Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was established by the Australian government in 2013 to investigate the prevalence and handling of child sexual abuse within various institutions, including churches, schools, and government organizations. Prompted by growing concerns about widespread abuse and inadequate responses from institutions, the commission aimed to uncover systemic issues and improve protections for children. The commission provided a safe environment for survivors to share their experiences, addressing the challenges many faced in coming forward due to intimidation and institutional cover-ups.
Over its operation, the commission received thousands of allegations and testimonies revealing patterns of abuse, often facilitated by trusted adults in positions of authority. It sought to examine not only individual cases but also the broader institutional failures that allowed such misconduct to persist. The initiative garnered significant public and institutional attention, leading to increased awareness and discussions around child safety and the need for reform. The commission’s work highlighted the long-term psychological impact of abuse on victims and contributed to ongoing efforts for healing and justice within society.
On this Page
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was an investigatory committee announced by the Australian government in 2012 and officially created in 2013 to look into a wide range of charges and responses concerning instances of child sexual abuse in a variety of public and private institutions, including but not restricted to churches, schools, and government organizations. The commission was founded amid growing concerns that the problem with institutional child sexual abuse in the country might be far broader and more damaging than had been suspected, and that laws may need to be adjusted or created to ensure children’s safety from such abuses in the future.
While sexual abuse, especially committed against children, is considered unacceptable in any situation, abuse that occurs within an institution wherein both parents and children are intended to feel secure and protected brings with it a difficult element; in some cases, the institution acts to downplay any reports it receives from children in its care or it declines to involve authorities for fear of damaging the reputation of the establishment and attempts to handle the situation internally. In the worst-case scenarios, institutions have actually interfered with a police investigation or have acted to protect the employee or member who has been charged. The Australian government tasked the commission with sorting through more than fifty years of such cases and allegations, while remaining mindful that few accusations can damage a person’s or an institution’s reputation more than the unfounded charge of sexual abuse and few victims of crime have more emotional and psychological trauma than child victims of sexual abuse.
Background
In the late twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century, international attention had been increasingly drawn to revelations of widespread child sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church, especially in countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States. Allegations were also eventually brought to the attention of state governments throughout Australia, involving clergy in Roman Catholic parishes—charges that, in some cases, dated back years. Accusations were also leveled at public elementary schools, boy scouting organizations, and state-run daycare facilities. Although each state government responded as best it could, the reality was that given the vast Australian continent, institutions eager to protect employees so charged could too easily relocate these people and ensure they never faced charges. In addition, many of the targeted institutions involved protocols and operations that regularly worked across state boundaries, creating significant jurisdictional friction for any investigation. Whistleblower and police detective Peter Fox most directly inspired a federal response to the clearly national problem when he gave a television interview in November 2012 alleging orchestrated cover-ups conducted by the Catholic Church and police regarding instances of sexual abuse against children.
That same month, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced her recommendation to charge a commission with the broad authority to gather testimony and coordinate child abuse investigations of public and private institutions involved with children across Australia. The charge itself was massive in scale—even before the commission officially began its work, thousands of complaints had been filed with the Australian central government in Canberra. The decisive move by Gillard, who came into office with a background in education, was hailed for its ambition—representatives of the Australian Roman Catholic Church pledged their support.
In early 2013, six commissioners, including a chair, were appointed to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which was officially approved by a bill passed in parliament in March 2013. The members were drawn from all six Australian states and included a psychiatrist, a family court judge, a retired police commissioner, and a prominent politician. Gillard asked Peter McClellan, a career jurist and respected appeals court judge, to serve as chair. The terms of reference required the commission to return its interim report in two years, though that deadline was still negotiable.
Impact
From the outset, the commission worked on providing a secure, safe forum for alleged victims to provide testimony about inappropriate sexual behavior in any public or private institution. The commission’s original mission statement listed six specific areas of investigation—churches, scouting organizations, education, child-care facilities, athletic organizations, and youth organizations—as the organizations most frequently mentioned in complaints. Both public and private hearings were scheduled as a way to provide the appropriate environment for children, many of them now adults, who wanted to testify but found the idea of such public testimony intimidating and embarrassing. When the events first occurred, many of these same children had been intimidated by directors of the institutions and even by their own family not to come forward. To reflect the national agenda of the commission, the group held its monthly meetings in different major cities throughout Australia.
The commission heard disturbing reports of charges that had been routinely covered up, of witness reports being edited and even falsified, and of employees who had been charged being moved about the organization to avoid unfavorable publicity. Some individuals also gave testimony about payments made to families as settlements to avoid litigation, in addition to reports about how adults—teachers or, in some cases, clergy—provided them with pornography and alcohol. Survivors revealed that they had been convinced not to tell parents and family and that the sexual acts were just acts of friendship and special privilege. In the first year and a half alone, the commission heard from more than six hundred survivors and witnesses; by the end of the second year, the commission, through its website and hotline service, had received more than thirteen thousand allegations.
Although the circumstances varied from case to case, the commission quickly created a template for the abuse: a child was left in the charge of an adult supervisor who had been theoretically vetted for that position (although the commission found numerous instances of falsified applications from convicted pedophiles). Using the implicit trust of the professional position, the adult pursued inappropriate contact, most often over a period of time, and convinced the child not to report the activity. If the child did, those charges were more often than not discredited or unfiled. The possible effects on the child included long-term psychological pain, social anxiety, poor self-esteem, the inability to earn a living, alcoholism, rage, insomnia, and, in some cases, suicide.
To help victims share their stories, the government provided $45 million for expert counseling support and even financial assistance for those coming forward. In June 2015, with the massive amount of testimony the commission still needed to hear, the investigation was extended to December 2017.
Bibliography
Crofts, Penny. "Legal Irresponsibility and Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse." Law in Context 34.2 (2016): 79–99. Print.
Crosson-Tower, Cynthia. Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect. 9th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2014. Print.
Cullen, Simon. "Gillard Launches Royal Commission into Child Abuse." ABC News. ABC, 12 Nov. 2012. Web. 9 Aug. 2016.
Daly, Kathleen. Redressing Institutional Abuse of Children. New York: Palgrave, 2014. Print.
Davis, Fiona. "The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Learning from the Past." Australian Feminist Law Journal 41.2 (2015): 213–18. Print.
Gillion, Chris, and Damian Grace. Reckoning: The Catholic Church and Child Sexual Abuse. Havertown: ATF, 2014. Print.
"Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse." Judicial Commission of New South Wales, 20 Aug. 2024, www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sexual‗assault/royal‗commission.html. Accessed 23 Jan. 2025.
Margarey, Kirsty. "The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and Related Inquiries." Parliament of Australia. Parliament of Australia, n.d. Web. 9 Aug. 2016.
"Royal Commission to Investigate Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse." Australian Government, Department of Social Services. Dept. of Social Services, 11 Apr. 2016. Web. 9 Aug. 2016.