1. Introduction

In this chapter, we outline measures the Tasmanian Government should take to prevent child sexual abuse in government schools and improve responses when it does occur, noting that the Department for Education, Children and Young People has begun making significant changes, including developing an overarching child safeguarding policy framework. The Department’s current child safeguarding measures are part of a shifting landscape as the Department responds to recommendations from the National Royal Commission, the Independent Education Review and matters identified through our Commission of Inquiry.

In Chapter 5, we identify shortcomings in the Department and other government entities’ responses to allegations of child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviours. We outline the measures the Department has taken to address these. In this chapter, we consider more steps the Department, and other government entities, should take to make schools safer for children, including:

• implementing mandatory child sexual abuse prevention education
• limiting the focus of the Office of Safeguarding primarily to safeguarding children in education settings
• refreshing and regularly reviewing child safeguarding policies and working to embed them in schools
• developing an education-specific professional conduct policy for staff and volunteers
• implementing a mandatory professional development program for educators, staff and others who work with children and young people (including volunteers) in schools
• establishing a Child-Related Incident Management Directorate to lead the response and investigation of complaints of child sexual abuse and related behaviours by staff
• developing education-specific policies, protocols and guidance for preventing, identifying and responding to harmful sexual behaviours in schools, noting our recommendation in Chapter 9 that the Department establishes a Harmful Sexual Behaviours Support Unit to support all the Department’s portfolios
• strengthening the Teachers Registration Board’s ability to safeguard children through changes to the law.

We consider our recommendations in this chapter will help the Department to further improve its approach to safeguarding students (and younger children) in its care, and increase the ability of the Teachers Registration Board to protect all children in Tasmanian schools—government and non-government.

1. Child sexual abuse prevention education in schools

Targeted child sexual abuse prevention education programs can help children and young people to identify grooming or sexually abusive behaviours, give them confidence about asserting their boundaries, and empower them to report any violations. Such programs can also help challenge harmful norms or attitudes at an early stage, particularly around issues of consent. They can be a powerful tool in preventing child sexual abuse.

In this section, we examine the role of child sexual abuse prevention programs in schools. These programs vary in design and delivery and are discretionary in Tasmania. We outline evidence of the elements of successful programs and recommend that best practice programs form part of the mandatory curriculum in Tasmanian schools, together with respectful relationships and consent education.

Prevention programs in schools should form only part of a broader prevention strategy. In recommending more investment in prevention programs, we want to be clear that the burden of preventing abuse should not fall on children and young people. It is not their responsibility to know or interpret adult behaviour, nor is it their job to keep themselves safe from abuse and harm. Even the objectives of the best programs can be overborne by abusers, who often deploy a range of tactics and manipulations to enforce compliance and silence.

However, we do consider that prevention education programs have an important role to play in educating and empowering children and young people about their bodily autonomy and about what constitutes healthy and acceptable sexual behaviour. Such programs are a source of important information about how to navigate or respond to any threats to their safety. These programs should complement other prevention efforts including national community-wide prevention strategies.1 For more discussion on prevention, refer to Chapter 18.

1. Children’s perceptions

Some children who took part in research we commissioned, conducted by Associate Professor Tim Moore and Emeritus Professor Morag McArthur, told us that sex education in schools did not cover everything they thought was relevant:

You talk about relationships and stuff but not really like modern day issues like online stuff and, no offence, adults can be pretty clueless about this stuff. And if they teach you in a way that proves they’ve got no idea then you’re not going to go with them.2

They thought there was not enough teaching about adult–child sexual abuse, institutional child sexual abuse and who to turn to if they experience harm.3

We heard from a number of victim-survivors who did not recognise their experiences as abuse until much later in life—sometimes only becoming aware of the dynamics and features of grooming and abuse as adults. For example, Leah Sallese, a victim-survivor, described the following interaction with her psychotherapist:

I said: ‘I had an affair with my teacher’ and he said, ‘Wait a minute, what?’ He said: ‘No, you didn’t, that’s childhood sexual abuse’. So that’s the first time, as a 40-something-year-old woman, that I ever questioned what I had in my mind as a narrative my whole life.4

Sam Leishman, another victim-survivor whose experience we discuss in Chapter 5, described having a similar revelation as an adult:

I happened to see a grab of news and it was Julia Gillard talking about the [National] Royal Commission and how it was progressing, and I’d never thought about what happened to me as child abuse, funnily enough. I thought it’s something that I initiated, that I had done and that it was just a one-off thing that this man was attracted to me for some reason and it was—it was a single thing that happened. And, out of curiosity I got on to the website … I was just staggered, because by that stage there was volumes and volumes and volumes of work that they had done, and story after story, and I started reading through them and I thought, ‘Shit, that happened to me’, yeah. So it was sort of like a light-bulb moment.5

Victim-survivor Rachel (a pseudonym), whose experience we discuss in Chapter 5, recommended to us that an ‘educational program promoting awareness for appropriate student–teacher relationships in and out of school is implemented into the curriculum’.6

Victim-survivor Kerri Collins noted how sex education helped her understand what had happened to her and fellow victim-survivors when she was very young:

You knew it was wrong but you didn’t understand, because we were so young, and then after that you did understand—like, you’d done sex education at school and those sorts of things and you knew that what happened wasn’t right. But then, how do you tell somebody that, and how do you—you know, as a child you’re second guessing yourself, like, is that me, did I do that, was that my fault?7

