Royal Commission: $4.3 Billion Is Cost of Redress to Victims of Child Sex Abuse

By Paul Bibby
Sydney Morning Herald
January 30, 2015

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/royal-commission-43-billion-is-cost-of-redress-to-victims-of-child-sex-abuse-20150130-131suh.html

[with video]

It would cost $4.3 billion over 10 years to provide redress to the 65,000 victims of child sex abuse in Australia, the royal commission says, with government footing nearly half the bill.

The explosive figures were contained in the commission's redress and civil litigation consultation paper released on Friday in Sydney.

The paper considers a range of options for assisting child sex abuse victims to "heal and live a productive and fulfilled life", including national and state-based redress schemes.

In reaching its headline figures, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse assumed an average payment of $65,000 for each victim.

The costs would equate to $1.971 billion from government, $582 million of which reflects government's contribution as "funder of last resort" – its role in backing up institutions where abuse occurred but which now had no money to pay.

Private institutions would be required to contribute $2.4 billion.

"Although it appears that governments must accept a broader role in providing effective and fair redress, the primary responsibility is with the institution," the chair of the commission, Justice Peter McClellan, said.

He acknowledged the financial constraints on both government and institutions but called on both to respond.

"The fundamental object of redress must be to help those who have suffered to heal and live a productive and fulfilled life," he said.

The consultation paper also raised the possibility of major changes to the process by which victims of child sex abuse pursue compensation through the courts.

In particular it suggested that, rather than victims having to prove that an institution breached its duty of care, as is currently the case, the institutions could be required to prove that it took all reasonable steps to care for the child.

Such a change would be controversial as it reverses the onus of proof that has been enshrined in civil law for centuries.

"If made, this would be a significant change but many would support it because of the increased discipline it would impose on institutions," Justice McClellan said.

Also raised is a switch to the Canadian and English systems whereby an institution may be liable for an act of abuse by one of its members even if the institution itself was not in any way negligent.

Speaking outside the commission, Nicky Davis from the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, acknowledged that the cost of redress was high but was nothing less than survivors deserved.

"Survivors deserve to be treated with respect for our honesty, bravery and resilience, and for our generosity in trying to prevent others from having to suffer as we did," Ms Davis said.

"We have a clear right to redress, and to access civil litigation if we choose. If institutions are serious about winning back the trust of the community, they should not try to avoid their responsibilities, but rather help to implement long overdue redress as soon as possible."