In the final hearing of the week, David Curtain, QC, the chairman of the Melbourne Response's compensation panel, outlined the calculations used to determine compensation for victims.

Mr Curtain revealed that:

Victims whose abuse involved "sexual penetration" are paid the highest level

The panel does not discuss with victims how they arrived at a figure below the current $75,000 cap 

The impact of the abuse on the individual victim is considered above the level of abuse suffered 

There is no cap on the amount of counselling the Church will fund via Carelink or external psychologists 

Victims pay for their own lawyers to be with them at the discussion

The panel's decision is not reviewable, and its discussion with victims is not recorded except for the amount agreed on and whether victims want to receive a letter of apology from the Archbishop 

The Church has given hundreds of victims ex gratia payments since the Melbourne Response was established in 1996 by Cardinal George Pell, who was then Archbishop of the Melbourne Archdiocese. The royal commission is investigating the scheme's effectiveness as it considers a national redress scheme for victims of sexual abuse.

Despite criticisms of the Melbourne Response, Mr Curtain said only a minority of victims were unsatisfied with the process.

He said it would not be "appropriate" to comment on the adequacy of the $75,000 cap for victims' suffering but said "whatever people get is not enough" to compensate them. The payment was "financial recognition of a wrong done".

He would not comment on whether it was fair to force victims to sign away their right to sue the church to obtain compensation, but said he understood the argument in his private capacity as a lawyer.

Victims were usually less concerned about the payment.

"Usually it's about unburdening themselves of something that's been festering and affecting them for maybe 30 years," he said. "That's impacted on the way they have raised their children and allowed their children to deal with other people. It's impacted upon their marriage and other things."

Earlier, one of the Melbourne Response's independent commissioners, Jeffrey Gleeson, QC, agreed, saying the scheme helped victims feel "believed".

The commission's chairman, Justice Peter McClellan, asked him whether his approach to complaints was driven by concerns for clerics or for victims: "Because the redress scheme in itself has no consequences for the alleged abuser."

Mr Gleeson rejected this, saying that priests, brothers and nuns were identified when he found there had been abuse and "that person suffers the appropriate stigma of having been determined to be a paedophile".

He also said it was his role to tell them they did not have to report to police if they did not want to.

Mr Gleeson, appointed in 2012, agreed that clerics should be disciplined, and all steps taken to make sure they do not re-offend.

He once advised to the Melbourne Archbishop that a priest be stood down indefinitely, and said he would "expect to be informed" if this was disputed.

"But in the end I can only recommend," Mr Gleeson said.