In 1996, just three months after he was installed as archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell established a humane, just, thorough and independent process to respond to the crime of sexual abuse of children by clergy and others: it has become known as the Melbourne Response.
Some months later, the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference established a similar process, called Towards Healing. The Melbourne Response was (to the best of my knowledge) the first institutional response to the crime of sexual abuse of children established by a diocese anywhere in the world.
There is debate as to the relative merits of the Melbourne Response and Towards Healing. No doubt each has its strengths and weaknesses. No doubt things can always be done better.
But one thing is clear. The rapidity with which he acted once he had the requisite authority reveals Pell's sense of the utter inadequacy of the Catholic Church's earlier responses as well as his sense of the urgency of the need to respond to the victims of abuse.
In 2001, when he was installed as Archbishop of Sydney, Pell maintained Sydney's Towards Healing process. But the Melbourne Response was his creation. Its guiding principles informed his work in this area when he came to Sydney: victims of sexual abuse come first; this crime has to stop; civil authorities should be involved; perpetrators must face justice.
The Melbourne Response had three main features. First, it was to be independent of the church. So an independent commissioner investigated claims and made findings.
Second, it was to offer counselling and support to victims. So an independent counselling service provided counselling and medical care to victims (and their families) at no cost to them and for as long as necessary.
Third, compensation was to be offered to victims. So an independent compensation panel decided on ex-gratia payments to survivors.
In establishing this process, Pell appointed people - both non-Catholics and Catholics - of outstanding expertise, integrity and professionalism who were experienced in the matters they were to decide. He consulted widely, with senior members of the Victorian legal profession, with the Victorian police, and with the Victorian government.
He publicised the new process so as to encourage people to come forward and have their needs - for just recognition, for counselling and for compensation - met. As he said at the time, the needs of the victims were his first consideration.
A close second was that he would do what he could to ensure that clergy and other church workers were never again involved in the sexual abuse of children.
There is much more to be said about the Melbourne Response. The capping of ex-gratia payments has been controversial, but it should be remembered that, when determining the cap on payments that would be awarded by the compensation panel, Pell ensured that the maximum compared favourably with the maximum awards then available to victims of crime under statute.
The principle is: equity in the treatment of victims according to the crime and irrespective of the perpetrator.
By many reasonable measures - percentage of cases decided in favour of victims, numbers of people who accessed counselling, numbers of ex-gratia payments made, etc - the Melbourne Response seems to have been effective. However, it is true that some victims and their families - including people who spoke out at the time and since - continued to experience the pain of having been so evilly abused. Indeed, some feel let down, and some feel further harmed, by their experience of the church's response.
In the coming days, Pell will appear at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The inquiry will consider the experience of John Ellis, whose sexual abuse by a priest in Sydney between 1974 and 1979 was dealt with under the Towards Healing process. Ellis sued the offending priest, as well as Pell and the trustees of the Catholic Church (its ''body corporate'') in Sydney.
Though he lost his court case, Ellis received compensation of several hundred thousand dollars from the church. In addition, though the court awarded costs against him, the church's trustees did not require him to pay its costs.
Pell is a friend of mine. Our families have known each other for eons: we have shared spaghetti, laughter and arguments. As his friend I wish him well for his own sake when he appears before the commission.
As a fellow Catholic and citizen who is ashamed of the abuse of children in the church and in society, I hope that he will make the most of this opportunity to do what else he can to prevent the sexual abuse of children.
Bernadette Tobin is director of the Plunkett Centre for Ethics at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney and reader in philosophy at the Australian Catholic University.
