Address by Commissioner Robert Fitzgerald to the Anglican Church s 17 th session of the General Synod Maroochydore, Queensland 2pm 3pm 4 September 2017 Introduction Thank you for inviting me to address your 17 th session of the Anglican Church s General Synod today. I am aware that the Chair of the Royal Commission has addressed the annual Bishops Conference on two occasions, so I am thankful at being able to address, not only Bishops but also members of clergy and lay members of the Church at this important decision making meeting. Indeed the decisions you make this week will be viewed not only by members of your Church but also the wider community and will reflect in part on the Church s learnings from the work of and involvement with the Commission. They will be examined by survivors of abuse to see what has been heard by the Church s leadership in the telling of their stories. These decisions will demonstrate your commitment as a Church to create a safer, more just and responsive institution across the nation and in all its work. 1
The Royal Commission background and update I speak to you today as the Royal Commission moves towards the completion of its work at the end of this year. The Royal Commission was set up in 2013 to uncover where systems have failed to protect children. We have investigated how institutions such as schools, churches, sports clubs, residential care providers and government organisations have responded to allegations and instances of child sexual abuse. Overall we have identified more than 4,000 institutions where the sexual abuse of children is alleged to have occurred. There are three pillars of the inquiry that inform our work and the development of our findings and recommendations: public hearings, private sessions and policy and research. We have held 57 public hearings into dozens of institutions. We have sat in public for more than 440 days and heard from more than 1,200 witnesses. To date the Commissioners have held more than 7,200 private sessions, read more than 1,000 written accounts and referred more than 2,250 people to authorities, mostly police. The Royal Commission has also undertaken an extensive policy and research program that draws upon findings from public hearings, information from private sessions, submissions, consultations with stakeholders and research commissioned by the Royal Commission and other material. Our research program has also generated new research- 2
based evidence. We have worked with over 70 key experts in the field - both in Australia and internationally - across more than 30 universities and research centres. There has never been such a large scale, crossjurisdictional focus on child sexual abuse in Australian institutions, and research on this very specific topic is limited. Our final reports on Working With Children s Checks, Redress and Civil Litigation and our recently released Criminal Justice Report have been among our most important work to date. As some of you may be aware, on 15 December 2017 the Royal Commission will present its Final Report covering its investigations to the Governor-General. The Final Report will make recommendations that aim to support and inform Australian governments, institutions and the general public in preventing and responding to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts. In particular, there will be a volume on religious organisations which will make recommendations for religious organisations that cover areas such as the Child Safe Standards, complaint handling and information sharing. Within that volume there will be specific recommendations for the Anglican Church of Australia. Public hearings Over the last four years, the Royal Commission has conducted public hearings in relation to 116 institutions. 3
The matters examined in a public hearing were carefully chosen. There were a large number of institutions reported in private sessions and elsewhere and there were necessary limits on the Royal Commission s resources. It was plain that hearings were needed to examine the responses of religious institutions, given that, as at the end of May this year, almost 60 per cent of people we heard about in private session reported abuse in those institutions. Overall almost nine percent of survivors reported abuse in an Anglican institution. Out of all religious institutions, we heard from the second-highest number of survivors in relation to Anglican Church institutions. The Commission held eight case studies that examined Anglican institutions. Such bodies include the North Coast Children s Home NSW, Church of England Boys Society (CEBS), The Hutchins School Hobart, St Paul s School Brisbane and the Diocese of Newcastle. We also examined Anglican-affiliated schools including Trinity Grammar and the King s School in Sydney in our public hearing inquiring into the responses to children with problematic or harmful sexual behaviours in schools. Anglican data project We also held a review hearing in March this year into the current policies and procedures of Anglican Church authorities in Australia in relation to child protection and child-safe standards, including responding to 4