We also saw evidence of problematic attitudes towards consent and relationships among Tasmanian children and young people, which is particularly relevant to harmful sexual behaviours between children. A study conducted by Anglicare Tasmania’s Social Action and Research Centre heard from 17 young Tasmanians about their experiences of domestic violence. Collectively they described 18 separate relationships involving sexual violence or abuse they had experienced.8 One participant in the study, Sahar, said:

They [young men and boys] envision like a big scary man, like dragging a woman into an alleyway and raping her, a stranger. But it’s not like that at all. It’s usually almost always somebody that you know, and it’s partners. But they don’t recognise that. They’ve got this, like, such a movie vision of what rape is in their head that they wouldn’t even realise if they’d done it themselves.9

Contrary to the common belief that gender equality is improving through generational change, those working to address violence in the community told the study author about young men in particular holding worryingly regressive views, with one worker known as Bernie saying: ‘That 1970s attitude, male attitude, exists here strongly in Tasmania’.10 A family violence worker known as Jo said she noticed young women tending to experience more extreme violence than older generations at the hands of younger partners, saying: ‘Young people are supposed to be getting all of this preventative stuff … But these young guys can be very traditional in their views of women’.11

We are also conscious that online digital technology is rapidly changing and some aspects of this can continue to support harmful attitudes. For example, the rise in pornography on the internet creates a high risk of children and young people seeing or seeking pornography online. The eSafety Commissioner notes that:

... exposure to graphic, violent or misleading messages about sexual practices and gender stereotypes could give [children and young people] the wrong idea about sex and intimate relationships.12

Kathryn Fordyce, Chief Executive Officer, Laurel House, pointed to the absence of statewide consistency in prevention programs across primary and high school students, as well as in early childhood support services.13 Ms Fordyce said:

There is a lot more work needed in organisations of all types including schools, health and disability services to ensure that we address the drivers of sexual violence, to teach children about respectful relationships and how to speak up when they feel unsafe or when something has happened to them. Unfortunately, there are social norms that mean we condition children, especially those with disabilities and health conditions, to be compliant and submissive … All too often adults ignore a child’s attempt to maintain their bodily autonomy, and then those same adults are surprised when children are abused and do not report it.14

1. National Royal Commission recommendations

The National Royal Commission recommended that the Australian Government implements a national strategy to prevent child sexual abuse. This strategy would encompass complementary initiatives, including prevention education delivered through school settings ‘that aims to increase children’s knowledge of child sexual abuse and build practical skills to assist in strengthening self-protective skills and strategies’.15 The National Royal Commission also recommended that schools extend education on issues of child sexual abuse and online safety to parents and carers.16

The National Royal Commission commissioned an Australia-wide audit of child sexual abuse prevention policies and curriculums across 32 primary school systems, covering government, Catholic and independent school sectors.17 The audit found that only 12.5 per cent of school systems had curriculums that included specific child sexual abuse prevention education and there was considerable variation across jurisdictions in the type of material available on prevention.18 There is no equivalent audit for secondary school policies and curriculums, but there may be opportunity in the Health and Physical Education learning area to address child sexual abuse.19

The audit report also found a lack of strategies to help teachers adapt content for particular groups of students such as Aboriginal children, children with disability or children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.20

The National Royal Commission recommended a nationally consistent approach to prevention education in all schools and preschools, stating: ‘Child sexual abuse prevention education could be integrated with education aimed at preventing all forms of violence against children, in any setting’.21

1. Features of effective child sexual abuse prevention programs

Professor Kerryann Walsh, an expert in child sexual abuse prevention, told us that although there are different examples of prevention education programs, good programs share common features, including that they:

• cover topics such as body ownership, private parts, appropriate versus inappropriate touching, distinguishing types of secrets, and who and how to tell
• are delivered interactively in groups, where teachers and children engage with the content together through strategies such as rehearsal and role-play
• use resources and materials that are diverse, spanning film, plays, songs, puppets and other methods
• are delivered in shorter modules over an extended period, which enables them to be discussed and absorbed (for example, 20-minute sessions delivered once per week over five to six weeks).22

Professor Walsh said that child sexual abuse prevention education should begin as early as possible—by parents in the earliest years, then in childcare, long daycare and kindergartens.23 She also said that prevention education should continue until the end of schooling.24

Professor Walsh also explained that, while it is important to teach about risks of child sexual abuse from adults with sensitivity and care, studies have shown that such education does not tend to increase or decrease children’s fear or anxiety across the board.25 She also noted that the risk of prevention programs increasing a child’s anxiety is lower ‘as programs have improved over the years and become more sensitive to children and more developmentally appropriate’.26

Through submissions and hearings, we heard about the importance of parents and carers also engaging with content delivered about child sexual abuse. Body Safety Australia described its work designing and delivering professional development for teachers, young people and their families, noting:

We believe education for children is most effective when delivering in conjunction with information sessions for parents and teachers. Preventative education for parents, teachers and children facilitates discussion between children and the adults in their lives. While schools can and must provide some measure of protection, it is essential that parents and families continue to be the main providers of safety and assistance to children.27

Professor Walsh echoed this, saying that ‘homework’ (where the school sets activities to be completed at home) can help to engage parents or carers in the programs, plus it provides an avenue for them to reinforce the content.28 She acknowledged that some children do not have the benefit of engaged and supportive parents, which makes accessing information at school particularly important.29

