There will be some who will wonder why the Commonwealth ought to be manning up for the blame, when, so far as the royal commission seemed concerned, the lions share of the abuse occurred in religious institutions, schools and orphanages, in sporting clubs and bodies like the scouts, or in state-based institutions. Theres a point in that, even if it ought to be natural for the Commonwealth to be taking a leadership role in addressing a national problem and a national shame.

That's of course assuming that it really wants to be a moral leader on such matters. If it really did, he might also be drafting one to the children of boat people -- and their parents -- to save a future prime minister the trouble.

Sexual abuse of juveniles has occurred in institutions under Commonwealth control, such as at defence with army cadets. But the moral challenge seems to be doing anything of help make up for the sexual abuse of children, implicitly non-Australian, under the care and control of the Department of Home Affairs. Children here in Australia, or in centres overseas under the effective control of immigration officials, private contractors they have engaged, or the two-bob nations whose officials, and sovereignties, they have suborned.

On paper, the movement towards a national redress scheme appears to be going swimmingly, with the states and territories now on board, and most of the church and social institutions seeming to have signed up. The advantage of an institution being signed up is central management of a compensation and rehabilitation scheme, planned as one without undue bureaucracy, fuss or delay. Survivors will still be able to sue bodies that have not signed up through the courts.

But there are still problems ahead. The Catholic Church may have signed up, but it is far from clear that three of the church bodies most associated with the abuse reported by the commission are yet on board. The Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the de la Salle Brothers have not yet committed to the scheme, even if abuse in schools and institutions under their control may prove to provide a majority of cases involving Catholic institutions.

The problem is that, as ever, there is no such legal entity as the Catholic Church, and certainly not one able or likely to take financial responsibility for all misfeasance or criminal behaviour by church servants. Many of the religious orders have their own legal assets, corporate status and canon law governance arrangements, and have not been subject to control by an Australian Catholic central authority. And each diocese, with its own bishop or archbishop is a fiefdom independent of other dioceses.

Hiding ownership and control behind a plethora of devolved companies, trusts, committees and legal persons none of whose assets, powers and functions, was publicly accountable was abused in the past by some dioceses and religious orders, to avoid liability. The scandal this caused led to more open arrangements and ceasing to use artificial obstacles to avoid liability. But it has not simplified questions of control.

From the time the commission was called, it became clear that the bishops had, individually and collectively, so mismanaged cases of sexual abuse that they could only further damage their own, and the churchs reputation, by running the churchs response to question. Through Francis Sullivan the church was able to admit what had seemed obvious to all observers that all too often, the bishops and others in authority had reacted to allegations by cover-up, failing to properly investigate, and acting to protect church property rather than to protect or help victims. When bishops did appear, they insisted (not always convincingly) that they, and the bodies under their control now got it.

It has not seemed obvious in the aftermath of the commissions report. The church was publicly scourged and forced to admit sometimes even volunteer its poor stewardship. There has been some movement in addressing recommendations about redress to victims. What has not been seen has been any evidence that a humbled and chastened episcopate is seriously addressing issues of its governance, accountability to its base, or the embarrassment, shame and disgust caused by the personal failings of individual bishops. The commission made some "impertinent" comments about how the church might reform itself, but there is very little evidence of any serious intention of considering them other than in the abstract. The Vatican has evinced no interest (and given no example); and most of the Catholic bishops are past masters at appearing to take everything on board without the slightest intention of doing a thing. That two of Australias most senior bishops were before the courts on criminal charges was hardly helping any attempt to retrieve an image.

The Irish Catholic bishops scarcely dared campaign, finally understanding that they were so much on the nose among the Irish that campaigning for a No was actually likely to increase the yes vote. Some observers now count Ireland as among the most secular in the world. Its a measure of how quickly moral authority can collapse.It would be a brave observer who could point to reasons why Australian Catholics were not as scathing about the stewards of the church in Australia -- still so much of Irish flavour.

The bishops should also be contemplating the example of Chile, where all of the bishops have resigned, in part because their own poor stewardship (which, as in Australia was bolstered by the misjudgements of the Vaticans nuncio) caused major public scandal, and direct embarrassment to the Pope, who says that he was misled about the state of affairs. The Pope has so far accepted only a few resignations, but he has failed to confirm most in their positions.

