1. Introduction

Globally, community awareness and understanding of the scale and impact of child sexual abuse in institutional settings has increased significantly over the past 10 to 20 years. Major national and international inquiries put these issues in the spotlight, describing the experiences of victim-survivors, their families and their advocates.

In Australia, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (‘National Royal Commission’) ran from 2013 to 2017. The National Royal Commission raised awareness of the experiences of victim-survivors, whose abuse spanned decades and occurred in multiple government and non-government institutions.

In this chapter, we describe the context in which our Commission of Inquiry was established in Tasmania, nationally and internationally. We briefly outline:

• Australia’s international obligations in relation to children and international inquiries into institutional child sexual abuse
• the work of the National Royal Commission and the approaches to implementing its recommendations across Australia
• key national offices, strategies and frameworks relevant to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts
• civil litigation and redress schemes
• reports and inquiries relevant to child sexual abuse in Tasmania over the past 30 years
• key frameworks, strategies and plans that form the current policy context in Tasmania
• the current system for responding to child sexual abuse in Tasmania
• our Commission of Inquiry’s observations about Tasmania’s culture and history in shaping the concerns about child sexual abuse in Government institutions and institutional responses to these concerns.

1. International context

1. International obligations and inquiries

Australia has ratified several international treaties, protocols and declarations relevant to safeguarding the rights of children and promoting their best interests. The Tasmanian Government is not a direct party to these international instruments, and their provisions do not automatically apply in Australian domestic law. However, the human rights protections contained in them should underpin any policy response to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts in Australia.

1. Convention on the Rights of the Child

In 1990, Australia ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.1 All children in Australia, including Tasmania, should enjoy the rights contained in the Convention. Its four guiding principles are:

• respect for the best interests of the child as a primary consideration
• the right to survival and development
• the right of all children to express their views freely on all matters affecting them
• the right of all children to enjoy all the rights of the Convention without discrimination of any kind.2

Articles 19 and 34 of the Convention are particularly relevant to child sexual abuse. These provisions collectively provide children with the right to be protected from all forms of violence and harm, including sexual abuse in institutions.

Australia is also a party to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.3

1. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Australia is also a party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.4 The United Nations (UN) Committee against Torture monitors parties’ compliance with that Convention.

In 2017, the Australian Government ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (‘OPCAT’).5 The OPCAT establishes a preventive system of regular visits to ‘places of detention’ to protect incarcerated people against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Australian Government has indicated this would include youth justice facilities but not residential secure facilities.6

Parties to the OPCAT must set up independent national bodies for preventing torture and ill-treatment, which are called national preventive mechanisms.7 The OPCAT also established the UN Subcommittee on Prevention to monitor conditions in detention and to advise on OPCAT implementation.8

The Australian Government is implementing a nationwide model, with preventive mechanisms nominated for the Commonwealth and each state and territory.9 In 2021, the Tasmanian Parliament enacted the OPCAT Implementation Act 2021 to establish Tasmania’s national preventive mechanisms and to enable the UN Subcommittee on Prevention to exercise its mandate in Tasmania. Richard Connock, who exercises additional oversight roles including as the Ombudsman and Custodial Inspector, was announced as the Tasmanian National Preventive Mechanism in February 2022.10

In its December 2022 concluding observations on Australia’s sixth periodic report, the UN Subcommittee noted that the practice of keeping children in solitary confinement at Ashley Youth Detention Centre contravened the Convention and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the ‘Nelson Mandela Rules’).11 The UN Committee stated in relation to youth justice in Australia generally that it was seriously concerned by:

• the low age of criminal responsibility
• the over-representation of Aboriginal children and children with disabilities in the youth justice system
• reports of abuse, racist remarks and use of restraint
• the high number of children in detention
• the lack of segregation between children and adults in detention
• children’s lack of awareness of their rights and how to report abuses.12

1. Other relevant instruments

Australia is a party to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.13 Australia also supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, although this is a non-binding instrument.14 These instruments apply to adults and children.15 There are no specific provisions in these instruments in relation to sexual abuse.16 However, Australia’s ratification of the two Conventions and its support for the Declaration signals the need to consider the specific vulnerabilities of children with disability, children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and Aboriginal children.

In addition to these instruments, Australia is a party to the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, which entered into force in Australia in August 2003 and provides for international cooperation in recognising child protection measures.17 Australia is also a party to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, which also now applies to Australian domestic family law.18

1. International inquiries

Since 1999, there have been extensive inquiries into institutional child sexual abuse conducted in Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom (with separate inquiries in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Jersey) and the United States.19 The period under review in these inquiries extends from 1922 to 2018.20

These inquiries reported on common themes of physical, sexual and emotional abuse as well as:

• neglect, fear and other factors that prevented children from reporting
• a reluctance among adults, including employees, to report abuse to authorities
• awareness of abuse and known abusers in communities
• a lack of appropriate procedures to prevent and respond to abuse
• where procedures did exist, poor or inconsistent implementation.

1. National context

1. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

In November 2012, the Australian Government announced the National Royal Commission.21 During its inquiry, the National Royal Commission published several interim and topic-specific reports, concluding with its final report in December 2017.22 Its findings and recommendations applied to the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, and non-government organisations. As previously noted, our Commission of Inquiry builds on, but does not repeat, the work of the National Royal Commission.

As part of its five-year inquiry, the National Royal Commission examined responses to child sexual abuse in Australian public, private, community and religious institutions. It considered in detail child sexual abuse that occurred in those institutions over many decades and the inadequacy of the responses to this abuse.

The National Royal Commission made 409 recommendations aimed at making institutions safer for children, preventing child sexual abuse, improving identification and responses, and providing redress and better supports for victim-survivors. Those recommendations were informed by submissions from and consultations with members of the Tasmanian community including two Tasmanian case studies and 188 private sessions in Tasmania.23

The Commonwealth, state and territory governments, together with parts of the non-government sector, are responsible for implementing the recommendations of the National Royal Commission. In their formal responses to the recommendations, each jurisdiction identified which recommendations they were responsible for implementing and those that would be implemented by the Commonwealth Government, other states and territories or non-government institutions. There is considerable variation between the reponses of the states and territories in terms of the level of detail and the action taken in response to specific recommendations.24

There is also some variation and uncertainty in the allocation of responsibility for implementation. For example, the Tasmanian Government initially noted that responsibility for recommendations to assess children displaying harmful sexual behaviours and to adequately fund therapeutic responses was ‘to be determined’.25 However, the Tasmanian Government’s 2022 progress report and action plan noted it had engaged the Sexual Assault Support Service to deliver a statewide therapeutic program for children and young people displaying problematic and harmful sexual behaviours, which began in April 2021.26 This engagement implemented a commitment under Safe Homes, Families and Communities: Tasmania’s Action Plan for Family and Sexual Violence 2019–2022.27

More importantly, from its progress report in 2020 onwards, the Government began referring to its action plans for family violence as also including ‘sexual violence’ and fulfilling many of the National Royal Commission’s recommendations.28 Our concerns about this approach—combining the response to family violence with institutional child sexual abuse—are discussed in Chapter 19.

The Tasmanian Government established a response unit now referred to as the Child Abuse Royal Commission Response Unit (‘Royal Commission Response Unit’), in the Department of Justice to lead implementation of the National Royal Commission recommendations.29 Among other things, the Royal Commission Response Unit coordinates annual reporting requirements in relation to the Tasmanian Government’s implementation of the recommendations and the Government’s response to relevant National Redress claims.

