Dr WOODRUFF – I can indicate that the Greens will be supporting the Justice Miscellaneous (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 2024, which implements recommendations 16.9, 16.13, 16.14, 16.18, 17.4, 17.5 and 18.12 of the commission of inquiry.
We are pleased to say that by our assessment, this bill appears to be a faithful representation of each of these recommendations. I want to mention how important this legislation is for securing the safety of children in Tasmania into the future, and for providing some measure of healing and resolution for victim-survivors and whistleblowers who provided evidence to the commission of inquiry.
They opened their souls and their emotions to a very public process and shared their stories with us – stories of abuse and stories of trust that was broken, and stories of the difficulty that they have living a life in the shadows of the experiences that will remain with them forever – as many of them have shared with me.
They are not experiences that they can park, and the work that we do on restoring the integrity of the governance of Tasmanian institutions is a part of the process of healing that is required for those people who have suffered, and there were so many. The very important court case and compensation that was reached – the redress that was achieved by the court case recently – is an incredibly important milestone. Money can in no way change the experiences that people have had and the trauma that people have suffered and still live with, but it is a social recognition, as well as a legal and institutional recognition, that they were wronged and that they are owed justice by the State of Tasmania and the servants of the State of Tasmania who were responsible, and who are today responsible, for making sure that children in Tasmanian institutions are safe from abuse and the other terrible things that happened to young people.
I say at the beginning that although these recommendations are in response to the commission of inquiry’s recommendations for the first tranche of work that needs to be done by this government by 1 July this year, they do not represent the entirety of the recommendations that were required to be achieved by 1 July. There are five recommendations still outstanding and not yet completed, and we are at 31 July as I stand to make this speech.
Five of those are listed by the government as ‘in progress’. In particular, a great concern was that the Tasmanian government did not provide the substantial injection of one-off funding to help implement the commission of inquiry’s recommended out‑of‑home care reforms and significantly increase a one-off injection of funding for out‑of‑home care.
That did not happen at the level that was required. In no way was the provided financial and resourcing response commensurate with the great need of the out‑of‑home care sector for having support for staff and to create the systems that are required to provide the individual face-to-face, one-on-one assessment of children and support for their carers and oversight of their care.
The two major reasons that the commission of inquiry gave for wrapping up their work early was their great concern about the risk to children in state institutions and out‑of‑home care – they felt that the situation was so bad – and the danger for children in Ashley Youth Detention Centre.
It is a terrible thing that the government did not listen and put as much money as was required into out‑of‑home care. The other part of that recommendation is that there be a significant increase of ongoing funding to out‑of‑home care, including out‑of‑home care services provided by Child Safety Services, such as out‑of‑home care governance and case management.
We look forward to the Budget and we very much hope that the government will be doing the right thing by the commission of inquiry’s recommendations and Tasmanian’s children by putting that money there.
The other two recommendations that are relevant today that I want to mention and are still listed in as ‘in progress’ relate to working with vulnerable people. Recommendation 18.13 is that the Tasmanian government should introduce legislation to amend the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act and related statutory instruments to replace the Administrative Appeals Division of the Magistrates Court with the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal as the forum for administrative review of decisions under the act. Also, that the Tasmanian government should introduce legislation or regulations to require the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to support tribunal members to hear administrative reviews of decisions under the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act 2013 to have the knowledge, skills, experience and aptitude to deal with each matter, including in relation to child sexual abuse, neglect, and family violence.
The second part was that the government should provide sufficient funding to the tribunal to support members to gain the knowledge, skills, experience and aptitude. Recommendation 18.14 was that the Commission for Children and Young People, the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, Integrity Commission and Ombudsman should jointly work to develop a user-friendly guide for the general public.
I will not read out the rest of this recommendation, but this goes to assisting agencies with complaints about how organisations can respond to child sexual abuse and supporting them with providing information, and education, and child and youth friendly versions of the guide regarding what they should be concerned about and how to respond.
The part I would love to hear from the minister about – perhaps when you are wrapping up – is 18.13 and 18.14, which are still listed as being in progress. If the minister could please detail where those two pieces of work are from the Department of Justice’s point of view, where they sit.
Moving to the bill at hand, I want to talk about the very important element of it, which is the apologies in civil litigation and the recommendation 17.4 and 17.5 of the commission of inquiry, which was about enabling a process for victim-survivors who wish to have an apology, to receive one at the earliest opportunity. This is including the opportunity to meet with senior institutional representatives and preferably someone as senior as the Secretary to receive a direct acknowledgement of the abuse and its impact with information that is specific to that person, is not general, is about that victim-survivor’s experience, their time in the institution, their particular experience of abuse, and an apology that is specific and pertinent to that individual. Then, detailing the steps that the institution will take to protect further, to make sure that child sex abuse in that institution will not occur again.
