Good morning
My name is Marcia Neave. I am the President of the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government's responses to child sexual abuse in institutional settings.
On behalf of myself and my fellow Commissioners, Professor Leah Bromfield and the Honourable Robert Benjamin, we acknowledge and pay our respects to the traditional and original owners of the land on which we are meeting, the Muwinina People. We also acknowledge and pay respect to all Tasmanian Aboriginal people who are the custodians of this land.
[Restricted publication orders made.]
This Commission of Inquiry began its work 29 months ago. Its opening hearing was held around 22 months ago. Today we are holding our closing hearing. This will be broadcast on ABC Radio, so that all Tasmanians will be able to listen to it. There will be a short delay before it is broadcast. Tomorrow we will deliver our Report, which comprises 8 volumes, 75 findings and 191 recommendations, to the Governor. A copy of the Report will be tabled in parliament. Once it is tabled, the Report will be publicly available.
The Governor, acting on the advice of the Tasmanian Government, has the power to omit parts of our Report before it is tabled This power may be exercised if the Governor considers that the public interest in publishing parts of our Report is outweighed by other considerations, including public security, privacy of personal or financial affairs, or the rights of any person to a fair trial.
As Commissioners, we have carefully considered whether parts of the Report should not be published, including because they could affect the right of a person to a fair trial. We will advise the Governor and the Tasmanian Government about the parts of the Report which should not be published for that reason.
Except for omitting the parts of the Report which affect a person’s right to a fair trial, the Commissioners hope and expect that the rest of the Report will be published in full as soon as possible, so that the Tasmanian community can consider all of the information in it. We know that many of those who have shared their experiences with the Commission, particularly victim-survivors of institutional abuse and their families, but many others as well, are anxious to know about our findings and recommendations. We are conscious that this has been a long inquiry and further delay in publishing our report could add to the trauma and grief of victim–survivors.
During this closing hearing, I will outline the approach we have taken, and discuss some high level themes considered in our work. Commissioners Bromfield and Benjamin will then speak to some more specific themes and reforms.
A Commission of Inquiry has two main purposes. The first purpose is to decide whether and how past events occurred, and consider whether they were caused by problems in laws, policies, practices, culture, human error or bad behaviour. The second purpose is to make recommendations aimed at preventing similar events from happening again. These two purposes are connected because finding out what went wrong and why, can help to identify what should be changed. The Commission’s terms of reference, which set out what we had to consider and deal with in our Report, required us to do both.
We were required to examine the adequacy of the Tasmanian Government’s responses to allegations and incidents of child sexual abuse in government institutions; and to provide options for reform. Our Inquiry focused on responses to child sexual abuse in public schools, Launceston General Hospital, Ashley Youth Detention Centre and out of home care. We have considered the Government’s responses to allegations and incidents of abuse from the year 2000 to the present.
To meet our terms of reference, we travelled around Tasmania inviting victim-survivors, members of their families and communities, teachers, school counsellors, youth workers, health professionals, police officers, sexual assault counsellors and others to tell us what was working well in Tasmanian government institutions, what was not working, and what changes needed to be made.
We were keen to hear from the entire Tasmanian Community. With the help of Aboriginal engagement officers, we sought out and listened to members of Aboriginal communities, recognising that –largely including as a result of colonisation-Aboriginal children and young people are unacceptably over-represented in high-risk institutional settings, particularly out of home care and youth detention. This means that Aboriginal children are isproportionately exposed to the risk of sexual abuse in institutions and are more likely to bear the brunt of policy and process failures that can arise when organisations are not child safe. This made it vital to listen to people from these communities about their experiences and the changes they thought should be made.
We conducted over 150 consultations and received over 140 written submissions from individuals and organisations. Some former or current workers in government institutions talked to us about their experiences in raising concerns about possible sexual abuse. We gave victim-survivors the opportunity to participate in a private session with a Commissioner, so that people could speak directly with us about their personal experiences of child sexual abuse, with support offered to them by a counsellor after the private session ended. We gave victim-survivors who engaged with this Commission a choice about whether and how their information was used in our report. We set a high bar for ourselves in relation to the way we used information about victim-survivors obtained through records – and are confident we have dealt with this information with sensitively.
We also received more than 95,000 documents from Government and other agencies during our Inquiry, which helped us to understand both past and present policies and practices relevant to preventing and responding to child sexual abuse.