At the time our Commission of Inquiry began, some National Royal Commission recommendations had been implemented or were in progress, such as reforms to the criminal justice system. However, other key recommendations—such as establishing a reportable conduct scheme and child safe organisations—had not been implemented. As part of our Commission of Inquiry, we considered why there had been little progress and coordination of the Tasmanian Government’s response to some recommendations. In some instances, we found a lack of clarity or sense of ownership or responsibility for implementation. We also noted delays and uneven implementation. For example, consultation on the first draft of the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Bill began in December 2020, three years after the National Royal Commission delivered its final report; however, a final version of the Bill was not introduced to Parliament until November 2022 (refer to Chapter 18 for more about the Child and Youth Safe Standards).30

1. Key national offices, strategies and frameworks

Over the past decade, various national reforms have been introduced to better protect children in institutional contexts and to provide redress for victim-survivors. Many of these strategies and activities implement National Royal Commission recommendations. The following section briefly outlines key offices, strategies and frameworks that promote child safety.

1. Key agencies and offices

At the national level, the following agencies and offices contribute to promoting child safety, particularly in relation to child sexual abuse:

• National Children’s Commissioner—established in 2012, the role sits within the Australian Human Rights Commission.31 The National Children’s Commissioner developed the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations.
• Commonwealth Government, National Office for Child Safety—established in 2018, the office leads the development and implementation of several national priorities recommended by the National Royal Commission.32 These priorities include the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse, the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations and the Commonwealth Child Safe Framework. The office is also responsible for improving information-sharing arrangements to strengthen child safety and wellbeing. It receives annual progress reports from non-government institutions on implementing the National Royal Commission recommendations.
• National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse—currently funded by the Australian Government, the centre is a not-for-profit joint venture between the Blue Knot Foundation, The Healing Foundation and the Australian Childhood Foundation. It was established following the National Royal Commission and aims to ‘increase understanding of child sexual abuse, promote effective ways for protecting children, guide best practice responses and pathways to healing for survivors and reduce the harm it causes’.33
• The Department of Social Services—the Department has responsibility for Safe and Supported: the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2021–23 and the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022–32, and for administering the National Redress Scheme that compensates victim-survivors of child abuse.34

1. Key strategies and frameworks

The agencies and offices outlined above contributed to various national strategies and frameworks and oversee their implementation. These strategies and frameworks include:

• National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021–30—recommended by the National Royal Commission and overseen by the National Office for Child Safety, the National Strategy was developed by the Australian Government in partnership with state and territory governments. It aims to establish a ‘nationally coordinated and consistent way to prevent and better respond to child sexual abuse in all settings’.35 It is implemented through action plans. The first two action plans run for four years from 2021 to 2024.36
• Safe and Supported: the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2021–2031—developed by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, together with Aboriginal representatives and the non-government sector, this national framework supports the right of children and young people to grow up ‘safe, connected and supported in their family, community and culture’, with the goal of making significant and sustained progress in reducing the rate of child abuse and neglect and its intergenerational impacts.37 The framework also embeds the priority reforms in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. It is implemented through two sets of action plans.
• National Principles for Child Safe Organisations—the former Council of Australian Governments endorsed the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations in February 2019 to align with and support the child safe standards recommended by the National Royal Commission.38 The National Principles are designed to ‘build capacity and deliver child safety and wellbeing in organisations, families and communities and prevent future harm’.39
• Commonwealth Child Safe Framework—developed in 2019 in response to recommendations of the National Royal Commission, the framework ‘sets minimum standards for Commonwealth entities to create and maintain behaviours and practices that are safe for children’.40
• National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022–2032—developed and endorsed by Commonwealth, state and territory ministers with responsibility for women’s safety, the plan builds on the previous National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children 2010–2022. It commits to ending violence against women and children in one generation.41

1. Tasmanian context

1. Past Tasmanian inquiries and reports

Over the past 30 years, numerous inquiries and reports initiated by the Tasmanian Government and independent agencies have reviewed the treatment of children in institutional contexts in Tasmania.

Since 1989, at least 14 Tasmanian reports or inquiries have considered issues relevant to child sexual abuse in institutional settings.42 Together, they made almost 600 recommendations for reform. Most of these reports considered system-wide concerns in the context of child protection, while a small number focused on a particular issue such as child sexual abuse. Only two reports, in 1989 and 1998, specifically explored child sexual abuse in institutional settings in detail.43

The various reports and inquiries identified recurring themes including:

• a strong desire from agencies and organisations that work with or care for children to keep children safe
• an overwhelmed child protection system that has struggled for many years, if not decades
• a poor workplace culture in Tasmania’s child safety system
• unclear and incomplete policies, procedures and guidelines for working with children who have been sexually abused
• deficiencies in information documentation, management and sharing, particularly in relation to decision-making processes concerning children at risk of abuse or neglect
• a lack of training and support for those who work with children who are victim-survivors of abuse, including sexual abuse
• a lack of suitable out of home care placements for children who are victim-survivors of sexual abuse or have engaged in harmful sexual behaviours against other children
• a lack of training and support for carers who look after children who are victim-survivors of sexual abuse or who have engaged in harmful sexual behaviours against other children
• a lack of early intervention in cases involving child sexual abuse, as well as poor availability of specific services for children
• the need for legislative reforms to modernise offences relating to child sexual abuse and improve court processes for children who experience sexual abuse
• resistance to calls for a commission of inquiry into child protection and other related areas.

Past reports repeatedly highlight that the systems in place to protect children from abuse and neglect, including child sexual abuse, do not perform as intended. The reports also highlight that recommendations have not always been implemented in a timely manner, are under-resourced, or, when implemented, are not subject to appropriate monitoring and oversight to ensure the intended outcomes are achieved.

In addition to these 14 inquiries and reports, since 2005 there have been at least eight reports concerning the Tasmanian health system, 18 reports concerning out of home care and 12 reports concerning Ashley Youth Detention Centre.44 Between them, these reports have made more than 500 recommendations for reform. Most of these reports do not consider the issue of child sexual abuse in detail. However, they concern factors that can influence the culture and safety in these institutional environments, which have the potential to increase the risk of child sexual abuse occurring or not being identified. These factors also shape organisational responses to incidents and allegations of child sexual abuse.

Most recently, the Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, completed in June 2021, made 20 recommendations about changes to governance and leadership, policies and procedures, training and professional development.45 The independent review into the health system and investigation of staff at Ashley Youth Detention Centre announced in late 2020 ceased when our Commission of Inquiry started.46 Relevant reports and inquiries are discussed in more detail in the chapters on these institutions (refer to Volumes 3–6).

Despite these past reports, which have collectively made more than 1,000 recommendations, the increasing concerns about child sexual abuse in institutional contexts suggest there is a pattern of poor implementation of recommended reforms and a need for stronger intervention to adequately protect children.

1. Tasmanian Claims of Abuse in State Care Program

Tasmania’s Claims of Abuse in State Care Program was announced in 2003 and was accessible to anyone who had been abused in state care in Tasmania.47 It had tri-partisan support and was designed to ‘acknowledge the past failures of the Out of Home Care system and to help those who had been abused in State Government care’.48 The program offered ex gratia payments of up to $60,000 to claimants, although this was reduced to $35,000 in the program’s fourth and final round from 2011 to 2013.49 Between 2004 and 2013:

• 2,414 claimants applied, of whom 1,848 were assessed as eligible
• $54.8 million dollars in payments were made.50

Although each of the program’s four rounds produced reports, the third report was not made publicly available and we were not able to access a copy. In addition, there is no overall analysis of the data showing how many claims of child sexual abuse were made in relation to different types of care. Excluding the 995 claimants from the third round for whom data are not available, 510 people made claims of sexual abuse in state care.51

Under the scheme, claimants could discuss the effect of the abuse they experienced. They identified a range of physical, psychological and social impacts including:

• ongoing health conditions, mental health issues and trauma
• low sense of self-esteem and self-worth
• difficulties with parenting
• misuse of alcohol and drugs.52

Claimants were also offered counselling sessions and the opportunity to receive legal advice.53

At the conclusion of the Claims of Abuse in State Care Program, the Abuse in State Care Support Service was established to help people who had not applied for redress under the program.54 This service is still in operation, although it only offers minimal support. We discuss this scheme in more detail in Volume 5 and Chapter 17.

