Content warning

Please be aware that the content in this report includes descriptions of child sexual abuse and may be distressing or raise issues of concern for some readers.

We encourage readers to exercise discretion in their engagement with this content and to seek support and care if required.

1. Introduction

Many people who engaged with our Commission of Inquiry told us about their experiences of sexual abuse while they were students in a government school. Through written submissions, evidence provided in our hearings and sessions with Commissioners, we heard how children and young people in schools suffered abuse by teachers and, in some instances, by other departmental staff or by students.1 Often, the trauma that these children and young people experienced was made worse by the inadequate responses of adults who were in a position to help but did not do so. However, in some instances, even when adults did try to help, challenges with the Department’s policies and the State’s disciplinary processes meant their efforts, while well intentioned, were largely ineffective.

Several victim-survivors told us in detail about the abuse they suffered, the lax responses they received and the devastating and lasting effects this has had on their lives. In each case, the effects of the abuse were worsened and prolonged by multiple systemic problems that meant they have felt the need to continue to advocate for change for many years after the abuse occurred. The experiences of these victim-survivors, when they were children in the aftermath of their abuse and later as adults in their engagement with the Department, reveal shortcomings in how the Department handled these matters. We heard, for example, that:

• In some cases, there was an unwillingness by departmental staff to believe children and young people when they reported child sexual abuse, and their disclosures were not handled in a sensitive, trauma-informed way. Victim-survivors told us about the devastating effects this had on them.2
• There was a lack of support provided to children and young people who disclosed abuse. In one case, a victim-survivor said that a member of school staff told her that it was her responsibility to make the abuse stop.3
• In seeking information or support from the Department and other entities such as the Teachers Registration Board, some victim-survivors were given inconsistent or inadequate responses. Also, the complexities of the processes involved were sometimes not properly explained, leading to expectations that were not met. Ultimately, this exacerbated the trauma experienced by some victim-survivors.4

We provide accounts of their experiences in this chapter (refer to Case study—Kerri, Case study—Katrina, Case study—Sam and Case study—‘Wayne’, which includes the experience of ‘Rachel’). These accounts draw on the submissions made by these victim-survivors, the evidence they gave in our hearings and documents provided to us by the State about these matters. They also include, where possible, responses and explanations from departmental and other government officials. We are deeply thankful to these victim-survivors for sharing their stories.

We also closely examine a further three case studies of allegations against teachers (refer to Case study—‘Mark’, Case study—‘Jeremy’, and Case study—‘Brad’), as well as one recent case study about harmful sexual behaviours (refer to Case study—‘Andy’). Four of our case studies—those of ‘Wayne’, ‘Mark’, ‘Jeremy’ and ‘Brad’—were drawn from information the Department provided about its recent responses to child sexual. abuse matters, and they clarify the Department’s recent policies and disciplinary systems. We describe the Department’s recent responses in general terms in Section 2. The case studies we discuss give a sense of the common challenges across the system and offer a guide to potential solutions.

Even as adults, many of the victim-survivors who engaged with our Commission of Inquiry were still navigating the effects of the abuse they experienced as children. Their personal accounts and the case studies in this chapter highlight the toll of child sexual abuse in an education setting. These accounts and case studies also illustrate many of the themes we explore in this volume.

While some accounts of child sexual abuse outlined in this chapter were outside our scope because they occurred before 2000, they have continuing relevance to understanding how we can better protect children from child sexual abuse in education settings. Also, several cases in which abuse occurred before 2000 fall within our terms of reference because the Tasmanian Government responses to these incidents continued through the 2000s, 2010s and 2020s.

1. The Department’s recent response to child sexual abuse

This section outlines the information the Department provided to our Commission of Inquiry about recent suspensions in response to allegations of child sexual abuse. In Chapter 6, we discuss the Department’s responses to child sexual abuse and our recommendations for improving them.

1. The Department’s recent review of matters

The Tasmanian Government gave us information about the number of employees suspended over allegations of child sexual abuse or related behaviours up until the end of February 2023.5 In relation to the Department of Education, 43 employees were suspended between January 2000 and February 2023 for child sexual abuse.6 Almost half of these (20) occurred since November 2020 (the date of the announcement of our Commission of Inquiry).7

Timothy Bullard, Secretary, Department of Education, explained (in his statement and in our hearings) the process that led to identifying and suspending these current departmental employees and the steps the Department took in relation to those employees. We give an account of that process below. We note, however, that this information and its analysis is limited to the period covered by the relevant statement or evidence provided to us. Further, the conduct of employees of the Department who have been suspended since 2020 sometimes related to matters that occurred long ago and should have been addressed at the time.

Secretary Bullard explained the process that led to these recent suspensions. He told us that the Department analysed ‘matters of concern’ involving departmental employees. These matters were identified through a variety of sources, including ‘civil claims, redress applications, Right to Information requests, internal records and verbal information’.8 Matters of concern were entered on a spreadsheet, initially to help the Department estimate its liability for future redress and civil claims.9 In December 2020, Secretary Bullard requested that the spreadsheet be analysed to determine how many departmental employees had a matter of concern on their file ‘that could involve child sexual abuse’.10 Initially, 21 employees were identified, but this later increased to 32.11 By May 2022, we understand there had been 57 preliminary assessments into allegations or incidents of child sexual abuse or grooming behaviours conducted by the Department since January 2020.12 Preliminary assessments, or ‘preliminary investigations’ as they are often called, are used to determine if the Head of Agency could, on the available evidence, form a reasonable belief that there has been a breach of the State Service Code of Conduct. We discuss preliminary assessments in more detail in Chapter 6 and Chapter 20.

The Department’s Workplace Relations section examined the initial 21 matters in early 2021, with some matters noted as more serious than others.13 Workplace Relations staff assessed five of these matters as most serious and gave these priority.14 Secretary Bullard told us that all 21 matters were discussed with police.15 Secretary Bullard then reviewed these matters to determine if ‘further investigation or management action was legally possible and/or required’.16

Secretary Bullard consulted the Office of the Solicitor-General to determine whether new Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigations could be initiated (that is, an investigation into whether an employee has breached the State Service Code of Conduct).17 Workplace Relations then referred each matter to Secretary Bullard separately:

… via a Minute for determination as to whether [he] had reasonable grounds to believe that a breach of the Code of Conduct may have occurred and an [Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct] investigation was to be initiated.18

As indicated above, by May 2022, the Department conducted 57 preliminary assessments into allegations or incidents of child sexual abuse or grooming behaviours since January 2020, and 21 of these resulted in suspensions.19 It appears that 50 of those assessments involved current employees.20 Of the 57 preliminary assessments:

• 32 concerned historical re-examinations (or historical review matters), five of which resulted in Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigations21
• 16 individuals, who we believe were subject to contemporary allegations, were also subject to Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigations22
• another six matters involved relief employees (who we believe were ‘marked as unsuitable for employment on the fixed term and relief employment register’)23
• three matters were not referred for investigation.24

For the 32 employees subject to historical child sexual abuse allegations, the Department re-examined the matters to determine if previous ‘management action was appropriate’.25 As noted above, as at April 2022, five of those matters progressed to Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigations. Secretary Bullard told us that of those five investigations, none had resulted in termination, and:

• two employees had received a sanction (for example, counselling or a lawful and reasonable direction)
• one employee had resigned (but the investigation was ongoing at the time of Secretary Bullard’s statement)
• one employee was found not to have breached the State Service Code of Conduct
• one investigation was ongoing at the time of Secretary Bullard’s statement.26

In relation to the 27 other employees subject to historical child sexual abuse allegations but not subject to an Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigation:

• two were issued with a lawful and reasonable direction
• four relief employees were told they were not eligible for relief employment and would be subject to formal investigation should they seek employment with the Department in the future
• no other action was taken in respect of 20 employees because the Secretary determined the allegations ‘as not child sexual abuse or unable to form a reasonable belief the code may have been breached or matter subject to previous formal investigation’27
• one matter was still under review at the time of writing.28

In September 2022, Secretary Bullard notified us that the Department had suspended another 13 employees between April and September 2022.29 According to Secretary Bullard, these suspensions were primarily in response to ‘allegations of inappropriate touching or inappropriate language … between a teacher and a pupil’.30 Secretary Bullard said that while the number of new allegations in this period may be ‘shocking’, it indicates that people are ‘getting the message’ that:

… if you are a member of staff that has concerns about the actions of a colleague, report it in; but also too that children and young people are feeling that they have agency to raise these matters with trusted members of staff.31

We agree with Secretary Bullard that the wave of new reports is likely to indicate cultural change, but we consider the data should continue to be monitored because effective change would see this number decrease over time.

Secretary Bullard highlighted that the Department has recently improved the supports offered to employees subject to allegations of child sexual abuse. Counselling and psychological support is now available to employees, where requested, and a ‘liaison officer’ is appointed to communicate with employees about the matter.32

We analysed many of the recent suspensions (from an earlier September 2021 list), including the Department’s response at the time of the original complaints and Workplace Relations’ more recent briefings to the Secretary. Through this process, we selected four case studies to explore in detail. We also discuss three case studies that provide victim-survivor accounts of child sexual abuse that occurred before the year 2000, and the Tasmanian Government’s response (including responses by the Department and justice systems post-2000), as well as one recent case study about harmful sexual behaviours.

Case study 1: Kerri

Kerri Collins contacted our Commission of Inquiry to share her experience of reporting sexual abuse as a young child while attending a government primary school in Tasmania. Giving evidence at our hearings, she told us about the difficulties she encountered after disclosing the alleged abuse as a child and the barriers she faced in seeking resolution as an adult. Her story spans several decades and reveals multiple problems in the response of the government departments, agencies and regulators involved.

1. The alleged incident

John (a pseudonym) was a teacher at the primary school Ms Collins attended. He was young, charismatic and well liked.33 In 1991, Ms Collins and three other girls at the school disclosed to the school counsellor allegations that John had sexually abused each of them on numerous occasions over a two-year period when they were in years 1 to 3.34 The abuse allegedly occurred during school, usually in an isolated area on school grounds. The girls were 11 years old at the time they made these disclosures.35

1. The initial response

Ms Collins told us that while the school counsellor believed her disclosures, responded appropriately and took meticulous notes, the school principal’s response was ‘highly inappropriate’.36 When he learned of the disclosures, and before contacting the students’ parents, Ms Collins told us that the principal called her and the other students into his office, individually, to question them.37 Ms Collins recalled that the principal then asked her to sit on the (female) assistant principal’s knee to ‘demonstrate … the physical position [she] was in when [she] was sexually assaulted [by John]’.38 Ms Collins told us that it was ‘retraumatising for a child to be put in that position’, and that:

It’s even distressing thinking about it; at the time I remember feeling extremely uncomfortable about having to be put in that position ... not only what I was saying wasn’t being believed, I had to actually show them … it was just the two of them … I didn’t know if I was in trouble, I didn’t know if my parents had been told, I had no idea.39

Ms Collins said it was clear to her that the principal did not believe her disclosure, nor the disclosures made by the other girls.40 This was confirmed much later, in 2018, when a police officer informed Ms Collins that at the time these events had occurred, the principal allegedly told police ‘a good Christian man like [John] would not do something like this’.41

The school notified Ms Collins’ parents of her disclosure, and they contacted police. Ms Collins then made a statement to police; however, as far as she is aware, they did not follow up or investigate these matters at the time.42 John left the school after several of the girls’ parents tried to confront him. Ms Collins told us that the school reported that John had been moved to another school.43 Ms Collins did not hear anything more about John for many years. Throughout this time, Ms Collins said that:

I was not offered support or counselling by the school, and it was always my understanding that the principal did not believe us and that John remained employed by the Department of Education. I didn’t know what restrictions (if any) were placed on his ability to work as a teacher.44

In our education hearings, we asked Ms Collins if she knew what had happened in response to the complaints she and others had made against John in 1991. She replied that she did not because no one had told her, not even when she went to police for the second time in 2001.45

Police did not refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.46 In a letter to the complainants in 2004, the then Director of Public Prosecutions wrote that he thought the decision not to charge John in 1991 was an error, based on a misunderstanding of evidentiary standards relevant to child sexual abuse at the time.47 During our hearings, Ms Collins stated that she was not surprised by these comments, describing police failure to proceed with the case against John as just another example of how the system had failed her throughout the process, and continues to do so.48

1. What happened next

These events affected Ms Collins into adulthood. While at university, the reality of the fact that John was still teaching—and had most likely been doing so since the time of the original complaints 10 years earlier—came ‘crashing down’ on Ms Collins.49 In 2001, Ms Collins contacted the Sexual Assault Support Service and the service arranged an interview with police. The investigation into John was ‘reopened’.50 The three other students who had made complaints about John in the early 1990s also gave statements to police. John was arrested and charged in 2002.51 The Department of Education varied John’s duties so he did not have contact with students.52

Ms Collins told us that her experience of providing information to police as an adult in 2001 was vastly different from her experience of being questioned as a child 10 years earlier. As a child, she recalled having been questioned by a male police officer in an interview room with no windows and without her parents present.53 In contrast, when giving her statement in 2001, Ms Collins told us that the officer she spoke with was a woman, whom Ms Collins felt was clearly trauma-informed, and was open and transparent about the process. Also, the interview took place at the Sexual Assault Support Service in a comfortable setting and in the presence of a trauma-informed worker from the service.54

John was committed to stand trial.55 However, Ms Collins gave evidence that two weeks before John’s trial was to begin, she got a phone call from the Director of Public Prosecutions saying he had decided not to prosecute John.56 Ms Collins told us that she was ‘furious’ about the trial not proceeding and about the lack of information provided to her.57

We note that the DPP Prosecution Policy and Guidelines (‘DPP Guidelines’) now set out a process for informing complainants when a case is to be discharged. The DPP Guidelines state that such information should be imparted in person or, if this is not possible, by phone. The DPP Guidelines also outline the information that a complainant should be given.58

In the mid-2000s, concerned that John still had access to children in his role as a teacher, Ms Collins met with the shadow minister for education and contacted the then Commissioner for Children about her concerns.59 She also contacted the Teachers Registration Board. Ms Collins told our Commission of Inquiry that her conversation with the Teachers Registration Board at that time left her feeling ‘dismissed’ and that the person she spoke to was ‘extremely unhelpful’.60

Ms Collins recalled that the person she had spoken to at the Board told her she would need a lawyer to make a complaint about John and that it was unlikely she would succeed. She was also told that as part of the complaints process, she may have to appear in person with John in the same room. Ms Collins was unwilling to do this. Ms Collins’ mother also wrote a letter to the Board about John but did not receive a reply.