But one can hope that Catholics can ultimately be shamed into getting their house in order, as least as far as justice to victims of child sex abuse is concerned.

By contrast, the Department of Home Affairs appears, as ever, without shame. And government, which has its own political reasons for reminding everyone how indifferent it is to the human rights or dignity of boat people, might be prepared to make justice a matter of only secondary importance.

The initial response of government to the commission said that redress would be available only to Australian residents perhaps only to Australian citizens and only for abuse within Australia. Under some pressure it has seemed to allow for children abused in detention in Australia but has yet to provide for victims of abuse in its concentration camps in Nauru and Manus.

This is contrary to the recommendations of the commission, but has been piously argued on the basis that it is necessary to prevent fraud by aliens, or on the quite spurious grounds that if any sexual abuse occurred, victims should look to either the governments of Nauru (where most of the children now are) or PNG (which at one stage had some of the children).

It has also been argued that non-citizens, particularly boat people should be excluded, whether simply so as to save money, or as a part of the general policy of being as obviously cruel to uninvited visitors as possible, both so as to increase deterrence and to appease an anti-boat-people electorate.

More recently, Mike Pezzullo, head of Home Affairs has insisted that his department made some provision for possible liability for children abused in Australia, but not for those in overseas detention centre. Not one cent of the money in his detention centre budget (which amounts to about $550,000 per detainee, man, woman and child) would go to redress, he said.

It is not that the commission was very curious about the sexual abuse of asylum seekers, here or abroad. It was one thing on which virtually the only evidence taken was from Immigration bureaucrats, or independent consultants on its payroll. But it did not doubt that abuse in detention centres was rife.

Vulnerability to child sexual abuse is likely to be accentuated for many children in immigration detention, its report said. "Reasons for this include that the children are likely to have experienced abuse and trauma previously, acquire trauma in the detention environment and experience high levels of social isolation.

A further reason is the likelihood that the ability of parents to provide comfort and support to their children is compromised by the detention environment. Before their detention, some children have experienced extreme events, including war crimes and sexual violence. Relatively high numbers of children in immigration detention are also unaccompanied and lack parental or extended family support while in detention. Many of these children are suffering a profound sense of loss and grief following the death of their parents and other family members.

This was a week which saw yet another report accusing the Australian government, and its bureaucrats, of being in breach of criminal provisions of international law in relation to its more general detention centre arrangements. Julian Burnside, QC a person automatically dismissed by government as a mere advocate, and thus to be entirely disbelieved, says our policy of mandatory indefinite detention on Nauru and Manus meets all of the elements of a crime against humanity, even under the Australian Criminal Coder. But, he says, there is no prospect of a prosecution; it has to be approved by the Attorney-General.

His legal opinion adds to the view of Amnesty International, which believes that our processing of asylum seekers on Nauru is a deliberate and systematic regime for neglect and cruelty and amounts to torture under international law. Interestingly, a British High Court judge struck out the toughening by the British Home Office, of its regulations about detention, on the basis of failing to meet definitions of torture.

The government continues to defend its deliberate cruelty to one group of people by claiming that it deters others from setting off by sea, and possibly drowning. And, even five years on, Australians are denied knowledge of how Australian repels boats and other such on-water matters, lest it give tactical help to people smugglers give. Just the same sort of compulsive secrecy, often from just the same people, has helped keep secret too long indications of serious war crimes by Australians in Afghanistan.

Theres no doubt that the policies are popular, now. But history will not be kind.

A day will come perhaps 20 years hence when the children of today will be repulsed by and ashamed of what their parents did and will be asking sharp questions of how it came to be.

Even assuming the perpetrators destroy documents and seek to conceal their identities, it is likely that the full shameful and shabby story will ultimately emerge, and the reputations of most of Australias present political generation will be trashed.

And a new prime minister, not compromised by his, or her, own involvement in such matters, will be calling a commission of inquiry, and drafting the latest official apology.

Jack Waterford is a former Editor of The Canberra Times