CATHOLIC clergy commit six times as much abuse as those in the rest of the churches combined, ”and that’s a conservative figure”, a child protection expert says.

Patrick Parkinson, a Sydney University law professor, told the state inquiry into how the churches handle sex abuse yesterday that the figures for the Catholic Church were strikingly out of proportion.

He proposed a 12-month amnesty from charges of perverting the course of justice if the church opened all its files on offenders alive and dead, but said those involved in cover-ups would have to resign.

Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner Graham Ashton speaking at the inquiry. Photo: Justin McManus

Earlier, Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner Graham Ashton set the inquiry’s opening day alight with more broadsides against the Catholic Church’s systemic obstruction of police inquiries over five decades.

Savaging the church’s Melbourne Response protocol for dealing with complaints, Mr Ashton said: ”If a stranger were to enter a church and rape a child it would be immediately reported to police. But if the stranger were a member of the clergy, their special process would be wrapped around him. What is different about the clergy? It is the reputation of the church that creates the difference.”

He said the Melbourne Response was ”based on a flawed notion of independence”, with independent commissioner Peter O’Callaghan, QC, appointed and paid for by the church.

Mr O’Callaghan replied: ”Much of Mr Ashton’s evidence and the police submission, both made under the cover of parliamentary privilege, are grossly misconceived, damaging and plainly wrong.” He said he would ”correct and refute” police evidence if he was called before the committee.

Melbourne Catholic Archbishop Denis Hart also came to Mr O’Callaghan’s defence, with a public statement saying for the past 16 years the church had been ”honest and open” in co-operating with police.

”Any suggestion of a lack of independence of the independent commissioners is a very serious attack on the professional integrity and competence of senior members of the Victorian bar,” he said. ”I reject any such suggestion.”

Professor Parkinson, who chaired a review of child protection laws in New South Wales and twice reviewed the church’s national Towards Healing abuse protocol, said he broke with the Catholic Church over its cover-up of his independent report on the Salesians of Don Bosco.

Speaking under parliamentary privilege, he said the order sent three priests overseas to avoid police questioning, then suppressed his report on their actions.

He told the committee an American child safety expert had called the order ”the most defiant and unrepentant group” in the church.

Professor Parkinson said: ”The lies were breathtaking, and [former Australian head] Father [Frank] Moloney was absolutely at the centre of all the untruths.”

Monash University child protection expert Chris Goddard lashed the ”partial and tokenistic” mandatory reporting laws in Australia that carried no meaningful consequences for those who ignored them.

Professor Goddard, director of Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia, said only two people had been prosecuted since the law was introduced in 1993 for failing to report suspected abuse, and ”many times loss of life has followed” that failure.

He also criticised training for child protection workers, saying that ”if we had the same disorganised approach for drink-driving there would be a public outcry. There should be independent visits to church homes, independent assessments of organisations, and compulsory training.”

Dr Daryl Higgins, deputy director of research at the Australian Institute of Family Studies, said victims were often not believed until they had reported the abuse five times.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/catholic-clergy-the-worst-abusers-inquiry-told-20121019-27vqi.html#ixzz29ry6Gf00

~~

Questions Demand Royal Commission: Barney Zwartz

AS GEORGIE Crozier MLC stood yesterday to open public proceedings in the state inquiry into church sex abuse, eyes turned to a dignified man in a grey suit in the third row of the gallery – legal adviser Frank Vincent – who many think should have been the one doing the talking.

The retired Supreme Court judge has already chaired one royal commission, and this inquiry into how the churches handled clergy sex abuse should be his second.

Yesterday’s opening day confirmed that, well-intentioned though the parliamentary committee surely is, it is simply not equipped to do what must be done.

As victims’ advocate Judy Courtin told me, lives are hanging in the balance with this inquiry. For example, some of the Ballarat abuse victims she helped prepare submissions for found that even that process brought depression and suicidal thoughts. Fifty of their former co-pupils have already acted on such thoughts.

Ms Crozier, looking authoritative in a power navy suit and crisp white blouse, spoke well.

Sensitive to widespread criticism of the Family and Community Development Committee’s capacities, she emphasised that the inquiry had all the powers of a court, judicial inquiry or a royal commission, plus extra powers of its own.

But by the time the second witness – Assistant Police Commissioner Graham Ashton – finished his testimony at noon, it was abundantly clear that this inquiry will barely scratch the surface.

Mr Ashton’s damaging testimony – that the Catholic Church systematically hindered police, alerting offenders that they were being investigated, destroying evidence, hiding documents from police with search warrants, seeking injunctions against police, moving offenders, discouraging victims, and on and on and on – needs dozens of hours of forensic examination.

The committee needs to discover times, places, who did what and when, who knew what and when, if it is to understand the cover-ups and prevent them in the future. This is the core of the inquiry.

The committee has hundreds of witnesses who want to give evidence. So far it has allotted just 4½ days to hearing them until the end of November, and told few of them what is happening.

A royal commission would simply continue hearing witnesses, day by day, until they were done. It would cross-examine, demand documents, and follow the trail tirelessly. The committee simply cannot.

One committee member told me he hoped that the inquiry would at least shed light on some of the issues. All Victorians hope that, but they deserve more than a dim 20-watt bulb. Only a royal commission will do.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/questions-demand-royal-commission-20121019-27wxd.html#ixzz29ryvPJNM