Body Safety Australia cited common reasons teachers prefer prevention education to be delivered by external providers. These include teachers feeling unequipped to deliver the content, a belief that it is easier for children and young people to ask questions about this content and engage with a person they do not see every day, and a fear of damaging the parent–teacher relationship if they deliver confronting content.30 We heard similar concerns in our Burnie stakeholder consultation, with one participant expressing concerns that there could be difficulties with teachers delivering respectful relationships programs because the programs involve discussions with children that could be inappropriate for teachers to participate in.31

Professor Walsh noted that not all teachers will be suited or able to deliver such curriculum (noting some may be victim-survivors themselves).32 Professor Walsh suggested that a smaller cohort of teachers with specialist training and ongoing supervision could be tasked with delivering the material across year levels.33 Children and young people may feel more comfortable disclosing their worries or concerns to teachers. Using teachers, rather than external providers, to deliver this material would help avoid sending an unintentional message that teachers are unwilling to talk to students about child sexual abuse. Incorporating prevention education into the curriculum will support it being delivered by teachers in a school.

1. Child sexual abuse programs in government schools

Child sexual abuse prevention education programs are varied and largely voluntary in Tasmania. This is consistent with most other jurisdictions. As noted by Professor Walsh, the availability of programs across Australia is ‘patchy’.34 Only two jurisdictions—Western Australia and South Australia (the latter of which is discussed in Section 2.5)—have mandated sexual abuse prevention programs in schools.35

Departmental Secretary Timothy Bullard informed us that the Department ‘supports a range of evidence-based and age-appropriate programs to address respectful relationships, consent, sexuality, body ownership and protective behaviours’.36 For government schools, the prevention curriculum is generally contained in the Health and Physical Education area of the Australian Curriculum under the ‘relationships and sexuality’ and ‘safety’ focus areas.37 Secretary Bullard foreshadowed further work to support teachers to implement the Australian Curriculum on respectful relationships and consent, including updates and revisions to support the latest version endorsed nationally by education ministers in April 2022.38

Safe Homes, Families, Communities: Tasmania’s Action Plan for Family and Sexual Violence 2019–2022 committed to implementing prevention strategies, including embedding respectful relationships education in schools and delivering a program for children and young people targeted at harmful sexual behaviours.39 The Tasmanian Government’s Third Family and Sexual Violence Action Plan 2022–2027: Survivors at the Centre expands on this commitment by developing ‘a suite of resources’ that improves the Tasmanian community’s understanding of ‘consent, coercive control and grooming’.40 The plan also states that a dedicated position will be created in the Department to help schools embed respectful relationships education.41

According to the Department’s website, the Respectful Relationships Program is an ‘essential element’ of Safe Homes, Families, Communities.42 The program consists of resources to support schools, communities and individuals to understand the causes of family and sexual violence, and to reduce violence.43 This includes the Respectful Schools Respectful Behaviour: Building Inclusive Practice in Schools resource, which ‘supports school communities to build respectful, safe and supportive learning environments’.44 Our understanding is that this resource focuses on preventing family and gender-based violence but does not directly address child sexual abuse, harmful sexual behaviours or the online environment.

The Department also supports other programs and initiatives that ‘align with and complement content covered through the Australian Curriculum’, although these are not mandatory and are at the discretion of principals.45 Elizabeth Jack, Executive Director, Office of Safeguarding, explained:

Schools tend to use the programs that they believe work best for their context because all our schools are in different environments, they’re a different size, they might have different issues with their student cohort. The principal and school leaders normally make that determination. So there will be professional support staff, for instance, that might contribute to that so that they determine what is best to be run in their school.46

Secretary Bullard highlighted some programs and educational activities for young people in school settings in Tasmania including:

• Ditto’s Keep Safe Adventure Program from the Bravehearts Foundation, delivered in the early years of school47
• the Sexual Assault and Prevention Program and ‘Consent is a Conversation’ workshops delivered by the Sexual Assault Support Service48
• the Prevention, Assessment, Support and Treatment program, delivered by the Sexual Assault Support Service, focusing on children and young people exhibiting harmful sexual behaviours.49

Ms Jack identified more than 20 programs delivered in schools, highlighting to us that there is no consistent approach across Tasmanian government schools.50 At our Hobart consultation, we heard that although information about prevention was available in schools, some principals may be reluctant to engage with it.51 The Launceston consultation also highlighted the discretionary nature of many programs.52

Some prevention programs at schools are fee-based, and others are offered at no charge if the Department has a formal agreement with a program provider (under a grant deed) to provide a certain number of programs.53 Where a school wishes to have a program that is not available under a grant deed, they generally need to fund this through individual budgets, known as School Resource Packages, in consultation with the school principal.54

Decisions about which programs the Department endorses are ‘guided by departmental policies and guidelines, with consideration being given to alignment with the curriculum and the quality of the program’.55 Ms Jack noted she has received advice that suggests the programs currently running in schools are appropriate and accredited.56 However, she indicated that the Office of Safeguarding, together with other business units across the Department, would undertake ‘a review of available programs to ensure the programs being offered by schools are appropriate at a whole-of-system level, while still suiting the context for each individual school’.57

The Department usually captures participation data for programs funded through a grant deed, but for other programs, this data is generally ‘maintained at the local school level’.58 Noting this variability and the voluntary nature of such programs, Ms Jack confirmed the Office of Safeguarding’s intention to work with other business units across the Department, to better capture engagement data ‘including outcomes and trends related to program participation’.59

