We Must Face Home Truths about Child Abuse

By Amanda Vanstone
Brisbane Times
June 3, 2013

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/we-must-face-home-truths-about-child-abuse-20130602-2nju6.html

Surely there can be no one in Australia who wants to give an easy ride to those who abused children or those who helped cover it up. Hopefully the state inquiries and the royal commission will not only uncover some perpetrators but serve to put a stop, if not completely to the crime, then at least completely to institutional cover-up.

Abhorrent as we find both the crime and the cover-up, our shared revulsion in no way entitles or excuses any diminution of our own obligation to conduct inquiries in an exemplary manner.

The more serious the allegation the higher standard there must be on an inquiry. If the gravity of the offence doesn't stir us into exemplary behaviour then the consequences for the accused should certainly do so. Naturally enough the more odious the allegation the higher the penalty and public opprobrium for the alleged perpetrator. Imposing penalties and opprobrium of a deep and long-lasting kind on our fellow citizens is not something we should take lightly. And we don't.

Your freedom and mine rests on the simple principle that we are each innocent until proven guilty. We demand that the state makes its case before a penalty is imposed or someone's liberty is restrained.

In that context, coverage of the Victorian parliamentary hearings at which Cardinal George Pell appeared were a cause of some concern. Parliamentary inquiries of course are not courts. Direct allegations are generally not being made; rather, information is being sought. Those appearing before inquiries do not have the opportunity to test either the relevance or veracity of what is said about them by others.

Openness in the sense of televising hearings is surely a good thing. The instant electronic digital world in which we live, however, allows every monitored moment to travel the nation, indeed the world, in seconds. What will hit the headlines will only be excerpts and they, by dint of our desire for drama, will be the most salacious bits.

On these excerpts the court of public opinion will be invited if not coaxed into drawing a conclusion.

In our courts we are after justice. We are critical of what we call show trials in countries whose citizens do not enjoy the same protections as ours. Perhaps in our pursuit of the perpetrators or shielders of what can fairly be called evil, we need to monitor our own desire to be seen to be doing something. We should ensure that what we do meets appropriate standards and, as unfair as it may seem to victims and their families, procedural fairness must be accorded to everyone.

Some years ago, in my home state of South Australia, there was an example of the sort of pack mentality that I see looming at the moment. A young man was abused by a priest at his school. It was what Adelaide might call an open secret. The boys were counselled to keep quiet - to protect the victim, it was said. The offender was able to leave the country and secured a reference to gain employment elsewhere. The most senior office holder in the church of the school's denomination, who wrote the reference, was removed from his position. A head was severed and offered up on a plate.

Nobody with a flicker of common sense imagines that he was the only one who knew. Various masters, the headmaster, the board members went, publicly at least, unscathed. Some if not all of these must have known what had happened. They may have taught their students that it is important in life to face up to your responsibilities, but if you were betting on them doing so themselves, you would lose your money. It was disgraceful.

Surely we want more than a head or two on a plate to satisfy a baying crowd. Making the perpetrators of the crimes or the cover-up face justice is not going to be easy. I can understand why some would say to hell with it, I just want some blood on the floor. I also know that that is a place we should never go.

No doubt Pell did not expect life before the Victorian inquiry to be a pushover. Ditto the coming royal commission. Nor should it be. He is the most senior Catholic in Australia and is therefore the focus for our revulsion at all the harm that has been perpetrated and covered up by Catholic clergy. He will have to answer for what was done. As will leaders in other churches.

For my own part, I can accept that many people genuinely did not know what we now almost routinely assume must have been known. What I cannot accept is inaction once allegations have been made.

Of course, it is true that allegations are just that, and that no entity, including the church, could act on them as though they were fact. But it is also true that an allegation having been made puts people on notice as to the harm that may be being perpetrated against children. We are all entitled to know what was done to both investigate any allegations and to protect the children. Put more simply, once in receipt of allegations, what did the churches do to discharge their duty of care?

Finally, while those who do not see themselves as religious may take a little schadenfreude at the difficulty now facing the churches, there are serious questions we all need to face. For example: Why haven't we, knowing how ineffective child protection departments are, demanded better from our state governments?

One of the ugliest aspects of our society is the fact that most victims of child abuse are abused in their own home. Of course we should be entitled to trust that our children will be looked after in the care of priests. Even more so, our children are entitled to be protected in their own homes. We don't achieve that by cleaning up the churches. We have some home truths to face.