A Tentative Hail to the Biggest Cab on the Rank

The Age
October 4, 2013

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/a-tentative-hail-to-the-biggest-cab-on-the-rank-20131003-2uxh2.html

[Submission: Truth Justice and Healing Council]

Those, including this newspaper, who welcomed the announcement of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse are entitled to feel some sense of vindication at the formal submission of the Catholic Church to the commission, made public yesterday. As demands for the commission became increasingly strident late last year, Sydney Archbishop George Pell was arguing, right up to the last minute, that it was not needed.

He maintained that the Catholic Church had fixed the deficiencies in the two protocols it introduced in 1996, the Melbourne Response and Towards Healing. The admissions of failure, and an openness to listen ''to criticism and advice'', that were promised in Thursday's submission to the commission show how flawed that claim was.

Cardinal Pell was irked by what he said were suggestions that the Catholic Church was ''the only cab on the rank'' when, in his mind, it had done more than most to combat this scourge that has so damaged our society. Of course, it was not so much the abuse - appalling as it was, with devastating effects on victims and their families - that diminished the church's public standing. It was the cover-ups, the silencing of victims, the moving of paedophile priests to unsuspecting parishes that most disgusted the faithful and non-believers alike when, thanks to the media and police, they began to emerge. That behaviour is unlikely today.

The cardinal was correct that his church is not the only cab on the rank. Most churches and secular institutions, particularly orphanages, have had their share of perpetrators, and it is right that the royal commission is casting a wide net. Yet it is also true that the Catholic Church has been disproportionately represented - its clergy and religious offended at six times the rate of all the other churches put together, according to evidence to the Victorian parliamentary inquiry into how the churches handled child sexual abuse.

Many victims of abuse have told that inquiry, the commission, this newspaper and other people of their strong dissatisfaction with the two protocols. The problems were not all fixed, and this is why it is so encouraging to hear the church say it has an open mind about possible improvements and that it recognises the need for greater independence and public scrutiny. However, this submission applies only to Towards Healing - it does not mention the Melbourne Response. We hope the commission will examine this too.

Meanwhile, the commission begins its case study of Towards Healing in December and it must conduct a full forensic examination, despite the encouragingly open and healthy attitude the church seems to have adopted. This is the only chance the commission and the public will have to discover the protocol's successes and failures.

As for the church, its changed public stance should be commended, but too often in the past there has been a gulf between its fine words and its deeds. A sceptical public is entitled to wait and see what actually transpires.

Security, not supervision

There is commendable common sense in the proposal being considered by police to install security cameras on the homes of victims of family violence in Victoria. Safe Futures Foundation, the not-for-profit group behind the proposal, hopes the scheme will deter estranged partners from further traumatising victims. In a trial, the foundation has already placed cameras on the homes of two high-risk victims.

In a climate that has seen a 21.6 per cent rise in the number of family violence offences in the past year, installing closed-circuit cameras would be a relatively inexpensive yet efficient way to increase protection of some of society's more vulnerable members. There are far too many of them: figures show that last financial year, Victorian police attended more than 60,000 family violence incidents. It is hoped security cameras could reduce the number of callouts and help women with children feel safer at home.

There is nothing sinister or covert about this scheme. Cameras would be installed only with the consent of family violence victims, and only on private property. Also, courts would notify offenders issued with intervention orders that cameras were being installed, and images could be used as evidence of any breaches. The state government has indicated its interest in the proposal. There is every reason why it deserves to proceed.