In 2004, the Board received a registration application from John.61 After considering a range of material in relation to John’s application, the Board granted John registration.62 The material the Board considered included a letter sent by the Department of Education advocating on John’s behalf. Secretary Bullard and Ann Moxham, Registrar, Teachers Registration Board both condemned this letter.63 Secretary Bullard agreed that the letter was ‘entirely inappropriate’ and was not focused on protecting children, and that Ms Collins was entitled to feel betrayed by such a letter.64 Ms Moxham told us that the letter had two connotations: one was to pressure the Board and the other was to support the individual, both of which were inappropriate.65

Ms Moxham told us that, in re-examining the evidence that was before the Board when it made its decision to grant registration to John, it is not apparent that the Board sought any information about John from police (despite John having been charged with several offences). Ms Moxham also told us that the Board appears to have made its decision based on the matter having been dismissed in court.66

According to the Board, after contact with Ms Collins, the then Commissioner for Children wrote to the then Minister for Education outlining his concerns about the processes that had led the Board to grant registration to John. Ms Moxham wrote in a statement to us that this led the then Minister to request that the Board:

• develop written procedures for handling complaints
• establish a committee to review the process leading to the finding that John was of ‘good character’ (and his subsequent registration)
• review the decision to grant John registration if the committee determined that the process leading to John’s registration was flawed.67

While the review called for by the Minister eventually led to changes to the Board’s processes and procedures in respect of several matters, including how it deals with complaints and conducts inquiries, it did not prompt any change to John’s registration.68 John remained a registered teacher.

When we questioned why John’s registration status remained unchanged after the review, Ms Moxham said this was ‘difficult to understand’, and in her view it was ‘unforgivable’.69 Ms Moxham conceded that the Board has still (at the time of our hearings) not examined how this failure occurred.70 In relation to how the Board had handled Ms Collins’ matter, Ms Moxham said: ‘[i]t is a really nasty black mark on our record, and I think our … current board is quite upset and concerned that this took place’.71 She apologised to Ms Collins.

Around 2006, having exhausted other avenues, Ms Collins hired a lawyer to see if there was any other way to prevent John from teaching. Her lawyer advised that nothing more could be done.72 At this point, Ms Collins was 26 years old and said her life had been ‘on hold’ for the past five years as she tried to navigate a complex and unsupportive system. She told our Inquiry: ‘It had taken an enormous personal and emotional toll on me. I felt strangled by all of the doors that were closed as I tried to get someone to listen to me’.73

Ms Collins tried to put the alleged abuse, and the school and Department’s responses to it, behind her and dedicated herself to her career and family. However, 14 years later, in 2018, she received a phone call from police. Much to her surprise, they wanted to speak to her about John. Another victim, now the fifth complainant to come forward with allegations against John, had told the National Royal Commission that she had been abused by John while she was a student at the same primary school as Ms Collins. Ms Collins agreed to speak with police.74

Police sought advice from Daryl Coates SC, Director of Public Prosecutions, in relation to the 2018 allegation against John, and about whether charges should be laid in respect of the historical allegations involving the original complaints.75 In his response to police, and in his evidence to us, Mr Coates said that changes to the law since 2004 meant that if the complaints against John had been made in 2022, the prosecution would proceed because the charges would be cross-admissible, and the complaints would be heard together:76

In my view, if each complaint had been made now for the first time, there would be sufficient evidence to charge the accused with indecent assault with respect of the complaints made by [redacted]; aggravated assault with respect of the complaint made by [redacted]; and maintaining a sexual relationship with respect to the complaint made by Kerri Munro [now Collins]. Each complaint would be cross-admissible as tendency evidence in respect of the other complainants’ complaint. The evidence shows that he has a sexual interest, which he acts upon, on young girls [around primary school age], who are in his care, where he takes them to [redacted] room and places his hands down their pants. Undoubtedly, if there was a trial the complainants’ credibility would be strongly contested, given they had spoken to each other and made some inconsistent statements. However, that now would be a question of fact for the jury to consider and not a question of admissibility.77

However, this does not answer the question about whether, given those changes to the law, the original charges against John could now be revived. In short, the answer given to us was ‘no’.

Mr Coates told us that because the charges had been ‘dismissed’ in the Magistrates Court, John could no longer be re-charged nor could the charges be used as tendency evidence in respect of the fifth complainant.78 We note, however, that in respect of the complaint involving Ms Collins (in relation to which John was charged with ‘maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person’, now referred to as ‘persistent sexual abuse of a child’), there were questions about whether the charges had in fact been dismissed. Mr Coates told us that a prosecution ‘cannot now be instituted because the charges of indecent assault (at the time being that which underpinned any indictable charges of persistent sexual abuse of a child) … [were] dismissed in the Magistrates Court’.79 Refer to Chapter 16 for discussion of this issue.

As to whether Ms Collins’ earlier complaint had in fact been dismissed, Mr Coates said in his letter to police:

There is some doubt whether the complaint was dismissed or just remained adjourned [indefinitely]. The original complaint has been destroyed. It has not been recorded on the accused prior convictions as being dismissed. The Court record appears to state that the complaint was never dismissed. I have spoken to [redacted], who is now a Crown Counsel in my office. He is of the view that if he was asked to dismiss both complaints he would have done so. However, in my view it does not matter because if we proceeded the matter would be discharged by a Court as an abuse of process.80

Mr Coates gave several reasons as to why, in his view, proceeding with a prosecution against John would amount to an abuse of process. He stated that while the prosecution may not have formally dismissed the complaint, this was an administrative oversight.81 He continued:

Some 14 years have passed since the assurances [that the complaint would be dismissed] were given, the importance of finality, where an accused has been led to believe that the matters have been finalised for so long means that any prosecution now would be so fundamentally unfair as to be an abuse of process.82

It is apparent to us that procedural issues and mistakes in this case led to a considerable injustice:

• Police failed to charge John in 1991 because there was ‘no corroborating evidence to support the complaints in these allegations, therefore there [was] not sufficient evidence to support any charges under the Criminal Code’, based on a mistaken belief that corroboration was required.83
• Complaints were laid against John without ‘comprehensive advice outlining the law and the evidence’, which led to the prosecution being discharged based on difficulties posed by the law and evidence at the time (2004).
• The original complaint was destroyed and was not officially recorded by the Court as being dismissed. This meant there were doubts for some time about whether Ms Collins’ complaint against John was legally ‘dismissed’ or remained adjourned indefinitely. If the former, John could not be tried in the future, nor could Ms Collins’ evidence be used as evidence to support that John had a tendency to abuse children in any other charge of child sexual abuse against John. This was viewed as an administrative oversight.
• Mr Coates eventually determined that the case was dismissed. Mr Coates told us that he had spoken to the relevant staff and was satisfied that the complaints were in fact dismissed. This had serious implications for using Ms Collins’ evidence in future legal proceedings. Accepting that there was an administrative error, and the charges were dismissed, it appears to us that because of that error, Tasmanian law did not permit the Director of Public Prosecutions to correct that error and required him instead to dismiss the charges, despite the outcome not favouring the complainants.84

When asked by Counsel Assisting about the sense of injustice that Ms Collins (and the other victim-survivors) must be feeling in respect of this matter, Mr Coates said:

Look, I can see, as I said in my letter, I can see from their point of view that it’s an injustice: I mean, I think it’s an injustice, but there’s nothing I can do about it. And, having said that I think it’s an injustice, I’m not saying it’s an injustice because the 2004 decision was wrong, because I don’t think it was wrong in accordance with the law as it stood at that time.85

Ms Collins told us that those working on the case informed her that the 2018 complaint did not proceed because, had it done so, John would have been denied natural justice.86 Mr Coates told us that his advice outlines, in great detail, the legal reasons why the complaint could not proceed and denies that it said that the 2018 complaint did not proceed because John would have been denied natural justice. It is possible that Mr Coates’ advice was not accurately communicated to Ms Collins by those working on the case. The investigating officer asked Ms Collins whether she wanted to read the report prepared by the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of the case. Ms Collins, being upset at the time, declined to read the report. Some months later, however, she changed her mind and asked if she could see the report. She recalled that her request was refused, with police explaining that there had been a direction from ‘above’ in Tasmania Police not to share information about the case.87 Despite this, Ms Collins recalled that Tasmania Police told her that the Director of Public Prosecutions’ report had stated that if the initial complaints against John had been made in 2018, John ‘would be charged, he would be tried, he would be convicted and he would be imprisoned’.88

The Teachers Registration Board suspended John’s registration to teach in 2020.89 He retired from teaching in 2021. He has not faced trial in respect of any charges.

Case study 2: ‘Mark’

This case study about a high school teacher, Mark (a pseudonym), is based on information the Department provided about its recent responses to child sexual abuse matters.90

1. The alleged incident

In 2016, a high school teacher, Jeff (a pseudonym), overheard two year 9 students, Jasmine (a pseudonym) and Heather (a pseudonym), discussing messages allegedly received by Jasmine from another teacher, Mark.91 Jasmine and Heather told Jeff that Mark had been going through Jasmine’s Facebook profile and ‘liking’ her photos.92

Screenshots of Mark’s phone showed Mark contacting Jasmine with questions such as ‘How’s your holidays going?’ and ‘What you been doing?’ Jasmine asked, ‘who is this?’ and ‘why r u messaging me’, later saying ‘I reckon you should probably leave :)’.93 Mark signs off ‘Sorry my bad, drunk’.94 Mark also commented ‘nice sunset’ on a photo Jasmine posted on Instagram.95

Jasmine told Jeff she felt quite intimidated by the fact that Mark had started talking to her and kept replying after she asked him to stop.96 She later told a staff member that she felt uncomfortable about the exchange and avoided talking to Mark when she would see him at school.97

1. The initial response

Jeff reported the alleged incident to his principal, Justin (a pseudonym), and prepared a statement, which Justin provided to the Department of Education’s Human Resources team.98 After assessing the matter, the team referred the incident to a regional human resources manager, who conferred with Justin about how to manage the complaint.99

Justin sent a letter to Mark, which reflected his view that the alleged incidents did occur.100 However, he accepted Mark’s explanation that the contacts with Jasmine were made without Mark’s knowledge, by a friend using his phone on one occasion, and a student using it on another occasion.101 This explanation appears to have been accepted by Learning Services and Justin.102 Mark was given a formal direction to ensure all his interactions with students in the future complied with the Guidelines on Professional Standards for Staff and that his mobile devices were kept secure to avoid opportunities for misuse.103 He was warned that further instances of such conduct may constitute a breach of the State Service Code of Conduct, but no formal sanctions were imposed.104

There is no record of Workplace Relations being notified of the outcome of the matter.105 No notifications were made to police, the Child Safety Service, the Teachers Registration Board or the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme at that time.106

1. Departmental review

The Department identified Mark’s case as a ‘historical’ incident warranting re-examination. In 2021, Workplace Relations briefed the Secretary on Mark’s case and advised that it ‘did not amount to sexual misconduct’ and was ‘adequately investigated at the time’.107 The Secretary relied on this advice and no action was taken.108 The Teachers Registration Board was notified about the allegation later in 2021.109

1. What we heard

We asked for information about the handling of Mark’s case, including a statement from Secretary Bullard.

