Terms of Reference – Apportioning Responsibilities (Or: Robin Hood Had it Right)

Shortly after the announcement of the Royal Commission, on-line media polls were taken concerning whether or not the government should pay reparations to the victims of abuse. The split was essentially 1/3rd each for government paying, government not paying, and unsure.

This type of solution was basically discussed in yesterday’s posting. By all means the government can establish a fund for various purposes, but the better option is for class actions and the like against abusive organisations, from churches to government agencies.

Whichever method is finally adopted, there will always remain the matter of apportionment of responsibility. This will be a very difficult task and will undoubtedly lead to considerable controversy. There will be some obvious splits, such as in the case of a teacher it would be the school’s operators.

However, in this example there is more to it than immediately meets the eye. Does the teacher-training institution have a responsibility? What of those responsible for teacher registration? For government–funding of church schools, does the government have a responsibility to only give funding to appropriate organisations? How much responsibility devolves onto parents to give due attention to events in the school? Some would claim that parents are taking a calculated risk in sending their children to a Christian Brothers school.

Apportionment of responsibility will most likely not be resolved by the Royal Commission. It is more likely that the court process will have the final say.

TOMORROW: Who can address the royal commission?

That’s all I can say

Lewis Blayse (né Lewin Blazevich)


This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.