In our 9 weeks of hearings, we heard evidence from 165 witnesses, including leaders of Tasmanian government departments and agencies, and oversight bodies such as the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Ombudsman and the CEO of the Integrity Commission. We also heard from people working in government institutions and people with relevant policy and practice expertise, including experts from other States who have been involved in reforms, so they could offer their reflections on the strengths and weaknesses of these changes.
We want to acknowledge all the victim-survivors, their families and supporters, some of whom work within institutions, who shared information with us about their experiences. They told us that one of the main reasons they wanted to assist our Inquiry was to prevent other children from suffering sexual abuse in the future and to make sure that there were more supportive and effective responses to people who said they had been abused. We are grateful to the many people who have helped us to understand the terrible harm caused by child sexual abuse, how such abuse may sometimes remain unrecognised or hidden, and how calls for help, complaints or other attempts to deal with abuse have too often been ignored. We deeply value the
important contribution you have made to our Inquiry, and we hope that over time you experience some healing of your pain. We also acknowledge the victim-survivors, their families and supporters who did not engage directly with our Inquiry and may be listening today.
Based on the information we received, as well as our own research, reflection and analysis, we have recommended changes that, if they are implemented, will go a long way towards preventing child sexual abuse in institutional contexts. Our recommendations also aim to ensure that if abuse does occur, there will be an effective and speedy response and that victim-survivors of child sexual abuse will be able to seek access to justice and receive the support they need and deserve.
Preventing and effectively responding to child sexual abuse will require changes to laws and policies, and also to social and institutional cultures, and individual beliefs, attitudes and practices. If the necessary changes are not made, children will continue to be subjected to child sexual abuse in these institutions.
In making our recommendations, we have taken into account the findings and recommendations of earlier Tasmanian reports, including the Independent Inquiry into Education, which was delivered to the Tasmanian government in June 2021, and part of which was released to the public in November 2021. This year, the Tasmania Government implemented vital reforms recommended by the National Royal Commission into Institutional Reponses to Child Sexual Abuse by enacting the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act, which, among other things, imposed reportable conduct obligations on the heads of institutions, including government institutions. The Tasmanian Government has also announced that Ashley Youth Detention Centre will be closed. We support this decision and the willingness of the Government to fundamentally rethink the youth justice model in Tasmania. It is our view that the Ashley Youth Detention Centre should be closed as a matter of urgency.
Prior to and throughout our inquiry, the Tasmanian government has been working on implementation of other National Royal Commission recommendations. We are encouraged by this and have built on reforms that the Tasmanian Government has already begun or implemented. However, as we explain in our Report, we have continued to hear examples of poor systems, practices and cultures within government institutions even as our Inquiry has drawn to a close. Although we believe that children are now safer in Tasmanian government institutions than was the case in the past, more work needs to be done.
Like all Commissions of Inquiry, we had an obligation to be fair in making our findings and recommendations. To satisfy this obligation, we engaged with the Tasmanian government and relevant organisations and individuals during the preparation of our Report. They had the opportunity to make submissions about the contents in our Report. We carefully considered their responses before finalising our findings and recommendations. The Government has had the opportunity to read earlier drafts and to raise concerns about possible inaccuracies. Commissions of Inquiry must satisfy procedural fairness requirements before finding that individuals have engaged in misconduct or in making adverse findings about conduct of people or bodies. However we note that the Tasmanian Commissions of Inquiry Act imposes complex procedural requirements before doing so. These requirements are out of step with other jurisdictions and make it more complicated for a Commissions of Inquiry to make relevant findings as required.
As our Commission of Inquiry deliberately focussed its attention on current systems, there were occasions upon which the information we received made us concerned about an individual’s conduct, and about the safety of children who come into contact with that individual, in Tasmania and interstate. The Commission has power to make referrals to and share information with appropriate authorities. We referred over 100 people to Tasmanian Police and child protection authorities during our Inquiry.
Our terms of reference required us to consider four key questions:
- has the Tasmanian Government’s response to allegations and incidents of child sexual abuse in institutions since 2000 been adequate?
- are Tasmanian Government institutions safe for children and young people?
- does the Tasmanian Government have the right systems in place to effectively address risks and respond to incidents of child sexual abuse in institutions into the future?
- does the Tasmanian Government have a culture that encourages feedback, reporting, monitoring and reflection when responding to incidents of child sexual abuse?
