Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my last speech in this place regarding Cardinal Pell, I noted that alleged facts regarding crimes for which he was convicted were implausibility heaped upon improbability, especially when considered within the broad historical context of when the crimes were alleged to have occurred. Those first crimes for which he was ultimately acquitted by the High Court, in a unanimous 7-0 judgement, however, were not the only allegations made against Pell. They were but the tipping point of a relentless campaign against him, waged over decades, which continues to this day. Today I want to address some of those other accusations that have been made against Pell. These accusations, like those which were taken to court, are implausible but did not have the opportunity to be examined at any trial—though they were trialled by media—nor have they been tested in any court except in the court of public opinion.

As stated last time, Pell's Melbourne Response provided monetary compensation, counselling and a direct personal response to abuse survivors. It was lauded by the media at the time of its launch and even by Victoria Police. Two decades later, the royal commission proposed a strangely similar redress scheme to the world-leading one established by Pell in 1996. Like any system, the Melbourne Response was not perfect. Criticisms that were repeated over the years, without substantive rebuttal, were sensationalised by a misleading 60 Minutes report in 2015, aired just days prior to Cardinal Pell's scheduled third appearance before the royal commission. It produced maximum damage to his reputation and was crucial in poisoning the minds of the public against him.

I want to address these criticisms without the hysteria that often accompanies assessments of his work. The first criticism was that the Melbourne Response was established to save the Catholic Church money by capping payments initially at $50,000, then $55,000, $75,000 and, since 1 January 2017, $150,000, with the opportunity for earlier claimants to obtain a top-up payment linked to the new cap. The royal commission's Redress and civil litigation report revealed that, actually, Pell's Melbourne Response was more generous than other schemes in state-run institutions. Queensland capped payments at $40,000, with the average payment at $13,000; Tasmania capped payments at $60,000, with the average payment at $30,000; South Australia capped payments at $50,000, with the average payment at $14,100; and Western Australia capped payments at $45,000, with the average payment at $23,000. The Melbourne Response, at an average $38,800 per claimant, paid out the most to individual claimants.

60 Minutes also challenged the independence of eminent psychiatrist Professor Richard Ball and independent commissioner Peter O'Callaghan QC, each appointed by Pell to assist in the Melbourne Response. Regarding Professor Ball, it was suggested that there was a conflict of interest in his role of leading the professional support components of the Melbourne Response because he occasionally treated and acted as an expert witness in cases involving paedophile priests. 60 Minutes failed to mention, however, that the conflict was addressed by the archdiocese expressly precluding Ball from having contact with victims of any priest perpetrator he was treating. Nor did 60 Minutes note that the royal commission itself stated that it had no doubts when it came to Ball's integrity. Instead, Ball was portrayed as duplicitous. In one egregious example the host, Tara Brown, misrepresented two documents produced by Ball in relation to paedophile priest Kevin O'Donnell.

The first document was described as a secret report to O'Donnell's lawyers. It examined his 50-year history of abuse, which O'Donnell admitted had continued until some three or four years prior. The second letter, described by Brown as 'directly contradictory' to the first, was addressed to the sentencing judge and described O'Donnell as having no inclination or opportunity to reoffend. Holding up these two letters side by side, Brown attacked Ball and, by extension, Pell's promise of independence of the response.

The report conveniently omitted that the letters were written by Ball in July 1995, some 15 months before the Melbourne Response was established. Brown's implication was that Ball provided evidence in O'Donnell's favour during the course of his appointment with the Melbourne Response—something that was patently false. Importantly, 60 Minutes omitted to cite the limited scope of engagement given to Ball by O'Donnell's lawyers in July 1995 to 'limit your inquiries and your opinion to the issue of the effect the imprisonment would have on my client, given his age and his medical condition'. O'Donnell's lawyers commissioned Ball's report for sentencing only, and provided it to the court at their discretion. Ball was not asked to provide or capable of providing anything to the court directly.

60 Minutes also attacked the independence of Commissioner O'Callaghan, because his formal retainer to act as commissioner came from the church's own solicitors. 60 Minutes omitted that O'Callaghan accepted as true 97 per cent of the complaints made to the Melbourne Response—a staggering statistic that exposed questions impugning his independence as shallow. It also aired the allegation by David Ridsdale, nephew and victim of convicted paedophile Gerald Ridsdale, that in February 1993 Pell tried to bribe him into silence. However, documents provided to the royal commission revealed that Catholic Church authorities already knew that the police were investigating Ridsdale prior to his alleged bribe. David Ridsdale's own statement to that commission said he did not want to report the matter to the police or otherwise go public. In this light, it made no sense that Pell would try to 'bribe him into silence'. There was simply no reason for him to do so under the prevailing circumstances.

Brown also went as far as to accuse Pell of lying in a previous 60 Minutes interview back in 2002. In the 2002 interview Richard Carleton asked Pell if he had been shown a photograph of Emma Foster, the daughter of Anthony and Chrissie Foster, with slashed wrists after a suicide attempt. Pell had met with the Fosters in their parish after he had heard of the dreadful experiences of their daughter. It was in that meeting that the Fosters say they produced the photo of their daughter Emma. When Carleton produced the photograph, Pell said:

I've never seen the photo with the slashed wrists.

When Carleton mentioned that the Fosters had said that they'd given it to him some six years earlier, Pell responded:

I don't believe I've seen that. I have no recollection of that.

More than a decade later, at the Victorian parliamentary inquiry, Pell was asked whether, when shown a photo of Emma Foster after she had slashed her wrists, he had responded, 'Hmm, she's changed, hasn't she?' In responding to this question, Pell replied, 'Probably,' but that the production of the photo was something sudden and that he 'didn't have a chance for a considered response'.

In the later 60 Minutes episode, this was sensationalised as a 'bombshell' admission that followed 'years of denial'. Pell had never denied seeing the photograph, let alone persisted in such a denial for years. He had merely said that he did not recall seeing the photograph. It does not appear that, between that interview and his 2013 testimony before the Victorian inquiry, Pell publicly mentioned the photograph at all, let alone engaged in some persistent denial that it had been produced by the Fosters. Alas, truth does not make for good television, nor does it assist in building a narrative about an unsympathetic Pell that 60 Minutes and other outlets—including Fairfax Media, the ABC and The Guardian, to name a few—were so eager to portray.

Pell did not receive a fair trial and saw his unjust jailing almost universally celebrated by a public whose opinions had been shaped by a biased media so eager to delight in his conviction that they had broken a court suppression order to do so. Too few voices were raised in his defence, and those who did speak out were vilified. It is important when facts are obscured that the truth, with the benefit of hindsight and calm reflection, be placed on our parliamentary record and spoken in this place. This is simply because, as Pell said on his release from prison in April last year:

The only basis for long-term healing is truth and the only basis for justice is truth, because justice means truth for all.

I look forward to more truth telling on this issue. To be continued.