Mr BAYLEY (Clark) - Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to offer my reflections on this week and the Government's response to the commission of inquiry.
To start, I acknowledge victims/survivors who have been in the House over the course of this week and watching online; whistleblowers; advocates; and families. It is through their strength, bravery, and commitment that we have reached a place where a light has been shone into a very dark place. We now have a strong suite of recommendations about how the kind of abuse we have heard about through the commission of inquiry will never happen again. I acknowledge their bravery, their strength, and I stand with them in solidarity.
I also acknowledge the work of the commission of inquiry and its staff, and the 2021 work of Professors McCormack and Smallbone. This is very difficult work: hearing the stories, dissecting the evidence, seeking solutions, and taking the time to articulate it all in a comprehensive and coherent way. It is a mammoth task, professionally and emotionally. I have the utmost respect for the work that was conducted and how it was conducted.
Further, I acknowledge the departmental staff charged with working on the Government's response, and recognise that. Many of them must be in a very difficult position, having all the evidence of the problem, a clear understanding of the solutions, and yet tasked with drafting a response that is hobbled by Government policy, artificial budget constraints and, at times, poor ministerial direction as to how to respond. It must be a debilitating way to work. The underwhelming commitment of Government must be a challenge to endure from the inside.
Finally, a message to the media. I acknowledge you, Camille Bianchi. Your podcast The Nurse can be credited with breaking the shocking record of paedophile nurse, James Griffin, at the Launceston General Hospital, and kicking off the impetus that created the commission of inquiry. To the Tasmanian media pack over recent years, diligently reporting on the evidence of proceedings, and now the Government's response and our scrutiny: this is all too often thankless work, and given the content, can and does have personal impacts. I hope that all in the media pack are doing well. I thank you for your diligence and work, because it is such important work. Sadly, it is all too often the case that it is the work of the media, the exposure they provide, and the accountability that this creates that finally pushes government to take action. That was the case with the commission of inquiry. Media exposure, coupled with the work of my predecessor, Cassy O'Connor, and Dr Woodruff, built the compelling case to establish a commission of inquiry - and so, it was established.
At the very high level, we have all read and heard this week that the Government's response to the commission of inquiry's recommendations is one of perception versus action. I am not saying the Government is not responding to the recommendations, initiating responses and funding some of them. How could I say that? However, this commission of inquiry is the most profound investigation into a social and administrative crisis that Tasmania has endured for decades, presumably since colonisation. Since the sealers and settlers stole Aboriginal girls for slavery and servitude, and young convicts cohabited with their charges and cohorts, sexual abuse in this state has been rife.
The statistics today tell us all we need to know about its extent, and the culture of secrecy and cover up that has continued to provide fertile ground for perpetrators to persist. This must change and it must change now.
There are thousands of Tasmanians with lived experience watching closely - not only victims/survivors and their families but their advocates, members of the State Service and health professionals who have witnessed the impacts of sexual violence and a systemic apathy towards doing much about it. I am not saying that Government is not responding to the recommendations. I am saying that, above all, even above the desire to do something about it, sits this Government's desire to be seen to do something about it - to look like they are acting, to manage the fallout, to minimise the damage, to protect its people and to manage the media and other coverage about it. Government has been dragged kicking and screaming and blocking to the place we are today.
This week of scrutiny has not been delivered thanks to Government, as we would be led to believe from the Premier's contribution this morning. This scrutiny has been delivered because of a proposal from the Greens, originally rejected by Government but ultimately supported by this House. It was not a proactive proposal from Government. We are not here in the voluntary spirit of transparency, of improving the outcomes and ensuring the response of Government is as good as it can be. We are here because this House demanded it. I thank my colleagues for their support.
We are here because the Government lost its numbers due to transparency and secrecy over other important issues. A collaborative parliament used its new-found power to compel Government to respond. Parliament agreed to hold an initiative to stand up a committee and to recall the House to do its job: to hold Government to account and to represent its constituents.
One only needs to consider yesterday - the very day that Youth Justice was to front the committee and our first opportunity to scrutinise a Government response to a suite of long-running, shocking and appalling failures; an opportunity to interrogate Government about its response to a list of clear-minded, independent recommendations of what to do about these failures. On being seen to act, even if the action is underwhelming, yesterday delivered us a classic example. Yesterday, with Youth Justice - despite years of debate and expert advice; with months to consider the commission of inquiry's report; with weeks knowing the timing of Government's response and committee scrutiny, which was scheduled for 11.40 - what did we get? An early morning media conference to release a 10 year Youth Justice Blueprint with some juicy announcements, all deliberately timed to dominate the media coverage of committee scrutiny and distract from long-running failures and substandard responses.
