HEAR Group 20 November 2009

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

A Committee of the Australian Catholic Bishops & the

Australian  Leaders of Religious Institutes

ABN 35 339 924 339

20 November 2009

Ian  Lawther

HEAR Group

Email: heargroup@optusnet.com.au

DearIan

Thank you for sending a response to Professor Patrick Parkinson regarding the Review of the Towards Healing document. The review generated a very substantial response from victims, church leaders and professionals involved with the process such as lawyers and facilitators. Around 70 submissions were received in total. There were 29 submissions from complainants or their relatives. In discussion with Professor Patrick Parkinson it is clear that he seriously considered every one of the responses and they have formed the changes and clarifications in Towards Healing.

At the May meeting of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference Professor Patrick Parkinson addressed the Assembled Bishops and later the Congregational Leaders at their Assembly in July.

At their Plenary Meeting in May the Bishops considered the document. Those who wished to propose some points for Professor Patrick Parkinson to consider further submitted these and the amendments were inserted in the document which was presented to the Congregational leaders at the meeting of Catholic Religious Australia in July. The Religious accepted the revised version of Towards Healing at that Assembly and the final document will be presented for endorsement by the Bishops in November.

In order to provide some background to the outcomes of the review the following were some of the points made by Professor Patrick Parkinson to the Bishops and Religious Leaders and to the National Professional Standards Committee and to the Directors of Professional Standards.

BACKGROUND

Professor Patrick Parkinson spoke of the revisions which had been made, the reasons for the changes and especially of the difficulties and distress caused by delays in the process. He spoke of the need to continue to encourage and assist complainants who allege criminal offences to take the matters to the police and of the responsibility of the church in all cases to respond to victims and to ensure that children and vulnerable people are not at risk from any of the accused. Bishops and Leaders were reminded of their commitment to co-operate with the police both in Australia and in cases where the accused is overseas.

Professor Parkinson also addressed the need for Towards Healing for people who do not wish to or who would not be able to mount a successful legal case for compensation:

"Towards Healing is a pastoral response which does not depend on proving that the church is legally liable. It is a response to the needs of victims of abuse, rather than a response driven by settling legal claims."

Professor Parkinson explained that many of the submissions reflected the tension between two conflicting, but equally valid, approaches to the issue of dealing with victims of abuse.

"The first is the legal approach "“ both to complainants and accused. The strengths of this approach are the emphasis on due process including proving claims to the requisite standard, assessing compensation fairly in accordance with the objective gravity of the harm caused,and treating like cases alike.

The second is the pastoral approach of giving a compassionate response,seeking to promote healing for the victim, and to the extent that it is possible, bringing about some level of reconciliation between the victim and the Church, while also being fair to accused persons. This also has great strengths. It does not aim to offer a quasi-legal approach to the resolution of civil claims for compensation, but rather to engage in restoration and healing, acknowledging within that the importance in many cases of making reparation as a tangible expression of sorrow and also as one means, but not the only means, of promoting healing for the victim.

The pastoral approach also needs to address properly the requirements of due process for the accused."

While retaining the pastoral approach that has underpinned Towards Healing from the beginning, Professor Parkinson's recommendations aim amongst other things to further ensure that the process is seen as one that is fair to all concerned.

He has also recommended a clearer separation between the Towards Healing process and legal claims for compensation. If people want to pursue legal claims through lawyers, they are entitled to do so, but this should occur without invoking the apparatus of Towards Healing. In such cases, the well-known and familiar pathway of trying to settle the matter by negotiation between lawyers is the appropriate way forward.

Making this clear distinction between Towards Healing and the alternative pathway of pursuing a civil claim should resolve some of the issues concerning the current process. If the complainant does not participate directly in the process, then by definition, it is not a Towards Healing case.

Recommendations for Changes to Towards Healing

The proposed revision contains many textual emendations in the light of the submissions received. Mostly, these clarify aspects that respondents consider unclear, specify 'best practice' where hitherto the document has been silent, and address areas of misunderstanding, confusion or inconsistent practice. While these emendations are reasonably extensive, they do not alter the essential characteristics of the process and the values which underpin it.