1. Tasmanian policy context

As outlined above, the Tasmanian Government has committed to various national frameworks and strategies and to the National Redress Scheme. It has also enacted civil and criminal justice reforms to implement key National Royal Commission recommendations. Separate to these reforms, the Government has developed state-level frameworks and strategies. This section provides an overview of key frameworks, strategies and plans, which are examined in detail in Chapter 19.

Tasmania has also had a Commissioner for Children and Young People since 2000. The Commissioner’s role is considered further in Chapter 18.

To better protect children and respond to incidents of child sexual abuse in institutional contexts, the National Royal Commission recommended that all state and territory governments enact child safe standards and a reportable conduct scheme.55 The Tasmanian Government’s efforts to enact these standards and scheme are discussed in more detail in Chapter 18.

1. Survivors at the Centre

In November 2022, the Tasmanian Government released its third whole of government plan to prevent and respond to family and sexual violence: Survivors at the Centre: Tasmania’s Third Family and Sexual Violence Action Plan 2022–2027.56

Survivors at the Centre, and previous action plans, address family and sexual violence in a single overarching plan. While many of the 38 actions in Survivors at the Centre are relevant to children, particularly in the context of family violence, only two actions specifically concern sexual violence and abuse in relation to children and young people.57 A further 10 actions are relevant to sexual assault services, which could include child sexual abuse, depending on how they are implemented.58

It is important to differentiate between the Government’s response to family violence and its response to sexual violence, including child sexual abuse. Family violence can include familial child sexual abuse, but we are concerned that addressing child sexual abuse in the context of family violence does not adequately address abuse within schools, health care settings, out of home care and youth detention. These concerns are considered further in Chapter 19.

1. Strong Families—Safe Kids

In 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services released its report, Redesign of Child Protection Services Tasmania: ‘Strong Families—Safe Kids’.59 The report aimed to redesign child protection services to address ‘entrenched culture, processes and structures of the current Child Protection Services’ identified by the then Minister for Human Services, who further noted in a statement to Parliament that the child protection system ‘faces potential collapse if comprehensive reform action is not taken’.60 The scope of our Commission of Inquiry does not extend to all aspects of the child protection system, although some of the structures in that system are relevant to institutional child sexual abuse.

In response to the report, the Government, among other things, established the Strong Families, Safe Kids Advice and Referral Line (‘Advice and Referral Line’) as the first point of contact for anyone with a concern about child wellbeing and safety.61 Concerns about child sexual abuse, including within institutional settings, are reported to the Advice and Referral Line in the first instance.

In June 2018, the Government also published the Tasmanian Child and Youth Wellbeing Framework, which aims to implement a common understanding across services and the community.62 As part of this framework, the Government committed to developing a child and youth wellbeing strategy.63 The new strategy, It Takes a Tasmanian Village: Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy, was launched in August 2021.64 The strategy includes a priority to support children and young people at risk. Within this priority, it commits to considering ‘the development of a Tasmanian approach, including models of multidisciplinary practice, to address child sexual exploitation’.65 Other than this commitment, the strategy does not specifically prioritise responses to child sexual abuse.

1. The Tasmanian community, culture and history

Any response to child sexual abuse in Tasmanian Government institutions needs to consider Tasmania’s culture and demographics. Tasmania is an island state, with a small, regionally dispersed population. It comprises just over 2 per cent of the Australian population, with about 571,000 residents.66 Founded as a penal colony for British convicts in the early 19th century, it has a history of relatively low social and economic mobility, high cultural homogeneity and, until the past decade, limited inward migration.

Tasmania’s relatively small size, history and geographic isolation create a sense of separation from the rest of Australia. However, this sense is not unique. There are parallels with other island states and nations that have been subject to similar inquiries into child sexual abuse, such as Ireland and Jersey.67 Like those jurisdictions, social connections in the Tasmanian community are frequently close and deep, established over generations.

These connections create a strong sense of community identity and can be a significant source of strength and resilience. However, they can also be a source of harm. For example, the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry heard frequent references to the ‘Jersey Way’, noting in its report:

On some occasions it was used in a positive way, to describe a strong culture of community and voluntary involvement across the island, and this is something we recognise as a strength of the island … On most occasions, however, the ‘Jersey Way’ was used in a pejorative way, to describe a perceived system whereby serious issues are swept under the carpet and people escape being held to account for abuses perpetrated.68

Ultimately, the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry concluded that ‘an inappropriate regard for the “Jersey Way” is likely to have inhibited the prompt development of policy and legislation concerning children’.69

This section provides a brief demographic profile of Tasmania, with a focus on children and discussion of various socioeconomic factors. It then considers elements of Tasmania’s culture and history that have deterred victim-survivors, their families and others from reporting child sexual abuse in institutional contexts and have also contributed to poor responses to reports of abuse.

1. Demographics

1. Children in Tasmania: geography, cultural diversity and vulnerability

Children aged 19 or younger (the age brackets measured by the Australian Bureau of Statistics) make up 23.2 per cent of the Tasmanian population.70 This is slightly lower than the 25 per cent of the overall Australian population.71 While this Tasmanian cohort has a broad geographical distribution, most live in the Hobart region (54,904), followed by Launceston and the north-east (33,270), west and North West (25,801) and south-east (8,517).72

Tasmania has been relatively culturally homogeneous. In 2014, only 8.8 per cent of Tasmanian children and youth aged 12 to 24 years had culturally and linguistically diverse ancestry, compared with the national average of 25.1 per cent.73 Cultural diversity is now changing.

Based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data as of 30 June 2021, Tasmania has a high proportion of children who identify as Aboriginal, at 11.4 per cent of children aged 19 years or younger, compared with 6.74 per cent nationally.74 The proportion is the second highest in Australia after the Northern Territory.75

The proportion of children aged 14 years or younger with disability is higher in Tasmania at 10.2 per cent of the population of children, compared with the national average of 7.7 per cent.76

Tasmania has a relatively low number of children in contact with child protection services. In 2019–20, 2,234 Tasmanian children received child protection services.77 This figure represents 19.8 per 1,000 children receiving services, compared with a national rate of 31.0 per 1,000 children.78 We note that receiving child protection services is defined as one or more of the following occurring: being subject to an investigation of a notification, being on a care and protection order, or being in out of home care.79 This definition does not include children assessed by child protection intake who are ‘screened out’. The data for Tasmania further exclude children not under care and protection orders placed with relatives, for whom a financial contribution is made under the Supported Extended Family or Relatives Allowance programs.80

The number of children in youth detention in Tasmania is also low. In the 2019–20 financial year, the average daily number of young people in youth detention was 15.4.81 While the number of children in detention is low, the rate of children in detention is relatively high. In the June quarter of 2020, the rate of children aged 10 to 17 in detention in Tasmania was 2.3 per 10,000 people, whereas South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales had rates of 1.8, 1.9 and 2.0 per 10,000 people respectively. The national average was 2.6 per 10,000 people.82

1. Socioeconomic profile

Tasmania has a higher proportion of people living in its most socioeconomically disadvantaged areas compared with the national average.83 It is also marked by low sociogeographic mobility. According to Professor Richard Eccleston of the University of Tasmania:

Research suggests that those residing in these socioeconomically disadvantaged areas are less mobile and unlikely to move around the State to seek employment or live in other communities … It is also common for families living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas of Tasmania to have lived in the same community for generations. This creates a strong sense of connectedness in those communities which may also contribute to the lack of intrastate movement amongst these populations.84

Tasmania’s relatively homogenous population has been maintained, until recently, by low inward migration.85 However, since 2015, the trend has been reversed, with a net increase in migration from interstate and overseas.86

On several key economic metrics, Tasmania performs worse than the national average. For example, Tasmania has the lowest labour market participation rate, the lowest average weekly ordinary time–cash earnings and the highest underemployment rate in the country.87