The timing of the release denied the committee members a good faith opportunity to digest the blueprint in advance and ask genuine questions that would flow from it. On questioning, the minister claimed the strategy was only finalised on Monday. Believable? I am not so sure. Even if true, it demonstrates an incompetence and contempt that I am only just beginning to realise is possible in this place. These hearings have been established for weeks. The Government's RTI response was delivered on Friday. While the 10 year blueprint would have been in train for months, it was released just an hour or so before committee scrutiny.
I am, of course, pretty new to this place and I would like to think I am not yet scarred and jaded. However, my experience this week has, perhaps, somewhat advanced this process. I am not a victim/survivor. I can only imagine the frustration and pain, the anger and despair of victims/survivors listening to a government dodge its responsibility, resist transparency, fail on accountability and respond to a profound problem that is writ large and ubiquitous, with commitments that are delayed, underfunded or deflected. For me, as a member of this place, at a personal level I feel frustration and sadness. I am frustrated we cannot do the job expected of us. I am sad we as a parliament are not doing enough to respond to the spirit and letter of the commission of inquiry.
In his ministerial statement on tabling the commission of inquiry report, the Premier called on us all to step up and collaborate. He said:
The weighty legislative agenda will require the support of all of us within this parliament to ensure we are working together to deliver the changes the commission has recommended. While I expect there to due and appropriate scrutiny on the reforms that come forward, all members of parliament have an active role to play in delivering the changes the commission has recommended quickly and efficiently. It will also be important that we as a parliament work together across party lines to make sure the legislative changes endure over time.
Premier, we stand willing to work. We want to do it quickly and efficiently, as you have suggested, but you and your ministers need to change, to act with urgency, to give us reasons to be confident in your actions and to share details about how you will deliver them, particularly details about how you will fund them.
This process has been plagued by perplexing decisions. The issue of section 18 notices issued by the commission has been discussed in depth so I will not go into detail. How is it that after weeks of requests, intense scrutiny in the committee and profound public interest, you release some details in the penultimate session of the committee? How is this a solid strategy to demonstrate confidence and trust? You look bad, we get frustrated, victims/survivors are angered and, finally, the pressure builds such that you release the information anyway. Go figure. How does that work for anybody?
This is not the only perplexing decision. I want to raise an issue sensitively but strongly. Last week the Deputy Premier said:
Jacquie Petrusma has joined our team as the commission of inquiry adviser in the Premier's office to support the significant and important job of implementing recommendations.
Mrs Petrusma is a very nice and capable person doing good work in the community. She is both well respected and liked. I share that respect and affection. Nothing I say here is a reflection on her personally. However, the simple fact is that she was a responsible minister for relevant portfolio areas at the very time some of the incidents heard by the commission of inquiry were perpetrated. The commission of inquiry report details numerous examples where, as minister, Mrs Petrusma received information - a report, a minute, regular updates - that included allegations about serious misdemeanours in the Ashley Youth Detention Centre. As we know, Ashley is now infamous as a hotbed of abuse and neglect, including across the period of Mrs Petrusma's ministerial responsibility.
I make little comment on jobs for mates and another Liberal insider receiving a plum, well-paid job inside the Liberal Government. It does not really stand the pub test, but that is a debate for another day. I make comment on the optics, the impact on victims/survivors and the level of confidence the public can have in the advice that is needed to change culture and take action that will be given in a frank and fearless fashion. This is a former minister who refused to act. There are real questions that all relevant ministers need to answer about the past values under their watch. Employing one to give advice going forward is, unfortunately, both inappropriate and alarming. I will leave it at that and repeat that this is not a reflection on Mrs Petrusma as a person. This is a reflection on a conflict of interest and the impact that a decision like this can and will have on victims/survivors and others traumatised by the system and its failures, oversights by this Government and its ministers, both past and current.
From what I have seen and heard I do not have confidence the Government is adequately funding the delivery of its actions. I heard much this morning about the Premier's commitment to support the workers of the Sexual Assault Support Service and Laurel House - $1 million to assist those organisations to deliver their service. That is one-thirtieth of the new harness and greyhound racetrack in the north-west, or one-fortieth of a new track through wilderness areas on the west coast. While this money will assist harmful sexual behaviour programs these organisations run and identify and intervene with potential perpetrators, it does nothing to address the massive backlog of victims/survivors needing help to cope with the trauma they have experienced.
With an epidemic of sexual abuse we have an explosion of victims/survivors reporting and organisations like SASS have seen a doubling of referrals since 2020. As we break down the barriers of silence and change the culture about accessing services, Tasmania can expect an increase in reports and demand from people needing help. With so much of the commission of inquiry recommendations focused on systemic government problems and most of the government funding on internal reform, external providers and responding to the needs of victims will suffer. We must do more in this space, but even then, internal funding is inefficient.