Without making definitive findings in relation to the matter, Secretary Bullard conceded there were some shortcomings in the investigation of Jasmine’s complaint, noting that some aspects of the investigation did not comply with policies and procedures at the time.110

In relation to the initial response by the school, Secretary Bullard told us:

• There are no records to suggest that Jasmine received any support or contact from a school social worker after making her complaint.111 The principal, Justin, advised the Department that he was confident he had met with Jasmine on a number of occasions and offered psychological support, recalling that she was ‘ok’ and stating that the school social worker was likely to have made contact with Jasmine, but this could not be verified.112
• Justin did not follow up the allegation that a student had used Mark’s phone to contact Jasmine, nor did he try to verify Mark’s claim of someone else using his phone, by seeking information or statements that may confirm or contradict such a claim.113
• Learning Services did not provide Workplace Relations with copies of the text messages sent to Jasmine, nor Mark’s response to the complaint at the time of the investigation.114
• Neither Justin nor Learning Services drew Mark’s attention to the Social Media Policy (2014) in place at that time, which made it clear that communications of a ‘personal nature’ with students is inappropriate.115
• Neither Justin nor Learning Services reported the outcome of the complaint (being Justin’s letter to Mark) to Workplace Relations. This meant that the Teachers Registration Board was not notified about the matter at that time.116

In relation to reopening Mark’s case, Secretary Bullard accepted he was not bound by the advice of Workplace Relations and was solely responsible for the decision on whether to proceed with an Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigation.117 However, he described some problems with the advice he received in relation to Mark. These included:

• Workplace Relations may not have adequately established that Mark was not in control of his device, given that this explanation was not verified in any meaningful way, and that Mark himself claimed that he wrote the message ‘sorry my bad, drunk’ to Jasmine when he got his phone back.118
• Because Workplace Relations had not received screenshots of the messages to Jasmine, nor Mark’s responses, these were not provided in the briefing to Secretary Bullard.119 He only reviewed these later, in response to our questioning about the case.120

When making the initial decision, Secretary Bullard conceded he had formed the view that the allegations against Mark did not amount to sexual misconduct and that, at that time, he believed the matter had been dealt with because Mark had been counselled and received a formal direction.121 However, in reviewing all the materials in light of our questions, Secretary Bullard told us that he has reflected on ‘whether this was the right conclusion’.122

Secretary Bullard stated at hearings: ‘I think there’s a question on this one around whether it does constitute child sexual abuse … or simply a breach of a social media policy’.123 However, he accepted that if the evidence against Mark had been reviewed in an investigation, that investigation might have revealed other ‘pieces of data’ relevant to Mark’s conduct.124

Secretary Bullard advised us that he has referred Mark’s case to Workplace Relations for fresh advice on a potential Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigation.125

1. Justin

When we reviewed Mark’s case, we learned that the principal of Mark’s school, Justin, had been the subject of a disciplinary investigation earlier in his teaching career in response to an allegation that he had sex with a girl in her mid-teens after spotting her walking home intoxicated.126 Justin denied he had sex with the girl, stating that he had only invited her into his house to ensure her safety.127 Justin also reported that she had told him that she was 18 years old. During the investigation, the girl admitted that she had lied to Justin about her age but stated that she had told Justin she was under 18 years old.128 At the time, the then Secretary reprimanded Justin ‘for [his] action in leaving [himself] vulnerable to criticism as demonstrated by [the victim’s] allegations of sexual intercourse’.129

Some years after this incident, Justin supported a teacher who challenged their termination for sexual misconduct towards students. As documented in a legal proceeding, Justin told this teacher that he had been promoted to principal despite being in a similar situation before. The teacher stated that Justin reassured him along the lines that the allegations would ‘wash over’.130

In 2021, the Department also reinvestigated the allegations against Justin and concluded that he was not acting in the ‘course of employment’ at the time of the incident, which meant his conduct was not linked to his obligations under the State Service Code of Conduct.131

1. What has changed

Secretary Bullard told us that several improvements have been made to policies and practice since 2016. Those most relevant to Mark’s case include the following:

• An incident of this nature would now be referred to the Secretary for consideration as a matter of course, rather than managed at the school level.132
• The Social Media Procedure (2020) is explicit in stating that staff members must not ‘friend’ or ‘follow’ a student (or allow students to friend or follow them) unless they are family members, and the contact is reasonable.133 Mark’s conduct would reflect a ‘direct contravention’ of these guidelines and would be central to any employment investigation.134
• Training has been offered in relation to this new policy, particularly aimed at departmental social media administrators (for example, those who manage the Facebook pages of schools).135
• Current thresholds of what constitutes ‘child sexual abuse’ in departmental guidelines have been broadened in line with that used by the National Royal Commission to include grooming behaviours, noting that Mark’s conduct was not considered to constitute grooming at that time.136
• The Office of Safeguarding has been established and is working to raise awareness among schools about inappropriate conduct and grooming behaviours to ensure principals are equipped to identify such conduct, make appropriate notifications and advise Workplace Relations.137

1. Systemic issues

We agree with the reflections of Secretary Bullard about shortcomings in the handling of Mark’s case. We would add that the Department’s response to this relatively recent incident also demonstrates:

• lack of understanding of the broad range of conduct that can fall within the definition of sexual misconduct—while the messages Mark allegedly sent may not have been overtly sexual in content, the Department should have been open to the question of whether they could be construed as flirtatious and whether they could have been perceived to be grooming behaviours
• a readiness to minimise and downplay the seriousness of incidents without adequate investigation, recognising that in some instances the scale of the risk to children may only be uncovered by taking proactive steps to uncover more information
• poor understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of Learning Services and Workplace Relations, which appear to have operated independently without adequate information sharing and collaboration
• an inclination to accept the accounts of adults over the reported concerns of children and young people—the Department could have been more sceptical about whether it was plausible that two separate people on two occasions accessed Mark’s social media accounts to send messages to students at Mark’s school, and his explanation should have been met with greater scrutiny
• too much deference to the view of the principal—while Justin did seek some advice on how to manage the matter from a regional human resources manager, this was largely limited to process and there was no ‘check’ on his inclination to accept the explanation without further inquiry (this is particularly concerning given Justin’s own complaints history)
• the 2021 departmental review was (again) quick to downplay the potential seriousness of this matter and lacked overall rigour.

We note that on a strict interpretation of the State Service Code of Conduct, which requires a direct link between employment and the conduct in question, the earlier incident involving allegations that Justin had sexually penetrated a girl under the age of consent, who had allegedly been drinking at the time, could not be met with the seriousness it deserved. We also have concerns about the Department’s framing of that situation as being a risk to Justin’s career, rather than a potential risk to students —as well as not acknowledging the harm to the young woman involved.

Case study 3: ‘Wayne’

This case study about Wayne (a pseudonym), a high school teacher, is mostly based on information the Department provided in relation to its recent responses to child sexual abuse matters.138 Rachel (a pseudonym) gave evidence at our hearings.139

1. The alleged incident

In the early 2000s, Rachel was a smiley, bubbly and shy student who liked school.140 Wayne, a teacher at her school, was well known in the small community in which they lived, and had a public image that made Rachel trust him.141 Rachel told us that Wayne presented himself as ‘more of a friend’ to Rachel and, at the time, she thought he was a ‘cool teacher’.142 Rachel’s mother, Anne (a pseudonym), was a single mother working two jobs who, after some convincing, accepted Wayne’s offer to take Rachel to an activity outside school each week in which they were both involved and which Rachel was keen to pursue.143

When Rachel was 16 she went on an out-of-town trip connected to this activity with Wayne. Anne attended as her guardian and witnessed Wayne behave in an ‘overly familiar’ way with Rachel, given their teacher–student relationship.144 Rachel told us that Anne had allegedly witnessed Wayne piggybacking Rachel, telling her she had a ‘nice arse’, drawing a penis on her ankle and tucking her into bed.145 Wayne also gave Rachel a tank top imprinted with the words ‘MILF in training’.146 Anne described being ‘in disbelief’ when she allegedly saw Wayne kiss Rachel after he tucked her into bed.147

Shortly after the trip, in 2005, Anne reported her concerns about Wayne to the Department.148 From the outset, Anne said the Department was ‘very intimidating with my claim’.149

1. The initial response

Following a preliminary investigation, the Department advised Wayne of potential breaches of the State Service Code of Conduct in him buying the tank top.150 An investigator was appointed to conduct a formal investigation.151 Wayne was suspended from teaching pending the outcome.152

Rachel and Anne were allegedly told not to speak to anyone about the investigation and that if they did, they could be sued for defamation.153 Rachel told us that she and Anne did not receive any counselling, support or check-ins during the process, which was particularly challenging for them because they lived in a small community where ‘everyone seems to know everyone’s business without actually knowing their business’.154

Rachel told us that she was scared and nervous speaking with the two male investigators the Department appointed to investigate her allegations.158 She also told us that the interviews with investigators were ‘gruelling’—that the questioning sometimes went for two hours, involved confronting questions and, on occasion, occurred without a support person of her choosing present.159 Rachel said: ‘I just felt like this little person with these men in suits hovering over the top of me’.160

Rachel also told us that she withheld some of her experiences with Wayne from the investigators. As an adult reflecting on this decision, Rachel stated: ‘They did not make me feel that they would believe me’.161 She explained that, at the time, she thought some aspects of her abuse were her fault and that she needed to protect Wayne from getting in trouble.162 She spoke of crying in bed at night, asking herself ‘Why me, why me, why can’t I just tell them the truth?’163

During a later meeting with the Department, Rachel made more disclosures, including allegations that Wayne had kissed her and texted her that he loved her on a number of occasions, had shown her ‘dirty jokes or videos’ on his work computer and on at least one occasion had rubbed his hand up and down her leg and touched her crotch area over her clothing.164 While telling investigators and her mother the extent of the alleged abuse, she said she ‘had to sit on [her] hands because they would not stop shaking’.165 Rachel told us that her mother was ‘bawling her eyes out’ as Rachel spoke.166 She also told us that she was asked to demonstrate, to the adults in the room, how Wayne had touched her.167 Other disclosures that Rachel made include allegations that Wayne:

• gave her alcohol
• would sometimes put a finger in her mouth and make her suck or would put her finger in his mouth and suck it
• gave her a letter at school saying he loved her and asking her to reply
• told her that once she left school and was 18 they could start dating
• told her to put her phone down her pants so that if she received text messages it would vibrate near her genitals.168

Rachel also made a statement to the Teachers Registration Board a few months after her later disclosures to the Department.169

Shortly after Rachel made these additional disclosures, the Department contacted the Child Protection Advice and Referral Service (as it was called then). The service informed the Department that once it formally received the allegations, it would notify police under the mandatory reporting protocol.170 In mid-2007 the then Secretary of the Department was briefed on the additional disclosures and advised that:

• the allegations about the inappropriate computer material should not be pursued because it was difficult to establish, on the available evidence, whether the material was inappropriate (or the extent of its inappropriateness)171
• no other action should be taken in relation to the other allegations because the events took place outside school hours and outside school grounds, and that there were no witnesses and no more sources of evidence that could be pursued.172

In relation to the allegation that Wayne had given Rachel a tank top with an inappropriate message on it, the Department found that:

[Wayne’s] behaviour in this matter had the potential to adversely affect the integrity and good reputation of the State Service. However, given that the tank top has not been worn [by Rachel], it is not possible to establish a community view, regarding [Wayne’s] actions bringing the State Service into disrepute, about a garment that has not been seen in public.

Accordingly … [the Secretary was] unable to substantiate that a breach of part 14 of the State Services Act 2000 Code of Conduct has occurred.173

Rachel maintains that she did in fact wear the tank top with an inappropriate message on it and that the Department made a mistake in concluding that she did not.174

Most of Rachel’s complaints were then formally referred to the Child Protection Advice and Referral Service, with a note from the Department that read in part: ‘the department is not in a position to investigate the majority of these alleged incidents as they took place outside the school environment’.175 Police notified the Department that they would not pursue the allegations.176

The then Secretary of the Department of Education sent Wayne a letter stating that ‘all current [Department of Education] investigations are now concluded and I consider that these matters to be at an end and no formal sanction has been applied’.177 The letter warned Wayne not to place himself in a position in the future where his ‘conduct and behaviour towards students could be deemed to be inappropriate’.178

In 2007, a joint statement between Wayne and the Department was published in a local paper, which read: ‘After an extensive investigation the Department of Education has determined that [Wayne] has not breached the State Service Act 2000 Code of Conduct’.179

Rachel described feeling ‘hurt, confused, betrayed and neglected’ by the Department, which had not communicated any outcome to her or given her any reasons for its decision.180

Around this time, Rachel reported the allegations of abuse to police.181 After writing her statement by hand, as instructed by Tasmania Police officers, she was told that a possible charge against Wayne of ‘assault with indecent intent’ under the Police Offences Act 1935 (‘Police Offences Act’) had to have been reported within 12 months of the incident, which meant Wayne could not be charged or convicted of this offence.182 The brief to the Secretary at the time stated that police had incorrectly advised the Department that the offence had a statute of limitation of two years.183 Rachel said she felt extremely let down by the justice system and felt she was ‘hit with a dead-end; no support and no closure’.184

In the same year, Wayne applied for renewal of his teaching registration with the Teachers Registration Board. In his application, Wayne declared that he had been the subject of an investigation.185 The Board requested more information from Wayne, and from Anne and Rachel.186 The Board also sought information from the Department about its investigations into Wayne’s conduct. The Board was advised that all investigations had been concluded and that no breach of the State Service Code of Conduct had been found.187 Despite this, the Board determined in 2008 that Wayne was not ‘of good character’ and refused to renew his registration.188 Wayne sought to appeal the decision in the Magistrates Court, but his appeal was denied because it was not lodged within the relevant statutory time limit.189

In 2009, Wayne tried again to renew his registration. He provided a range of written references in support of his application.190 Following advice from the Office of the Solicitor-General, the Board granted him registration for one year.191 This came as a shock to Rachel, who reported receiving assurances from the Board that Wayne would never teach again.192 She said she did not understand the various registration and renewal processes and what information Wayne had provided as part of those processes.193 Rachel told us: ‘I very much feel that, until this day, that we have been portrayed as liars’.194

1. Departmental review

Rachel’s allegations were reinvestigated in 2021 as part of a broader review of historical complaints about current employees. As a result of this review, Wayne is the subject of a formal disciplinary investigation.195

Wayne’s registration as a teacher was suspended in 2021, after his Registration to Work with Vulnerable People was cancelled.196 Wayne then resigned from his position.197 Department and Board investigations are ongoing.198

1. What we heard

When giving evidence at hearings, Rachel described her motivation for coming forward:

I just don’t want anyone to ever go through what I’ve gone through …199

I want to advocate for those children that usually, that can’t speak; I want to advocate for parents or caregivers that—I’ve seen what it’s done to my mother. I’ve physically seen how it’s just ripped her apart, how it’s ripped me apart.200

Rachel went on to describe the impact of the abuse allegedly perpetrated on her, which includes nightmares, flashbacks and a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder requiring medication to manage.201 She refuses to place her children in a government school and described being overprotective and hypervigilant about her daughters’ safety.202 She has since left the community where she grew up (and where Anne still lives), saying ‘I didn’t want to stay there, and even today I’m so fearful of being in that community’.203

Anne told us that the impacts of Wayne’s conduct and the response of the Department have also been ongoing for her:

I am currently struggling with the stress and flood of emotions from [that time]. I struggle with trust issues and still feel ostracised by the staff that were at the school at the time of my complaint. The process is flawed and favours the perpetrator and protecting the Education Department’s reputation.204

