: http://www.theage.com.au/national/abuse_inquiry
The previous experience of such inquiries in Australia has
raised concern about whether the expectations of victims and their families
might not be realistic. While there is a feeling of encouragement by victims
that the truth will be established and the reality of their experience, long
denied, will now be made public, there is also frequent referral to justice and
healing being achieved. This may be more than the Commission can achieve. There
are some previous inquiries of a similar character that suggest the need for a
more tempered set of expectations.
The Stolen Generation inquiry, achieved some success in its truth
revealing function, in creating a much wider community awareness of what had
happened, in re-restablishing family connections and in going some way to
address outstanding policy issues in the child protection services. It did
little, however, to address the issue of justice and compensation for those
affected. There have been very few successful court cases for compensation by
victims of the policy of removal of indigenous children from their families, despite
the Inquiry’s report.
The former Royal Commissioner for Aboriginal Deaths in
Custody, for example, has cautioned on the need for care in the terms of
reference and for a realistic expectation about the extent to which the Commission
can deal with individual cases. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/former-royal-commissioner-warns-of-potential-heartache-20121113-29ai0.html He is certainly in a position to comment on this issue.
The background to the establishment of this inquiry has been
a long running series of court cases against priests and staff in Catholic
institutions and a widespread perception that there has been a greater concern
by institutions with their reputation than in addressing the complaints raised
by the victims. In a helpful account Jack Waterford, editor at large for the Canberra Times, has pointed out that the
issues faced by the Catholic Church in Australia with respect to child sexual
abuse, are parallel in timing and character to those identified in research
into the experience of the church in both Ireland and the United States. He has
also expressed the view that the Commission might reveal that other significant
institutions in Australia have failed in their responsibilities in dealing with
instances of child abuse that has so far been hidden by the focus on the
Catholic Church’s failures. The failures may have as much to do with the extent
to which evil can be embedded in institutions as much as it can be found in the
actions of individuals.
While Cardinal Pell, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, has
so far displayed a somewhat pugnacious defensiveness in his acceptance of the
establishment of the Commission, other clerical leaders have displayed a more
thoughtful response driven by compassion and a willingness to deal openly with
the Church’s failures. Stephen Crittenden suggests the issue for the Catholic Church relates to a failure of leadership.
This is going to be a long painful journey for many, not
only for the victims, though they must be first in our considerations. There
will be a need for confession by and healing of the perpetrators, as well as
for those managers and leaders in institutions who put the reputation of the
institution ahead of the cry for justice by the most vulnerable and who
according to Jesus had the greatest claim for judgement to fall on us if we cause these "little ones to stumble".
No comments:
Post a Comment