First, has the Tasmanian Government’s response to allegations and incidents of child sexual abuse in institutions since 2000 been adequate? The answer is: Too often, no. While we saw pockets of good practice, this was often a result of the initiative and good judgment of individuals rather than something encouraged and enforced by a broader system. More commonly, institutions did not recognise child sexual abuse for what it was and failed to act decisively to manage risks and investigate complaints. Sometimes this was due to a lack of guidance and direction on how to manage incidents well. It was also due to ignorance, inertia and a desire to protect reputational interests. Too often institutions did not manage active risks to children and young people effectively, nor extend adequate care to children and young people when they disclosed abuse.
Secondly, are Tasmanian Government institutions safe for children and young people? Generally, yes. Overwhelmingly, people who work with children and young people do so with their best interests at heart. Most Tasmanian children are safe in government institutions, though some are not. The treatment of children in out of home care and youth detention is of particular concern, and improving safety for them should be a priority.
Thirdly, does the Tasmanian Government have the right systems in place to effectively address risks and respond to incidents of child sexual abuse in institutions into the future? Not yet. A greater focus on child safety needs to be embedded in decision-making and in the day-to-day practices of government departments. Staff need more education and training on child sexual abuse and clear guidance and support to help them identify and respond to risks of child sexual abuse confidently.
Finally, does the Tasmanian Government have a culture that encourages feedback, reporting, monitoring and reflection when responding to incidents of child sexual abuse? Not often enough. We observed a culture which sometimes lacked the curiosity and initiative required to ensure children’s safety was prioritised. We also saw failures to act, particularly in response to past reviews, inquiries and internal reports that have highlighted risks to children in institutions. We consider Tasmanians leaders can and should be role models for prioritising children’s rights and safety. To achieve this goal, leaders need the qualities of self-reflection, an ability to acknowledge mistakes and a commitment to stop them being made again.
We identified a number of changes which are required at the systems level and across relevant government departments and agencies to make institutions safer for Tasmania’s children and young people. These changes include:
- a focus on preventing institutional child sexual abuse
- embedding safe and accessible processes for people to raise concerns about child sexual abuse, and robust mechanisms within institutions to respond to these concerns in a transparent, effective and timely way
- better coordinating investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse across government departments and relevant agencies
- investing resources in public institutions.
I will speak to each of these in turn. As previously mentioned, my fellow Commissioners will then outline some additional themes which underpin the recommendations in our Report.
I turn first to the need to prevent children being sexually abused. Child sexual abuse in institutions is best addressed by preventing it from occurring. Prevention is only effective if institutions know how to recognise the warning signs of abuse and how to respond to complaints and concerns about it. Misconceptions about the behaviour of children and young people who have been abused must be exposed. These misconceptions include that institutional child sexual abuse is rare and a problem of the past, that children and young people are prone to misunderstand, lie or exaggerate abuse, and that well-respected colleagues and members of the community cannot be abusers. Children and young people need to receive age-appropriate sexual education to help them know what to do if they feel uncomfortable about an adult’s behavior. But they must not be seen as responsible for protecting themselves or shamed or treated as having consented to abuse perpetrated by adults.
It is vital that people who work with children in State institutions or in government oversight bodies understand the dynamics and patterns of child sexual abuse, and their legal and ethical obligations to report relevant behaviour, so that it can be investigated. Institutions and the people who work in them must place the protection of children above concern for the reputation of the institution, or their understandable concern to give a colleague or friend the benefit of the doubt.
The next theme is the need for transparent and coherent mechanisms that enable institutions to identify, investigate and respond appropriately when concerns or allegations about child sexual abuse are raised. These processes must be embedded in all institutions and government departments that work with children. The complaints process should not be an obstacle course that can only be navigated by confident and highly determined people. Adult accounts of events are often believed, while the relative powerlessness of children means their accounts are not accepted. Children in youth detention and out of home care often come from communities with limited power because of their social and economic circumstances, or in the case of Aboriginal children, the history of colonisation. Children in the health system are vulnerable because of illness or disability. The agencies and oversight bodies that respond to child sexual abuse must be able to recognise these barriers, listen to the concerns raised and advocate for children. Leaders in government departments, agencies and oversight bodies must be prepared to ask questions and to take responsibility to ensure that their policies and processes protect the most vulnerable children.