Significant changes include the following:

• An expanded definitions section is included as Part One of the document, rather than appearing at the beginning of the Procedures section, as previously.

• More precise language is used to describe Church personnel and office-holders in order to be consistent with usage in Church law.

• Definitions of 'reparation' and 'vulnerable adult', and other new definitions, are included.

• There are references to the importance of confidentiality in the handling of the complaint, particularly prior to the conclusion of an assessment and for expedition in dealing with matters, particularly when a person has been stood aside from ministry.

• Examples are given to assist Church leaders in identifying 'serious offenders' who ought to be removed from ministry.

• The sections which refer to the Church's strategies for prevention have been expanded.

• There is clarification that the procedures of Towards Healing are subject to specific legislation in States and Territories, such as the Ombudsman Act in NSW, under which the Ombudsman's Office has certain specific requirements for the investigation of complaints of child abuse.

• Directors of Professional Standards are to be given particular responsibility for ensuring, as far as possible, the expeditious resolution of cases and for keeping complainants and accused persons who cooperate with the process informed of progress in the resolution of the matter.

• There is clarification of the roles of contact persons and support persons for accused people.

• There is more explicit direction about how to deal with cases that should have a pastoral response, such as issues of inappropriate care practices in children's homes, but which are not of sufficient gravity to warrant the full implementation of the processes of Towards Healing.

• There is clarification of how complaints are to be received and dealt with. All complaints, whether initially received by a Contact Person, the Director of Professional Standards or the Church authority, are to be managed by the Director of Professional Standards.

• Where complaints concern more than one Church authority (for example where a complainant who was brought up in foster care or children's homes experienced a number of different placements over the years, for which different religious orders were responsible), the Director should identify a 'lead agency' who had most responsibility in relation to the matters about which complaint is made, and who can liaise with others in relation to any response.

• Experience has shown that there is great value in a personal meeting, at an early stage, between the Church authority, the Director of Professional Standards and the complainant. This establishes the human connection and helps to mitigate the notion that the Church and the complainant are adversaries. In some cases, the process of assessment can take a considerable period of time and establishing a personal connection early on can help alleviate the feeling that the complainant is caught up in a bureaucratic and uncaring process in which his or her personal needs and concerns have no relevance from the Church's point of view. The revised procedures now encourage such an early meeting.

• The revised procedures now make clear that assessors are to make findings on the balance of probabilities.

• Changes are proposed to the process of facilitation in cases where there are significant issues about monetary reparation because there has been a criminal offence or civil wrong, and an insurance company is involved. As far as possible, the ground work should be done prior to the facilitation or in a second stage of the process afterwards, so that the pastoral aspects of the process are not displaced by a focus on the legal and monetary issues.

• A new section is included concerning the significance of support for the faith community of which an accused person is, or was, a member, in the aftermath of the resolution of a case.

• It is proposed that the National Review Panel should have the power to substitute its own findings for those of assessors. In certain situations it is clear from the papers what the findings should have been on the evidence available, and there is no point in having to order another assessment if the Review Panel can deal appropriately with the matter.

In conclusion Professor Patrick Parkinson explained that:

"Responding to the problem of abuse in church communities has many dimensions.The policies and procedures for dealing with complaints of abuse is only one dimension. Other issues include prevention, learning about best practice in working with survivors of abuse, and working out how to respond to grieving faith communities in the aftermath of the discovery that a beloved pastor has been guilty of abuse.

This review has only dealt with one aspect of the Church's response to complaints of abuse. It is to be hoped nonetheless, that with the benefit of the input of so many people through the various submissions, the Church will be able to work with an improved document and to commit itself afresh to faithful implementation of the principles and processes that it has undertaken".

On behalf of Professor Patrick Parkinson and the National Committee for Professional Standards, we express their gratitude for your participation and your assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Bishop Bill Morris Fr. Tim Brennan msc

Co-Chair NCPS Co-Chair NCPS