That's basic justice, and basic common sense. It's also, I would venture to say, how you would choose to be treated if someone with whom you could be associated committed a crime. Apply the Golden Rule.
I can understand this point of view, and ordinarily it might make sense.
In this instance, I suspect there is an important reason why Australia doesn't agree with your take on things:
Given that catholicism hasn't demonstrated it is interested in preventing abuse, but instead, perpetuating abuse of minors, Rome is not an innocent party.1. Child abuse is and has been systemic in catholicism, across the world.
2. Catholic leaders have acted to perpetuate the abuse and prevent justice.
And of course, we are talking about Australia and I am not familiar enough with their laws to know whether your argument has a legal basis down under.
What we do know is that Rome brought this and more down on its own head through its own choices.
That's basic justice, and basic common sense.
Common sense will not be the deciding issue because of the institutionalized history.
Where was the common sense when children were abused and it was covered up and perpetuated?
It's also, I would venture to say, how you would choose to be treated if someone with whom you could be associated committed a crime. Apply the Golden Rule.
If someone I was associated with committed a violent crime or despicable crime, I would hope I'd have the courage to do the right thing and turn them in to the authorities.
I have a close friend whose son committed murder of three members of a neighborhood family. When my friend found out, he called the police and turned his son in for the crime. I would hope I would do the same. The son was convicted, sentenced to life in prison, and later took his own life in jail.