Andrew Bolt, a prominent Australian columnist and commentator, has criticised the government’s National Redress Scheme following its reported decision to award compensation in relation to Cardinal George Pell. The National Redress Scheme, established by the Australian government in response to findings of child sexual abuse in institutions, facilitates support, counselling, and financial compensation to survivors of abuse. Its processes and outcomes have been a subject of public and media scrutiny since its inception in 2018.
The criticism from Bolt surfaced as part of his editorial commentary on Sky News Australia. In his remarks, Bolt expressed concern about the decision to award compensation connected to Pell despite the cardinal’s acquittal by Australia’s High Court in 2020. Pell had been found guilty in 2018 of sexually abusing two choirboys in the 1990s, but these convictions were later unanimously overturned by the court, citing insufficient evidence.
Bolt reportedly argued that the payments from the redress scheme in situations involving Pell could be misleading, implying guilt in cases where the courts have ruled otherwise. He raised questions about the evidence presented in connection to the payout and criticised the lack of public clarity surrounding the specifics of the redress process. The details of the specific payout and the identity of the claimant have not been revealed due to privacy protections embedded in the redress scheme’s protocols.
Pell, a senior figure in the Catholic Church and former Vatican treasurer, had previously denied all allegations of sexual abuse made against him. The case became one of the most high-profile legal proceedings in Australia, dividing public opinion and drawing significant international attention. Following the High Court’s decision to quash his convictions, Pell returned to Rome and resumed limited engagements within the church. His acquittal does not preclude individuals from seeking redress through civil mechanisms such as the National Redress Scheme.
The National Redress Scheme does not operate under the same evidentiary requirements as criminal courts. Instead, it applies a “lower threshold” of proof, assessing whether there is a “reasonable likelihood” that abuse occurred. This structure was designed to minimise trauma for survivors, who may face significant challenges in accessing justice through the criminal court system, but it has also attracted criticism for its potential to draw adverse conclusions without the degree of evidence required for a legal conviction.
According to publicly available guidelines, the scheme provides up to AUD 150,000 in financial compensation for survivors of institutional abuse, along with access to counselling services and an acknowledgement and apology from the responsible institution where applicable. The decision-making process is confidential and handled by independent assessors who review claims based on documented evidence, survivor testimony, and institutional response.
At the time of writing, it is unclear what specific allegations or circumstances led to the reported payout in this case, as strict privacy protocols prohibit the redress office from commenting on individual claims or applications. The Catholic Church, identified as one of the most implicated institutions in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, has been a significant participant in the scheme, with numerous claims lodged against it over the years. Church leaders have publicly acknowledged the harm caused by abuse within its institutions and have pledged support for survivors.
Bolt’s criticism adds to an ongoing public debate about the dual-purpose nature of redress schemes, which aim to provide justice and support to survivors while maintaining fairness and due process for individuals and institutions accused. Advocates for the scheme argue that it prioritises survivors’ needs and reduces barriers to resolution, particularly for those who cannot access or endure the adversarial nature of criminal investigations and court proceedings. Critics, however, contend that the scheme’s focus on a “reasonable likelihood” standard risks reputational harm to individuals who are not found guilty in court.
The controversy surrounding Bolt’s remarks highlights the broader complexities surrounding responses to institutional abuse, particularly in cases involving high-profile figures like Pell. Supporters of the redress scheme view it as a necessary mechanism to fill gaps left by criminal and civil justice processes, given the historic inadequacies in addressing child abuse in Australian institutions. Opponents, including Bolt in this instance, continue to question whether its structure sufficiently balances the need for survivor-focused outcomes with appropriate safeguards for fairness.
As details regarding this specific payout remain confidential, any assertions about its connections to Cardinal Pell remain speculative without further information. The Catholic Church has not issued a statement on Bolt’s comments or the reported redress payment at this stage. Sky News Australia and Bolt have also not disclosed additional details or clarifications about claims or compensation related to Pell.
The National Redress Scheme, overseen by the Department of Social Services, has faced scrutiny not just on matters of fairness but also on operational issues, with survivor support groups raising concerns about delays, inadequate compensation amounts, and a lack of transparency in some cases. Some survivors have called for reforms to the scheme to ensure more survivors are eligible and that financial caps align better with the severity of the harm experienced.
The broader public reaction to these issues reflects a continuing tension in Australia’s response to institutional abuse. While the Royal Commission highlighted the urgent need to address past wrongs, the implementation of redress measures remains a deeply contested topic. Survivors and their advocates argue strongly for support systems that validate their experiences and provide practical assistance, while others remain concerned about procedural integrity and transparency.
As the debate continues, the National Redress Scheme remains a key element of Australia’s reparative response to the historical injustices uncovered by the Royal Commission. The programme has processed thousands of applications and distributed millions in financial redress since its launch, although the government acknowledges that far more survivors are likely eligible and applications are still being submitted.
At this time, neither the Department of Social Services nor representatives of Cardinal Pell have commented on Bolt’s remarks or the specifics of the reported payment. Ongoing public discussions may prompt further analysis or reforms in the future, but these remain speculative until confirmed by official sources or new developments.
References:
1. Original article: https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/national/andrew-bolt-hits-out-at-redress-scheme-awarding-pell-payout/video/fd2012eb32bca295e90b7f0346a3786a
2. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report 2017
3. National Redress Scheme official website (www.nationalredress.gov.au)
4. Australian High Court ruling regarding Cardinal George Pell, March 2020
5. Public statements and policies published by the Department of Social Services, Australia