allegations of child sexual abuse. A data survey of the 23 Anglican Church dioceses in Australia was undertaken. The Anglican data project was undertaken with the cooperation and assistance of the General Synod and each of the 23 dioceses in Australia which completed the data surveys. The Royal Commission is very grateful for this assistance. The resulting report was tendered into evidence during the review hearing and is available on our website. The results of the data survey provided further evidence of the significant level of claims and complaints of child sexual abuse in relation to Anglican institutions. The data underrepresents the level of claims and complaints for the Church as some Dioceses did not include data in relation to affiliated schools or community welfare agencies. Further it is likely that the claims or complaints received thus far significantly underrepresents the level of abuse in Anglican institutions as demonstrated by the fact that only 34% of private sessions attendees have ever reported their abuse to the relevant institutions. Of the 23 Anglican dioceses surveyed, 22 reported that they had received one or more complaints of child sexual abuse between 1980 and 2015. Overall, 1,085 complainants alleged incidents of child sexual abuse in 1,119 reported complaints to Anglican Church dioceses. The 1970s had the largest proportion of first alleged incidents of child sexual abuse 25 per cent of the overall alleged abuse reported occurred 5
in this decade. Seventy- five per cent of complainants were male and 25 per cent were female. The average age of when they were allegedly abused was 11 years of age for both sexes. The average time between the alleged abuse and the date a complaint was made was 29 years. The data showed that a total of 569 alleged perpetrators (ordained clergy, lay employees including teachers and volunteers) were identified in complaints of child sexual abuse. Additionally, 133 alleged perpetrators whose identity was not known were the subject of complaints. Of all alleged perpetrators, 94 per cent were male and 6 per cent were female. Overall the Royal Commission has referred more than 2,250 people to authorities, mostly the police, with a view to the possible prosecution of an offender. As of August this year we have made 106 referrals to police in every state and territory in relation to allegations of child sexual abuse involving Anglican Church institutions. During the review hearing, Anne Hywood, General Secretary of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia, acknowledged the Church s failure in regards to protecting children. Ms Hywood told the hearing; In confronting our failings, we are ashamed. We have had to face that we have not always protected the children we were trusted to care for. It is clear that there were times when we did not act as we should and we allowed harm to continue; we did not believe those who came forward, we tried to silence them; we cared more about the church s reputation than those who had been harmed. 6
Ms Hywood also said the Church recognised a national approach to child protection and we commend this. Our actions in responding to child sexual abuse cannot be limited by our structures, our culture or our differences. We recognise the imperative for a nationally consistent approach to child protection and a structure to deliver the best possible response to those who have been harmed in our care. We accept the challenge - and we are committed to taking action, Ms Hywood said. Religious Institutions Whilst many aspects of abuse were common to all institutions we heard that where abuse had taken place within a religious institution the victim s own religious communities may have contributed to the risk of abuse, acted as a barrier to disclosure or impacted adversely on institutional responses. Often the word of a minister was automatically accepted over the word of a child. The status afforded to people in religious ministry blinded community members to seeing the signs of abusive behaviours and gave unfettered access to children in multiple environments. Too often perpetrators would use their special relationship with God as a means of intimidating, manipulating and disempowering victims, not only in the acts of abuse but also to prevent the child disclosing what had happened. Sometimes children were told that they were the wrong doer, they had committed a sin, and they would be punished if they ever told. 7
The impacts for all survivors of child sexual abuse in institutions can be profound and long lasting. For those where the abuse occurred within a religious institutions there are distinctive impacts including: a loss of faith, spiritual confusion, estrangement from their religious community, family breakdown and loss of trust in authority. The impacts extended beyond the victim and their families and we have seen extraordinary damage to religious communities where disbelief is replaced by anger, shame and confusion as to the true values of their church, which seem to have been so compromised in the responding to claims and complaints. Further in responding to claims and complaints too often both internal and external advisers to leaders of religious institutions provided advice without regard to the damage already done to survivors and recommended processes and procedures that had the effect of causing further trauma and often leading to people giving up on their just claims because of the brutality they experienced. So often such advice given in the name of acting in the best interests of the church, did incalculable damage to victims. Ironically, when such practices have been eventually exposed the church s reputation has been severely damaged. In relation to internal disciplinary matters within religious institutions we have also seen evidence of confusion around issues of forgiveness and accountability leading to perpetrators not being held to account and sometimes going on to reoffend after forgiveness was given. Further, conflicts of interest have not been sufficiently identified and resolved, leading to severely flawed processes. Such processes have not been either 8