It is generally accepted that, on average, Tasmanians also have poorer literacy rates and educational outcomes than other Australians.88 A survey undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that the literacy skills of Tasmanians aged 15–74 were consistently below the national average, as were numeracy skills, health literacy skills and problem-solving skills.89 Educational outcomes for Tasmanians are similarly below the national average, as shown by poorer results in the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy.90

1. Culture

What is it about Tasmania as a community that makes us reluctant to deal with this?91

During hearings, and through submissions and consultations, we heard about the unique culture and history of Tasmania. Witnesses and participants pointed to the connectedness of local communities as a source of support and resilience. However, many also pointed to a darker aspect of this connection that may deter people from speaking up about abuse, lead them to accept behaviour that should not be tolerated and result in inadequate institutional responses when incidents of abuse are reported. In an article for The Conversation, Rodney Croome, a Tasmanian social reform activist, described the contradictions at the centre of Tasmania’s culture:

Tasmania is both the abominable Fatal Shore and the felicitous Apple Isle, together at the same time. The fact that such a paradox can exist in the heart of a single people and place is not easy to grasp. But without at least attempting to grapple with Tasmania’s contradictions, the island remains impossible to explain.92

When considering the influence of culture, we distinguish between culture in a ‘societal’ sense and organisational culture. We refer to Tasmanian societal culture as consisting of many intangible aspects of Tasmania’s social life including ‘shared, socially learned knowledge and patterns of behaviour’.93 We use the term ‘organisational culture’ to refer to the values, ethics, attitudes, behaviours and traditions that influence the social and psychological environment of an institution or organisation.94 However, it is also important to note that, while distinct, there is overlap between ‘societal-level cultural influences’ and ‘organisational culture’ because the factors that shape the latter are related to, or are situated within, the former.95 This section considers how culture in the societal sense has influenced organisational and institutional responses to child sexual abuse in Tasmania.

As previously outlined, Tasmania is a small island community that for much of its history has been relatively remote and, to an extent, isolated from what many in the community refer to as ‘the mainland’. Compared with more populous states such as Victoria and New South Wales, Tasmania is a more regionalised community, with families frequently living and working in the same area for generations. Up until the past decade, Tasmania has had low rates of inward migration. As stated by Tasmanian historian Professor Cassandra Pybus:

Historically, Tasmania has had less multicultural immigration, and more outward migration, than other jurisdictions. Tasmania was an extremely monocultural place in the early 1980s and into the 21st century. As a result, until quite recently, there have been fewer opportunities for cultural change propelled by external influences.96

In consultations, sessions with a Commissioner and submissions, people frequently spoke of ‘everyone knowing everyone’ and of overlapping connections in their personal and professional lives.97 This overlap is reflected in recent research that found a higher proportion of recruitment for jobs in Tasmania occurs through personal networks compared with other jurisdictions. As cited by Professor Eccleston, a report by the Tasmanian Policy Exchange found that:

Tasmanian employers rely more heavily on informal networks for recruitment than any other state. Specifically, 32% of recruitment in Tasmania occurs without the job being advertised (the second highest being Northern Territory at 26%) and 38% of recruitment occurs via word of mouth (the second highest being Northern Territory at 24%).98

Government institutions are major employers in some local areas, creating a strong connection and economic reliance between the community and local institution. For example, as outlined in Chapter 10, Ashley Youth Detention Centre is a major employer in the area around Deloraine.

1. Support and resilience: the strengths of close connections

As noted above, we heard of the support and strength many Tasmanians derive from their close community connections. Referring to the socioeconomic measures outlined above, Professor Eccleston stated:

We’ve got many strengths in the community which are not captured in those basic economic metrics, with a strong sense of connectedness, community identity and resilience that really comes from our history and I think the nature of our community.99

In a 2013 article for The Conversation, demographer Lisa Denny wrote:

Tasmanians are resourceful and innovative people; they have to be, to continually adapt to the challenges presented by the makeup of our population, the diverse terrain and our isolation by virtue of our island status. It is thanks to this resourcefulness that Tasmania exists as it does today …100

We also heard that Tasmania’s relatively small size and closely connected communities can make institutions more agile in responding to issues, sharing information and implementing changes to policy and process (or at least they have the potential to do so). For example, in his evidence during the hearings, victim-survivor Samuel Leishman stated:

We talk about Tasmania as being a small jurisdiction and a small island, and it’s isolating and, you know, we don’t have the resources and how difficult all of that is because of that and we have to look at other states and see what they’re doing ... and let’s just do this piecemeal approach down here. I sometimes think, well, why do we look at it like that, why can’t we look at Tasmania as being a small, isolated state and that’s actually our advantage? We are small, we can set the standards and we can be the one that says, this is the benchmark that everyone else has to meet, and we can do that because we’re small and because we’re isolated. There’s no reason why we can’t do things better here than the rest of the country.101

1. Silencing, reprisals and denial: the harmful impact of close connections

While close personal and professional connections can be a source of strength, they can also lead to silencing and suppression of those who would otherwise speak out about abuse, retribution against those who do and acceptance of behaviour that should be questioned. They may also cause poor institutional responses to formal reports of abuse, extending in some instances to obfuscation and denial. In addition, there is the human tendency to disbelieve that a person one knows and likes could perpetrate child sexual abuse, which has prevented people seeing the obvious or believing those who speak up. The Nurse podcast reported one person expressing fear about raising concerns against the Tasmanian Government:

I am so sorry I can’t do this—I feel it would be a target on my back and I have seen too many others who speak out get victimised. I don’t want to spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder and I’m petrified for the impact this could have on my family. I would never know, if that contract doesn’t get renewed, or that job application doesn’t go through, if it’s because I spoke out against the Tasmanian Government. I would never know if I’ve put my family at risk and that’s the one thing more important than this.102

Over the course of our Commission of Inquiry, we heard of instances where fear of reprisal affecting people’s personal and professional lives deterred them from making reports of child sexual abuse through official channels. In her statement, Professor Pybus described the link between Tasmania’s small size and the reluctance to report and respond to abuse:

A potential discloser of child sexual abuse is likely to know someone who is in some way connected with or implicated in the abuse. Everyone up and down the chain from the alleged perpetrator would be concerned about the implications of a report,

and taking action on a report, in terms of negative press, employment prospects and so on. This can create a fear of reprisal and a reluctance to take … proper disciplinary action at the institutional level.103

One victim-survivor submitted she felt ‘totally powerless against the system’ and in making a complaint ‘it certainly crosses my mind, that I am committing career suicide as many will “not believe”, “view me differently”, “treat me as other and a liar”’.104

Another victim-survivor, Rachel (a pseudonym), described the impact of living in the same small community as her alleged abuser following a public statement that purported to clear the alleged abuser of a breach of the State Service Act 2000 (‘State Service Act’): ‘I wanted to hide. I ended up leaving that community. I didn’t want to stay there, and even to today I’m so fearful of being in that community’.105

Participants at community consultations gave similar examples of professional repercussions for people who reported abuse or ‘dobbed’, such as not being given a promotion or being isolated at work. One participant said reminding someone that they owed their position to their connection with another person was a ‘very Tasmanian activity’, stating ‘people were tapped—someone said to me “I own you”—everyone owes their jobs to other people’.106 These comments align with the Tasmanian Policy Exchange’s research previously outlined about the role of informal networks in recruitment.