The third theme is the importance of breaking down silos between different parts of government to ensure investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse are properly co-ordinated in order to protect children. Relevant parts of government and its agencies, including Tasmania Police, Child Safety, the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, the Teachers Registration Board, and health oversight bodies, must work together when responding to allegation of child sexual abuse. A child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan is needed to describe the respective responsibilities of each these bodies, and to hold each accountable for their role in keeping children safe. Information-sharing barriers must be removed, to ensure that all relevant agencies can exchange and act on information about risks to children. Further, information relevant to complaints of child sexual abuse must be properly documented, so that patterns of behaviour by employees can be recognised and acted on. Changes to State Service disciplinary processes, including the introduction of enforceable professional conduct policies and greater flexibility to suspend employees subject to allegations while an investigation is undertaken, are also required.
The final theme is the need to ensure adequate investment in the monitoring, regulation and oversight of government institutions. Relevant institutions need to be resourced to ensure that they can properly function to protect children from harm, including child sexual abuse. The National Royal Commission spoke eloquently about the human and social costs of institutional child sexual abuse. We know that without appropriate support, some victim-survivors live out their trauma in ways that can harm themselves and others, including through alcohol and drug misuse or violent or criminal behaviour. In addition to the very real human cost suffered by victim-survivors, investment in preventing and responding to child sexual abuse reduces social costs for the benefit of everyone.
More starkly and directly, the Claims of Abuse in State Care Scheme, which provided compensation to children abused in Tasmanian institutions between 1995 and 2013, made payments totalling $54.8 million to claimants. We know that a significant number of these claims related to child sexual abuse at Ashley Youth Detention Centre and its predecessor, the Ashley Boys Home. More recently, the Tasmanian government has paid out more than $31 million to people who were sexually abused in its institutions, under the National Redress Scheme. Civil claims by victim survivors against the Tasmanian Government are also costly. Chronically underfunding the systems that serve our most vulnerable children creates unacceptable risks and is a false economy. In contrast, properly resourcing these systems is an economic ‘no-brainer’.
The Commission is encouraged by the increasing recognition of the nature and harm of child sexual abuse and the need to ensure strong, transparent and effective measures to protect Tasmanian children. One sign of this recognition is that the current Secretaries of the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and the Department for Education, Children and Young People, as well as the former head of the Department of Communities, formally apologised to victim-survivors of institutional child sexual abuse during our hearings. We hope that those apologies, as well as the apologies made by the former Premier the Honourable Peter Gutwein, in 2021 and by the current Premier, the Honourable Jeremy Rockcliff on 8 November 2022, provide some solace to those who have suffered grief, pain and loss of trust because of child sexual abuse.
As part of his apology, Premier Rockliff acknowledged the history of child sexual abuse in Tasmanian government institutions and made an undertaking to all Tasmanians ‘to never allow a repeat of this abuse, of the secrecy and the suppression’ and ‘to never allow a repeat of the failures that allowed such abuse to occur’. He undertook to implement the recommendations of our Commission of Inquiry and said: ‘Our Government is acutely aware of the enormous responsibility to act swiftly and to act decisively to implement the Commission's recommendations.’ We understand implementing recommendations is challenging and will involve its own decision making process, but we expect the Tasmanian people will hold government responsible for delivering on this commitment.
At our opening hearing, we expressed the hope that our Inquiry would bring about substantial change for the benefit of Tasmania’s children and young people. We trust that the work of our Commission will also add to the growing research on the factors that contribute to child sexual abuse and what constitutes best practice in preventing and responding to such abuse, particularly in relation to health settings, which is an area that the National Royal Commission did not specifically examine. We note that best practice will continue to evolve as new research is undertaken and new evidence comes to light. It is important, therefore, that the Tasmanian Government commits to monitoring, evaluating and evolving its laws, policies and practices.
Too often in the past, discussion of child sexual abuse in government institutions has been closed down and the media have been discouraged from reporting it. Sometimes this has been done under the expressed concern aboutprotecting victim-survivors, though many of those who spoke to the Commission did so in the hope that it would bring about important changes and reduce the stigma associated with sexual abuse. As I have said, we consulted with victim-survivors on how their information and experiences should be used. We are confident that reporting on this closing hearing and, when it is tabled, the Final Report will benefit, rather than harm, victim survivors, provided it is done with appropriate sensitivity. The Tasmanian community owes it to its children to ensure that the changes we recommend are not simply given tokenistic acknowledgment, but that implementation is properly planned, funded and sustained.
