Baillieu Earns Some Credit over the Child Sex Scandal

By Josh Gordon
Sydney Morning Herald
November 15, 2012

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/baillieu-earns-some-credit-over-the-child-sex-scandal-20121114-29cg2.html

THE announcement of a sweeping royal commission on the sexual abuse of children must have come as a much-needed political gift for Ted Baillieu as he approaches the two-year anniversary of his election win.

After a bruising year, the Premier can now justifiably claim some credit for the historic decision: finally Australia will fling open the curtains and shine some light on decades of allegations of institutional sexual abuse and church cover-ups.

It was, after all, his government that got things rolling by setting up a parliamentary inquiry after the Cummins inquiry into child welfare.

''Without the Victorian parliamentary inquiry there would not have been, I don't believe, the national focus on these issues which has been there in the last few months,'' he said this week.

But better still, Baillieu has been freed from the burden of the full investigation needed to search out the truth and provide victims with a sense of redress. If a royal commission has not rendered the state inquiry obsolete, it has certainly taken any heat out of it.

When the Victorian inquiry was announced back in April, it was criticised as grossly inadequate. The claims of abuse were extensive, complex, sensitive, raw, disturbing and stretched back for decades.

There were many victims. Some of the alleged perpetrators had moved to other states. Some had died. Some were still working with children. There were claims of complex cover-ups, that paedophile priests had simply been moved on to other jurisdictions by the church.

The idea that such a monumental task could be undertaken by a relatively inexperienced and under-resourced six-member parliamentary committee given just one year to report back seemed absurd, particularly considering the Ryan commission in Ireland took almost a decade, and delivered five volumes of findings and recommendations. This government at least deserves credit for having the political courage to plough ahead with the inquiry. But the politics were always going to be tricky.

On the one hand, there was a high risk it would be accused of not doing enough, with many victims waiting for decades to see abusers, as well as those who turned a blind eye or actively covered up abuse, finally held to account.

On the other, there was the danger of falling into a deep quagmire, given the scope of the allegations. Tackling the issue with a state-based parliamentary inquiry was like trying to scale Mount Everest wearing a pair a hobnail boots and a tweed jacket.

The state government's approach was to tiptoe. As the inquiry's terms of reference make clear, the purpose was to examine ''systemic'' failings, and how these failings might be corrected.

Victims would be heard with sensitivity, but the emphasis would not be on specific allegations (Attorney-General Robert Clark has argued these are matters for police to investigate), but rather on how laws and processes might be amended to prevent abuse from re-occurring.

A national royal commission is a far more ambitious and appropriate forum for investigation. The aim is to shine light on the abuse that occurred, and to examine how organisations responded to it. Those who were complicit - for example, by sending culprits on to other jurisdictions or simply by ''averting their eyes'' - will face appropriate scrutiny.

Despite claims by Cardinal George Pell, the head of Catholic Church in Sydney, that the Catholic Church was no worse than other organisations and had been the victim of a persistent press campaign, the church will no doubt face particular scrutiny.

What now for the state inquiry? Baillieu is not ruling out the possibility it could be subsumed once the royal commission is established, although some sort of report to State Parliament is still likely.

''That's obviously going to take some time, so I would expect that the parliamentary inquiry in Victoria would continue its work until such time as the royal commission and a timetable is established,'' he said.

The most likely outcome is that the Victorian inquiry will be wound back to examine whether guidelines for reporting and responding to abuse at the state level are appropriate.

There is the question of whether witnesses should have to endure the emotional stress of giving evidence to the Victorian inquiry, and then a national royal commission.

Any evidence gathered would then be handed over to the royal commission, which would in turn require State Parliament to formally waive parliamentary privilege.

The Victorian committee has no doubt already made a valuable contribution. But it was never going to represent the type of exhaustive inquiry ultimately needed. It was naive to think it would be enough. As such, Baillieu has dodged a bullet.