Victim-survivors and others also worried they would not be believed if they reported the abuse, noting a tendency to believe and protect adults over children. In evidence to our Commission of Inquiry, journalist Emily Baker stated:

I think in a small place like Tasmania there’s a fear about personal repercussions, professional repercussions, what the broader community might think of them, that they won’t be believed … that nothing will change.107

In sessions with a Commissioner, several people referred to the influence of employee unions in protecting members’ interests when allegations of child sexual abuse are made against them, rather than the interests of the child.108

Others felt their concerns would be dismissed as an overreaction or misinterpretation of behaviours that in other circumstances would be considered grooming or red flags indicating a risk of abuse. As discussed in The Nurse podcast, comments on the behaviour of James Griffin in Launceston were dismissed as ‘that’s just Jim’.109 In evidence, Professor Eccleston commented:

In a very relatively tightly connected community, if you are aware of abuse, misconduct or other illegal activities, perhaps you might be in denial. You know, I know this person’s families, forebears … so you may be less willing to disclose.110

Because of these pressures, witnesses and others reported feeling a lack of trust in official channels to make complaints. When journalist Camille Bianchi was asked during examination whether she was the first port of call for her sources, she responded: ‘I think I was the last port of call … the perception was that there was no other outlet’.111

In discussing a systemic ‘culture of silence and reprisal’ across the State Service, whistleblower Alysha (a pseudonym) described her experience as a member of staff who raised concerns about the treatment of children at Ashley Youth Detention Centre.112 She felt she had little choice but to go to the media:

I never wanted to ‘blow the whistle’ or engage with the media. I could think of nothing worse then or now. It was out of sheer despair and having exhausted all ‘typical’ and ‘more palatable’ reporting avenues that I felt I needed to, as a matter of public interest and out of feelings of personal and professional obligation to ensure someone responded in an appropriate manner to what I have witnessed at the Centre. After having had a rewarding, successful life prior to the Centre, I deeply resent what I have been put through and the lengths that I have been required to take to be heard regarding these matters … the media can sometimes be the only effective avenue available to whistle-blowers in Tasmania—which signifies a significant gap in the system. No one should have to feel like they need to choose between public safety and their personal safety.

…

I have witnessed a culture and entrenched belief system that … protects staff accused of wrongdoing, and persecutes those that promote change, or who report misconduct.113

Close connections can also drive parochialism, which can create boundaries between communities. We heard about divisions and distinctions that contribute to forming community identity and a sense of loyalty. For example, we heard of the distinction between ‘mainlanders’ and Tasmanians, and between the north and south of Tasmania. Within these boundaries, distinctions continue to multiply to create smaller and smaller divisions.

These distinctions create a sense of protectiveness within a community that can manifest in a reluctance to criticise or be self-reflective or to publicly acknowledge and respond to problems. In commenting on the role of the local media, journalist Ms Baker noted that when working for the newspaper The Examiner:

… the sense was, we’re here to champion the north, we’re here to talk up the north, we’ll tell good stories about the north and I do think that’s an important role that a local newspaper plays, you’re part of the community’s identity and you should be of course telling the good stories that come with that. Sometimes there are not good stories though …114

Journalists also reported being pressured not to report on allegations of abuse because they are ‘private matters’ that should not be aired in public.115 Ms Bianchi referred to ‘a sense of, “this isn’t nice, this isn’t productive, this isn’t helpful”’.116 More seriously, journalists referred to pressures from State Service employees suggesting that their reporting would directly harm children and others.117 Ms Baker stated ‘there have been several occasions when I’ve been told … that I’m going to cause someone to take their own life, my reporting will lead to that dreadful outcome ... That is often used’.118

This tendency in Tasmanian culture to deny or suppress reports of misconduct affects an institution’s responses to allegations of child sexual abuse. It can lead to an institutional culture of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, where people in hierarchies seek to protect themselves and those in senior positions from knowledge that is difficult to handle. In a government context, this ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ culture may lead public servants to not brief ministers or departmental secretaries on matters of concern. Conversely, ministers and secretaries may benefit from not asking difficult questions.

In consultations, participants spoke of a cultural tendency towards covering up, conflicts of interest and a lack of transparency in responses to allegations of abuse.119 In the context of limited staff availability in Tasmania, one participant spoke of raising concerns about another staff member and being told: ‘Save your breath, we need the person’.120 In his statement to our Commission of Inquiry, Professor Eccleston suggested a possible link between poor institutional responses and limited workforce mobility in the State Service:

… longevity of employment within the [State Service] can be a double-edged sword. It results in an older and more stable workforce but is perhaps less dynamic and diverse, and implementing cultural change can be a slower process. Given the broader community dynamics in Tasmania, there is also a risk that obligations to colleagues might trump obligations to uphold high ethical standards in the workplace.121

Similarly, we heard evidence of requests for information from government agencies being met with delays and refusals. Ms Bianchi described lengthy processes when seeking documents from the Department of Health under the Right to Information Act 2009, which involved referral to the Ombudsman for review.122 The process to obtain the requested documents took approximately 22 months.123

The Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2021–22 states that it was concerning that 95 per cent of the external reviews of Right to Information requests conducted in 2021–22 ‘identified issues with the manner in which the public authority had responded to a request for assessed disclosure’.124 While some progress had been made compared with previous years, the Ombudsman wrote:

The express object of the [Right to Information] Act is clear in relation to its pro-disclosure focus, seeking to increase government accountability and acknowledging that the public has a right to the information held by public authorities who are acting on behalf of the people of Tasmania. Too often, sadly, adherence to this object is not evident in practice and a closed, and at times obstructive, approach is taken when responding to requests for assessed disclosure which come before my office.125

In 2020, the Ombudsman reported that for the year 2018–19, the rate at which Tasmanian Government institutions refused access to any information in response to Right to Information requests (30 per cent) was 7.5 times the rate of Australia’s most open jurisdictions, Victoria and the Northern Territory (4 per cent).126

Commenting on institutional responses to claims of child sexual abuse and suppression of information, journalist David Killick suggested that: ‘Keeping bad news—or any news—from reaching the public isn’t some kind of aberration. It is the defining characteristic of this state’s political culture’.127

1. The influence of history

Some people suggest that the fear of speaking out in Tasmania has its roots in Tasmania’s history as a penal colony and the social structures and cultural norms that have been sustained on the island since that time. Mr Killick said:

It is a relic of our convict past, this fear of speaking out. It is a straight line from ‘Don’t upset the overseer’ to ‘Don’t trouble the Minister’.128

Professor Pybus said:

The persistence of colonial societal features—a well-entrenched elite, mistrust of authority within portions of the population, and a pervasive sense of shame—provide some explanation for the occurrence of child sexual abuse in Tasmanian institutions being unreported and unaddressed. In this environment, the silencing of disclosures and conversations about sexual abuse has been normalised over many decades.129

Of course, other jurisdictions without a colonial past also experience a reluctance to disclose child sexual abuse—as evidenced by the many international inquiries into child sexual abuse. However, Tasmania’s history provides a specific context for this reluctance in relation to our Commission of Inquiry.

Professor Pybus spoke of the division between the descendants of convicts and free settlers, which lasted longer than in other jurisdictions due to low inward migration. She noted that: ‘even into the 20th century, there has been less intermarriage between people of the free settler and convict classes in Tasmania, compared to other states’.130 These divisions are linked to the sense already described that ‘everyone knows everyone’, with family connections going back generations.

Professor Pybus connected Tasmania’s history of brutal penal institutions, which controlled the convict classes and their children, with more recent abusive institutional environments for children. She asked: ‘if you look at a place like Point Puer in the 19th century and a place like the Ashley Boys Home in the 20th century, you’d say, what is the difference between these two places? To what extent is the same licence for abuse going to be operating?’131

Our Commission of Inquiry’s fundamental purpose is to effect genuine cultural change to better prevent and respond to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts. There is some evidence of a cultural shift in this regard. During the hearings, Professor Pybus noted recent changes in the Tasmanian community leading to cultural change. She stated: ‘the demographics are changing dramatically and with it is coming a breakdown of the kind of traditional cultural relationships that have kept a sort of code of silence’.132 She further commented:

Tasmanian society is now much more cosmopolitan than it was even 15 years ago. It has become an attractive place for others to emigrate. Demographic change in Tasmania has been a key driver of a shift in cultural attitudes. In 2022, I think there is a huge openness in the community, and a greater desire to have difficult conversations and make recompense.133

Both Professor Pybus and Professor Eccleston identified that the Commission of Inquiry itself was playing a role in changing the Tasmanian culture of secrecy and staying silent by:

• allowing a process of ‘truth-telling’
• acknowledging and raising awareness about the occurrence of child sexual abuse
• making it clear that child sexual abuse is unacceptable
• providing redress and support for victim-survivors
• establishing ways for addressing such abuse when it occurs.134

1. Current response to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts

It was difficult for our Commission of Inquiry to determine the current Tasmanian response to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts. We asked the Tasmanian Government to describe their child sexual abuse system but only received brief descriptions of different efforts by various agencies, without an overarching outline of the system.135 The section below is our best attempt at providing an outline of the current Tasmanian response to child sexual abuse in an institutional context, including efforts for identifying, responding to and preventing child sexual abuse, and supports for victim-survivors. The Tasmanian child sexual abuse response system, as with all jurisdictions, crosses multiple agencies. Each element is discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters.

