Archbishop Philip Wilson

Former Archbishop of Adelaide Philip Wilson made disclosures to the Court reminding the Court that the primary responsibility for enforcing the laws against child abuse was held by police and justice authorities, not by the clergy. Wilson's disclosure was made during his successful appeal of his conviction for allegedly failing to act against a paedophile priest. The announcement of the Award has been withheld until after a final decision was made on the appeal by Cardinal Pell, and after the redacted portions of the Royal Commission report were made public.

Queensland Whistleblowers have, since 2018, withheld criticisms of the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse, out of respect to those who benefitted from the focus placed by the Commission on the religious offenders. The line-up of bishops before the Commission was a moment of national significance that allowed those bishops to feel their national shame.

From the moment of the announcement of the Royal Commission, however, Queensland Whistleblowers wrote to the Prime Minister about our concerns as to whether the Royal Commission had the independence for dealing with child abuse in all areas of the community where predators gather to harm vulnerable children. In particular, any child abuse by officers from police agencies, justice bodies and government care agencies was as criminal in nature as the abuse of children by clergy, and thus merited the same intensity of investigation. So too was any involvement of those officers, in any covering-up of child abuse, deserving of equivalent examination. 

Some victims of abuse, by police or justice or government officers, took their chances and went to the Royal Commission, but many stayed away. Some refused direct invitations from the Commission to give evidence about abuse and / or about cover-up of that abuse. 

From a Queensland perspective, the Royal Commission needed to explain  whether there existed any reasonable difference between the abuse of children in religious organisations versus abuse of children committed by government agencies.  Serious abuse in government agencies within Queensland has been disclosed by former Premier Mike Ahern about the Osborne papers, by Kevin Lindeberg about the Heiner disclosures, and by the Fitzgerald Inquiry about the plan to frame a police whistleblower with child abuse charges. 

Also, Church lay persons who were investigating religious abusers where the police were showing little interest, have made allegations that evidence provided to police was not used in prosecutions, causing them to lose further confidence in the police. Lay persons became suspicious of the efforts of police and justice authorities when those officers attempted to stop those lay persons from carrying out searches relating to victims of suspected child abusers.  They also condemned the actions of senior police officers who frustrated the inquiries being made by honest police. 

Since his release, Cardinal Pell has referred in interviews to the cooperation of police and bishops in moving offending priests. Why is Cardinal Pell not being interviewed about police cover-ups?

The Royal Commission appears to have created some confusion about who is responsible for prosecuting perpetrators of child abuse. It is absolutely certain that Police and justice bodies have the primary responsibility for prosecuting paedophiles. The clergy are not responsible for prosecuting religious perpetrators.  The Royal Commission has not vilified the police and justice officers who failed to act on the complaints that thousands of parents took to them, to the same extent that bishops were vilified by the Royal Commission for moving predators to unsuspecting parishes. What is worse, say, a bishop leaving an accused priest in charge of an orphanage, or a police sergeant who ignores the injuries, pleas and allegations of an escaped orphan, and returns the orphan to the orphanage in a police car? What is worse, the priest who maintains the secrecy of the confessional, or the judicial inquiry which does not inquire into criminal cover-up of abuse in a public institution because the terms of reference for the inquiry only go to abuse, not to cover-up of abuse?

The police commissioners and principals of some past inquiries and investigations were not given their day of shame, as were the bishops. If the Royal Commission found that it was not plausible for Cardinal Pell not to know about the abuse in the parishes at Ballarat, what find they about the plausibility that the police commissioners did not know about the abuse occurring in the Ballarat community [Vic], and in Maitland [NSW], and in Brisbane [Qld].

Queensland Whistleblowers would ask, how did the law come to prosecute Archbishop Wilson, one of the few religious leaders who, lay persons claimed, did help them, and who pursued accused religious child abusers through the papal judiciary?  How did the law pursue a cardinal with only one witness against him, when police and prosecutors were insisting that church lay persons had to identify at least three victims willing to give evidence against a suspect before the police and prosecutors would act?  How were non-religious persons, subject to allegations by multiple children, saved from prosecution because of prejudicial media coverage, but religious leaders, namely Cardinal Pell, were brought to trial with only one accuser after a national media campaign, led by a Four-Corners Program and supported by widespread media condemnation? 

Australia needs a new Royal Commission on Child Sexual Abuse, with teachers, church lay persons, parents, and carers on the Bench, and with police, justice and government authorities in the witness stand.