fair or just to victims or ultimately the alleged perpetrators. They have made such institutions look at best incompetent and at worst biased. Anglican Case Studies As I mentioned before, the Commission held eight case studies that examined Anglican institutions, three of which examined the responses of Anglican dioceses. The most recent of these was Case Study 42, which inquired into allegations of child sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy and lay people involved in or associated with the Anglican Diocese of Newcastle. The Royal Commission heard evidence of the past and present systems, policies and practices in place within this diocese for responding to instances and allegations of child sexual abuse. The Royal Commission also heard evidence about the institutional culture in the Diocese of Newcastle and at the clergy training college at St John s College, Morpeth. The report for this case study will be published in the coming months. Case Study 42 was the third case study in relation to an Anglican Diocese. The first was Case Study 3, which examined the Diocese of Grafton s response to claims of child sexual abuse at the North Coast Children s Home. This case study examined the way the Diocese of Grafton handled allegations that staff, clergy and other residents at the home had sexually 9
abused children who lived at the home between 1940 and 1985. The Royal Commission heard evidence from then Primate of the Anglican Church in Australia, Archbishop Phillip Aspinall, about the structural barriers he felt restricted the Anglican Church s handling of complaints. The Royal Commission found that representatives of the Diocese of Grafton adopted a legalistic and hard line approach to a group claim by former residents of the home. The Royal Commission found that the diocese did not follow its own policies for handling claims of sexual abuse or responding to survivors. In Case Study 36, the Royal Commission inquired into the response of the Church of England Boys Society, to allegations of child sexual abuse made against lay people and/or clergy involved in or associated with CEBS. The historical and contemporary responses to these allegations of abuse, by the Anglican dioceses of Tasmania, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, were also examined in the case study. In this case study, the Royal Commission found that there were networks of perpetrators in CEBS who had knowledge of each other s sexual offending against boys and who facilitated the sexual abuse of boys in or associated with CEBS. The Royal Commission found that most CEBS branches could operate in an autonomous and unregulated way. The Royal Commission found that these factors, combined with the nature of the activities run by CEBS such as overnight trips and camps, provided access to boys and opportunities to sexually abuse those boys. 10
The Royal Commission found the CEBS National Council s only formal response to child sexual offending was to revoke the CEBS national awards given to certain offenders. The council considered making a formal apology over child sexual abuse offending in 2008 and 2009 but decided against it. In addition, the Anglican Dioceses of Tasmania, Adelaide and Brisbane had three separate independent inquiries into child sexual abuse but no investigation or inquiry conducted by the church looked into whether there was an organised network of offenders within CEBS or a culture that facilitated child sexual abuse. This is despite the fact that those dioceses and the national Anglican Church knew about child sexual abuse at CEBS and the relationship between offenders. In the institutional review hearing early this year, the Commissioners heard evidence regarding the structural, governance and cultural factors that may have contributed to the occurrence of child sexual abuse at Anglican Church institutions in Australia, or affected the institutional response of Anglican Church authorities in Australia to child sexual abuse. The review hearing required that each dioceses prepare and provide a comprehensive statement outlining the diocese s position on 51 questions relating to child safety. This involved significant work, and many of you here today, particularly registrars, diocesan bishops and assistant bishops, had considerable involvement in that work. Thank you for your efforts. Those statements have been an invaluable resource for us as we consider the responses of the Anglican Church and consider what recommendations to make for other religious organisations. It is our hope that those statements will be a useful resource for you as you consider responding to the final recommendations of the Royal Commission. 11