1. Prevention

The Tasmania Government is a party to the recently released National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021–30. The National Strategy focuses on preventing child sexual abuse.136 The Tasmanian Government has recently announced or implemented some initiatives with a connection to preventing child sexual abuse, including educational programs and resources.137

1. Individual agencies

Individual agencies within the Tasmanian Government are responsible for preventing, identifying, reporting and responding to child sexual abuse within their organisation. Agencies achieve this by ensuring their organisations are child safe, as recommended by the National Royal Commission and articulated in the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations. This is currently a voluntary process. The National Principles for Child Safe Organisations are:

1. Child safety and wellbeing is embedded in organisational leadership, governance and culture.
2. Children and young people are informed about their rights, participate in decisions affecting them and are taken seriously.
3. Families and communities are informed and involved in promoting child safety and wellbeing.
4. Equity is upheld and diverse needs respected in policy and practice.
5. People working with children and young people are suitable and supported to reflect child safety and wellbeing values in practice.
6. Processes to respond to complaints and concerns are child focused.
7. Staff and volunteers are equipped with the knowledge, skills and awareness to keep children and young people safe through ongoing education and training.
8. Physical and online environments promote safety and wellbeing while minimising the opportunity for children and young people to be harmed.
9. Implementation of the national child safe principles is regularly reviewed and improved.
10. Policies and procedures document how the organisation is safe for children and young people.138

A legislative framework that includes a plan for implementing the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations has been underway since 2020, with the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Bill 2022 introduced into the Parliament of Tasmania in November 2022 and passed into law on 13 June 2023. Under the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act 2023 (‘Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act’), government departments that provide services specifically for children (such as schools) or provide facilities specifically for use by children who are under their supervision (such as out of home care or youth detention) must comply with a set of 10 Child and Youth Safe Standards.139

Among other important standards, Standard 6 of the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act provides that organisations must have child-focused processes to respond to complaints of child sexual abuse. In the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations, this includes processes for making notifications to relevant bodies and disciplinary processes.140 Staff or organisations may have mandatory or voluntary reporting obligations in relation to child sexual abuse under the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997 (‘Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act’) (to Child Safety Services), the Criminal Code Act 1924 (‘Criminal Code Act’) (to police), the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (to the scheme’s Quality and Safeguards Commission) and professional registration frameworks (such as to the regulatory bodies for teachers or health practitioners).141

Tasmanian Government organisations’ disciplinary processes in response to staff alleged to have committed child sexual abuse or related conduct are governed by the State Service Employment Framework. This framework is shaped by:

• the State Service Act, which outlines the rights and responsibilities of state servants and Heads of Agencies (that is, secretaries of departments)
• the State Service Code of Conduct contained within section 9 of the State Service Act, which outlines the expected conduct of public servants
• Employment Directions issued by the minister administering the State Service Act, which outline how Heads of Agencies can respond when they are concerned about the conduct or performance of state servants.142

1. Agencies responding to abuse

1. Child Safety Service

Section 13 of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act states that an adult who knows, or believes or suspects on reasonable grounds, that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, abuse or neglect, has a responsibility to take steps to prevent it from occurring.143 One step an adult may take is to inform Child Safety Services of their knowledge, belief or suspicion.144 In addition, under section 14 of the Act, members of certain professions are mandatory reporters. If, in carrying out official duties or during their work (paid or voluntary), a mandatory reporter believes or suspects on reasonable grounds, or knows, that a child has been or is being abused or neglected, they must inform Child Safety Services.145

The role of Child Safety Services is to protect children and young people who are at risk of abuse or neglect, including sexual abuse.146 The Advice and Referral Line is the first point of contact for anyone with concerns about the safety or wellbeing of a child.147 Staff at the Advice and Referral Line assess reports and may refer callers to appropriate services or determine to take no further action.148

When a matter warrants a child safety assessment and response, the case is transferred to Child Safety Services.149 If a child is at immediate risk of harm, staff will attend as soon as practicable and take responsibility for the care and protection of the child.150 Where a child has been or is at risk of being sexually abused, or has displayed harmful sexual behaviours, child safety staff are guided by an internal procedure outlining the steps involved in receiving notifications, conducting an assessment, contacting police, arranging a medical examination and completing follow-up actions and referrals.151

In some cases, a child who has experienced institutional child sexual abuse may have a protective parent and not need a child safety response, or the reported risk may be about a potential risk to unidentified children. Factors such as these may affect whether a response from Child Safety Services is required in a particular case. It may instead be referred to police.

The Department for Education, Children and Young People (formerly the Department of Communities) has an obligation under the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act 2013 (‘Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act’) to notify the Registrar if it becomes aware of, or suspects on reasonable grounds, that a person registered under the Act has engaged in ‘reportable behaviour’, which includes child sexual abuse and related conduct.152

Staff within the Department also have an obligation to report abuse to police as soon as practicable under section 105A of the Criminal Code Act.153

1. Police

A victim-survivor of child sexual abuse or their caregiver can report their abuse to police, as can others. In addition, under section 105A of the Criminal Code Act, it is an offence not to report a sexual offence against a child.

The Tasmania Police Victims Unit manages sexual assault, and the Serious and Organised Crime division manages child exploitation material. Police analyse reports and information about child sexual abuse to determine whether any offences have been committed.154 Police have several reporting obligations to other agencies concerning child sexual abuse, including to Child Safety Services and the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme.155 Under information-sharing frameworks, child sexual abuse may be investigated as part of a joint response by police and Child Safety Services. Tasmania Police is the lead agency in matters involving an alleged offence, and Child Safety Services are the lead agency in ongoing care and protection matters.156

1. Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act

Under the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, people carrying out certain activities must be registered to work with children, including people who work in schools, youth justice, out of home care and child health services.157 The Scheme is one tool to protect children from people who may pose a risk to their safety.

There are specific obligations to report ‘reportable behaviour’ (behaviour that poses a risk of harm to vulnerable people, whether by reason of neglect, abuse or other conduct) by a person who is registered under the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act.158 The Registrar may conduct an additional risk assessment on a registered person if there is new, relevant information about them.159 This risk assessment may include requiring additional information from a registered person.160 The Registrar may disclose information about the result of a risk assessment, registration and related information to another registration or licensing body.161 Where a person has received a negative risk assessment or had their registration suspended or cancelled, this information may also be disclosed to ‘prescribed entities’ (currently government agencies and police) if the Registrar considers it appropriate to protect vulnerable people from harm.162

1. Professional registration bodies

Some professions, such as teachers and many health professionals, need to be registered to work in their professional roles. These registration schemes require a certain standard of conduct from those registered. This is to protect the safety of the community and the reputation of the profession.