In response to requests for information about the handling of Wayne’s matter, Secretary Bullard reviewed the Department’s records, which caused him ‘both personal and professional distress’.205 He conceded a range of shortcomings in the Department’s response, including the following:

• Certain allegations did not form part of a further investigation due to a limitation in the State Service Code of Conduct itself, rather than a shortcoming or failure of the Department, on the basis that they were ‘not in the course of employment’.206 However, the Department should have investigated Rachel’s additional disclosures.207 Secretary Bullard stated that the behaviour Rachel reported is ‘entirely inappropriate of a teacher towards a student’ regardless of whether it occurred in or outside the school environment.208 He also stated that the Department’s Conduct and Behaviour Standards were not referenced in any correspondence between the Department and Wayne. These standards provide that teachers should conduct themselves in a manner that does not bring the Department into disrepute, including outside school hours.209
• In relation to Rachel’s initial disclosures, the question of whether she wore the offensive tank top was irrelevant to a determination of whether Wayne damaged the integrity and good reputation of the State Service. The gift of the item to Rachel (which he admitted) was grounds to consider that misconduct had occurred.210
• Wayne does not appear to have been advised about the additional disclosures Rachel reported.211
• Not all of Rachel’s additional disclosures were investigated, but one that was —her allegation that Wayne had shown her inappropriate jokes or videos—was not investigated consistent with the relevant employment direction.212 The allegation that Wayne gave a personal letter to Rachel at school appears to have been overlooked.213 Secretary Bullard conceded that the failure to investigate all the matters disclosed by Rachel put other children and young people at risk.214
• The Department received more information about Wayne’s conduct towards other young people, but there were no records to suggest that these allegations were investigated or provided to police.215 One student made allegations about Wayne’s conduct in relation to a former student and was ultimately forced to apologise to Wayne, at Wayne’s insistence. Secretary Bullard described this as ‘appalling’ and as sending a signal to other young people that concerns were not worth raising.216

Secretary Bullard also acknowledged:

• Placing an advertisement in the local paper stating that all investigations into Wayne had been concluded was ‘a significant failing’ of the Department and ‘horrifying’ for Rachel.217 It was also misleading, given Rachel’s additional disclosures.218
• There was no evidence of support offered to Rachel and others involved in the matter.219
• The investigation took too long to be completed (more than two years).220
• The Department did not proactively notify the Teachers Registration Board of Rachel’s complaints (the initial or later disclosures), which meant that the Board did not have knowledge of these matters until Wayne disclosed them when trying to renew his registration. Secretary Bullard conceded that Wayne’s summary of the matter to the Board omitted details.221
• Correspondence from the Department in response to the Board’s request for information when Wayne sought re-registration did not provide a ‘proper, complete and accurate outline’ of Rachel’s disclosures—the Department only provided information about the limited matters that were investigated.222 Secretary Bullard conceded that the Department, by omission, misled the Teachers Registration Board in this letter.223

Secretary Bullard said that if Rachel’s complaint were made in 2022, it would be managed differently.224 He told us that Wayne would be asked to leave the workplace pending a disciplinary investigation, appropriate notifications would be made to all relevant agencies, and the Secretary would make a determination about his conduct.225 Also, Rachel and Anne would have access to the school social worker and psychologist, and appropriate referrals would be made to support services, including sexual assault services.226 There would also be a less restrictive interpretation of what constitutes ‘in the course of employment’ under the State Service Code of Conduct, to enable the Department to hold teachers to account for inappropriate conduct that occurs outside school hours, as evidenced by the investigation into Wayne.227

Reflecting on Rachel’s discomfort with the male investigators who interviewed her, Secretary Bullard noted that there have been discussions in the Department about strategies to ensure an appropriate balance in the gender composition of investigators.228

Secretary Bullard went on to note that Workplace Relations now provides the Teachers Registration Board with a copy of the Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct letter sent to the employee and ‘all relevant documentary evidence’.229 The Board also receives the outcome of the Employment Direction No. 5 investigation as well as statements obtained during the investigation, where witnesses have given permission for these to be shared.230

Secretary Bullard recommended that, in the future, more wide-ranging language be used in the State Service Code of Conduct to directly capture conduct that ‘arises from employment’ or is ‘connected to employment’, such as teachers’ conduct outside of school hours.231 He told us the Department is adopting an expansive interpretation of these terms, which has not (yet) been tested by legal challenge.232 We make recommendations for changes to the State Service Code of Conduct in Chapter 20.

1. Systemic issues

We agree with Secretary Bullard’s reflections on the shortcomings of the Department’s handling of Wayne’s case. However, we express further shortcomings:

• The investigation process was not trauma-informed, child-centred or designed to elicit the best possible information and evidence to support the investigation. It failed to understand specific considerations that must be given to interviewing children and young people—including the need for shorter sessions, a safe and comfortable environment, the presence of trusted support people, and sensitive and appropriate questioning by an investigator that feels safe for the young person. It also failed to recognise that children and young people often disclose information in stages (as Rachel did) rather than all at once.
• Relevant policies and procedures were not followed, or referenced, in engagement with Wayne. Even at that time, policies required that teachers not bring the Department into disrepute outside the school environment. Notifications to the Child Protection Advice and Referral Service were only made in response to Rachel’s further disclosures, when arguably the Advice and Referral Service should have been notified immediately, ahead of the initial Employment Direction No.5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigation.
• Rachel and Anne did not receive adequate support, care and communication throughout the investigation process. Assurances given to them (for example, that Wayne would not return to the school, or be able to be registered) were not implemented, which was highly upsetting and stressful for both.
• The approach to the investigation was overly technical and legalistic, which led to an unacceptable narrowing of the investigation and a failure to consider a pattern of behaviour that may amount to grooming. These failures meant that Rachel’s disclosures were not investigated properly and potential risks to other children and young people were not identified and addressed. The Department appears to have been intimidated by Wayne’s litigious and aggressive attitude towards the investigation and adopted an overly conservative approach to its own powers in response.
• The investigation took too long (notwithstanding the subsequent disclosures), which added to Rachel and Anne’s distress, particularly given the upsetting dynamics the matter created in the small community in which they lived.
• The publication of the joint statement in the local paper in 2007 suggesting a comprehensive investigation into Wayne’s conduct that effectively cleared him of any wrongdoing was appalling and cruel, particularly given the community context and that this was how Rachel and Anne discovered the outcome of the initial investigation.
• The letter from the Department to the Teachers Registration Board about Rachel’s disclosures was misleading and inhibited the Board from properly executing its functions and responding to risks that Wayne may have posed to students. Overall, there was poor information sharing between the Department and the Board.
• That Wayne was re-registered (notwithstanding the substantial concerns held by the Board about his fitness to teach) following the Office of Solicitor-General’s advice suggests that this advice failed to show adequate regard for child safety.
• Delays and failures by the Department and the school to report Rachel’s allegations to child protection contributed to her allegations not being raised with police until after the statute of limitations had expired.
• There should not be a limitation period in the Police Offences Act in relation to offences connected to child sexual abuse. We note that this limitation period was removed in April 2023 through the Justice Miscellaneous (Royal Commission Amendments) Act 2023.233

Case study 4: Katrina

Katrina Munting gave evidence at our hearings and shared her experience of being sexually abused while attending a state-run high school in Tasmania. Ms Munting enjoyed school; she was studious and wanted to be the first person from her family to go to university. However, Ms Munting told us that her life was drastically changed after being sexually abused by a teacher named Peter (a pseudonym) at her school.234

1. The incidents

Ms Munting was in year 9 in 1998 when she attended a school camp with Peter.235 She recalls that Peter was very accommodating and that he engaged with the students in a friendly and familiar way. However, looking back (and with the benefit of her now considerable experience as a teacher herself), Ms Munting said that she now sees Peter’s behaviour on this camp as being too familiar.236 Peter had brought his dog to the camp, which allowed him to more readily initiate conversation with students and to be in close contact with them, particularly the female students:

In break times, he would consistently be with groups of predominantly female students and engage in the students’ personal conversations, rather than being with other staff … He would give … female students the job of ‘watching’ his dog. He was overly interested in the private lives of my peers and he was not concerned about how it would look for him to be having one-on-one conversations with students over the duration of the camp, which I observed him doing openly. In retrospect, I am concerned he was attempting to work out who would be an ‘available’ victim.237

A few months after camp, Ms Munting needed help with a school project. Although Peter was not her teacher at the time, he nevertheless volunteered to help. It was during this time that Peter’s inappropriate behaviour towards Ms Munting escalated. As they worked together, he would ‘accidentally’ touch her. This progressed over time to his touching becoming ‘more sexualised’.238 Peter’s change in behaviour was subtle and happened over time. It was not until Peter began to touch Ms Munting’s breasts and buttocks that she realised it was ‘definitely sexualised and not right’.239 Despite this realisation, Ms Munting told us:

I froze and allowed him to do as he will. As time progressed and the abuse became more intense, I increasingly realised how wrong it was; however, by then it was all too late to ‘get out’.240

Later that same year, Peter singled Ms Munting out to go on another camp—one that was generally only attended by year 10 students. Peter’s request was highly unusual and, had the invitation been made under different circumstances, Ms Munting told us that she would have been flattered.241 However, given the ongoing abuse that was happening, she said she suspected Peter had ulterior motives for asking her to attend.242 These misgivings proved correct, and Peter sexually abused Ms Munting during the camp.243

Peter continued to abuse Ms Munting during the school holidays between years 9 and 10. Ms Munting told us that he had her lie on the floor of his ute and drove her to his house where he sexually abused her.244 Peter also became more intense verbally, telling Ms Munting that he loved her. He also often insisted she phone him (because if he called her, it would raise suspicion with Ms Munting’s parents) and during these calls would insist she meet up with him.245

Ms Munting began year 10 in 1999 and the abuse continued. The frequency of the abuse was ‘similar if not more frequent’ during that period, and the amount of time that Ms Munting was spending with Peter had not gone unnoticed.246 Halfway through term 2, one of Ms Munting’s teachers (a senior teacher at the school) allegedly took her aside while she was in the library with her classmates and told her that it was not normal for her to be spending so much time with Peter. Ms Munting was mortified.247 She told us that she:

... ran from the room in tears and cried my eyes out in the toilets. I thought that the floodgates of hell were about to open. I thought that I would be in trouble from Peter, my parents and the school.248

Ms Munting also told us that she feared that ‘her world was about to end’, that all her goals and hopes for her future—her perception of what her life was going to be —had ‘been shattered’ because someone knew about what had been happening.249 However, some time went by and despite her fears she did not get in trouble—in fact, nothing happened at all. Ms Munting said that her parents were not told and there was no follow-up by the school.250

When asked to reflect on how this senior teacher had allegedly communicated with her about Peter, Ms Munting replied that the conversation should not have taken place during class time and in the presence of her peers. Also, the teacher should have known that the nature of the conversation required that support be on hand during and after the conversation. Instead, no teachers came to find her or checked to see if she was okay. Ms Munting pointed out that the teacher who had confronted her clearly had suspicions about Peter and yet did nothing about them, other than to direct a veiled accusation at her:

In hindsight those words, they haunt me: ‘It has been noticed that you and Peter are spending time together or too much time together and that is not normal’. To say those words to a student and then do nothing to make it stop.

Why wasn’t Peter the one having that conversation? Why was he not getting in trouble? I was getting in trouble for what I was trapped in, and then for that to not have any follow-up was devastating ... they had mortified me by what they had said, but what’s even worse is, they hadn’t acknowledged what they thought was going on and they did not make it stop. The abuse continued, he did not desist. I was the one that was expected to make it stop, I was the one that made it stop.251

Ms Munting said that sometime later she was told Peter had also been approached and told to ‘watch himself’:

… that was it. Not that his actions were inappropriate, [or] what he was doing was criminal: ‘Watch yourself’. In other words, ‘Keep doing it, just do it better so no-one notices, will you?’ Like, that’s how I read that, ‘Watch yourself’. How pathetic.252

The conversation with the senior teacher deeply frightened Ms Munting. She began to make excuses whenever Peter summoned her and tried to avoid being in places where he could abuse her. The abuse became less frequent and eventually, despite still being afraid of Peter, she stopped responding to him at all.253 Ms Munting told us that a part of her thought that once suspicions had been raised, the abuse would stop. However, this was not the case. Ms Munting told us that she was ‘devastated’ that nothing was done: ‘I had to make it stop and that was excruciating trying to work out how do you do that, how do you make something stop? It’s essentially an ingrained pattern of power’.254

In response to her avoiding him, Ms Munting said that Peter began to leave notes for her in her locker insisting that she continue to meet with him, that he had to see her, and that he loved her. Ms Munting destroyed these letters.255 Ms Munting told us that eventually Peter’s behaviour towards her turned to disdain. She recalls that he would pass her in the hallway and, if no one was close by, he would mutter things like ‘bitch’ at her.256

Later in year 10, the school placed Ms Munting in Peter’s class.257 Three times a week that term, Ms Munting had to sit in class with her abuser for an hour. Ms Munting said she was ‘deeply scared about what had happened, and ashamed’.258 She tried to put it all behind her and focus on her studies.259

1. The disclosure

Ms Munting found she could not bury what had happened to her, so in 2000, she disclosed some of the abuse to her boyfriend. Ms Munting’s boyfriend and his father then confronted the school.260 The school principal took the complaint seriously, and Peter resigned from his position soon after.261 Ms Munting was allegedly told that Peter would never teach again.262 However, Ms Munting recalls that the school did not contact Ms Munting’s parents about the abuse at any time. Nor did the school inform her about any investigation into Peter’s behaviour. Ms Munting did not receive any support or counselling from the school. As far as Ms Munting is aware, police were never contacted.263