Section 17.5 is to amend the Civil Liability Act 2002 to make sure that an apology can be made without amounting to an admission of liability. That has always been the reason that institutions have given, listening to lawyers they have been misinformed that they are not able to make an apology because that is an omission of liability under law.
That is why it is so critical that these amendments have come in because we have heard from victim-survivors throughout the commission of inquiry hearings how damaging it was to not have the acknowledgement from a person in authority. Even when all the evidence had been prepared and even when it was accepted by the agency that abuse had occurred, there was not an apology forthcoming.
I cannot imagine what it would be like to be in a situation where it was acknowledged that abuse had occurred to you, but there was no one saying, ‘I am sorry’. That must be another level, another type of abuse. I am sure it was not meant with any intention from an individual, but that is the effect, a compounding of the abuse. If people accept the abuse has occurred, and they do not come with an apology, they do not mean anything. They do not ring true to a person. The commission of inquiry was very clear about why it is important to have a direct personal response.
They also understood the situation we got ourselves into as institutions in Australia, where institutions were riven, incapable of making the normal human response in that situation, of saying, ‘I am sorry,’ because of being bound up in concern about the legal risk it left the institution open to. That has led to terrible injustices for people and the difficulties that victim survivors have had in getting adequate responses, including apologies, have increased trauma. Numbers of people mentioned that throughout the commission of inquiry. We very much support the move for this legislation. The Premier’s formal apology and the apology made by the Leader of the Labor Party, then leader of the Greens, Cassy O’Connor, and other members of parliament were important, but words without action are not enough. This legislation is part of the step and the action required, so it is very important.
Community Legal Centres Tasmania noted in its submission that the proposed amendments to the Civil Liability Act 2002 relating to apologies apply to government departments but not to the State. They recommended that consideration be given to applying these provisions to the State as well. Can the minister please answer whether the government considered doing that and why you decided not to extend these provisions to the State?
I will speak about 16.9 in the bill, which is about people in positions of authority, or the so-called positions of authority offence. I acknowledge the work of Grace Tame, and the rest of the people in the Grace Tame Foundation through the Harmony campaign, to advocate for removing language that suggests there is consent through there being a relationship between an abuser and a child. They have long advocated to remove the language of relationship, which Ms Tame has described as giving licence to ‘characterise abuse as romance’. It forms part of a broader campaign to strengthen and harmonise child sexual abuse offences across states and territories. Victim-survivor Lee Sallese also agreed that the language of a relationship is problematic , saying:
I think this language needs to change because it suggests that the victim-survivor shoulders the blame. We’re already shaming and blaming ourselves. We don’t need a description such as this adding to our trauma.
The commission of inquiry made the point that rewording the provision to remove reference to maintaining a sexual relationship will not change the substance of the law.
Tasmania Police generally seek advice from the Office of the DPP before charging an accused person with sexual offences in cases where there may be a question about the appropriateness of the charge or the strength of the evidence. The aim is to ensure that the charges laid are the most appropriate and to avoid charges being dropped or changed. In addition to implementing various recommendations of the commission of inquiry in relation to 16.9, the bill also introduces similar age defence provisions for the existing and proposed new position of authority offences. The Greens think this is a welcome addition.
I note that during the debate on the Justice Miscellaneous (Royal Commission Amendments) Bill in 2022, which introduced this offence, my colleague, Ms O’Connor, highlighted the lack of a similar age defence in that bill, which was recommendation 29 of the royal commission. I also raised this issue during the commission of inquiry Estimates last year. To your credit, Attorney‑General, you said at the time that you would take it on board. I also note that even though the government did not include these provisions in the draft bill, the matter was explicitly raised in the consultation document. It is easy in an Estimates process to make vague comments about considering something without following up on it, so it is encouraging to see that you were sincere in that commitment and that you did follow up on it. That is to your credit. Thank you. We keep a pretty close eye on follow-through commitments in the Greens and we have a long memory so that is noted, Attorney-General.
I also acknowledge the submissions of Community Legal Centres Tasmania, the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Tasmanian Council of Social Service (TasCOSS) and Volunteering Tasmania, which all made representations regarding the inclusion of these provisions. I thank all the organisations who made a representation on this issue. We believe it was a concerning oversight in the initial legislation and that it is very important to make sure, as the Commissioner for Children and Young People put it, ‘that consensual and non-exploitative peer-to-peer relationships between young people are not captured by these provisions’. As an aside, I do not want to misrepresent the commissioner. I should make it clear that they recommended the consideration of similar age defence provisions but had no final view on the matter.
We also note that other relevant law applies for an age differential of five years when a child is of or above the age of 15 years and three years when the child is of or above the age of 12 years. Of those people who made submissions on this issue, only the Commissioner for Children and Young People put forward a proposed age differential to be considered for the defence provision. That was a differential of three years. In this bill we have a two‑year provision. Attorney‑General, can you please outline why two years was decided on? We do not have a particular concern about that decision, but I would be interested in the reasons for it.
Debate adjourned.