In Tasmania, the Teachers Registration Board undertakes ongoing vetting processes to ensure people employed as teachers are of ‘good character and fit to teach’.163 The Teachers Registration Act 2000 requires an employer to notify the Teachers Registration Board if it takes any disciplinary action or dismisses a teacher due to ‘unacceptable behaviour’ (behaviour that does not satisfy a standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher, is otherwise disgraceful and improper, or shows the person is unfit to be a teacher).164 Employers must also notify the Teachers Registration Board where the person has resigned or retired in circumstances that may have allowed the employer to consider any behaviour of the person to be unacceptable.165 Registered teachers must also notify the Teachers Registration Board, in certain circumstances, when they are charged with a prescribed offence, as well as when they are found guilty of committing such an offence.166 Following an inquiry into matters of concern, the Teachers Registration Board can suspend or cancel a teacher’s registration.167

In the health sector, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (‘Ahpra’) performs a similar role in ensuring that ‘only health practitioners with the skills and qualifications to provide competent and ethical care are registered to practise’.168 Ahpra is the national organisation responsible for implementing the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme in Australia.169 It works with National Health Practitioner Boards across 15 health professions, from doctors and nurses to dentists and physiotherapists, and has its functions set out in the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld).170

Registered health practitioners and employers must report ‘notifiable conduct’, which includes engaging in sexual misconduct in connection with the practice of the practitioner’s profession.171 Following consideration of a notification, a National Board may form the reasonable belief that a health practitioner has engaged in professional misconduct and refer a matter to the relevant state or territory tribunal for determination.172 In Tasmania, this is the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal may impose conditions or disciplinary actions, including cancellation of registration.173

1. Oversight bodies

The Tasmanian Commissioner for Children and Young People notes there is ‘currently no oversight mechanism which sets the overarching expectation or benchmark’ for how government agencies should investigate child sexual abuse.174 Several Tasmanian institutions or roles provide oversight mechanisms that may respond to complaints about child sexual abuse or about other institutions’ responses to such complaints. These include the:

• Commissioner for Children and Young People
• Ombudsman
• Integrity Commission
• Auditor-General
• Health Complaints Commissioner
• Custodial Inspector
• Child Advocate.

The institution-specific volumes in this report discuss oversight bodies that relate to particular institutional contexts or groups of children. These bodies include the Child Advocate, the Custodial Inspector and the Health Complaints Commissioner (refer to Volumes 4, 5 and 6 respectively). There are also national bodies that may provide a degree of oversight, such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme’s Quality and Safeguards Commission and the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care.

1. Commissioner for Children and Young People

The Commissioner for Children and Young People is an independent statutory officer established under the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2016 (‘Commissioner for Children and Young People Act’). The Commissioner must act independently and impartially in the public interest when exercising functions and powers under the Act.175

While not charged with the primary response to reports of abuse, the Commissioner is regularly contacted by community members who have concerns about the wellbeing of children and young people.176 When this occurs, the Commissioner’s office provides information about referral options and, in some cases, may share concerns with a ‘relevant authority’ where this is lawful and appropriate.177

Under the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act, the Commissioner has various powers, including the ability to investigate and make recommendations in relation to systems, policies and practices of organisations (both government and non-government) that provide services affecting children and young people.178 However, the Commissioner does not have the authority to investigate or review ‘a specific decision made in respect of an individual case or specific circumstances’ unless requested by the relevant minister.179

The Commissioner has specific oversight of some institutions where children are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse, specifically out of home care and youth detention. The independent Out-of-Home Care Monitoring Program was established in 2018.180 The program focuses on systemic issues in institutional and administrative practices, as separate from complaint handling and individual advocacy.181 It monitors out of home care service provision, visits out of home care providers, has discussions with advocacy organisations, peak bodies and key stakeholders, and engages with children and young people in out of home care.182

The Commissioner also undertakes independent oversight of children’s rights and wellbeing in youth detention, together with the Ombudsman and Custodial Inspector.183 The Commissioner has a statutory function to act as an advocate for a young person in youth detention under the Youth Justice Act 1997 (‘Youth Justice Act’).184 This includes assessing the physical and emotional wellbeing of the young person.185

The Commissioner’s broader functions further contribute to the overall governmental response to child sexual abuse. For example, the Commissioner helps develop legislation and policy, including ensuring the State satisfies its national and international obligations in respect of children and young people generally.186

1. Ombudsman

The Ombudsman is an independent statutory officer appointed by the Governor under the Ombudsman Act 1978 (‘Ombudsman Act’). The Ombudsman investigates the administrative actions of public authorities to ensure they are lawful, reasonable and fair.187

The Ombudsman may receive complaints from people with concerns about the administrative actions of public authorities if complaints cannot be resolved directly with the authority.188 This may include complaints about how child sexual abuse allegations and incidents are handled in institutional contexts.

Most complaints are resolved by way of preliminary inquiries, where public authorities provide information to address complaints and improve processes.189 However, where appropriate, the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation on the basis of a complaint or on the Ombudsman’s own motion.190 Following an investigation, a report is prepared for the public authority that may contain recommendations to remedy actions.191 The report may also be provided to the relevant minister and to Parliament.192 Importantly, the Ombudsman does not have the power to compel a public authority to adopt recommendations, although these are ‘ordinarily accepted and acted upon’.193

In addition, the Youth Justice Act gives a young person the right to complain to the Ombudsman about the standard of care, accommodation or treatment they receive while in a detention centre.194 The Ombudsman Act also requires that organisations and agencies take all available steps to help a person detained in custody to make a complaint without delay.195

1. Integrity Commission

The Integrity Commission is an independent statutory authority established under the Integrity Commission Act 2009 (‘Integrity Commission Act’). Under the Act, the Integrity Commission has several functions and powers related to public officers, including:

• receiving and assessing complaints or information relating to matters involving misconduct
• investigating matters related to misconduct
• referring complaints to other appropriate parties for investigation and action.196

The Integrity Commission investigates allegations of serious misconduct in line with the investigative processes and powers set out in the Integrity Commission Act.197 The Act defines ‘serious misconduct’ as ‘misconduct by any public officer that could, if proved, be a crime or an offence of a serious nature, or misconduct providing reasonable grounds for terminating the public officer’s appointment’.198 Child sexual abuse in institutional contexts would likely be covered by this definition, as could some failures to adequately respond to such abuse.

Following an investigation, the Board of the Integrity Commission may dismiss a matter, refer it to a public authority for investigation (along with any recommendations), require the matter be further investigated, recommend the Premier establish a commission of inquiry or undertake an inquiry by the Integrity Tribunal.199 After determining the outcome of an investigation, the Board of the Integrity Commission also considers whether a report should be tabled in Parliament.200

The Integrity Commission also has a responsibility to educate public officers and the public about integrity in public administration, as well as guiding public officers in the conduct and performance of their duties.201 It encourages public authorities to notify the Integrity Commission when they receive misconduct allegations and undertake internal investigations. This assists the Integrity Commission to identify misconduct trends and risks, as well as the capacity of public authorities to manage allegations of misconduct.202

1. Auditor-General

The functions and powers of the Auditor-General are set out in the Audit Act 2008.203 The Auditor-General is supported in this role by the Tasmanian Audit Office.204 As an independent statutory officer appointed by the Governor, the Auditor-General is not subject to the direction or control of the Parliament or Government.205 The purpose of the Auditor-General and the Tasmanian Audit Office is to ‘provide independent assurance to the Tasmanian Parliament and the community on the performance and accountability of the Tasmanian Public Sector’.206

This is primarily achieved through financial, performance and compliance audits as well as investigations of state entities, the outcomes of which are reported to Parliament.207 Notably for our Commission of Inquiry, the Auditor-General could inquire into systemic matters relevant to preventing and responding to child sexual abuse.208

1. Support

There are two main sexual assault services in Tasmania: the Sexual Assault Support Service (in southern Tasmania) and Laurel House (in northern Tasmania). Both services provide immediate and longer-term support for victim-survivors of sexual abuse.209 Victim-survivors can also get support through the Government’s 24-hour crisis line, 1800 MY SUPPORT, which offers immediate support and information concerning sexual abuse.210

Victim-survivors may access therapeutic support, particularly longer-term support, via other pathways. These include Victims of Crime, the National Redress Scheme, mainstream counselling or mental health services and national online or telephone sexual support services.

