House debates

Tuesday, 1 December 2020

Motions

National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse

6:05 pm

Photo of Tony ZappiaTony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On 12 November 2012, the then Prime Minister the Hon. Julia Gillard MP announced the establishment of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, with an estimated 60,000 children having been abused by those entrusted with their care. The work of the commission concluded when it handed its final report, with 409 recommendations, to the Governor-General on 15 December 2017. The cost of the commission was a staggering $345 million—taxpayer dollars well spent, when one considers the odious prevalence of abuse within our institutions, laid bare for all to see through the commission's work.

Arising from the commission's work was the creation of a single National Redress Scheme intended to provide financial compensation to abuse survivors and, just as importantly, the provision of direct personal responses to survivors from culpable institutions. Institutions identified by the commission have until 30 December 2020 to sign up to participate in the scheme. It is pleasing to see that almost all of those institutions have signed up to fully participate. This will no doubt provide some comfort for survivors, going forward, knowing that they have been heard and that there is contrition, and knowing that they may receive some monetary compensation. To date, I understand that around 8,300 applications have been lodged with the National Redress Scheme, with decisions made on 4,670 of those.

Regrettably there is one notable institution identified in the Prime Minister's statement that is yet to agree to willingly sign up to the scheme. I refer to the Jehovah's Witnesses. They are probably best known amongst the general population as those who don't accept blood transfusions. It is estimated that there are 8.5 million converts worldwide, with approximately 68,000 in Australia. I believe the vast majority of those people are good people, and very faithful to their beliefs. However, the same cannot be said of the organisation's global leadership, who totally control their followers, and about whom I direct my remarks.

Jehovah's Witness activities are banned by over 30 countries in the world. They are one of Canada's wealthiest and least transparent charities. America is the head office of this organisation, with an estimated 1.25 million converts. They don't believe in military service, national anthems or voting. They don't celebrate holidays. They shun those who, in their eyes, go astray, and they believe sins require two witnesses to be verified.

Arising from the royal commission, there were 1,800 Jehovah's Witnesses identified as victims of abuse, 1,006 potential perpetrators and, startlingly, 537 self-confessed perpetrators. As stated by one writer, and as it would appear from the figures available, the Jehovah's Witnesses had the worst rates of child sexual abuse and cover-up of any institution examined by the royal commission. There is no evidence of any referrals to police or other authorities. Clearly, they also believe they are above the law. When faced with a complaint of child abuse within the Jehovah's Witness organisation, the two-witness rule applies. Put simply, this requires an abused child to have an eye witness, independent of themselves, give evidence before Jehovah's Witness elders that they witnessed the abuse complained of by a victim. The practice is fully set out in the report of case study 29, released by the commission in 2016. So what is the justification put forward by the Jehovah's Witnesses to not participate in the national redress scheme? Alarmingly, despite all the evidence to the contrary, they assert that no institutional child abuse occurs. They claim the abuse uncovered is familial abuse. They assert that, because they do not run childcare camps or other social activities that have a child away from the parents, the institution is not responsible and therefore not liable for any wrongdoing. The assertion is facile and does not withstand any scrutiny. The Jehovah's Witnesses exert more control over their flock than any other organisation examined by the commission. They run quasi-judicial hearings into complaints, overseen by their elders. It is seen as a sin for any Jehovah's Witness member to seek assistance from society's correct channels. To do so would lead to one being shunned by the congregation—disturbingly, this includes family members.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are a very wealthy organisation. All assets belong to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and not the local congregants. They call their churches Kingdom Halls, and they are built using congregants' labour and donations. The labour is unpaid and, I understand, at times includes the labour of children. They derive money from deceased estates bequeathed to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society by convening district conventions and circuit assemblies, and through the sale of real estate, which appears to have escalated since the royal commission in Australia and enquiries into their organisations in other countries. Their wealth is estimated in billions, not millions, of dollars. They are more than financially capable of participating in the redress scheme.

No institution is to be congratulated for participating in the redress scheme. It is the only moral path to follow, given the commission's findings. Any institution failing to participate stands to be condemned. The minister has indicated that those institutions failing to join run the real risk of having their charitable tax status revoked. This message was reinforced by the Prime Minister and is supported by Labor. It is a position that I support. The government should immediately withdraw charitable tax status from Jehovah's Witnesses or any other named entity that does not join the national redress scheme.

Over recent weeks, I have been contacted by several people who have raised with me matters of sexual abuse, related suicides and attempted suicides, and the difficulty in ceasing seeking redress or justice through the court system. These are people that were associated with the Jehovah's Witness church. The royal commission, the redress scheme and now the federal government's intervention in bringing the Jehovah's Witnesses to account are their last hopes.

One person who recently contacted me is trying to seek redress through the court system. It is proving to be extremely difficult, and the redress scheme was perhaps the last option for that person. In another case, dealing with suicides, again, the same applies—trying to prove what happened is near impossible, given the culture within that organisation. Therefore the redress scheme was the last and only hope for all of these people. I urge the government to follow through with the commitment to bring to account organisations that do not participate in the redress scheme and to ensure that they are accountable to victims of the abuse that occurred under their watch.

Comments

No comments