During the review hearing, we heard about factors which were somewhat unique to the Anglican Church. In particular, we heard about how the dispersed authority of the Anglican Church of Australia has contributed to the lack of a nationally consistent approach across dioceses in responding to allegations of child sexual abuse. This was of some concern to us, and truthfully, difficult to understand why. On one hand we were told that child protection, more than any other issue, was one in which the dioceses worked together. On the other, we heard that there were divergent approaches to child protection emerging across various provinces of the Church. We heard that while most dioceses had robust child safe systems in place, some did not. We were told that the Anglican Church was still working towards having those minimum standards implemented across the board. We also heard that there was no national approach, or agreed minimum standards in respect of the selection, screening and training of candidates for ordination. We heard about the unique pressures that members of clergy face in parish ministry, particularly in regional areas. We heard that there was no national approach, or agreed minimum standards in respect of professional supervision and support for clergy. We do acknowledge that despite variations in different dioceses and agencies, there has been considerable work done across the Church in establishing a professional standards framework and enacting ordinances that seek to regulate the behavior of clergy and lay persons. 12
Nevertheless, we do consider that consistency of approach across dioceses and affiliated agencies, particularly in respect of meeting minimum standards for child safety, is an important issue. We are not aware of any theological differences among Anglican Church dioceses when it comes to child safety but there are structural and cultural barriers to working together that need to be overcome in order to have a shared national approach. Surely it is time to act in the best interests of children and survivors of abuse and to develop a nationally consistent approach to these critical issues. Culture During the course of our work the Commissioners have learnt much about the way in which an institution s culture may contribute to, or facilitate, the abuse of children in its care. We know that enhancing institutional accountability encourages positive changes in institutional behavior. In our case studies we heard about bishops and other senior leaders within the Anglican Church who: supported cultures in which the nature and impact of offending were minimised allowed perpetrators to continue to hold positions of authority within the diocese 13
prioritised the reputation of the Anglican Church and of individual members of the Church, particularly those in positions of power and influence, above the needs of children. These issues highlight the need for formal oversight and accountability for leaders in the Anglican Church. We also heard about the significant impact that lay people can have on diocesan responses. We heard that lay people, and particularly the involvement of women, has been a significant factor in combatting clericalism in the Church. We also heard that the impact of lay cultures, or particular local cultures, that have not come to terms with the impacts of child sexual abuse, and the importance of child safety can undermine diocesan responses. Some laity and clergy seem to continue to hold on to long discarded myths including: that children are not reliable witnesses, that adult survivors who take a long time to disclose lack credibility, that survivors are only after money, that the problem has been exaggerated or that this is an historic issue which has passed. The lack of coherent, nationally consistent responses to survivors and the issues of child sexual abuse more generally, allows these attitudes to persist and facilitates the retention of unsatisfactory practices and procedures. 14
This really underscores how crucial it is to embed child safety across all parts of an organisation. As we were told during the review hearing, child safety is not just a matter for diocesan bishops, or people in committees, it is everyone s responsibility. I encourage all members of the General Synod here today to be advocates for child safety in each and every diocese as well every school and agency affiliated with the Church. Redress We heard about the significance impact that meaningful and appropriate responses to child sexual abuse can have on survivors. This included the positive impact that face to face meetings with diocesan leaders, with an apology, can have on outcomes for survivors. We understand that there may be some concern about joining a national redress scheme, possibly due to the diocese wanting to ensure that this particular part of a redress scheme is still offered. I would expect that a national redress scheme would include this option for survivors. Indeed, our recommendations clearly recognised three elements: an institutional response where it is sought by survivors, an assessment and monetary response through a national redress process, and lifetime access to counselling and physiological services for those eligible under the redress scheme. As mentioned, we have heard from hundreds of people who have been abused in Anglican institutions throughout private sessions. Many of these people, for their own reasons, have not reported these matters to the Church. 15
A national redress scheme is designed to create a more independent way by which claims can be assessed and bring about equitable outcomes irrespective of which institution or jurisdiction the abuse occurred in. There are people who need assistance but who will only access an independent scheme, no longer trusting institutional based arrangements. Their views need to be respected. I encourage you as a prominent body to seriously consider joining the national redress scheme. The community, survivors and I suspect many of your own adherents would expect no less. Further, the Church s own individual or pastoral response needs to be carefully thought through, informed by survivors and responsive to the unique harms caused by abuse within religious bodies. Such abuse has shattered people s faith in an institution that once dominated their early lives and betrayed their belief systems cultivated within such a religious community. Child Safe Standards An entire volume of the Royal Commission s final report will be on making institutions child safe. However, we have published our work on child safe standards early so institutions are able to work on their child safe practices without having to wait for our final recommendations. 16