The Tasmanian Government is currently piloting two multidisciplinary centres (‘Arch’ centres) that will co-locate sexual assault support services with other specialised services for victim-survivors of sexual violence.211

1. Justice and redress

Victim-survivors can seek formal redress or justice for their abuse through different avenues. They can seek justice through civil compensation claims or the criminal justice system, or they can seek redress via the National Redress Scheme. The criminal and civil justice options place what could be seen as higher demands on the victim-survivor, including the need to provide a statement under oath and provide the alleged abuser with natural justice. The National Redress Scheme allows victim-survivors to seek recognition and justice from the institution in which their abuse occurred, without the need to interact with the person who abused them.

1. Civil claims

In 2020, the Tasmanian Government introduced significant changes to civil compensation claims for child sexual abuse in response to National Royal Commission recommendations. Amendments to Tasmania’s Limitation Act 1974 and Civil Liability Act 2002 included removing limitation periods for personal injury proceedings concerning victim-survivors of child abuse, enabling courts to set aside a previously settled right of action in relation to child abuse and expanding organisations’ duty to prevent child abuse and vicarious liability.212

A victim-survivor may seek civil compensation from the person who abused them or from the institution that may be held legally responsible for the conduct of the abuser, such as by being their employer. In the context of institutional abuse, this means that victim-survivors may initiate civil claims against the State of Tasmania. Claims may be settled out of court or, if contested, the victim-survivor must satisfy a court on the balance of probabilities that their abuse occurred and caused them harm. If satisfied, the court will determine damages.

Recent changes making it easier for the State to be held liable for the actions of employees have resulted in an increase in civil claims against the State. In August 2022, lawyers lodged a class action on behalf of more than 100 claimants seeking compensation from the State of Tasmania, with four lead plaintiffs alleging systemic negligence in the management of Ashley Youth Detention Centre from 1961 to at least December 2019.213

1. Criminal claims

Victim-survivors can also seek justice through the criminal justice system by making a report to police and hoping their abuser is charged, prosecuted by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and convicted by a court. In this scenario, the abuse must satisfy the elements of a child sexual assault offence and be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

There are currently no criminal offences related to institutional responsibility for child sexual abuse, although the Government is proposing to introduce a failure-to-report offence.

1. National Redress Scheme

The Australian Government set up the National Redress Scheme in July 2018.214 It enables victim-survivors of institutional child sexual abuse to seek financial compensation of up to $150,000, counselling and a direct personal response from the responsible institution.215

The scheme’s purpose is to:

• acknowledge that many children were sexually abused in Australian institutions
• recognise the suffering they endured because of this abuse
• hold institutions accountable for this abuse
• help victim-survivors gain access to counselling, a direct personal response from the institution and a redress payment.216

The National Redress Scheme is scheduled to run for 10 years and is only available to people abused prior to 1 July 2018, although we express some concerns about this in Chapter 17. The Tasmanian Government joined the National Redress Scheme and enacted legislation to enable non-government institutions to join in 2018.217 By April 2022:

• 689 claims had been made against Tasmanian Government agencies
• 494 of these claimants were offered redress
• 48 claims were not approved
• a further 147 claims were yet to be determined at the national level.218

1. Reforms made during our Commission of Inquiry

The Tasmanian Government and its institutions have responded to problems revealed by our Commission of Inquiry in our public hearings and engagement work. In May 2022, the Government announced a package of Keeping Children Safer actions as an interim response to evidence from victim-survivors, state representatives and experts at our first public hearing.219 During our Commission of Inquiry, the Government continued to make reforms or commitments to reforms.

The Tasmanian Government provided Parliament with an update on their Keeping Children Safer actions in November 2022. All 30 actions in this response are reproduced in Appendix D. The Department for Education, Children and Young People also provided an update to our Commission of Inquiry on 9 February 2023.220 In summary, the Government has already:

• established the Office of Safeguarding Children and Young People in the Department for Education, Children and Young People and drafted the Safeguarding Framework
• appointed a Safeguarding Lead in every government school and established a statewide Safeguarding Network
• appointed extra senior support staff in education as well as two Student Support Response Coordinators who will be responsible for managing responses to incidents of child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviours
• rolled out annual, compulsory training on mandatory reporting for all staff in child-facing departments
• commissioned a project designed to improve the safety of children in out of home care
• undertaken the Child Safe Governance Review at Launceston General Hospital
• outlined a plan for Ashley Youth Detention Centre and the youth justice system in the Keeping Kids Safe: A Plan for Ashley Youth Detention Centre Until its Intended Closure and the Draft Youth Justice Blueprint 2022–2032
• consulted on proposed legislation to introduce a new crime of failing to protect a child or a young person from people in authority, and other changes to the criminal law
• consulted on proposed legislation to introduce child safe standards, a reportable conduct scheme and a framework to ensure compliance (now the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act 2023)
• established the Statewide Complaints Oversight Unit to handle future complaints about misconduct across Tasmanian health services, including child sexual abuse
• issued an apology to victim-survivors in Parliament.

The Government has also committed to:

• measures directed at supporting the rights of victim-survivors such as:
  • improving the Right to Information process
  • reviewing civil litigation procedures to ensure a trauma-informed approach
  • establishing two pilot multidisciplinary centres (‘Arch’ centres) to offer a best-practice model of support and safety services to victim-survivors of sexual and family violence
• reforming youth justice including:
  • closing Ashley Youth Detention Centre and establishing new youth justice facilities
  • introducing a new service delivery model focused on early intervention, diversion and rehabilitation
  • raising the minimum age of detention from 10 to 14 years
  • preparing the Draft Youth Justice First Action Plan 2023–2025
• measures designed to improve Child Safety Services including:
  • establishing out of home care standards and accreditation, and a carers register
  • allocating funding to develop and procure a Wellbeing, Care and Recovery Placement Program (therapeutic residential placement program)
  • establishing a community-led palawa Child Safe and Supported Policy Partnership Working Group to improve outcomes for Aboriginal children and families at risk of entering or in contact with the child safety or out of home care system
  • measures to support a skilled and ready child safety workforce
• actions to safeguard children and support their wellbeing in schools including:
  • appointing a further eight psychologists and eight social workers
  • rolling out safeguarding training for principals and school leaders, and developing Registration to Work with Vulnerable People training
• actions aimed at State Service employees including:
  • expanding the scope of regulated activities under the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People legislation
  • establishing a central register of employees who have been terminated because of an Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct
  • rolling out trauma-informed training across the State Service
• other actions such as:
  • designing a multimedia resource (tell someone) for children, young people and families to raise awareness of child sexual abuse
  • establishing information-sharing groups with other jurisdictions and engaging with representative bodies concerned with the safety and wellbeing of children and young people
  • establishing a whole of government Commission of Inquiry response unit
  • developing a website to publicly report progress on implementation of the interim response actions and expected delivery dates.221

The Government indicated that most of the proposed actions were underway. We discuss these recent and proposed reforms, where relevant, in subsequent chapters.

The Government said it will continue to publicly report on these actions via a dedicated webpage, established in January 2023.222 It will expand the list when it receives our recommendations in August 2023. We understand that the Tasmanian Government has already set up a Commission of Inquiry response unit within the Department of Justice, to coordinate the implementation of our recommendations.

Other reforms the Government has undertaken in response to issues our Commission of Inquiry and other inquiries have identified include:

• bringing services related to children under the responsibility of one new agency —the Department for Education, Children and Young People
• establishing the Keeping Children Safer Working Group, reporting to the Secretaries Board
• implementing the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, including establishing the Office of Safeguarding Children and Young People.

In December 2022, the Commissioner for Children and Young People announced an investigation into case management for children and young people in out of home care, focusing on the allocation of Child Safety Officers.