1. Mandated sexual abuse prevention education

Professor Walsh told us that programs are more likely to be delivered when they are compulsory.60 Professor Walsh warned that in a tight resourcing environment, principals can overlook programs that require discretionary funding:

I think the literature would tell us that [schools] will only look for a sexual abuse prevention program when they have an incident; it will be reactionary why they do it. So, that is very hard for schools to do when they commit their budget at the start of the school year, there’s just no wriggle room in budgets to suddenly get somebody in to deliver a program when an event happens, even though we know that’s not what should happen but in practice that’s often how it plays out.61

On the question of mandated programs, Ms Jack noted:

The Office [of Safeguarding] is in the early stages of discussion with both the Support and Development and Learning divisions regarding opportunities to better identify, recommend, monitor and (where necessary) make mandatory, prevention programs in schools, noting that schools also need the ability to make decisions based on their own local context and need.62

Secretary Bullard listed considerations for making these programs mandatory including:

• alignment with the curriculum and how the program can be integrated in school timetables
• consideration of who delivers the program (teachers, social workers or external providers) and the resourcing required to enable effective delivery
• acknowledging a parent or carer’s right to request their child not participate in a particular program
• the need to evaluate the impact of any programs delivered.63

Secretary Bullard went on to note the risk that such programs could be seen as a ‘substitute for other services and processes that protect children’.64 Also, programs should not be viewed as a ‘solution’ alone but should be placed in a broader safeguarding system.65 We agree with this statement.

In addition to the Australian Curriculum (and complementary to its ‘relationships and sexuality’ and ‘safety’ focus areas), South Australia has the Keeping Safe: Child Protection Curriculum.66 Professor Walsh described South Australia’s program as the ‘soundest’ model because it has been developed over some time and has been ‘so well thought through’.67

The Keeping Safe: Child Protection Curriculum is mandated in all South Australian Department for Education preschools and schools for children and young people from the age of three through to year 12 and covers child safety and respectful relationships. It is delivered by teachers in the school setting. It has support materials specifically for Aboriginal children and young people, children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and children with disability or additional needs.68 It also has resources for parents and carers.69 We understand schools in other jurisdictions have adopted this curriculum, as have some independent schools in South Australia.70

We consider it is important that children and young people receive child sexual abuse prevention education throughout their schooling. While we recognise the multiple competing priorities in school curriculums and budgets, the finding in the Australian Child Maltreatment Study that more than one in four Australian young people aged 16 to 24 years have experienced child sexual abuse suggests this is a priority that must be addressed.71 For this to occur, prevention education needs to be mandated across all schools and in Tasmanian government funded early learning preschool programs, through to year 12. All Tasmanian students should have the benefit of programs designed to help them learn and understand their right to be safe from sexual abuse or harmful sexual behaviours. It is also efficient to have a single, consistent approach to programs across the State. We are not convinced there is justification for the existing variety of approaches at the local level, but note that individual schools may wish to supplement mandated curriculum content to reflect their own context or circumstances.

We consider that the Department should adopt the South Australian model of mandated prevention education. This is a significant reform agenda but one we consider vital to preventing child sexual abuse. Safeguarding Leads, supported by the Office of Safeguarding, should actively support and champion the mandatory curriculum in schools. The Department may wish to explore opportunities for cross-jurisdictional collaboration with South Australia for implementing this mandatory curriculum.

The Department should develop a plan for sustained implementation that clearly articulates the goals and objectives of the curriculum and defines the roles and responsibilities of key participants. We see potential to incorporate the Respectful Relationships and Consent Education program committed to by the Government in this curriculum, as is the approach in South Australia.72 The Department should evaluate the effectiveness of the mandatory curriculum after five years of implementation, with evaluation criteria created as part of the process of developing the curriculum.

The Tasmanian Government could also consider making the mandatory child sexual abuse prevention curriculum available to non-government schools.

Recommendation 6.1

1. The Department for Education, Children and Young People should introduce and fund a mandatory child sexual abuse prevention curriculum as part of the mandatory respectful behaviours curriculum from early learning programs to Year 12, across all types of government schools (including specialist schools).
2. This mandatory prevention curriculum should draw on expert evidence of best practice and successful approaches adopted in other states and territories, including South Australia’s mandatory curriculum.
3. The Department should develop a plan for sustained implementation of the mandatory prevention curriculum. The plan should:
   1. set out the goals and objectives of implementing the mandatory prevention curriculum
   2. define the roles and responsibilities of key participants
   3. include criteria for evaluating the curriculum.
4. The Department should evaluate the effectiveness of the mandatory prevention curriculum five years after its implementation.

1. Office of Safeguarding Children and Young People

This section examines the purpose and functions of the Office of Safeguarding and offers some early reflections on its operation. We acknowledge that the Office of Safeguarding is in the process of implementing recommendations from the Independent Education Inquiry. It is important that this occurs effectively, in line with the recommendations’ objectives.

Given that the Office of Safeguarding is in its relative infancy, we did not receive extensive evidence about its performance. However, we have made some early observations of its work, as well as offering our reflections on how it may best deliver on its ambitions. We recommend that the Office of Safeguarding focuses its attention on the school and educational context, concentrating on prevention, risk identification, policy development and related workforce development.