Ms Munting’s mental health suffered over the years, and she eventually decided that, to progress in her healing process, she needed to report her abuse to police. With the encouragement and support of a friend who was a police officer, Ms Munting made a formal statement to police. This was a difficult process, and Ms Munting recalled that the detective ‘demonstrated belief in all I had to say in my interview. The second detective in the room was a female; this helped’.264 She told us that it was empowering to be ‘heard and believed’.265

Peter was charged and eventually pleaded guilty to some of the charges, but he disputed various facts.266 This meant that Ms Munting was subjected to ‘cross examination as part of a “disputed facts hearing”’ process that was ‘harrowing and mortifying’. She told us that Peter sat close by and made ‘dismissive noises and gestures while [she] was … being questioned by the Crown and the defence’.267 The case was emotionally draining and psychologically painful for Ms Munting, and while she told us that she was well looked after by the Crown Prosecutor and witness support staff, overall, her experience of the criminal justice system was ‘devastating’.268

Peter was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.269

While criminal proceedings were important to Ms Munting, she told us that she also wanted the Department of Education to admit its wrongdoing and to be held accountable.270 A year after giving her statement to police, Ms Munting began writing to the Minister for Education requesting to speak with him so she could share her story. Each week for 16 weeks, Ms Munting wrote a unique letter to the Minister requesting an audience. She recalled receiving two or three replies—all declining her requests.271 After the 16th week, she told us she received a reply that was different in nature and a meeting was arranged with the Deputy Secretary of the Department. Ms Munting told us that this was a good discussion and that the Deputy Secretary listened and apologised to her, though she thought that the Secretary should have attended the meeting. She believed she had been palmed off to the Deputy Secretary to shut her up.272

Ms Munting said that an apology from the Minister for Education would be ‘exceptionally important’.273 She told us that any such apology needs to be:

… more than just that they’re sorry that I was abused in their institution, you know, they need to be sorry that I was abused in their institution and they chose to ignore it, and they chose not to follow it up, and they chose to ignore me, and … they need to name up exactly what it is that they’re sorry for, because I don’t want a hollow ‘I’m sorry’. What are you sorry for? Because, not only have I been devastated by the abuse, the fallout that I’ve had to deal with since has made it so much worse.274

1. The response

When asked about Ms Munting’s and other witnesses’ evidence to our Commission of Inquiry, Secretary Bullard apologised for the past failings of the Department and acknowledged the ‘lasting, ongoing and negative impact that that has had on victims and survivors’.275 He also acknowledged the Department’s failure to help victim-survivors to recover and heal.

When asked specifically about Ms Munting’s evidence in relation to what an apology should mean, Secretary Bullard said that the significance of the apology to Ms Munting was:

... the Department’s recognition of the harm that it’s caused … the significance is to each and every person that receives that; they will make a determination about how important or not, how much validity or not they provide to that; all I can do is lead with my heart and provide that apology.276

In his statement to our Commission of Inquiry, Secretary Bullard also acknowledged the difficulties that could result from the Department’s lack of communication with complainants.277 Secretary Bullard apologised for the Department’s past failings.278

Case study 5: ‘Jeremy’

This case study about Jeremy (a pseudonym), a teacher, is based on information the Department provided in relation to its recent responses to child sexual abuse matters.279

1. The alleged incidents and response

Jeremy was employed by the Department of Education as a teacher until 2022.280

In 2012, several students at the same school made allegations about Jeremy’s conduct.281 These included allegations that he failed to maintain appropriate boundaries and that he was making inappropriate comments to them that were of a sexual nature.282

Departmental records show that, on becoming aware of the allegations, the assistant principal of the school met with each of the students separately to obtain information relevant to their complaints and had conversations with the students’ parents.283 Departmental records also show that the principal and assistant principal met with Jeremy to discuss the allegations, and that Jeremy admitted his behaviour ‘was a bit loose’ but ‘not inappropriate’ in the context of conversations with the students.284 The principal’s notes state that, in response, they told Jeremy that any ‘conversation [with students] must be totally non-personal and not involve [a] sexual view of any nature. Not even [the] use [of the] word sex’.285

The assistant principal then sent an email to Jeremy outlining the actions that the school had taken in response to the allegations, including that the students involved had been moved out of Jeremy’s class.286

With the assistance of the human resources team, the principal drafted a letter to the students’ parents informing them that Jeremy had been spoken to about his unprofessional and inappropriate behaviour and had been made aware of his obligations under the State Service Code of Conduct.287 Learning Services also sent a letter to Jeremy, confirming that his behaviour was inappropriate, and that Jeremy recognised that his behaviour was unacceptable. The letter served as ‘a formal warning’.288

Four years later, in 2016, another student made allegations against Jeremy. This student said that Jeremy had allegedly taken her into a small storeroom that had an automatic lock and sexually abused her.289 The student alleged that Jeremy had told her that she must not tell anyone what had happened, or he would go to jail and would have to kill himself. Later, Jeremy asked the student if she had enjoyed ‘the lesson’.290 These allegations were reported to police by someone external to the school.291

The school principal informed Learning Services of the allegations, advising that the ‘student had had a few other instances with this teacher where his actions had been suspicious, [and] noting there was “enough to warrant extreme concern”’.292 Human Resources, and then the Department’s Conduct and Investigations Unit, were informed of the allegations on the same day.293

The following morning Jeremy was sent home from work and, shortly after, the Department suspended him with pay.294 The Department then initiated an investigation, in line with Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct, into whether Jeremy had breached the State Service Code of Conduct.295 School staff were told that Jeremy was on leave.296

Departmental records show that the principal also notified the Child Protection Advice and Referral Service (as it was then known) and that two days after the school was made aware of the allegations the student made a statement to police.297 Learning Services spoke with the student’s mother to confirm that the allegations would be investigated, and a human resources team member met with the student and her family shortly after.298

The Department also notified the Teachers Registration Board of the allegations, and the Board suspended Jeremy’s registration.299 Jeremy appealed the decision to suspend his registration to the Magistrates Court, which ultimately ordered that the suspension be set aside pending the outcome of the Teachers Registration Board investigation.300 The Court also directed that a condition be imposed on Jeremy’s registration that he ‘not seek or accept employment as a teacher within any Tasmanian School or TasTAFE pending the outcome of an enquiry’.301 Ann Moxham, Registrar, Teachers Registration Board, described the Court’s order as ‘contrary to the function of the [Board]’.302

Soon after, the same student disclosed that there had been other incidents where Jeremy had behaved inappropriately towards her. One such incident occurred in 2015 when Jeremy allegedly hit her on the bottom with a badminton racquet.303 The Department reported this allegation to police in August 2016.304 Another incident, also alleged to have occurred in 2015, involved a teacher who had witnessed inappropriate behaviour by Jeremy towards the student, namely that Jeremy had placed his hand on the student’s thigh.305 The teacher had reported this alleged incident to the principal on the same day, but no other action was taken at the time.306

In late 2016, police charged Jeremy with two counts of indecent assault.307

Jeremy’s teacher registration expired in mid-2016 (he had reached the end of his five-year registration cycle) and so he had to apply for a renewal.308 In 2017, Jeremy’s application for a renewal was refused on the basis that he was not registered to work with vulnerable people.309

The Teachers Registration Act 2000 had been amended in 2017 to require that a person seeking to register as a teacher must first be registered under the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act 2013 (‘Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act’).310 When Jeremy applied to be registered to work with vulnerable people in late 2016, a decision on his application was deferred, on the grounds that the outcome of the charges against him was likely to be relevant to deciding whether to grant him registration.311 However, the Registrar decided not to grant Jeremy Registration to Work with Vulnerable People ahead of any legal outcome.312 Jeremy appealed against this decision. His appeal was unsuccessful and so the Department stopped paying him in mid-2017.313 However, the Magistrates Court stayed this decision (although it is not clear what effect this had on Jeremy’s pay).314

In 2019, the Supreme Court acquitted Jeremy of indecent assault. He was then granted registration under the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act.315

In 2020, Jeremy applied to the Teachers Registration Board to have his registration as a teacher reinstated. The Board determined, however, that based on advice from the Office of the Solicitor-General, Jeremy would need to apply to become registered. Jeremy applied for registration in late 2020.316 The Board has not registered Jeremy and is, at the time of writing, awaiting the outcome of an investigation to determine if he is of good character and fit to teach.317 The Department lifted his suspension in the same year, on the basis that he could not teach because he did not hold current registration.318

1. Departmental review

The Department identified Jeremy’s case as part of its review into the management of ‘historical’ child sexual misconduct allegations involving current employees.

There are few departmental records in relation to the 2012 allegations against Jeremy because the school handled these allegations internally and so they were not referred to the Secretary. Secretary Bullard told us that the 2012 allegations were ‘reinvestigated’ in 2021, in line with contemporary departmental procedures.319

In respect of the 2016 allegations, Secretary Bullard told us the Department had informed Jeremy that he would be subject to an Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigation, but this was ‘put on hold’ pending the charges against Jeremy and another police investigation into the matter.320 Jeremy’s trial concluded in 2019. The Department initiated its investigation in 2020.321

In mid-2021, the Department began another Employment Direction No. 5 investigation into the allegations made against Jeremy in 2012 and 2015.322 After providing Jeremy the opportunity to show cause as to why his employment should not be terminated, Secretary Bullard terminated Jeremy’s employment in early 2022.323 Jeremy appealed this decision to the Tasmanian Industrial Commission.324 At the time of writing, the appeal was ongoing.

Secretary Bullard stated that between the time Jeremy was asked to leave the school in 2016 and his termination in 2022, he did not return to ‘his employment’.325

1. What we heard

Secretary Bullard conceded that there were shortcomings in the school’s and the Department’s responses to complaints about Jeremy. He told us that in relation to the allegations made by several students in 2012:

• Learning Services found no evidence that the Department supported the students after complaining about Jeremy’s behaviour.326
• The principal of the school in question and/or Learning Services did not inform the Conduct and Investigations Unit about the allegations, nor was the Unit informed of the outcome of any investigation. This meant that a notification was not made to the Teachers Registration Board in respect of those allegations.327
• Notifications were not made to the Child Protection Advice and Referral Service, Tasmania Police or the Integrity Commission at the time.328
• A copy of the State Service Code of Conduct was sent to Jeremy, but the Department’s Conduct and Behaviour Standards policy was not brought to his attention.329
• There are no records of the school communicating with the students involved other than the initial meeting between the principal and each of the students, and a letter sent from the principal to the students’ parents.330

In respect of the allegations about Jeremy’s conduct in 2015, Secretary Bullard advised that there were no departmental records of these allegations.331 The principal was not asked to document the event in which a teacher allegedly witnessed Jeremy put his hand on the student’s thigh, nor did the principal report it to the Department.332 These allegations only came to light during Jeremy’s trial in 2019.333 Further:

• There were no records to show whether the student who made the complaint was given any support: ‘[t]o date, no records have been identified by Learning Services that indicate that a school teacher, social worker/psychologist offered and/or provided support to [the student] following her disclosure’.334
• As with the 2012 complaints, the school did not notify the Conduct and Investigations Unit, police or the Child Protection Advice and Referral Service, nor are there any records of communications between the school and the student or her family.335

Secretary Bullard stated that the school’s responses to the 2012 and 2015 allegations did not comply with departmental policies and procedures that were in place at the time.336

While the school and the Department’s responses to the allegations made against Jeremy in 2016 were an improvement on the handling of earlier allegations, there were still aspects that did not comply with departmental policies. As Secretary Bullard noted:

• There was no immediate report made to the Child Protection Advice and Referral Service in line with the Mandatory Reporting Procedure.337
• According to departmental policy, the student should have been referred to a staff member with specialised skills, and a plan developed to support the student.338 There is no evidence that this occurred or that the student had access to the school social worker.339
• There are limited records of communication with the student (and her family) about the allegations, and there are no records of communications with other students or staff at the school.340
• The Integrity Commission was not notified about the allegations at the time.341
• There are no records of communication with the student or staff at the school regarding the 2016 allegations.342

1. What happened since and what needs to change

The information provided to us about Jeremy’s case reveals several systemic and case-specific issues:

• Students’ complaints were not adequately scrutinised.
• Not enough consideration was given to the risks posed to any child by a teacher who breached professional boundaries in a sexual manner with a child.
• Children were interviewed by personnel not trained in child interviewing techniques and child sexual abuse.
• The principal had too much discretion in deciding when to escalate concerns to the Department.
• Incidents were not appropriately reported to the Department of Education.
• Record keeping in relation to the complaints was poor.
• Communication between different units in the Department, and between the Department and other regulatory bodies such as the Teachers Registration Board, was poor.
• There was no communication (or communication was inadequate) with students, staff and the school community.
• Policies and procedures were not complied with.
• There was no support offered to students after their disclosures (or it was inadequate).
• There were unacceptable delays in disciplinary processes.

Secretary Bullard told us that the Department’s responses to allegations such as those made against Jeremy in 2012 (and to an extent in 2015 and 2016) could be characterised as a ‘mosaic of approaches’.343 Secretary Bullard described this to us as:

… let’s make some decisions around how we might deal with this, is a conversation from a principal or a senior leader enough, do we need to go to Learning Services, Human Resources, or do I need to escalate it? So … there’s a judgment made on the ground about the seriousness or otherwise, and as [was] quite rightly pointed out, until such matters are investigated, how are you going to know?344

Secretary Bullard also noted that in 2012 there was no protocol in place requiring that such matters be brought to the attention of Workplace Relations.

