Dr WOODRUFF - Attorney-General, recommendation 17.4 on page 76 includes specific requirements for an apology and the response that the Government has given is to extend the 'direct personal response framework used as part of redress to victims/survivors who are participating in civil litigations'. Some of the examples of inadequate apologies occurred after the redress scheme was implemented.
Let's be clear the commission of inquiry talked about inadequate apologies and they were after that redress scheme had been implemented, so we've got reservations about whether extending the existing framework is going to fully address the concerns raised by the commission. What will you do to improve the apologies that are given? Will you, for example, provide training to secretaries? Are you considering quality control processes that would be in place to identify from victims/survivors whether they felt that the apology was adequate and hear from them about suggestions how it could be remedied if that was the case?
Mr BARNETT - There were many questions in there and your last comment or observation I concur with in terms of getting feedback from victims/survivors. We want to engage, consult and get that feedback. It's fair to say that the apologies should include that opportunity to meet with the senior institutional representative, information about their time in the institution and to provide information about what the institution is doing to prevent further sexual abuse and making it authentic and meaningful. The completion date is by 1 July next year, as you know, and we are taking it seriously. I ask the secretary to add to that and we can flesh that out.
Ms WEBSTER - Certainly we would be interested to hear where that apology process hasn't worked for victims/survivors because we want to make sure that we listen to them in terms of what has worked and what hasn't, so we'd be very happy to hear.
Dr WOODRUFF - There is a lived experience advisory panel that may be able to provide that sort of advice. I understand that they haven't been acknowledged yet by you as the new Attorney-General. They've provided some important work on a piece of legislation already and it's quite a degree of effort for victims/survivors to be engaged in that process. Reaching out to them and considering engaging with them as one place would be a good idea.
Mr BARNETT - Maybe I can jump in there and thank you for sharing that. I'm concerned to hear that. I will follow up on that. I might have to talk to you directly offline about that and if so, I am more than happy to do so, but we take it seriously and we appreciate their involvement - not only appreciate it, we need to have that involvement and engagement to make this authentic and meaningful.
Ms WEBSTER - Through you, Attorney-General, that lived experience advisory panel sits within the Department of Justice. I am aware of that and absolutely they would be the best place. We do get feedback from them. They have worked on the Child and Youth Safe Organisation's framework quite considerably. We have had a lot of feedback. I met with them about two weeks ago.
Dr WOODRUFF - I don't doubt that you have.
Ms WEBSTER - It's an excellent place to go to ask for support.
In terms of the management of apologies for civil litigants, work has already commenced with the new State Litigator to work with the team who have been responsible for delivering those direct personal responses under the National Redress Scheme around making sure that we have a framework that is right for victim/survivors in terms of that apology process. The team had a meeting last week to work through how we can make sure that everyone receives the right training and the right understanding about how that framework operates.
I think the apology, and the recommendation from the commission, is that it should come from the secretary. I am aware that secretaries and deputy secretaries have received training. It may be that on the advice of the Lived Experience Advisory Panel they need to receive more training. I have gone through three different trauma-informed practice training programs. We are very happy to take onboard any feedback around that process not working because it has to work for the person that receives the apology.
I will finally say that there has been a lot of work and I have been aware of making sure that the victim/survivor is asked about what sort of apology process is going to work for them. I have signed off on a number of things where it has been quite bespoke. It is not about what we think is going to work, it is about what they think will work for them.
Dr WOODRUFF - Thank you. Again, on 17.4, that recommendation was not to be confined to apologies as part of redress or civil litigation. It was to be for anyone who requests an apology to receive one and to offer an apology to victims/survivors who make contact in relation to their abuse. What is going to be done, specifically, to make sure that anyone who requests an apology receives one, regardless of whether they are going through a redress or litigation process?
Ms WEBSTER - Through you, Attorney-General, I really can't speak for how other agencies are going to undertake that process. What I can say is that I know that all secretaries have apologised at the commission of inquiry hearings and have made themselves available to undertake to meet with victims/survivors whenever victims/survivors have requested.
From our perspective, we are establishing a central complaints management approach so that I am aware of anything that comes through the agency where we might need to work with victims. Through what we have learnt from the commission of inquiry and what we have learnt through other victims of crime more broadly, we accept that there is a long way for us to go in terms of how we respond as a system to victims and victims/survivors. The best way to do that is to involve them in our processes where they wish to do so. There is a long way for us to go but I think that we have started those first steps.
Mr BARNETT - Finally, on that one, you have the National Redress Scheme, civil litigation and 'other'. I think you are referring in that last question to the 'other'. I think the secretary has answered that we do take it seriously. Thank you for your question.