Commissioner Bromfield will now make her closing remarks.
My name is Leah Bromfield. I am a Professor whose work is focussed on preventing and responding to child abuse, but this Commission of Inquiry has in no way been an academic exercise for me.
I was born, and spent the first 12 years of my life, here in Hobart. My experience growing up in Tasmania shaped the person I have become and the path I have taken – for which I am very grateful.
It was a privilege to have been appointed as a Commissioner for this Commission of Inquiry which is personally and professionally so important to me. I have strived at all times to be worthy of that privilege and trust.
Commissioner Neave has spoken of how we approached our work and some of the key problems we observed. I will focus my remarks on some of our key areas of reform. I will also make some observations about areas where what we learned in Tasmania has national significance, as well as reflecting upon some challenges and strengths that were specific to Tasmania.
At the outset, it is important to recognise that the issue of child sexual abuse has and will continue to change and evolve over time.
As community and children’s awareness of child sexual abuse grows, adult perpetrators must rely more and more on grooming to facilitate child sexual abuse and avoid detection in institutions. Grooming was a significant issue in our Inquiry.
Child sexual exploitation refers to the manipulation of a child into sexual activity in exchange for incentives such as food, shelter, money, gifts or the illusion of love. It is often mistaken as a ‘consensual’ relationship. This predatory behaviour is emerging as a particular risk for children in out of home care and other vulnerable youth.
We describe children who sexually abuse other children as having harmful sexual behaviours. These behaviours can be equally damaging as adult perpetrated abuse. But children require a different response to adults. Sometimes these behaviours are a sign that the child themselves is being harmed. The issue of children displaying harmful sexual behaviours was a major theme within the institutions we examined.
As the nature of child sexual abuse and the tactics of abusers change evolve, our best efforts to protect children from child sexual abuse must also change and evolve to keep up.
Harmful sexual behaviours emerged as one of—perhaps the primary—risk of sexual abuse for children in institutions today. We saw a lack of knowledge about what were harmful sexual behaviours, what to do when they were recognised and how to get the balance right in meeting the needs of both children who have displayed these behaviours and children who have been harmed.
We see great benefit in a coordinated approach to preventing, identifying and responding to harmful sexual behaviours. We also recognise how hard it can be for frontline professionals to know when the sexual behaviours of children and young people are healthy and age appropriate, where they may be inappropriate but can be responded to with education and guidance, and where they are harmful. This can be particularly difficult when navigating the issues of consent between same age young people.
Professionals, particularly those in schools, youth detention and out of home care need the knowledge to recognise harmful sexual behaviours. They also need clarity about what they should do and access to practical guidance and assistance to support better responses and good decision making. Where these behaviours are abusive children displaying them need access to specialist therapeutic services.
All children are vulnerable to child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviour, but some groups of children are far more likely to be abused in institutions. This can be because some children spend more time in institutions—for example, children with chronic illnesses are more likely to have long stays in hospitals.
Other children are at greater risk because of the nature of the institution they find themselves in. Out of home care and youth detention are the highest risk institutions for abuse, but also those typically associated with the poorest strategies to prevent and respond to such harms.
I see all Australian states and territories struggling to respond to the challenges in providing out of home care and youth detention services. We saw these national challenges in Tasmania too.
We did, however, hear about a Tasmanian specific problem. That is, the persistent lack of funding for out of home care and youth detention. Funding deficits that impacted these services to such an extent that policies and practices became outdated, standards declined and ultimately children’s safety was compromised.
We noted that, as an Island state with a small population, Tasmania experienced challenges in providing adequate funding and sufficient appropriately qualified people across a range of contexts.
We did not see this lack of funding having the same profound impacts in other systems that we saw in out of home care and youth detention.
We recommend widescale urgent reform to Tasmania’s out of home care and youth detention systems.
We were however pleased to see the initiative and commitment to children’s safety and wellbeing demonstrated by those non-government care providers who of their own initiative had implemented child safe standards, and improved carer assessment, support and training.
The needs of children in care would likely be better addressed by the Tasmanian Government fulfilling its previous commitment to transition the provision of out of home care from government to non-government providers.