We heard that the current process for handling such allegations is very different:

… every allegation that is raised must be referred to Workplace Relations and Workplace Relations must refer it to me [the Secretary]. Every allegation that is raised must be referred to the Teachers Registration Board, the Working with Vulnerable People Check and the Integrity Commission, and Teachers Registration Board where it relates to a teacher, and that is the process that sits in place now.345

Secretary Bullard elaborated that a ‘best practice response’ now involves a Senior Workplace Relations Consultant being briefed about the alleged conduct and discussing the matter with the Manager of Workplace Relations and the Assistant Director of Industrial Relations.346 An assessment is then made ‘as to the nature and seriousness of the allegations’.347 There is no specific policy guiding this assessment, but the nature and seriousness of the conduct as well as whether the conduct is isolated or part of a pattern of behaviour will form part of the assessment.348

If the matter does not involve an allegation of child sexual abuse or inappropriate physical contact, the matter ‘may be handled locally in consultation between the Principal and Learning Services, without a referral to the Secretary’.349 If the matter is assessed as being ‘more serious’, the Secretary will be briefed by Workplace Relations on whether an Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigation should be initiated. If the matter involves an allegation of a sexual nature, the Secretary will be briefed regardless of the outcome of the assessment.350 Where child sexual abuse is suspected, ‘the employee is asked to immediately leave the workplace and await correspondence from the Secretary, pending any determination’.351 Notifications are then made to police, the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme and the Teachers Registration Board if appropriate.352

We are pleased that the Department has made improvements in responding to allegations of child sexual abuse, however there are aspects of the Department’s current response that continue to raise concerns. For example, the seriousness of allegations that do not involve child sexual abuse is assessed by Workplace Relations and Industrial Relations, apparently in the absence of any specific policy or criteria or subject matter expertise. In such cases, it may be that allegations against departmental staff, such as those made against Jeremy in 2012, are still resolved locally by the school principal and Learning Services. This means that it is possible that allegations that relate to behaviours associated with grooming or precursor conduct may not be brought to the attention of the Department or the Secretary. We have observed a theme across Tasmanian Government services of failure to identify professional boundary breaches as potential grooming behaviours. We note that, despite Secretary Bullard’s assurance that he would be notified of all concerns about child sexual abuse including grooming and precursor conduct, it may be that some behaviours are not recognised and reported as such by school staff, or are not assessed as such by Workplace Relations.353 Secretary Bullard conceded that some behaviours are ‘nuanced’ and that the Department needed to ‘absolutely invest in training [the Department’s] workforce to understand something that may or may not constitute a matter of concern’.354

In terms of the delay in starting the Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigation into the 2016 allegations about Jeremy’s conduct, Secretary Bullard stated that he was:

… acutely aware of the tension that currently exists between undertaking an [Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct] investigation in a timely manner, in order to minimise distress to the child or young person who has made the allegation and also the employee being investigated, and the requirement not to jeopardise a police investigation and/or criminal proceedings.355

However, this does not adequately explain the time taken between the conclusion of Jeremy’s trial in 2019 and resuming the Employment Direction No. 5 investigation in 2020. Secretary Bullard conceded that the delay in reactivating the investigation was ‘not acceptable’, but said that: 356

Workplace Relations … advised that the investigation did not recommence immediately upon the acquittal of [Jeremy] due to a general review of the matter, and meetings to determine the process and a pathway forward, including ongoing discussions about whether an [Employment Direction No.5—Breach of Code of Conduct] should be commenced or ceased.357

Secretary Bullard also told us that a complainant is not informed of the outcome of an Employment Direction No. 5 investigation because this is prohibited under legislation.358 He agreed that not communicating the outcome of an investigation to a complainant was of ‘significant concern’.359 He told us that he had ‘asked the Office of Safeguarding Children and Young People to consider [the Department’s] approach to these and other similar matters, where victims/survivors seek an outcome’.360

Secretary Bullard welcomed ‘any thoughts the Commission might be able to share in relation to the Department’s future approach to similar complaints and Employment Direction No. 5 investigations from the perspective of the complainant’.361 We discuss approaches to Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigations, including communication with complainants, in Chapter 20.

Case study 6: ‘Brad’

This case study about Brad (a pseudonym), a relief teacher, is based on information the Department provided in relation to its recent responses to child sexual abuse matters.362

1. The alleged incidents

Brad was a teacher who worked in New South Wales for several years in the early 2000s. During this time, a number of allegations of sexualised and inappropriate conduct towards students were made against him.363 Brad always denied wrongdoing, but the New South Wales Department of Education ultimately determined that he posed a ‘medium risk of sexual and physical abuse towards students’.364 As a result of this determination, Brad was formally monitored but allowed to keep teaching.365 After ongoing concerns about Brad’s behaviour, he was directed to undertake an improvement program, which he did not complete because he resigned from his position.366

In 2015, Brad moved to Tasmania and applied for registration with the Teachers Registration Board, intending to work as a casual teacher.367 In his application for registration, Brad did not disclose that complaints had been made about him in New South Wales around a decade before.368 Brad should have declared these complaints when he applied for registration (and a renewal of his registration) from the Tasmanian Board.369

Brad was registered as a teacher in Tasmania and multiple schools employed him for relief work.370

1. The initial response

In late December 2019, Principal A (a pseudonym) held concerns about Brad’s alleged inappropriate comments to and physical contact with students.371 Principal A informally contacted principals at other schools where Brad had been employed. Two other principals told Principal A that they also had concerns about Brad’s behaviour when he had worked at their schools.372 Principal A then advised Learning Services at the Department of Education of their concerns, as well as the concerns relayed to them by other principals. This was the first time Brad came to the Department’s attention.373

The next day, a Senior Human Resources Coordinator from Learning Services contacted Brad. Because Learning Services had assessed the alleged behaviour reported by Principal A as ‘at the lower level of seriousness’, it deemed that a meeting with Brad was an appropriate response.374 At the meeting with Learning Services, Brad was taken through his obligations under the relevant guidance material on professional conduct and standards.375 Learning Services did not notify Workplace Relations or Legal Services about the information received from Principal A, and was apparently unaware of its ability to have Brad removed from the Fixed Term and Relief Employment Register. Removal from the Register would have barred Brad’s employment as a relief teacher by other government schools.376

The meeting with Brad to discuss his conduct and professional obligations occurred in early 2020.377 Following this meeting, Learning Services maintained some concerns about Brad and sought more information from payroll about which schools Brad had previously worked at as a relief teacher.378 Learning Services also spoke to all schools where Brad was subsequently placed, and monitored his behaviour.379 Learning Services remained unaware of its ability to remove Brad from the Fixed Term and Relief Employment Register.380

Brad continued to be the subject of allegations of inappropriate conduct.381 A few months after Brad’s meeting with Learning Services, Principal B (a pseudonym) contacted Learning Services after a student reported that Brad had allegedly sneaked up on her and touched her shoulders.382 Principal B requested that Learning Services seek more information about Brad from other schools.383 Immediately after the student’s report, Principal B removed Brad from the classroom and instructed him that he would not work at the school again. Principal B also directed Brad to apologise to the student for his conduct.384

Learning Services added the information received from Principal B to the information already on record from Principal A and passed this information to the Teachers Registration Board in mid-2020.385 Workplace Relations and Legal Services remained unaware of any concerns about Brad.386

Having been advised of concerns about Brad, the Teachers Registration Board made enquiries with the Department, including Legal Services, about Brad’s conduct.387 The Teachers Registration Board told Legal Services it had received information that Brad had inappropriately touched female students and that it would investigate the allegations.388 The Department did not make notifications to the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme or police on the basis that ‘the concerns raised had not been particularised in enough detail to be considered allegations of child sexual abuse’.389

Later in 2020, a student at another school reported to a teacher that Brad had allegedly tapped her on the backside, held her hands, touched her shoulders and told her she was beautiful.390 Principal C (a pseudonym) reported the alleged conduct to Learning Services and was told that Learning Services was aware of a history of similar behaviour.391 Principal C forwarded their concern to the Teachers Registration Board and contacted Legal Services in the Department.392

The report from Principal C triggered a range of notifications.393 The Board confirmed it would consider an emergency suspension of Brad’s registration and would report Principal C’s information to the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme. Legal Services advised the Teachers Registration Board that the matter had been reported to police.394 At this time, Workplace Relations removed Brad from the Fixed Term and Relief Employment Register.395

Shortly after, in October, the Board notified the Department that it had suspended Brad’s registration with immediate effect.396 It also recommended that an inquiry into Brad’s behaviour be undertaken to determine whether he was of good character and fit to teach, and that Brad be required to undergo a psychiatric or psychological examination.397 During this period, Principal C also reported their concerns about Brad to the Strong Families, Safe Kids Advice and Referral Line.398

Not long after this, the Advice and Referral Line got several reports from community members about Brad’s complaints history in New South Wales and current complaints from Tasmanian schools.399 As a result, staff at the then Department of Communities sought records and information from New South Wales and information from the Teachers Registration Board to inform their risk assessment.400

At the end of 2020, Brad’s (suspended) registration lapsed when he failed to make a payment.401

In early 2021, the Department of Communities provided the Department of Education with a timeline of Brad’s conduct.402 In addition to the concerns of Principals A, B and C, this timeline included more details about complaints and concerns involving Brad.403

The Department of Communities timeline revealed that in 2018, when Brad was teaching at a primary school, he had also allegedly engaged in inappropriate conduct while teaching (which was not overtly sexual in nature). It was also reported that Brad had allegedly made other staff uncomfortable by standing too close to them.404

Throughout 2020, another primary school raised concerns about Brad, including that he was allegedly overly friendly with female students and had touched their shoulders and hands. Brad was repeatedly warned to keep his distance from students but continued to teach at the primary school for several months.405

Later that year, a different primary school received a complaint from a parent that Brad was allegedly physically touching students (holding their hands and putting his arms around them) and staring at female students. When the school followed up this complaint with Brad’s class, students reported more concerns, including that Brad had allegedly been ‘checking out’ female students, threatening male students with violence (saying ‘your head is going into my fist’) and using his mobile phone in a way that made students worry that they were being filmed.406

Around this time, a senior manager at the Department asked a colleague at the Department of Communities whether their more extensive information about Brad had been provided to the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme. The colleague responded:

[The Child Safety Service] practice is we inform [Tasmania] Police when we are investigating matters where a person of concern relating to sexual abuse has direct contact with children. [Tasmania] Police would inform Registrar. This makes the lines of communication clear. [The Child Safety Service] responds to children, [Tasmania Police] responds to offenders. It would get very murky otherwise … We shall use this as a case study though to test the current systems in place and consider if there are any weaknesses in the current system.407

Secretary Bullard noted that while some of the other matters in the Department of Communities timeline were known to the Department, this timeline ‘provides a far more extensive context’.408

The Department of Communities told the Department of Education it had notified the Child Safety Service and that it had provided its timeline to the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme.409 It also advised that the matter was the subject of a police investigation.410

The Teachers Registration Board began its formal inquiry into Brad’s conduct in early 2021.411 The Board ultimately determined that Brad was not of good character and was not fit to teach.412 This outcome was communicated to all relevant authorities, including interstate and New Zealand teacher registration authorities.413

Secretary Bullard noted that the Department is unaware of what support or communication may have been delivered to any affected students and their families or staff in relation to Brad’s behaviour at one of the schools because the need for such supports would have been assessed at the school level.414

1. Departmental review

Brad’s case was one of the ‘historical’ matters the Department reviewed in 2021. Secretary Bullard was then briefed on the extra information discovered in the Department of Communities timeline. Workplace Relations advised Secretary Bullard that there were no other steps to be taken because Brad was not an employee, had already been removed from the Fixed Term and Relief Employment Register and was not registered with the Teachers Registration Board.415

In mid-2021, Secretary Bullard advised Brad of the allegations against him and sought a response from him. Secretary Bullard noted that because Brad was not a current employee, the Department could not pursue a formal investigation; however, Brad’s future employment with the Department would depend on the outcome of an investigation.416 Around this time the Teachers Registration Board notified Secretary Bullard of its findings in relation to Brad.417

1. What we heard

Secretary Bullard conceded that Brad’s case highlighted the problem of limited information sharing—between Tasmania and other states and territories, between government departments in Tasmania, and within the Department itself.418

1. Information sharing

This case study highlights the way a lack of coordinated information sharing can allow complaints about a teacher’s conduct to go unaddressed:

• The Teachers Registration Board was unaware of a history of allegations of concerning behaviour when it granted Brad’s registration. Relying on Brad to disclose this history is a system weakness, given people in his position may well have a strong incentive to not disclose matters (particularly if they were managed relatively informally).
• The Department’s screening process failed to pick up the concerning history of allegations against Brad in New South Wales. It is unclear what screening processes were used and whether any referee checks were undertaken. The fact that Brad had not been teaching for some time could have invited more scrutiny and checks into Brad’s work history.
• Some principals who held concerns about Brad’s alleged behaviour did not proactively report their concerns to the Department, perhaps opting to simply not re-engage Brad as a relief teacher. This meant that conduct suggesting a pattern of behaviour was not identified.
• Learning Services did not communicate the concerns about Brad to other areas of the Department—most critically, Workplace Relations—which meant that Brad was not removed from the Fixed Term and Relief Employment Register at the earliest opportunity. The failure to communicate also meant that appropriate notifications were delayed and that Workplace Relations and Legal Services were ill-equipped to respond to later queries from the Teachers Registration Board.
• The Teachers Registration Board and the Department were not responding to the same information during the investigation into Brad—each communicated with the other in vague terms about ‘concerns’. Secretary Bullard only received the Board’s findings (and related information) about Brad after finalising the Department’s investigation. Although Brad was no longer working for the Department (and therefore not an active risk to students) there may be circumstances where the Department will need information from the Board throughout its investigation to manage any risks to students. Also, the Department is only obliged to notify the Board about disciplinary matters it is pursuing in relation to ‘employees’, which means that the conduct of relief or casual teachers may remain unknown to the Board.
• Relevant parties were unclear whether information had been shared with other authorities, in particular police and the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, and if information had been shared, what information and when. This required manually checking and double-checking sources and records, which increased the risk of important information being missed or not passed on.

