The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was a five year national inquiry into how Australian institutions, including schools, churches, government agencies, and community organisations, responded to allegations of child sexual abuse. Its findings continue to shape how survivors pursue compensation today.

This page explains what the Royal Commission was, what it found, and what it means if you are considering a compensation claim now.

This page discusses the Royal Commission’s public findings as a matter of historical and legal record. It does not make findings or allegations against any specific institution. Where individual institutions are named, this reflects matters already examined and reported publicly by the Royal Commission itself.

What was the Royal Commission?

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was established on 11 January 2013, following an announcement by the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, in November 2012. Six Commissioners were appointed, led by the Hon. Justice Peter McClellan AM.

Over five years, the Royal Commission examined how institutions across Australia, including religious organisations, schools, sporting and community groups, and government-run care and detention facilities, responded when allegations of child sexual abuse were made.

The scale of the inquiry was significant. The Royal Commission held 57 public hearings, known as case studies, across every Australian capital city and several regional areas, hearing evidence from more than 1,200 witnesses over 400 days. More than 8,000 survivors shared their experiences with Commissioners in private sessions, and more than 16,000 people contacted the Royal Commission during its life.

The Royal Commission delivered its final report to the Governor-General on 15 December 2017. Combined with three earlier major reports, it provided governments with 409 recommendations aimed at better protecting children and improving institutional responses to abuse.

It is important to understand what the Royal Commission was not. It was not a court of law, and it could not make findings of criminal guilt or award compensation. Its role was to investigate, document, and recommend, not to determine individual legal claims. That is the role civil courts and compensation schemes play today.

Key findings

While each case study examined a specific institution or group of institutions, several systemic findings emerged across the Royal Commission’s work as a whole.

Institutions consistently failed to respond adequately to complaints. In case after case, the Royal Commission found that when children or their families raised concerns, institutions prioritised their own reputations over the safety of children. Allegations were dismissed, minimised, or handled informally rather than reported to police.

Offenders were moved rather than removed. A recurring pattern across religious orders and schools was the transfer of known or suspected offenders between locations, sometimes interstate, allowing abuse to continue with new victims who had no knowledge of the person’s history.

Record-keeping was inadequate or deliberately limited. The Royal Commission found that information about allegations was often held informally by a small number of senior figures and not passed on, making it difficult for institutions, and later for survivors and their lawyers, to establish a clear record of what was known and when.

Cultures of secrecy and confidentiality protected institutions, not children. Many institutions treated allegations as internal matters to be resolved quietly, which shielded the institution from scrutiny while leaving children at continued risk.

These systemic findings are why, in most Australian states and territories, the legal landscape for survivors has changed substantially since the Royal Commission concluded. The institution-specific findings relevant to particular schools, religious orders, and other organisations are addressed on the dedicated pages linked later on this page.

What the Royal Commission led to

The Royal Commission’s recommendations led to several significant changes that directly affect survivors considering a claim today.

The National Redress Scheme. The Royal Commission recommended a single national scheme to provide redress to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, including a direct personal response, access to counselling, and a monetary payment. This recommendation led to the National Redress Scheme, which began operating in 2018. The Scheme is one option available to survivors, though as we explain on that page, it is not always the best option, and it has significant limitations that anyone considering it should understand before applying.

Removal of limitation periods for civil claims. Between 2015 and 2018, Australian states and territories progressively removed the time limits that previously prevented many survivors from bringing civil claims for institutional child sexual abuse, regardless of how long ago the abuse occurred. In New South Wales, this means there is no time limit on bringing a civil claim for child sexual abuse in most cases, although individual circumstances still matter and can affect how a claim proceeds. You can read more on our page about limitation periods for historical institutional abuse claims in Australia.

Changes to institutional safeguarding. Many institutions named during the Royal Commission, and others more broadly, have since introduced revised child safety policies, mandatory reporting obligations, and working with children checks, reflecting recommendations made across the Royal Commission’s reports.

For most survivors, the combination of these two changes, the National Redress Scheme on one hand and the removal of limitation periods for civil claims on the other, means there are now genuine options that simply did not exist before the Royal Commission’s work.

What the Royal Commission didn’t fix

The Royal Commission was a landmark inquiry, but it was also limited in important ways. It could not compel institutions to admit fault in individual cases, it could not order compensation, and in some instances, institutions and their representatives gave evidence that was later shown to be incomplete or misleading without facing direct consequences from the Royal Commission itself.

Our article, What the Royal Commission on child abuse didn’t fix: Andrew Coffey vs Shore, looks at this in more detail through a specific case, and is worth reading if you want to understand the gap between what the Royal Commission documented and what individual survivors still had to pursue afterwards.

In short, the Royal Commission documented the problem on a national scale. For most survivors, a civil compensation claim remains the primary route to an individual outcome that reflects the harm they have experienced.

Institutions examined by the Royal Commission

The Royal Commission’s 57 case studies covered a wide range of organisations. If you attended one of the following institutions, or an institution connected to one of the bodies below, we have prepared specific information that may help you understand your options.

Catholic religious orders and schools

The Royal Commission’s Case Study 50 examined the institutional response of Catholic Church authorities across Australia more broadly, in addition to case studies focused on specific orders.

• Marist Brothers – the subject of Royal Commission Case Study 13, examining the response of the Marist Brothers to allegations against Brothers at schools in the ACT, NSW, and Queensland
• Catholic Schools NSW

Independent and non-government schools

• Knox Grammar School, Wahroonga – the subject of Royal Commission Case Study 23, which examined the response of Knox Grammar School and the Uniting Church of Australia to allegations of abuse between 1970 and 2012

The Salvation Army

• The Salvation Army – the Royal Commission held a dedicated case study into the response of the Salvation Army (Southern Territory) to allegations involving former child residents of its institutions between 1940 and 1990

Government-run youth detention and out-of-home care

• Youth detention centres – the Royal Commission’s case studies into out-of-home care examined the systems, policies, and practices in place across government-run care and detention settings for children

If your institution isn’t listed here

The Royal Commission examined 57 case studies, but it did not, and could not, examine every institution where child sexual abuse occurred. Many survivors have valid compensation claims arising from abuse at schools, churches, sports clubs, foster care placements, and other settings that were never the subject of a Royal Commission hearing.

The removal of limitation periods for civil claims in New South Wales and most other Australian jurisdictions applies regardless of whether your institution was specifically examined by the Royal Commission. If your school, religious institution, or organisation isn’t listed above, this does not mean you don’t have a claim. It simply means we’d assess your circumstances individually, as we do for every survivor who contacts us.

Frequently Asked Questions