Youth detention appears to have remained stuck in the past with outdated views that have proven to be harmful rather than rehabilitative. Our recommendations for youth detention fall into two broad categories. First, urgent reforms in the short term to address the serious deficits in the care and rehabilitation of children detained at Ashley Youth Detention Centre. Second, a reform agenda for a world class trauma-informed, rehabilitative approach to youth detention that will better meet the needs of youth at risk, staff within detention facilities and the Tasmanian community.
Wide scale reform is hard. Strong leadership and a dedicated workforce will be required to drive the urgent reforms needed to ensure Tasmania’s out of home care and youth detention systems are meeting the safety and care needs of children. We recognise the importance of valuing and investing in the frontline practitioners in out of home care and youth justice to achieve these reforms.
We also see the importance of dedicated leadership in the Department for Education, Children and Youth for each of out of home care, youth justice, Child Safety Services, including a Chief Practitioner. Dedicated leadership can support continuing practice improvement and drive reform.
We note with concern the continuing delays in the closure of the Ashley Youth Detention Centre and that out of home care was the only institution we looked into for which there were no significant investments or reforms announced in response to our Inquiry.
We hope our recommendations for youth justice and out of home care will bring real and significant change for the children impacted by these systems – and that they will not be invisible or devalued into the future.
There is a delicate balance to strike between ensuring the management of complaints against staff is fair and transparent and ensuring that fairness to staff does not come at the expense of the protection of children. We heard evidence that existing policies and processes for responding to complaints against adults working with children were not designed with child safety in mind and tipped the balance too far in favour of adult rights over children’s safety. We make recommendations to correct this balance and put children’s safety first.
It is important that children’s rights and safety receives the focus and attention they deserve. We have imagined a new Commission for Children and Young People that acts as a strong and fearless advocate for children’s rights – with expanded functions including a focus on child safe standards and the reportable conduct scheme, providing additional advocacy for the safety and wellbeing of children in out of home care and youth detention, and advocating for the unique needs of Aboriginal children and young people.
It was clear to us throughout our Inquiry that preventing and responding to child sexual abuse cannot be the primary responsibility of any one government agency. We also want the benefits of best practice responses to child sexual abuse in institutional settings to reach far and wide.
We see great benefit in a coordinated whole of government approach to preventing, identifying and responding to child sexual abuse. Towards that goal, we make considered recommendations about the governance for the implementation of our recommendations–which includes all relevant Secretaries of Government departments, leadership from the head of state service and mechanisms for victim-survivors, children and young people and non-government service providers to have input.
While we saw challenges that are specific to Tasmania, we also saw strengths that are specific to Tasmania. We consider that Tasmania’s smaller size and networked communities provide an advantage over larger jurisdictions in implementing reforms We have been impressed by the changes already achieved in the education and health systems to better equip and guide staff and to create greater safety for children - and the speed at which some of these reforms were implemented.
Many of our findings and recommendations have the potential to be relevant beyond Tasmania and offer lessons for other Australian states and territories. Our analysis and recommendations in relation to the National Redress Scheme and how this information is used in disciplinary processes is relevant nationally. In addition, the integration of child safe standards and the national minimum health care standards are of particular national significance with the potential to increase the safety of children in hospitals across Australia. Tasmania can be a leader in these reforms.
As noted by Commissioner Neave, we make 191 recommendations for reform.
We developed and considered our recommendations as a whole, thinking about how they work together and complement each other. We are confident they provide a comprehensive roadmap for reform.
While we have remained focussed on our terms of reference, we hope our reforms will also have wider benefits outside of government and for other types of child sexual abuse.
In developing our recommendations, we have attempted to take a strategic and practical approach by building on reforms that have been started or implemented by the Tasmanian Government. We have kept the unique strengths and challenges to achieving good practice in Tasmania at the forefront of our thinking. But we have also tried to not let our emphasis on a practical approach get in the way of our aspiration for Tasmania.
We want our reform agenda to succeed and contribute to major change.
We hope that in the future the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian community can feel a sense of pride in its child safety system rather than a sense that it is constantly catching up.
We also hope that Tasmanian children will feel confident that they will be seen, heard and valued in institutions and that when they raise concerns adults will believe them and take action.
For victim-survivors who are living with the impacts of child sexual abuse, we hope that our recommendations will result in you receiving more trauma-informed responses and that you are better able to access the supports you need.
To those who have been harmed by child sexual abuse in government institutions and those who have worked to hold these institutions to account and make them safer, thank you for trusting my fellow Commissioners and I with your confidences, fears, pain and hopes.