1. Establishing the Office of Safeguarding

The Independent Education Inquiry recommended establishing a Director of Safeguarding in the then Department of Education in order to, among other things, develop a student safeguarding policy, support risk assessments and management plans in every school, be a point of contact for School Safeguarding Officers and oversee their induction and training.73 One of the Independent Education Inquiry’s primary concerns was how the Department could embed prevention into its child safeguarding system.74

Elizabeth Jack was appointed as the inaugural Executive Director of Safeguarding Children and Young People.75 The role’s Statement of Duties outlines its function as:

To promote and protect the wellbeing of children and young people in all Education Department settings by leading and providing strategic advice and direction in relation to the Department’s culture, systems, practices, processes, procedures and professional learning, relating to safeguarding children and young people from harm of abuse.76

Ms Jack described the duties of the Executive Director of Safeguarding Children and Young People as including:

• implementing the recommendations of the Independent Education Inquiry and of the National Royal Commission allocated to the Department of Education (Ms Jack also noted that she would likely be responsible for implementing relevant recommendations of our Commission of Inquiry)77
• supporting ‘operational responses to safeguarding children and young people’ led by other departmental business units, including Workplace Relations, Legal Services, Learning Services and Student Support78
• championing child safeguarding issues with the Department’s Executive Group, other senior staff, school principals and departmental staff79
• ensuring strategic communications with students, staff and stakeholders to raise awareness of safeguarding issues.80

The Office of Safeguarding has (at the time of writing) six dedicated staff (primarily roles in policy analysis, project management and communications) and receives some support from the Department’s Strategic Policy and Planning and Strategic Systems Development areas.81

Secretary Bullard confirmed a State Budget allocation of $2.6 million over three years beginning in 2022–23 to ‘fully staff the Office of Safeguarding Children and Young People to meet the demands of the work required to support all safeguarding-related activity across the Department’.82

We understand Ms Jack has now moved to the position of Deputy Secretary, Keeping Children Safe, which oversees the Office of Safeguarding as well as Services for Children and Families (which includes the Child Safety Service, the Strong Families, Safe Kids Advice and Referral Line and out of home care).83 We discuss our concerns with this organisational structure in Chapter 9. Here we focus on the role of the Office of Safeguarding.

1. Working strategically and sustainably for greatest impact

The Office of Safeguarding has an ambitious program of work considering its relatively small team. It relies on the cooperation and goodwill of a range of other parties—including the various departmental portfolios, departmental business units and individual schools—to achieve its objectives. In this section, we discuss some of its early areas of responsibility, including appointing Student Safeguarding Officers, undertaking systemic reviews and commenting on the Department’s responses to allegations of child sexual abuse by staff.

We also note that the Office of Safeguarding led the Department’s work on developing Safe. Secure. Supported. Our Safeguarding Framework (‘Safeguarding Framework’) for safeguarding children and young people, which was released in April 2023.84 We discuss this Safeguarding Framework in Section 4.

1. Student Safeguarding Officers

Student Safeguarding Officers (also referred to as Safeguarding Leads) can expand the reach and impact of the Office of Safeguarding and embed its priorities at the local level.

The Independent Education Inquiry recommended appointing Student Safeguarding Officers in schools with the following responsibilities:

• ensuring relevant safeguarding information is reported and recorded
• contributing to school safeguarding risk assessment and management plans
• acting as a point of contact for students and staff about safeguarding concerns
• ensuring the best interests of students are at the forefront of decisions and actions of the school.85

Secretary Bullard gave evidence that the State Budget allocated $26.1 million over four years (and $9.7 million ongoing) to appoint Student Safeguarding Officers in every government school.86

Ms Jack described the role of Student Safeguarding Officers as:

… the Safeguarding Officer will be there to help the principal lead the work we’re doing to put children and young people at the centre of every decision and action we take. They will be there to help with the development of risk assessment plans and monitor those plans ...87

The Office of Safeguarding will induct and train Student Safeguarding Officers and support them to develop local safeguarding assessments and risk management plans, as recommended by the Independent Education Inquiry.88

Professor Walsh supports creating specialist portfolios to help lift overall capability in a school. She noted that the:

… development of specialised roles would mean not every teacher would need to possess the maximum level of expertise. Instead, teachers could readily consult with an expert within the school as necessary.89

She said that, ideally, there would be a child protection and safeguarding lead as well as a digital safety lead, accompanied by ‘elevated status, remuneration and progression commensurate with the degree of expertise required’.90

Ms Jack was adamant that the Office of Safeguarding would not simply add a title or give staff extra responsibilities without adequate resourcing. She explained:

… it may be that we take some of an existing person’s role away and give them the safeguarding role if they are the right person, or it might be a recruitment of new staff depending on the skills and experience we require.91

We agree that safeguarding roles should be recognised, resourced and rewarded. Student Safeguarding Officers will have an important role in making the work of the Office of Safeguarding tangible and meaningful.

In his February 2023 update, Secretary Bullard told us that, as part of the Department’s response to the Independent Education Inquiry, a ‘staged roll out’ of its ‘Safeguarding in Schools’ model had begun in November 2022.92 Implementing Safeguarding in Schools requires all government schools to nominate a Safeguarding Lead during the 2023 school year. Safeguarding Leads are to then receive ‘tailored safeguarding resources and supports to ensure they are equipped with the skills and understanding needed to plan and implement strategies to support the safety of all students’.93 Secretary Bullard told us that all Safeguarding Leads will be provided with ‘professional learning’ in mandatory reporting and in identifying and addressing child sexual abuse, ‘including grooming, and risk management’.94 Under the model, the Office of Safeguarding will work with Safeguarding Leads to help them improve their skills in risk management and assessment, to enable them to ‘put in place risk management plans that focus on preventing, identifying and mitigating the risks of child sexual abuse’.95

Children interviewed for our commissioned research said they wanted a trusted confidant who was accessible and preferably proactive in engaging students about worries or concerns.96 They also told our commissioned researchers that they felt safer when they were asked for their feedback about how things could be improved. They said that schools might feel safer if they had feedback channels such as a ‘worries’ box where children could confidentially raise concerns with the principal, or that the principal should proactively seek feedback from students and hold regular ‘safety sessions’ with students in focus groups to reflect on and improve safety measures.97 We consider Safeguarding Leads could actively encourage the engagement and participation of students to enhance their sense of safety in their school.

