Clarification: The Cockburn family frames some of its criticism of the Living Black program around claimants receiving compensation under the National Redress Scheme instituted after the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Living Black is advised that the claimants featured in our story did not make claims under the National Redress Scheme. The claimants instead made civil claims to the NSW government, alleging it had breached its duty of care.
28 April 2023
We totally reject the allegations made against our much loved, late father.
Our father has not been found guilty of these allegations, either in law or in fact.
A grave injustice has been done to our father by the processes legislated for the settlement of claims under the National Redress Scheme.
The decisions on these claims have not been made by a magistrate or a court or a tribunal.
No evidentiary requirements are imposed on claimants. They are required only to make an accusation of sexual assault, fill in an application form and provide a statutory declaration. Decisions are then made in secret by an anonymous government-appointed official.
The standard of proof for assessing claims is acknowledged to be the lowest possible standard of proof and one used only for administrative decisions. It is not a criminal or civil standard of proof. Critically this standard does not mean that an event is more likely than not to have occurred.
Our father was denied the most basic principle of natural justice: that is, the right (through his family) to be able to defend himself. His family was not aware of, involved with or contacted by the Scheme’s operator in assessing the claims.
This abuse of fair process is magnified by the removal of our right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The Australian Parliament’s justification for enacting a “survivor focused” scheme, with no evidentiary requirements and minimal standard of proof, was that all details would remain confidential. This was done to ensure there was no irrevocable damage to the reputations of people, such as our father, who have not been found guilty of claimed offences.
SBS, in broadcasting these allegations, has made a mockery of Parliament’s intentions and has magnified the dreadful injustice already meted out to our father.
We are proud of the work done by our father, and our mother, in the service of Aboriginal communities. Our father was widely respected – and in some quarters disliked – for devoting himself to improving the condition of Aboriginal communities in regional NSW, particularly in seeking to improve educational and employment opportunities.
Our respect for, and pride in, our father, and in our mother, is undiminished. We will not rest until this dreadful stain on our father’s reputation has been officially removed.