On questioning about the 2022-23 budget and initiatives that flow from the independent Department of Education inquiry, Mr Jaensch had a cute, confusing and entirely unconvincing argument. Apparently no-one need worry about statements in the budget like:
This is a new initiative funded from within the department's existing resources.
According to minister Jaensch this does not mean what it says. According to minister Jaensch the state school system is given more than it needs in advance and the fat in their budgets can fund the kinds of initiatives that fall out of the independent commission of inquiry. I am struggling to believe it. That is why I am debating the motion to establish this scrutiny process. We Greens urge Government to proactively articulate the funding required for each recommendation and where it will come from.
With Education, putting aside budget statements we heard in 2022-23 such as 'this is a new initiative funding from within the department's existing resources', I note there was no allocation in the supplementary appropriation bill passed a month ago, no additional money allocated in the wake of the commission of inquiry report. While on Education, I want to make the point that the Smallbone and McCormack inquiry completed in 2021 has still not been published in full. By publishing the recommendations only, the Government avoids accountability and impacts on a fuller understanding for members of parliament and the public.
Tracking of teachers across the system is one of the simplest measures the department can implement and it is standard across multiple Australian jurisdictions. The commission of inquiry has demonstrated this failure across the Tasmanian system, with children in the education system suffering as a result. Pushing reform back two years means two more years of exposing children to unacceptable harm. While the Government said this would be its highest priority, we see them spend more time pushing out childish social media slurs against political opponents than information about how Tasmanian children are to be kept safe and about how to report abuse.
In evidence at the commission of inquiry, Ann Moxham, the then registrar of the Teachers Registration Board of Tasmania, gave evidence that a relief teacher who had been reported for inappropriate behaviour and had that complaint upheld was consequently lost in the system and they moved on. Ms Moxham also gave evidence that the Teachers Registration Board did not need to be notified of an incident of child sexual abuse until 28 days after the investigation had been concluded, which in many cases could take months. This needs to change.
The Government's response to an explicit commission of inquiry recommendation that legislation be changed by 2024 to allow for immediate rather than emergency suspension of a teacher's registration is to be pushed out to 2026. Why? Because to quote the minister from yesterday, it is sensible to make all changes to that act at once. For me it is sensible to do as much as we can as soon as we can. Who cares if we amend the Teachers Registration Act twice in three years? It is what the commission recommended. It is not a difficult task and this House stands ready to do it. It prioritises children and for me that is what is sensible.
In out-of-home care the scale of the problem is immense. There are almost 1000 Tasmanian kids in out-of-home care and the risks remain great. The commission of inquiry heard harrowing evidence of abuse at the hands of carers, family and other children exhibiting harmful sexual behaviours. The commission of inquiry documented the issues and articulated the changes needed, but we do not seem to see the level of commitment and reform required to change the dial to improve things for children and to change the culture and administration of the care of some of our most vulnerable children. As with Ashley, minister Jaensch pushed back recommendations, acquiesced to inadequate funding and displayed a disturbing lack of urgency and compassion.
Data produced today to questions on notice highlights the particular vulnerability of Aboriginal children and their over-representation in care and detention. I will read directly from the Hansard:
As at 3 December 2023, approximately 40 per cent of children in care are Aboriginal.
A cohort of people who make up less than 5 per cent of Tasmania's population make up 40 per cent of the children in state care. How can that be allowed to happen? How have we failed? I am looking forward to answers yet to be received, taken on notice, about Aboriginal education workers. Aboriginal people working directly with Aboriginal children in state schools is a critical mechanism to build connection to culture and community and keep Aboriginal kids out of care and detention.
How much do we actually value these workers? My questions centre on the security of these positions, the permanency of the people filling them, and the support we give them when school is out. Do these Aboriginal education workers lose their position in December, remain unemployed over summer to be re-appointed at the start of the next year's term? If this is the case, what does that say about how we value that work? How is it fair to treat frontline staff from a vulnerable community in this way? How does it affect recruitment and retention? What are the flow-on impacts on Aboriginal children in out-of-home care and detention?
To conclude, this is not all bad. We have the recommendations thanks to the commission of inquiry and thanks to the evidence of victims/survivors and experts. We know what to do. Some of them are on track and others can be put there. We just need to change the culture. We just need to change the leadership.
I finish by offering my genuine thanks to a range of people working in this space - it is one of the most difficult. To community service providers and their staff, to teachers, healthcare professionals, justice workers and police, to volunteers and carers, overwhelmingly, you are good, committed, compassionate, professional people. Your work is recognised, valued and is critical to the function of our community. We are talking about a minority of perpetrators and people here that are on the outlier. For the overwhelming majority of you, we recognise you. We see you. We see the work that you do and we thank you from the bottoms of our hearts for it.