The ten standards that we have identified are: 1. Child safety is embedded in institutional leadership, governance and culture 2. Children participate in decisions affecting them and are taken seriously 3. Families and communities are informed and involved 4. Equity is promoted and diversity respected 5. People working with children are suitable and supported 6. Processes to respond to complaints of child sexual abuse are child focussed 7. Staff are equipped with the knowledge, skills and awareness to keep children safe through continual education and training 8. Physical and online environments minimise the opportunity for abuse to occur. 9. Implementation of child safe standards is continuously reviewed and improved. 10. Policies and procedures document how the institution is child safe. These elements apply to the Anglican Church of Australia and all other institutions. All who have leadership responsibility in the Anglican Church must inform themselves about the principles and ensure that their institution puts them into practice. The Anglican Church must strive to become not only a safe place for children but also an institution that places the interests of children above all other considerations. Congregational members, ministers, staff and volunteers need to understand this commitment and all policies and procedures need to be adapted to enshrine such an approach. Training, professional supervision, ongoing community education within the Church community and 17
developing robust compliance systems will all be key elements in the implementation and maintenance of these standards. Driving Change The Commission has a view that it takes multiple responses and the activation of multiple policy levers to achieve genuine, long lasting improvements in responding to the survivors of child sexual abuse, holding perpetrators to account and creating safer institutions. Already the Commission has made recommendations that if adopted will be relevant to the Anglican Church of Australia. These include recommendations that will affect the civil liability of institutions in particular by reversing the onus of proof in relation to the duty of care owed by an institution and introducing criminal penalties for individuals within institutions who fail to report suspicions of child sex crimes. We have also recommended a new failure to protect offence where a person with requisite knowledge and authority in an institution fails to protect a child from a significant risk of sexual abuse. We have encouraged changes to litigation practices with institutions urged to adopt a model litigant approach and embrace trauma informed approaches to complaint handling, redress and care. We will be making recommendations in relation to mandatory child protection reporting requirements and reportable conduct schemes that will affect all people in religious ministry. 18
Our recommendations are seeking to create the impetus for institutions to reorient their attitudes and responses to child sexual abuse. Ultimately, whilst external measures will help progress reforms, cultural change is the critical factor that will drive improvements in institutions and that must come from within. It needs to be embedded in and through institutional systemic and structural reform. It needs to be embraced, promulgated and sustained by the leadership of the organisation. For religious organisations restoring the trust and confidence of the community will rest on their willingness and ability to bring about reforms that reflect their proclaimed values not only in rhetoric but in practice. Conclusion We acknowledge that the challenge ahead for the Anglican Church is significant. We acknowledge that many in the Church may feel battered by what has been revealed and betrayed by those who they trusted. Yet over the course of our nearly five-year term, the Royal Commission has seen fundamental change occurring in the way institutions are managed with the introduction of many practices designed to protect the safety of children. We acknowledge the important work that the Anglican Church has done, and continues to do, in this area. The community expects institutions to give priority to the safety and wellbeing of the children that are in their care and those that do not change will lose the confidence of the Australian community.. 19
The evidence is surely sufficiently compelling for all engaged in the leadership of the Church to require all aspects of the Church including parishes and dioceses, schools and community service agencies, to come together as one in restoring the trust and confidence of the community in this Church through adopting sound policies, procedures and values. The ultimate aim is for this institution to act in the best interests of the most vulnerable, both children and survivors of abuse. As the Commission moves towards the completion of its work in December this year the task which is posed to all of you is to continue to make sure that the Anglican Church makes the changes necessary to ensure, as far as may be possible, children are not abused in the future. 20