1. Systemic reviews

Every ‘incident or episode of sexual abuse in a school can be seen as a failure of its primary safeguarding systems’.98 The Independent Education Inquiry recommended conducting reviews following incidents to encourage reflection and examine opportunities to strengthen safeguarding responses.99

In November 2021, the Department’s Executive Group endorsed the process for conducting systemic reviews, noting that it may be subject to change following a ‘test and try’ approach in December 2021.100 This ‘test and try’ review followed a report of child sexual abuse by an employee against a high school student, in which criminal charges were laid.101

The members of this Review Panel, as agreed by the Executive, were:

• Executive Director, Safeguarding Children and Young People (Chair)
• Director, Learning Services (Southern Region)
• Director, Legal Services and Workplace Relations
• Deputy Secretary, Corporate Services of the then Department of Communities
• Senior Project Manager, Safeguarding Children and Young People (Secretariat).102

The review focused ‘on the systems, processes and policies that were used by [departmental] staff involved in the incident or episode, rather than any one individual’s actions or decisions’.103 It was also not designed to be a formal audit or a precursor to any disciplinary or punitive action.104

On 3 December 2021, the Review Panel met and discussed the process. Questions for consideration covered the themes of ‘prevention of abuse, early intervention and support for action and decision-making’.105 Other matters considered included the physical environment of the school, records and information capturing the response to the incident and support available to the student and affected staff.106

Members of the review team met with key staff (including the principal) and conducted a site visit to observe the physical environment of the school.107 The team also considered record keeping and information sharing in the response to the matter.108

The review made 16 wide-ranging recommendations, covering professional development, internal and external communication, policies and guidelines, consideration of risks in future capital works, and awareness and understanding of relevant policies and procedures.109

A survey of the participants interviewed for the review revealed generally positive feedback about the process. One participant described it as ‘liberating’; another felt ‘supported, respected and heard’.110

It is pleasing that the Department has begun these reviews, and we note that the review process itself will be refined and improved over time. However, we make the following observations:

• On the face of the review, its intended audience and distribution are unclear. The Department has since clarified that the review was undertaken to provide the Department’s Executive and senior staff with information about system gaps and opportunities to improve the way the Department supports staff to prevent, identify and respond to child sexual abuse. Where the Review Panel saw other opportunities for system improvements, these were shared with relevant business units across the agency.111
• The review made several recommendations, some of which overlap with existing recommendations or planned work and others that reflect new initiatives. Some of the Review Panel’s recommendations are ambitious and would require significant investment and effort to meaningfully embed. Others were drafted in ways that make acquittal or ‘success’ ambiguous.
• Any new or added recommendations should be drafted so that outcomes can be meaningfully measured and evaluated against specified objectives. A role holder should be allocated to act on those objectives. The implementation of recommendations should be monitored and reported on at regular intervals. Effective implementation of changes or improvements flowing from systemic reviews is key to building trust and credibility in the review processes.
• On the face of the review, it does not appear that it contemplated involving the relevant young person and/or their family.112 We acknowledge this may not always be appropriate (including potentially in this case) and, if undertaken, would need to be conducted by skilled professionals in a trauma-informed and age-appropriate way. However, systemic reviews should recognise the valuable information that children and young people, as well as their families and others in the school community, can provide about their experiences of safeguarding. Reviews should also empower young people to share their experiences if they wish to do so. Inviting young people and their carers and families to be involved can also show that the Department has taken their experiences seriously and is committed to improvement into the future. We would suggest that if a Review Panel determines not to invite a young person and/or their family to participate, it should include an explanation of this decision in its report.
• It is not clear that a particular method was used to conduct the review. Using a predefined method (or a combination of methods)—for example, a root cause analysis or after-action review—helps provide consistency across reviews and ensure they are comprehensive and objective. Also, a framework for review questions should be considered before conducting a review.
• The Review Panel does not appear to have included a subject matter expert; we suggest that future panels should include someone with relevant expertise. For example, for a matter involving child sexual abuse, at least one member of the Review Panel should have expertise in child sexual abuse and perpetrator tactics to help advise other panel members in interpreting information. This will also help ensure all aspects of the incident are thoroughly examined and that reviews are comprehensive.
• The review process demonstrated by the then Serious Events Review Team in the former Department of Communities appears much more targeted and reflects a better process (Serious Events Review Team investigations are discussed in Chapter 9 and Chapter 12).

In general, implementing effective systemic reviews can contribute to a workforce culture that is reflective rather than defensive, that acknowledges mistakes, and that values feedback and suggestions for improvement. We acknowledge that achieving this takes time and strong leadership, and we consider that a clear and considered framework for systems reviews will help to achieve this. We commend the Department on having completed its first systemic review and offer the comments above as reflections to support continuous improvement in the review process itself rather than criticism. We particularly commend the conduct of the review resulting in positive feedback from review participants.