I hope that we have been worthy of that trust and that our Report will help to make the difference that is needed.
Commissioner Benjamin will now make his closing remarks.
I am Robert Benjamin
I was born in Tasmania, and, whilst not nearly as extensive as our Aboriginal family, my family goes back several generations, my great great grandfather, James Gregory was the building contractor for St David’s Cathedral, the Lena and other prominent Hobart buildings.
As a child I lived in Hobart and then Launceston, I commenced school in Trevallyn. Like many Tasmanians, my family moved to the mainland for work and health reasons. This happened when I was aged about seven. I had little say in that move.
I returned to Tasmania as a Justice of the Family Court in 2005 and worked in that roll until 2021. I have lived primarily in Tasmania over those years.
Overall, I have worked and studied child protection, family law, and relationship disputes as a legal practitioner then judge for almost 50 years.
I applied that background and experience to the Commission together with a trauma informed approach. I have learnt much more about Tasmania and Tasmanians over the last 2½ years of this Commission and it has been an honour for me to be a part of this work.
My fellow Commissioners and I have been on a profound journey with victim-survivors, their families and loved ones, and their trusted friends and supporters.
We have listened to their experiences, considered their submissions, read their witness statements, watched their evidence and looked at their childhood photographs. At times, we have wept with and for them.
Tragically, some victims of child sexual abuse have not survived. To their families, loved ones and friends: we remember those children and acknowledge your irreplaceable loss.
For those who did survive, today is about acknowledging the trauma, the pain, the humiliation and the isolation that has been caused by child sexual abuse. We recognise that many victim-survivors feel – and rightly so – that we as a community have failed them, by not listening and seeing, by not investigating, by not responding and by giving the impression that we did not care.
Today is about acknowledging the strength and determination of victim-survivors, their families and their supporters, many of whom have worked tirelessly and in the face of considerable obstacles, to bring the issue of child sexual abuse to public attention, to seek accountability and justice, and to protect other children.
To them I say
Your desire and commitment is impressive. You have taught us that if we accept responsibility to listen, learn and act, child sexual abuse in institutions can be prevented and justice for victim-survivors is possible.
We understand that some, possibly because of their past experiences, felt apprehensive about engaging with us. Many of you were called to give evidence because your role was relevant to our terms of reference, not because there was criticism of you.
We know that being involved in our Inquiry was challenging and at times triggering. We are grateful for the information and insights that you have provided to us.
More than one in four Australians have experienced child sexual abuse, either within or outside institutions. – think about it – one in four. The simple reality of these numbers means that in our lives we will inevitably know, love, or care for one or more victim-survivors of child sexual abuse—assuming we have not been abused ourselves.
Child sexual abuse is not an aberration that occurs in somebody else’s world – it affects all of us.
The impacts of child sexual abuse on a person can be devastating and lifelong. We know that trauma associated with abuse can sometimes spiral into a range of other problems, including drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, problems maintaining relationships, and a reduced capacity to work and be a part of the community.
Many victim-survivors mourn the life they could have led if they had not been abused.
We learned from experts that while the impact of child sexual abuse is often severe, it can be treated and managed with the help of trained professionals and support services.
Survivors often told us of the significant benefits of counselling and other supports once they found the right professional or service.
Victim-survivors must have the right support to recover from abuse. They deserve to live a life that is not defined by the abuse inflicted upon them.
More therapeutic services are needed to ensure that victim-survivors have timely access to those supports.
There is an urgent need for more culturally appropriate Aboriginal healing services, as well as support services that know diversity and disability. The long waiting lists to access therapeutic services for children and young people who have engaged in harmful sexual behaviours must be rectified.
‘Institutional betrayal’ is a particular form of harm experienced by victim-survivors.
It refers to the failure of an institution to provide a safe environment for a child, as well as an institution’s failure to act once a disclosure of abuse is made.
When an institution chooses to prioritise protecting itself from public criticism or legal action by minimising, denying or concealing concerns about abuse, the harm caused by the abuse is compounded.
We heard from many children and young people, adult victim-survivors, their families and members of the broader community, who have lost trust in some of our institutions.
We heard many examples of disclosures of abuse made by children and young people being brushed off or not believed.
This was particularly pronounced when children were seen as being ‘bad’ or ‘difficult’, such as children in detention, children experiencing mental ill-health and children with disability. It takes enormous courage for a young person to report the abuse that is happening to them.