When giving evidence at hearings, Secretary Bullard acknowledged that information sharing is critical for regulators and decision makers to identify patterns of behaviour:

So, absolutely accept here that the fact that you have a person working in multiple schools displaying behaviour which I would argue on some of that behaviour should have been escalated, but on other behaviour you’d think, well, that’s a one-off and a bit odd but, you know, not going to report; it’s only when you see that accumulated as a set of evidence that you are alerted, very alerted, to the fact that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with.419

He added that the information-sharing provisions are confusing and complex, which might inhibit the ability of regulators to respond more quickly to risks.420

Secretary Bullard noted that New South Wales is leading a scoping project on national information sharing for teacher registration, alongside all state and territory education departments and teacher registration authorities. This includes providing advice on the scope of information sharing that will be necessary to support automatic mutual recognition of registration for teachers moving between states and territories.421

Secretary Bullard used Brad’s situation to reflect on some of the key considerations for this work. For example, if information sharing is limited to formal disciplinary sanctions, then concerns about Brad could not be shared—in this case, the sanctions were not imposed because Brad resigned.422 However, he noted that the sharing of ‘granular details’ between interstate agencies raises procedural fairness issues for employees.423 He also shared his concerns that national mutual recognition reforms allow teachers registered in other jurisdictions to work in Tasmania without the knowledge or approval of the Teachers Registration Board.424 Ann Moxham, Registrar, Teachers Registration Board, echoed Secretary Bullard’s concerns about automatic mutual recognition, noting that it limits the ability of the Teachers Registration Board to carry out its good character and fitness to teach assessments, which are ‘much broader’ than the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People requirements.425

In relation to information sharing between the Department and the Teachers Registration Board, Secretary Bullard pointed to general prohibitions contained in the Personal Information Protection Act 2004 (‘Personal Information Protection Act’) that restrict the Department’s ability to share information gleaned through an Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct process with other agencies, including the Board.426 He noted that this restriction applies to information such as letters to employees describing alleged breaches of the State Service Code of Conduct, witness statements, investigation reports and the Secretary’s determination, unless individuals provide consent for their information to be disclosed.427 Secretary Bullard also noted that the limited exceptions to this general prohibition likely only apply to criminal conduct or ‘seriously improper conduct’ and may not be enough to permit information sharing about conduct that does not meet the threshold of these categorisations.428 He highlighted that the Personal Information Protection Act also creates barriers for information sharing between the Department and non-government schools.429

Ms Moxham told us that, on the advice of the Office of the Solicitor-General, the Department is precluded from providing its investigation materials to the Board. This means that the Board has to undertake its own investigation, which can lead to reinterviewing (and retraumatising) affected children.430 Ms Moxham shared her belief as Registrar of the Teachers Registration Board that, contrary to this advice, the legislation does in fact permit such information sharing between the Department and the Board.431 We discuss the issue of information sharing between the Department and the Teachers Registration Board in Chapter 6.

Ms Moxham noted that the Board has a range of powers to share information with other regulatory bodies in Australia and with employers, complying with different sections of the governing legislation.432 She also noted that assessing the suitability of teachers arriving from New South Wales was particularly challenging because the accrediting body there does not conduct enquiries or disciplinary processes. When assessing an application for registration from a teacher who has come from New South Wales, the Teachers Registration Board must therefore ask that teacher’s permission to seek information about them from the New South Wales Department of Education.433

Ms Moxham told us that the information flow between the Board and Tasmanian agencies such as the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme and Children, Youth and Family Services is often one-way—when the Board provides information it does not ‘get anything back’.434 She stated, for example, that when the Registrar removes a Registration to Work with Vulnerable People, it will advise the Board of the removal but not the reasons why.435 She also stated that Children, Youth and Family Services do not provide the Board with information, such as if a report is made to them about a teacher’s parenting capacity, unless the teacher had declared the information when either registering or renewing their registration (which occurs every five years).436 Ms Moxham also described the relatively informal ways in which the Board may become aware of important information about relief teachers—for example, via phone calls from Learning Services.437

Following an exchange in public hearings with Counsel Assisting, Ms Moxham was asked ‘are there additional barriers to knowing where relief teachers are and how long they are teaching in a particular place?’ She replied, ‘[i]t’s ‘almost impossible. It’s pretty scary, isn’t it?’438

Ms Moxham noted that, as far as she is aware, there are no reforms in progress to remedy the lack of visibility over where relief teachers are working, except in limited circumstances.439 She described a current ‘workaround’ to improve visibility, namely a ‘Watched Registration’ list, maintained by individual schools (this list is discussed in Chapter 6). She noted, however, that relief teachers are not generally included on this list.440

Secretary Bullard said that Learning Services should have notified Workplace Relations about the information it was receiving regarding Brad and, had Workplace Relations been notified, ‘swifter action may have occurred’ at the departmental level, notwithstanding the challenges of investigating a relief teacher.441 Secretary Bullard specified such action as earlier referrals to police, the Teachers Registration Board, the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme and the Integrity Commission.442 Secretary Bullard attributed the failures to share information to a ‘misunderstanding’ about the actions that could be taken against relief teachers, which included removing them or flagging them on the Fixed Term and Relief Employment Register.443 In turn, the failure to remove Brad from the Register meant that he could continue relief teaching at other schools.444 Secretary Bullard conceded that the mismanagement of Brad’s case illustrated a systemic failing in terms of people not knowing the controls needed for relief teachers.445

Secretary Bullard highlighted to us that because Brad was a relief teacher rather than an ‘employee’ for the purposes of the State Service Act 2000 (‘State Service Act’), he could not be subject to an Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigation. The State Service Act does not impose a sanction under the Employment Direction No. 5 process for someone who is not an employee.446

We consider that the provisions of the Personal Information Protection Act should be amended to ensure information sharing for protecting the safety of children (even where the conduct may not meet a criminal or serious misconduct threshold) is lawful. While privacy and procedural fairness protections are legitimate and should be respected, the safety of children must always be paramount (refer to Chapter 19 for discussion on this issue).

We also find that the Department should be empowered to undertake an investigation (like that conducted under Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct) into casual and contracted staff. Where warranted, investigations of this type should continue even where a person is no longer contracted and unwilling to participate.

Following allegations of incidents of the type involving Brad, appropriate support should be offered to students and affected staff. The Department should record the nature and extent of such supports for record-keeping purposes.

1. Other systemic problems

In addition to issues around information sharing, Brad’s case revealed a range of other problems including:

• inadequate exploration of the initial concerns raised about Brad, partly due to what appeared to be a limited understanding of the range of behaviours that can fall within the definition of child sexual abuse
• no central repository of information relating to complaints or concerns, which made it difficult to get a complete picture of issues of concern relating to employees (particularly relief teachers moving from school to school)
• a lack of clarity between the respective roles and responsibilities of Learning Services, Workplace Relations and Legal Services in responding to such concerns—including confusion about the operation of the Fixed Term and Relief Employment Register
• delays in notifications—including reports to the Teachers Registration Board, the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, police and the Child Safety Service—meant information about Brad was not acted upon promptly
• the Department ceasing its investigations into Brad’s alleged conduct because he was not an employee, demonstrating an overreliance on industrial and disciplinary mechanisms in its response. Continuing investigations would have provided the Department with valuable information about Brad should he reapply for employment, as well as illuminating systemic issues relevant to other situations.

1. What has changed

Secretary Bullard advised us that since reviewing Brad’s case, the Department has made the following changes:

• Since July 2021, if the Department receives complaints or disclosures about child sexual abuse, it notifies Workplace Relations and the relief teacher is immediately removed from any workplace and the Fixed Term and Relief Employment Register.447 The teacher is also subject to appropriate notifications to police, the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme and the Teachers Registration Board.448 The Department invites the relief teacher to respond to the complaint and they must submit to an investigation before being able to return to work.449
• In October 2020, the Department updated its pre-employment questions for potential applicants to the Fixed Term and Relief Employment Register. Applicants must now declare whether they have been the subject of current or past disciplinary matters or if they have been charged (or were convicted of) criminal charges, with disclosures assessed by Workplace Relations (although this requirement does not guarantee that they will do so).450
• The Department is developing and will trial a new case management platform. This platform will provide a mechanism for more information to be shared with schools (while ‘ensuring fairness to employees’) where previous concerns about conduct have been raised and investigated.451 Secretary Bullard said the case management platform ‘will provide a very easy way that schools can enter information of concern, with the matter then going through a chain of decision-making without schools having to take further action’.452
• As a matter of practice, people who give statements as part of Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigations are advised that those statements may be used for other purposes (for example, statements may be forwarded to the Teachers Registration Board so it can assess an individual’s fitness to teach). Those informing an Employment Direction No. 5 investigation can withdraw their consent to their statement being used in this way.453

Case study 7: Sam

Sam Leishman gave evidence at our hearings and shared his experience of being sexually abused as a young child while attending a government school in Tasmania. Mr Leishman grew up the youngest of five, in a happy and nurturing family environment.454 In 1978, he began high school and met a science teacher known as Darrel Harington, despite not being in any of Mr Harington’s classes.455

1. The incidents

Mr Harington took an interest in Mr Leishman. Mr Leishman told us: ‘I guess I felt a little bit singled out, like, he was particularly interested in my activities … to the point of taking piano lessons off my piano teacher and that sort of thing’.456 Mr Harington also came to know Mr Leishman’s parents at various school events.457

In 1978, when Mr Leishman was 12 years old, Mr Harington began to sexually abuse him.458 Mr Leishman shared with us an experience of spending time with Mr Harington outside school. He said his parents had allowed him to go to Mr Harington’s house because ‘they knew [Mr Harington] and obviously trusted him’.459 On that day, Mr Harington bought fried chicken and Mr Leishman was impressed by Mr Harington’s ability to name the various bones of the chicken.460 Mr Leishman reiterated: ‘This was a teacher I really admired, I really liked a lot’.461

Mr Harington began to ask Mr Leishman about girls, including whether he had a girlfriend. When Mr Leishman replied that he didn’t, ‘the mood sort of quickly changed’.462 Mr Harington drove Mr Leishman to the shops and purchased an adult magazine, which he then began flicking through with Mr Leishman, asking him if it turned him on.463 Mr Leishman described how he felt at this time: ‘There was this nervous, terrifying excitement about me, within me’.464

Mr Harington then began a ‘play fight sort of thing’ with Mr Leishman, which ultimately led to Mr Harington sexually abusing him in a bedroom.465 As part of this ‘game’, Mr Harington invited Mr Leishman to ‘retaliate’. As Mr Leishman did not know what the word meant at the time, he needed Mr Harington to explain what this word meant.466 Mr Leishman told us:

So, as well as submitting to this [abuse], I also complied; I did what he wanted, or tried to do what he wanted me to do to him. And that was the first incident and he drove me home.467

When Mr Harington dropped Mr Leishman home that day, Mr Leishman was grappling with confusion and shame. He described Mr Harington looping back to ring the doorbell to check on him. When greeted by Mr Leishman’s parents, Mr Harington invited himself into their home.468 Mr Leishman explained how he felt:

I was terrified initially, first of all, that he was going to tell my parents of this disgusting act that I’d just done with him, but he didn’t, it just turned into a big drinking session with my parents and, they didn’t know, they thought he was a friend.469

The abuse continued. Mr Leishman spent more time with Mr Harington, including going away with him for days at a time.470 Mr Leishman described how after the ‘initial terror’ of the abuse, he began to feel ‘more comfortable with what we were doing together’.471 He explained, ‘I thought at the time that I was equally responsible for my teacher’s behaviour towards me, and that I had encouraged it’.472

However, over time, Mr Harington’s interest in him waned: ‘things shifted, there was no longer that connection’.473 Mr Leishman described the complex feelings that resulted from this perceived rejection:

So, what I thought was some sort of a relationship, I sensed it wasn’t all of a sudden and it was just a physical thing, and that left me feeling, it’s tough to say, but I felt pretty isolated and let down because I really admired this person.474

One day, some boys from Mr Leishman’s school witnessed him going into a home with Mr Harington. Mr Leishman recalled:

When we arrived at the unit there were two boys from my year in the carpark kicking a ball around, just messing around playing, and I thought—I just felt ‘Oh my God I’ve been spotted in a car, these boys are going to know what’s going on’. And because [Mr Harington] was so confident and sort of blasé, he just hopped out of the car, [and said] ‘How are you going kids?’ I just remember standing there thinking, ‘Oh, this is so uncomfortable’. And after that he starts walking away towards the door of the unit and beckons me over, and I—it was terrible.