1. The role of the Office of Safeguarding in incidents—Integrity Commission audit findings

Our Commission of Inquiry was given an audit report, prepared by the Integrity Commission, into the Department’s handling of a complaint about the conduct of a teacher towards some students. Overall, the Integrity Commission’s audit was positive about the Department’s management of the matter, but it did make some critical observations about the contribution of the Executive Director, Office of Safeguarding, in relation to the complaint.

The auditor’s assessment of the Executive Director was largely based on a one-page document that was at the front of the complaint file and appeared to be a ‘review’ of the file. The Executive Director noted on this document that the conduct subject to the complaint was inappropriate and did not comply with the State Service Code of Conduct. However, the Executive Director also noted that ‘there was no intent behind these actions/behaviours to indicate grooming behaviour’.113 The Integrity Commission disagreed with this assessment.114

The Integrity Commission expressed concern about the role of the Executive Director in ‘reviewing’ the file, in particular:

• The Executive Director’s role (and influence over decision-making) is unclear on disciplinary and misconduct matters.115
• There is no clear framework for the ‘review’ or evidence of a method or supporting evidence for the assessment.116
• It did not appear, in the view of the Integrity Commission, that the Executive Director had relevant skills or expertise to assess whether behaviour constitutes grooming.117

In relation to the Executive Director, the Integrity Commission concluded:

While Ms Jack’s role may have overall Agency responsibilities, in relation to [Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct] matters it is important to clarify the role of the Safeguarding Children and Young People division. The Secretary must be confident that senior executives in the Department will provide comprehensive, considered, probative and relevant advice. In contrast to the considered, reasoned advice and recommendations provided by the Department’s Workplace Relations officers, Ms Jack’s advice is of limited value and seems misleading. The value of her review is unclear, and—from my perspective—undermined an otherwise appropriately managed matter.118

Ms Jack told us that she did not have a ‘direct operational role in responding to allegations, incidents, disclosures or suspicions of child sexual abuse’.119 The Department in fact advised that the Executive Director did not undertake a formal review of this specific case because the Office of Safeguarding is not formally involved in investigating breaches of the State Service Code of Conduct. The Department told us that the Executive Director was asked to consider the information as a ‘critical friend’ and offer her initial views.

The role and functions of the Office of Safeguarding should be clearly defined to avoid duplication and confusion, and to properly recognise where the Office of Safeguarding can add value relative to other divisions and business units.

We consider that the Office of Safeguarding should focus on policy, guidance and prevention in education, rather than engaging in investigating individual incidents. We are aware of the importance for those working in policy roles to be informed by what is occurring in practice. We consider it useful for the Office of Safeguarding to have some visibility of incidents (particularly high-level trends or areas of concern) to help inform its priorities, and we suggest that communication between the Office of Safeguarding and our proposed Child-Related Incident Management Directorate regularly occurs. However, the Office of Safeguarding should not have a role in assessing or evaluating the appropriateness of responses to incidents. We consider that this role sits most appropriately in our proposed Child-Related Incident Management Directorate, discussed in Section 6.

1. Focusing the Office of Safeguarding’s role in an expanded Department

We asked Secretary Bullard about how the Office of Safeguarding will operate in an expanded Department for Education, Children and Young People. We were particularly interested to know whether the Office of Safeguarding will assume functions beyond education, such as youth justice and out of home care. Secretary Bullard stated that the Office of Safeguarding will ‘work right across the new department’.120

Extending the role of the Office of Safeguarding to work across all portfolios in the expanded Department presents some challenges:

• A large reform agenda—The Independent Education Inquiry proposed a large reform agenda for schools, and our recommendations in this chapter add to that agenda.
• The need for specialist expertise in out of home care, youth detention and child protection—In Chapter 9 we identify that child protection, including out of home care, has unique features that require the Department to have a high level of expertise as well as active and engaged executive leadership. In Chapter 12 we outline the specific need for reform in youth justice and outline a substantial reform agenda. These portfolios require different considerations and a deeper understanding of abuse, neglect and perpetration than may be required in an education context.
• Increased workload—We note in Section 3.1 that the Office of Safeguarding had a staff of six with plans to recruit another four staff, and that it received some support from the Department’s Strategic Policy and Planning and Strategic Systems Development areas. We consider that in an expanded Department, the increase in size and complexity of the role of the Office of Safeguarding, which was recommended by the Independent Education Inquiry specifically regarding schools and education, would place significant pressure on existing staff and would likely require a considerable increase in staff to cope with the increased workload.

For these reasons, we are sceptical about the effectiveness of the Office of Safeguarding operating across all portfolios in the expanded Department. We recommend that responsibility for policy formulation and implementation remains with the respective portfolios of out of home care and youth justice and that the role of the Office of Safeguarding remains (or refocuses) on schools and education.

The Office of Safeguarding must have clearly defined priorities and appropriate resourcing. To achieve its ambitions, the Office of Safeguarding will need to be disciplined and strategic. We consider that the Office’s priorities should closely align with the yet-to-be implemented recommendations of the National Royal Commission, the Independent Education Inquiry and our Commission of Inquiry in relation to schools and education. The implementation of these complex recommendations must reflect intended outcomes in all their depth and complexity. This will take time.