They may be fearful, they may experience shame, or be worried that they will not be believed. Institutions need to do everything they can to make those reporting concerns feel safe.
To assist our work, we commissioned research asking children and young people about their experiences of government institutions. This research, documented in the report Take Notice, Believe Us and Act! helped us to understand the issues from the child’s perspective. We learned that Tasmania’s children and young people are insightful and wise.
These children know what makes them feel safe in institutions and what needs to change. Adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse also contributed considerable expertise and practical suggestions to our Commission.
Many adult victim-survivors have recent experiences engaging with institutions and can bring important perspectives on issues such as civil litigation, access to government documents and redress.
We make recommendations in our Report about the need for young and adult victim-survivors to have a voice in designing policies and practices to prevent and respond to child sexual abuse.
They will be an enormous source of information and guidance for the Tasmanian Government as it embarks on a major reform in response to our Report. We call on the Government to recognise that the experience, knowledge and insights offered by victim-survivors, which must be reciprocated through investing in meaningful change.
We believe that most Tasmanians are passionate and committed to upholding the rights and safety of children. Over the course of our Inquiry, we were encouraged by the many Tasmanians we met striving to do their best for children and young people.
We met many people working in institutions—including teachers, health professionals, youth detention staff, police, counsellors, social workers and others—who have been and remain driven by the best interests of children in all they do.
We were impressed by the professionalism and care demonstrated by many State Service employees who live and breathe the values of children’s rights in their service to the community.
We acknowledge those current and former State servants who came forward to share information with us, some of whom have previously drawn attention to child sexual abuse within government institutions.
At times we found that people working in institutions failed to respond appropriately to child sexual abuse because of the flawed systems where they work.
Staff in institutions often told us they did not have proper training to identify the signs of child sexual abuse or felt that the culture of their workplace discouraged speaking up.
The abuse of children thrives when people don’t speak up.
We want all staff and volunteers working with children and young people to feel confident and capable in their abilities.
This includes equipping those volunteers and staff with the skills and knowledge to recognise;
- grooming and the signs of grooming,
- professional boundary breaches,
- child sexual abuse,
- the impacts of child sexual abuse, and
- harmful sexual behaviours, as already discussed by Commissioner Bromfield.
Critically, we also want adults working with children to know the appropriate steps to respond and be confident in their ability to raise concerns and take action to protect and support children.
While it is not the responsibility of children and young people to prevent abuse, we consider age-appropriate child sexual abuse education delivered consistently every year in all Tasmanian state schools will reduce children’s vulnerability to grooming and sexual abuse and increase their knowledge of consent, respectful relationships and what to do if they see or hear something that doesn’t feel right.
We recognise that working in the child safety and youth justice systems, in particular, is not easy. Staff are often working under pressured and volatile conditions, carrying significant risk and responsibility. The work can be distressing and emotionally taxing.
We know that many workers have experienced vicarious trauma and compassion fatigue. If staff do not feel safe and looked after, how can the children and young people they care for be safe?
We call on the Government to recognise the specialist skills needed to perform these roles well and to invest in these essential workforces.
All of us involved in this Commission of Inquiry will not forget what we have learned and experienced:
For my part, this work has both depleted and enriched me.
I thank my co-commissioners, President Neave and Commissioner Bromfield, and the dedicated team at our Commission, for giving so much of themselves over this journey.
We have sought to produce a report that, while it looks backwards in shame and horror to learn necessary lessons, it also looks forward with hope and determination.
My ancestors were builders, and we hope that this report is a foundation to enable Tasmania to construct a much safe place for our children and grandchildren.
Our report is not the end of the journey: it is the beginning.
It is now the responsibility of the Tasmanian Government and Parliament, as policymakers and legislators, to ensure that the State continues this journey to better protect children and young people.
It is also the responsibility of State servants across various Departments and agencies to implement the changes and reforms – not just as laws and rules, but as culture and behaviours.
It is the responsibility of the State to repair and restore the faith in its intuitions where it may have been damaged or lost.
I challenge the Tasmanian community to take action to better protect children and young people. It is up to all of us to be part of any real change.
As we conclude this inquiry, I remain awestruck by the desire and commitment of those who are survivors of child sexual abuse to make a difference for others and to protect children.
I have been humbled by the trust they have placed in this commission for us to do likewise. My hope is that we, through our report, have repaid that trust.