Dr WOODRUFF (Franklin – Leader of the Greens) – I will say at the outset that the Greens will be supporting this bill. We’re very pleased to see it come to this place.
As a person who closely followed the progress of the commission of inquiry from 2021 and over the two years when, in various hearings and in other times, victim-survivors gave their testimony, I heard personally the distress of a number of victim-survivors who were not able to access their personal records because of the situation of the act as it stands – the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1995 – for which we’ve got an amendment bill in front of us today to deal with. It is welcome to see that the government has progressed this reform.
Clearly it has been supported by all the people who made submissions to this bill from the Sexual Assault Support Service and Laurel House. There was one from a private citizen, Jack Davenport, another woman, Deborah Thomson, and from the commissioners themselves, who made a statement in April 2025, and from Kathryn Fordyce from Laurel House. The commissioners were, of course, the honourable Marcia Neave, Professor Leah Bromfield and the honourable Robert Benjamin, who is now the implementation monitor here in Tasmania. They’re all of the view that this is an important and welcome development.
What it will do is permit a person to access their own personal record of testimony that they have provided with some conditions to protect the confidentiality of other people who are referred to or who appear and present with that person. I will just make a few comments about that.
In relation to the comments made by the commissioners of the commission of inquiry into institutional child sexual abuse in Tasmania that was conducted here and wrapped up in, I think it was 2023 –
Mr Barnett – 31 August.
Dr WOODRUFF – That’s right, yes.
Their point was that there should be an exception to the offence that would allow a person to access their own records. We also need to ensure that people’s information is not released unless it has been approved by that person – people who are otherwise mentioned in that session.
I note that comments were made by people in their submission that have been adopted by the minister and the minister’s department in the drafting of this amendment bill, and that’s welcome. I have a couple of questions.
The question that is raised by Jack Davenport in the submission he made is about the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse, which was conducted and completed its work in 2013. He says that the act doesn’t outline specific exceptions for the Royal Commission in terms of other relevant legislation. I would like the minister to explain the relationship between, as I understand it, the legislation, section 7(a) of the act – it does mention the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse. It’s not clear to me and to the person who made this submission how the change to section 19(c)(2) that we’re making in this amendment bill would relate, if at all, to section 7(a) in the act, which references the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse. Is there already another mechanism to allow people to access their private sessions and the record of their testimony that they made in the Royal Commission? If you could bring your mind to this question, it would be helpful. Thank you.
There was also the question made by Deborah Thompson in her submission. She signs herself as domestic violence advocate for change. In her submission she asked whether information disclosed of abuse and the naming of a perpetrator that is made in the commission of inquiry that was wrapped up in August 2023, whether that should be or could be made available in a national database for legal and judicial systems that were involved with the victim’s case – if the victim made, for example, a civil or criminal case, so that the victims aren’t compelled to repeat their story as they move between various organisations. I assume what she means is whether the person who makes the testimony could ask that their information is released to be used in the context of a civil or a criminal case. I assume she doesn’t mean that it should just be freely available on a national database, but that it could be available to support services, police, legal, other judicial entities in that situation as someone wanting to take a case so they don’t have to re-deliver re-prosecute their experience to another group of people.
Shirley Ann Barney’s submission on behalf of the Sexual Assault Support Service asked whether – and I as I read it, I don’t see that it allows this – there would be the potential for an authorised representative of a victim/survivor who’d made testimony to access records on behalf of a participant with the participant’s active and informed consent. I don’t see that written here, and I would like to understand and whether minister, you and your office considered that, what your views were about that, whether you had any correspondence with the Sexual Assault Support Service about that question, and where you landed with that issue of authorised access for another person who’s acting on behalf of a victim/survivor.
A question that has been raised by Meg Webb MLC, and it’s a very excellent one. I’m sure she will do it herself and speak to it when this bill comes to her place, but I’ll ask it here as well: what’s the process for the transcript of a private session interview to be released to the person who’s provided that information while a commission of inquiry is underway?
Or is it only when the commission of inquiry has been concluded and in which case, if it’s one or the other, I don’t see that referred to here. It doesn’t talk about the time of that, and I don’t know whether the commission of inquiry – I mean, I can see strong arguments for not releasing it during the period of the work that’s done, but also maybe arguments for doing so.
I don’t know whether that would be established within the commission of inquiry, when a commission of inquiry was set up, whether there would be guidelines about that in the scope or the establishment of that commission of inquiry as a case by case, if you like. Could you please also just make some comments about that?
They’re all the questions that I have. Noting that these amendments will apply retrospectively to the records of this commission of inquiry and from then on because the amendment bill section 2, ‘This act will be taken to have commenced on the 1st of March 2021,’ and I presume it was from that point. You’ve mentioned in your second reading speech that evidence was provided to the commission after that point. What about the previous commissions of inquiry in Tasmania?
My question is what about the previous commissions of inquiry prior to 1 March 2021? What’s the situation with them and people being able to access their testimony? I look forward to the minister’s comments in response.
On behalf of the Greens, I want to thank the staff who have done the work preparing this. It’s one of the tens of pieces of legislation that I know the government has got in train and is working on. It’s really important work.
The Greens will continue to follow the progress of the government’s response to the commission of inquiry through the commission of inquiry committee, which is the Joint House Committee, and also by our correspondents that work with the implementation monitor, the honourable Robert Benjamin. It’s fantastic to have a person who was himself one of the commissioners of inquiry in that position following the government and what they’re doing along the way.
