There is an ongoing Royal Commission taking place in Australia called - 'The Royal Commission into institutional responses to child abuse'. A royal commission is called for when there is an urgent need to investigate particular issues that are of public concern. It is a public inquiry that is called for to address controversy or matters important to the public. In the past royal commissions in Australia were never cynically abused by politicians to create manufactured issues that take the focus away from the political issues that demand immediate public priority. In modern times Australians are wasting money on many needless royal commissions such as the current ongoing royal commission into institutional responses into child abuse. There is no good reason why the Australian government has decided that we have enough money to spend a fortune on a never ending royal commission into institutional responses into child abuse. No significant section of the public see this as an important and pressing issue worthy of an expensive public inquiry. This royal commission has not come about because the public wanted it or needed it - but because for some reason our government did. This royal commission is a cynical exercise in public distraction and an abuse of the intended purpose of a royal commission. In modern Australian politics the royal commission is being abused by Australian politicians to distract the public from unpopular government policy and agenda. Since the Australian taxpayer is paying for this royal commission into institutional responses to child abuse let's think about what the objective might be. Apart from the obvious intention of the royal commission being a public distraction and the worlds most expensive public funded child abuse prevention campaign, what is the point of it? Of course prevention of child abuse is a very important issue but how did it suddenly require a royal commission and what exactly is the point? This royal commission has been ongoing for quite some time now and it seems it will never end. For months the Roman Catholic Church were dragged through the mud by the commission and media, often over incidents that took place decade's ago. Recently a Jewish school has been attacked by this royal commission and our media. Decades ago this Jewish school had a student that was abused by a teacher at the school. Apparently the boys family reported the abuse to the school but this school did nothing. Now this is the crux of the whole thing. What should the schools response have been? The institutions being looked at by this royal commission into institutional responses to child abuse are schools, churches and sport groups. So what should an institution do if a child's parents come to them alleging that one of the institutions employees has abused a child while the child was in the care of the institution? What should this Jewish school have done? Shouldn't an institution have some amount of responsibility to their employee? The institution has had the faith to trust this individual to employ them. If there is no evidence of abuse then should an institution give their employee the benefit of the doubt? An abuse allegation is very serious and even an allegation can be harmful to an individual even if innocent of the allegations. It is common for adults that are questioning children about abuse to get the wrong idea of what actually happened. So if there is no proof that the teacher at this Jewish school had done anything wrong then should the school report the abuse to the police? The fact that the parents have come to the Jewish school about the abuse rather than taking the allegations directly to the police would indicate to me that the parents are not certain themselves of what has happened. Wouldn't the Jewish school think the same thing and wonder why the parents have not reported the abuse to police? If the school investigates the matter and can find no proof, and the teacher accused of the abuse claims to be innocent - then what can the school really do but to give their employee the benefit of the doubt? The school cannot prevent the family from reporting the abuse to the police. Instead of asking what the responsibility of institutions are in relation to their responses to child abuse allegations, wouldn't a better question be - why didn't the parents simply report the abuse directly to police? Many of these child abuse cases are from decades ago and the responses to child abuse allegations would have been different due to the different time in society. There is no point looking at how an institution responded to abuse decades ago. Also the fact that so many parents took abuse claims to the institutions rather than directly to the authorities is a parental response more common decades ago than in modern Australian society. In modern Australian society an adult that works with children in any way is legally required to have a criminal history check carried out on them by the institution to ensure that they are safe around children. Australia is very responsible when it comes to our working with children criminal checks and all institutions that care for children in modern Australian society have policy and procedures to protect children. This inquiry is nonsense and a waste of public treasure at a time when our nation can least afford it. This royal commission has damaged the images of many institutions including the Catholic Church ( further damaged then ) and this Jewish school that is in the media so much of late. Did the Jewish school really do anything wrong by deciding to take the word of their employee? Considering that the abuse occurred decades ago and there was no legal obligation for the institution to pass on allegations to authorities, what can be gained from dragging this school through the mud over their response? Of course the schools policies and procedures would have changed over the decades with modern society so what sense does it make to look at the schools response 20 years ago? So if there is a point or some lesson to be gained from this expensive circus it is that parents need to take allegations of abuse directly to authorities and not to the institution. The institution has no power to do anything about it, especially if there is no proof and the individual being accused of the abuse claim to be innocent. Another thing that we may take from this royal commission perhaps is that not only should parents take abuse claims directly to police but any member of the public should do the same - including individuals that are being employed by a school, church sporting group or any other institution. Do you think this would help us prevent child abuse enablers that do not report abuse that they are told about or are aware of to police from getting away with enabling child abuse? Shouldnt it be illegal for an individual to fail to report abuse that they have been told about or are aware of to the police? What do you think? I am very interested in your opinion.
