The government is a bigger obstacle to justice for victims than George Pell

By Adam Brereton
Guardian
June 1, 2015

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/01/the-government-is-a-bigger-obstacle-to-justice-for-victims-than-george-pell

‘Pell should return to Australia, and once he has given evidence, issue a full-throated defence of the royal commission and the Truth Justice and Healing Council.’ Photo by Andreas Solaro

Cardinal George Pell has said he’ll return to Australia to give evidence at the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, if he is required to do so. The recent revelations from Ballarat are so horrifying as to beggar belief and I expect he will honour the commission’s request for him to appear later this year. We naturally want to know the full extent of the cardinal’s knowledge about the paedophile priest Gerald Risdale. And justice – natural, and divine – demands Pell give the commission and the public the full story.

Yet whether we like it or not, the royal commission is not a court conducting a criminal trial. Nor is it an inquiry into George Pell. Whether you conceive of the Cardinal as the Great Satan or a priest ahead of his time in dealing with child abuse (a view that is still prevalent among Catholics), litigating his personality on 60 Minutes or through Gerard Henderson’s nuggets of pedantry in the Australian does little to deliver justice for victims.

Of course, when the powerful refuse to humble themselves, stripping them of their mystique is a kind of justice in and of itself. Yet the cardinal’s reputation can hardly fall more in the eyes of the Australian public and among some sections of the church. As an observer of the commission and as a Christian, what I want to see is an acknowledgement that the situation has begun to change. Two years into the commission’s work, will anyone admit Pell is no longer the biggest obstacle to justice for victims? The reluctance to do so is pervasive on either side of the divide: the cardinal’s defenders barely know how to do anything else but fight rearguard actions; and his critics want to see Pell caught out in a lie, or a smoking gun document produced.Yet the commission is already beginning to move forward, recommending a federal redress scheme, funded with co-operation from the states and organisations in which abuse has taken place. Mediation, restorative justice, apologies from those in positions of power and ongoing financial and counselling support for victims are at its core; it is in line with what victims have told the commission they want and represents best practice in alternative dispute resolution and the like. The final report on this and related matters is weeks away.

None of this should be controversial. Nor is it even that expensive: $4.3bn over 10 years, with $2.4bn of that to be provided by the churches, schools and other private organisations. That will deliver justice for 65,000 victims, resolve the historical backlog and prepare us to deal justly with future claims. Chump change for a world-best child abuse scheme and a clear conscience. And such a scheme would accommodate hundreds of millions in compensation for victims of institutions that no longer exist and therefore no longer have the ability to pay.

Sounds great. Except, that is, to the federal government and the governments of many of the states and territories. In their submission to the commission, the federal government refused to withhold judgment until the commission’s report on redress, saying in no uncertain terms that they will not support such a scheme. The message to victims? Go back to court and get your compensation out of the organisations responsible for failing you in the first place.

How does this change things? Yes, Pell has been recalcitrant and obstinate. Yes, he should be called back to face victims and the commission. But now a serious proposal is beginning to form. By rejecting it out of hand, the federal government has positioned themselves as the biggest future obstacle to the best attempt at redress we have: the one developed by the commission.

It also changes things for the Catholic church, although you wouldn’t know it. It was always the case that the church would have to be part of any solution, because it is responsible for the largest number of victims. Now there is an opportunity to pivot and for the Catholic clergy and laity to become the defenders of the royal commission’s work. The church’s Truth Justice and Healing Council (TJHC) supports the commission’s redress scheme, and the various governments of Australia largely do not, or are reserving judgment.

Unfortunately, the TJHC has been left to twist in the wind, and Francis Sullivan, its CEO, hasn’t enjoyed much in the way of support. Members of his own council have made things harder for him too. Bishop Bill Wright, a member of the TJHC’s board, complained earlier this year of the anti-Catholic tone of much of the Newcastle Herald’s reporting, saying the church’s good works were judged only by the journalistic “usual suspects” – those who don’t like the church.

Given the public perception of the Catholic church is that it has been running a child abuse protection racket for decades, it’s not a surprise that its moral witness has totally collapsed. And it’s not helping that some conservative Catholics persist in their belief that there is a sectarian left-liberal witch hunt (of which Guardian Australia is now a part, apparently) against Pell and the church.

There is a chance here for the church to be something other than a reactionary rump. Pell should return to Australia, and once he has given evidence, issue a full-throated defence of the royal commission and the Truth Justice and Healing Council. The Australian Conference of Catholic Bishops should, with Pell’s blessing, campaign from the pulpit against those governments of Australia that refuse to support the redress scheme proposed by the commission. And couldn’t Gerard Henderson and Miranda Devine find a few spare column inches to encourage Tony Abbott and the state premiers to support the church’s designated representative at the royal commission?

To do so would not be cynical, or dishonest. It would be a clear sign of submission to the royal commission, an admission that the church cannot go it alone and that it no longer wants to. And it would signal that the days of arrogance and obfuscation are over.