|
Editorial: Time limit ‘defence’ on child sex abuse must change
Courier-Mail
[with video] THERE is no place for statutory time limits in a society that prioritises child safety. Existing Queensland legislation that requires victims of child abuse to begin legal action against institutions by the age of 21 or be ruled ineligible for compensation is offensive and must be changed. To date, institutions — be they churches, schools or orphanages — have invoked the statute of limitations “defence” either in direct response to being sued or in preliminary negotiations with victims to dissuade them from taking action. Institutions that have known that an employee, such as a priest, teacher or counsellor, has sexually assaulted children have protected the perpetrator by refusing to report them to police, by relocating them, or deliberately destroying evidence. The Anglican Diocese of Brisbane (under archbishop Hollingworth and then archbishop Aspinall) and Brisbane Grammar School (under chairman Howard Stack) both used the time limits defence in relation to pedophile Kevin Lynch. Lynch abused boys at Brisbane Grammar School in the 1970s and ’80s, and at St Paul’s School in the 1990s. He committed suicide in 1997 after being charged by police with indecent dealing with a boy at St Paul’s. As for Lynch’s many victims, they were offered as little as $15,000 compensation for years of abuse. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse says time limits are an injustice to survivors of abuse and, appropriately, has called for their immediate and retrospective abolition. Victoria was the first state to pass the necessary reform legislation last year. NSW followed suit this year and Western Australia has tabled a bill to comply with the royal commission’s recommendations. Queensland must do likewise. The psychological trauma of child abuse does not stop at age 21, yet the injuries caused can make it impossible for victims to report the crimes until after a period of recovery. On average this takes between 22 and 25 years, according to medical evidence. As seen in February, when members of the Ballarat Survivors Group travelled to Rome for the royal commission hearing of Cardinal George Pell, the psychological scars can last a lifetime. Survivor Andrew Collins said: “A lot of people might think this is the end of our journey. It’s not.” Mr Collins, 46, was abused from the age of 11 by four different men but when he tried to speak out as a teenager, he was not believed. It was only later in adulthood that Mr Collins was able to seek to bring his abusers to justice — by which point two of them had died. As for the fear he felt as a child, it continues to haunt him in nightmares. Removing the 21-year age limit will not only allow victims to receive appropriate levels of compensation for the abuse — including for lost earnings and healthcare costs — but it will give them the right to have their cases heard. It will allow them to come forward in their own time and to be treated with dignity. By removing time limits, victims will be able to sue institutions for true losses and for the first time in Queensland’s history it will be more expensive to allow a child to be abused than to prevent it. Minister’s secrecy fuels suspicion THERE’S no great mystery about why you’re regarded as secretive when something is being hidden. Long and painful experience for those asking questions and requesting information which is then not forthcoming is that something is being hidden — and usually for reasons of embarrassment. It’s also a matter of fact that the more someone seeks to keep something from the public’s gaze, the more that suspicion grows — again with justification. Throw politics into this mix and those doubts and questions multiply. The Labor Police Minister in the Palaszczuk Government, Bill Byrne, has been coy about his use of firearms for many months, ever since it was suggested he discharged a weapon into the ceiling of his home in front of his wife. Mr Byrne has had to be pushed to make any admissions about these claims — which include the bizarre suggestion he used firearms for pest control — although he has all along made it appear he has nothing to hide and is not worried about what might or might not be revealed. Now Mr Byrne has dropped his pretence that he has nothing to hide and is actively resisting the release of his army records which most people believe would reveal whether he did in fact shoot a firearm into his home ceiling. This is despite Mr Byrne saying just three months ago he had “no problem” with any record from his time in the army being made public. Perhaps Mr Byrne has been reminded of the embarrassment former premier Campbell Newman suffered when his military records were made public. Whatever might be behind Mr Byrne’s stubborn refusal to come clean, everyone can be excused for drawing the logical conclusion he is just covering up.
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.