The next day at school everything changed.475

Mr Leishman recalled the boys taunted him, saying ‘how did you like sucking Harington’s cock last night?’.476 Mr Leishman described being the victim of bullying after this time:

I’d managed to fly under the radar quite well until that point, but when—I mean, you can imagine in Tasmania in 1978 that quickly sort of bubbled and festered and turned into a huge problem for me.477

As the teasing and bullying became more widely known across the school, Mr Leishman told us that a teacher spoke to him, using words to the effect: ‘I don’t know what’s going on between you and Mr Harington, but obviously something is and you need to make it stop’.478

The abuse continued for 12 months until Mr Harington transferred to another school.479

1. The disclosure

In 2014, when Mr Leishman was in his late 40s, he heard about the National Royal Commission and began to look at the materials on the website.480 He realised his experiences were ‘not uncommon’ and began to recognise what Mr Harington did to him as child sexual abuse.481 He decided to share his experience with the National Royal Commission. Mr Leishman described engaging with the National Royal Commission as ‘a light bulb moment’:482

I rang the Royal Commission and that was—that was a great moment for me because it was like a little bit of a weight off my shoulder, and they were fantastic; they arranged a hearing for me—a private session for me and that initiated a lot of things that eventually led to me—the charges and everything against him.483

He told us that ‘by speaking openly and honestly, I was able to view Harington’s behaviours objectively and I began to put things into perspective’.484 The process also revealed to him that Mr Harington had abused other students. This knowledge encouraged Mr Leishman to engage with the criminal justice process.485

In 2015, Mr Harington pleaded guilty to multiple charges of sexual abuse related to several victim-survivors, including Mr Leishman.486

Mr Leishman described his experiences of the National Royal Commission, police and the Tasmanian justice system more broadly as ‘an overwhelmingly positive one’.487 Of police, he said: ‘The police get a lot of bad press, but they were very good with me’.488 He described how valuable it was to feel like his matter was important and relevant, even though it happened a long time ago.489 In giving his victim impact statement in court, he said: ‘I was able to defend a child [myself] that had been confused, ashamed and bullied to the point of despair—forced to manage the most complex of emotions in isolation’.490

1. The response

After Mr Harington was sentenced, Mr Leishman expected to hear from the Department of Education. He said:

I guess that was naïve to think that, but I thought that the Education Department must be curious about how this has happened and they must—they must at least want to investigate and find out how this could have possibly happened so, to me, it seemed sort of reasonable to expect that perhaps they might have got in touch with me.491

Secretary Bullard acknowledged that Mr Leishman’s assumption was not unreasonable but explained that the Department does not receive information from the Director of Public Prosecutions about proceedings involving employees, ex-employees or students to enable such proactive contact.492

After allegedly receiving no contact from the Department, Mr Leishman wrote to the then Deputy Premier and Minister for Education and Training.493 In that letter, dated November 2015, he wrote that he wanted to be heard and understood and to better understand the extent to which other teachers may have been aware of Mr Harington’s abuse.494

Around a month later (in December 2015), the then Minister for Education, the Honourable Jeremy Rockliff MP, acknowledged the letter, indicating he was seeking advice from the Department about whether he could provide the information that Mr Leishman was requesting.495 Mr Leishman assumed this meant he would hear something more in the new year.496 However, months later, he told us that he still had not heard, and he wrote again in early 2016 expressing his disappointment at not having received a response.497 Secretary Bullard noted that it was difficult to ascertain from Mr Leishman’s file what contributed to the delay in responding to his letter but agreed that there did not seem to be ‘an agile response’.498

We were told that it was not until 2017 that the Department contacted Mr Leishman. A meeting was arranged with the Deputy Secretary, Learning, which Mr Leishman attended. He described the meeting as ‘a nice sort of two-way conversation’ where he felt listened to ‘to some degree’.499 Secretary Bullard stated that in this meeting, the Deputy Secretary offered Mr Leishman an apology, listened to his experience and discussed the counselling support Mr Leishman was receiving.500

Mr Leishman told us that:

… by that point I had questions as well: I wanted to know why he was teaching at my school, what other complaints they had about him, who knew what, was there any record of any sort of meetings and so forth that had taken place, what were the circumstances around his transfer to another school: I thought they were reasonable things to want to know.501

The Deputy Secretary committed to following up his queries, and ultimately advised that a Right to Information request was required. She offered Mr Leishman a fee waiver in respect of this request, direct access to a Right to Information Officer and offered to support him through the process.502

Mr Leishman told us that a few weeks after the meeting, Mr Leishman received a letter from Legal Services confirming that he would need to file a Right to Information request and that Mr Harington’s consent would be required before any records could be released.503 Mr Leishman reflected that:

I felt completely stymied by the process. I felt like I was up against a wall, and I just didn’t understand the implications of it. How does it sit with, I’ve given—I’ve been responsible for this man going to gaol, and then I’m going to ask him permission to give me information about the circumstances pertaining to that: it just didn’t sit well at all. I thought, I just—this is a rabbit hole I’m not gonna go down, I just can’t do it.504

Secretary Bullard acknowledged the ‘real conflict’ in situations where a victim-survivor seeks a record, such as a disciplinary file, that contains information about another person.505 He confirmed that in such cases the Department requires the abuser’s permission to release the information or must at least consult them on their views about the release of information about them. Secretary Bullard stated: ‘my understanding is that Mr Leishman felt uncomfortable with that, and who wouldn’t?’506

At hearings, Mr Leishman was asked whether he had since received the answers he was seeking. He replied: ‘No, not fully. I still don’t feel like everything’s been laid out on the table’.507 He ultimately withdrew his Right to Information request and his legal representative submitted a new request.508 Secretary Bullard explained that when Mr Leishman sought information through his lawyer, Mr Harington refused the information release, but the decision-maker relied on public interest grounds to release some of the record.509

Mr Leishman told us that he received some information about Mr Harington’s history of offending but not all the information that he wanted about his time at Mr Leishman’s school.510 Secretary Bullard informed us that there were no records to suggest that the Department was aware of Mr Harington’s abuse of Mr Leishman until Mr Leishman wrote to the Department in 2015.511

In his statement to our Commission of Inquiry, Mr Leishman described what he felt was needed to improve the Department’s response to victim-survivors in his situation:

The process for victims to engage with and obtain information from the Department needs to be much clearer, with fewer barriers. It also needs to be focused on the needs of the individual victim-survivor. People like me need answers—even if they are not easy to hear.512

When asked whether there was a process in the Department to guide engagement with victim-survivors, Secretary Bullard noted that people in Mr Leishman’s situation would generally be referred to the Redress Unit in the Department of Justice, which he described as ‘trauma-informed’.513 However, he accepted that the response to Mr Leishman’s request for support and assistance from his Department following his letter to the Minister in 2015 was ‘entirely inadequate’.514 Secretary Bullard noted that, apart from Ms Pearce’s interaction with Mr Leishman, he did not consider the Department’s response to Mr Leishman to have been trauma-informed.515 Secretary Bullard agreed that there should be a policy or procedure in the Department to ‘assist in meeting the expectations necessary to demonstrate support, care, compassion and understanding of victim-survivors’ experiences’.516 He noted that he was conscious of the need to deal with circumstances such as this in a trauma-informed way and had asked the Office of Safeguarding to ‘consider our approach to these and other similar matters’.517

Reflecting on Mr Leishman’s evidence at hearings, Secretary Bullard said:

I think that Mr Leishman’s courage in revealing the betrayal of trust that happened to him as a result of an association that he made whilst he was in one of our schools is very confronting to hear, but also the barriers that then existed when he came forward later with an expectation that he would seek and receive support or acknowledgment from the Department of Education also makes me feel very disappointed and I have apologised to Mr Leishman and I’m very sorry, I’m very sorry for that.518

Mr Leishman acknowledged the personal apology he received from Secretary Bullard, which he feels he was ‘gracious in accepting’.519 He also said:

I hope that by speaking about my experiences, this can lead to a change to the way in which the Department engages with victim-survivors of child sexual abuse from within the education system in Tasmania. It is my hope that Commissions of Inquiry, solicitors and formal processes don’t need to get involved to encourage the Department to constructively engage with people like me, who have already suffered so much.520

Case study 8: ‘Andy’

Andy (a pseudonym) is a young boy with a history of childhood trauma and child protection involvement.521 We heard allegations that Andy had engaged in harmful sexual behaviours towards several children and young people. We heard from two families impacted by his alleged behaviour as recently as 2021. His alleged behaviours can be characterised as frequent, persistent and severe. We did not explore this case study through our hearings process, but we received information from the Department about this matter.

1. ‘Family A’

Family A (a pseudonym) has two children who are younger than Andy. The children met Andy through primary school but also spent time with him outside school hours.522

The parents told us they noticed some behavioural changes in their children, particularly one of them. These included difficulties regulating emotions, wetting themselves and becoming secretive. The child eventually disclosed that Andy was sexually abusing them, with their sibling often witnessing the alleged abuse. The children described these sexual behaviours as ‘games’, but allegedly involved violent and coercive sexual acts that occurred multiple times a week, including on school grounds, in circumstances where Andy was alone with the children.

The children’s parents described some of the challenges they experienced in the aftermath of Andy’s alleged behaviour. They felt the response was inadequate and that the school failed to recognise just how serious it was. The parents said they received an apology from the principal but were otherwise left in the dark about steps taken (including whether the matter was reported to the Department). They said that privacy concerns and Andy’s right to an education were cited as justifications for not communicating with the parents or removing Andy from the school, and they felt that nothing was done.

The parents told us they ultimately removed their children from the school for the children’s safety and wellbeing. They said the children continue to experience the effects of trauma from Andy’s alleged behaviour. A lack of appropriately qualified mental health professionals made it difficult to access specialist child psychologists, and public waiting lists for psychologists are long.

The parent said of Andy: ‘I’m sorry for that boy, I am truly—I don’t blame him, I blame everyone else’. They reported hearing of Andy allegedly harming other children at the school.

1. ‘Family B’

A parent of two primary school aged children also described changes in the behaviour of one of their children not long after starting at Andy’s primary school.523 Their child would regularly complain of ‘tummy aches’, not want to go to school and find it difficult to separate from their parent. The parent said that their child’s drawings became dark in content and their child began wetting themselves at school.

The child eventually disclosed that Andy was allegedly ‘doing things’ to them at school. The alleged harmful sexual behaviours were serious. Sometimes the child’s sibling would hold their hand during the abuse, so the child was not alone. The child said they were frightened of Andy because he would allegedly threaten to kill them.

The parent went to police with their child and the child made a statement. Andy was not interviewed because his parents allegedly did not consent. Based on the evidence available to us, it does not appear that any further action has been taken by police. When the parent reported the behaviour to the school, the parent said they waited nine days for the principal to come back to them. As with Family A, Family B (a pseudonym) said they also received no information about any potential responses to Andy’s alleged behaviour, with the principal citing confidentiality as the reason.524 They felt that the school did nothing.

Family B said their child had changed since the alleged abuse by Andy. The parent stated that their child had changed their appearance, is often fearful and calls their parent at lunchtime for reassurance. The parent felt like there was great concern about Andy and what he may have been through, but that no one was worried about their child. The parent said: ‘I feel like we’ve been treated like the perpetrators’. They also referred to being aware of other victims.

1. The response

We did not ask the Department to respond during hearings to the information we received from Family A or Family B. However, the Department has since informed us of the following:

• The Department was not aware of any complaints, concerns or otherwise in respect of Andy’s alleged harmful sexual behaviour until Family B made allegations against Andy to the Department.
• School staff notified the Strong Families, Safe Kids Advice and Referral Line and engaged with police regarding Andy’s alleged harmful sexual behaviours.
• The Department convened a School Leadership Team (including the principal, senior departmental staff and senior school employees) and a Student and Family Support Team (including a social worker, psychologist, a police officer, a support worker and a representative from the Child Safety Service) in response to the allegations made against Andy.
• The Department convened a Planning Team (including the principal, senior school staff, psychologists, a social worker and the student support leader) to respond to the needs of students affected by Andy’s alleged harmful sexual behaviour, including Andy.
• The Department offered psychological support, social support, assistance with moving schools, tutoring, financial support and ongoing communication to Family B following the parent’s complaints about Andy’s alleged behaviour.
• The information provided by the Department did not suggest any comparable supports had been provided to Family A, who told us they were struggling to access appropriate therapeutic supports.
• School staff engaged in ongoing discussions with Andy’s family about Andy’s alleged behaviour.
• School staff prepared Risk Management Plans for Andy, including regular supervision.
• The Department offered psychological and other support to Andy’s family.
• The Department increased the level of funding to Andy’s school, to assist in putting necessary supervision and supports in place for Andy.
• The school communicated with families of children at the school about the supports available.525

1. Future responses to harmful sexual behaviours

We consider that a range of preventative actions may be taken to minimise the impact of severe harmful sexual behaviours such as those alleged to have been displayed by Andy:

• Clear policies are needed that guide principals to report more severe harmful sexual behaviours to the Department, to ensure they are supported to provide a best practice response (including the involvement of all appropriate school staff and other professionals or services).
• Appropriate referrals and reports should be made to specialist treatment services, the Child Safety Service and police in relation to the child displaying the behaviours. In cases regarding more severe harmful sexual behaviours, Child Safety Service or police intervention may be required if the child’s carers are unable to take appropriate protective actions. In some cases, the child displaying the behaviours may be at risk of abuse and neglect, and require a Child Safety Service response.
• The ongoing local response within schools should be guided and supported by harmful sexual behaviours practice specialists who can advise on the development of safety and participation plans proportionate to the changing level of risk a child may pose. Where specialist treatment services are involved, they may also inform the safety and participation plan and ongoing risk assessments.
• Schools should be supported in deciding what should be communicated to whom, including consideration of the information needed by parents whose children have been harmed to feel confident their and other children will be safe.
• Schools should be supported to identify all children known or suspected to have been harmed so that children and families affected may access support.
• Where there are concerns that multiple children may have been harmed, schools may need to be supported to implement additional tailored sexual abuse education sessions to encourage further disclosures, and there may need to be appropriate communications to the school community.
• Where there are indications that a child has sexually harmed multiple children in a range of settings, agencies including the Department, Child Safety Service and police should share information to form a comprehensive understanding of the behaviours displayed, to inform the response.

Refer to Chapter 6 for our recommendations about harmful sexual behaviours.

Conclusion

The case studies we discuss in this chapter identify shortcomings in the Department’s response to allegations of child sexual abuse, particularly regarding addressing allegations in a timely way, conducting proper investigations, and facilitating appropriate and ongoing supports for children and young people, their families and school staff affected by abuse. Over the course of our Commission of Inquiry, there have been changes to the Department’s approach to dealing with child sexual abuse matters. We are encouraged by this progress. However, there is still work to do.

While the changes the Department has made will go some way to improving responses to the issues that are apparent in the victim-survivors’ experiences and case studies we discuss in this chapter, and the issues identified more broadly through our Inquiry and the Independent Education Inquiry, further improvements are needed. In Chapter 6, we explore what improvements should be made and how they can help to safeguard children and young people in the Department’s care.