We are keen to see the Office of Safeguarding succeed and add genuine value to the safeguarding efforts of the Department in relation to schools and education. We do not wish to make premature judgments on its performance, but it is important that the Office of Safeguarding is accountable for its work. Establishing the Office of Safeguarding, and its associated work program, should support children to feel safe at school.

In Chapter 22, we recommend that a Child Sexual Abuse Reform Implementation Monitor evaluates the Government’s child safeguarding measures, including the implementation of the Independent Education Inquiry’s recommendations. In relation to schools and education, this evaluation could consider children’s sense of safety in schools.

Recommendation 6.2

1. The Office of Safeguarding within the Department for Education, Children and Young People should focus primarily on safeguarding children in the education context, with a particular focus on prevention, risk identification, policy development and related workforce development.
2. The Office of Safeguarding should not be involved in critical incident management beyond learning from systemic reviews and trend data.

1. Policies, procedures and guidance

Policies and procedures support schools to respond to child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviours. Their importance is reflected across several National Principles for Child Safe Organisations, particularly Principle 10, which states: ‘Policies and procedures document how the organisation is safe for children and young people’.121

Professor Walsh noted that because teachers encounter incidents of child sexual abuse or harmful sexual behaviours infrequently, they require ‘access to high quality, on demand guidance materials’, which should be regularly updated.122

In this section, we discuss the evidence we heard about the Department’s policies on child sexual abuse, including the findings and recommendations of the Independent Education Inquiry.

We recognise the significant reform happening in relation to the Department’s policies, including the recent release of an overarching Safeguarding Framework (discussed further in Section 4.1.2). Many policies and procedures that the Independent Education Inquiry examined or were provided to us have since been revised, retired or are under development at the time of writing. Some examples of how policies have changed over time (and how these changes would affect child sexual abuse complaints) are explored in the case studies in Chapter 5.

We are pleased that this area is receiving the attention it needs. We recommend that the Department ensures its child safeguarding policies are publicly available and regularly reviewed. We also recommend developing an education-specific professional conduct policy for schools. Of course, policies alone are ineffective in improving practice if they are not part of a cohesive policy framework that is accessible and integrated into operations. In Section 5, we recommend mandatory professional development and training for all staff and volunteers, which should occur with close reference to the refreshed safeguarding policies.

1. Policy improvements

1. Independent Education Inquiry

The Independent Education Inquiry made several observations about the Department’s policies and procedures, including that its safeguarding policies were numerous, confusing and inaccessible, and that there was not enough focus on harmful sexual behaviours.123 Similarly, one teacher told us:

The Department may have had policies and procedures about child sexual abuse detection and response, or harmful sexual behaviours, but I was not ever made aware of them, and I do not know where they were located, if they existed.124

Some of the Department’s policies on child sexual abuse were out of date or did not reflect best practice. Social worker and victim-survivor Kerri Collins described documentation on mandatory reporting, in particular, as being ‘very old’.125 Fellow social worker Debra Drake told us that the responsibility for updating, customising and delivering outdated and ill-suited mandatory reporting materials often fell to social work staff.126

Our case studies identified several shortcomings in relation to policies and procedures, namely:

• characterisations of child sexual abuse were not broad enough to capture grooming behaviours and did not identify professional boundary breaches as serious or as possible indications of grooming behaviour—refer to the ‘Wayne’ and ‘Mark’ case studies in Chapter 5
• an absence of clear procedures for managing the inappropriate conduct of relief teachers and a lack of feedback pathways on their performance, which meant that concerning behaviour may only be identified due to proactive school leaders—refer to the ‘Brad’ case study in Chapter 5
• lack of clarity around appropriate social media use by school staff, which can create difficulties disciplining staff in response to complaints that a staff member has sent inappropriate messages to students—refer to the ‘Mark’ case study in Chapter 5
• neither the State Service Code of Conduct nor departmental policies clearly covered inappropriate conduct outside the school environment. The Solicitor-General has interpreted the law strictly, making it difficult to discipline teachers whose behaviour occurs outside the school setting. Even when the Code of Conduct arguably applies, it may be difficult to substantiate serious complaints by a student against a teacher—refer to the ‘Wayne’ case study in Chapter 5.

The Independent Education Inquiry recommended that the Department does the following in relation to policies and procedures:

• develops a comprehensive student safeguarding policy and improves existing policies on mandatory reporting, use of technology and duty of care (recommendation 4)127
• improves the ability of staff to identify and report concerning behaviour (recommendations 10 and 11)128
• develops an education-specific code of conduct to facilitate disciplinary action against staff (recommendation 12)129
• integrates student safeguarding policies so their position within the Department’s safeguarding policies is clear (recommendations 11, 13 and 14)130
• develops protocols to respond to different types of sexual abuse (recommendation 16)131
• improves public accessibility to policies (recommendations 19 and 20).132

1. The Department’s response

The Department accepted these recommendations and set up the Office of Safeguarding, which is tasked with implementing them—this work is due to be completed by the end of 2023.133 We discuss the role of the Office of Safeguarding in Section 3.

Since the Independent Education Inquiry report was released, the Department has undertaken the following activities in relation to policies:

• examined ‘approximately 70 existing policies and procedures that all contribute in some way to the Department’s safeguarding system’ to inform development of an overarching safeguarding framework recommended by the Independent Education Inquiry134
• updated the mandatory reporting procedure to ensure it is clear and easy to understand135
• updated the processes for recording and checking Registration to Work with Vulnerable People statuses, including introducing kiosks to ensure any visitors to school sites have been appropriately screened136
• developed a new Safeguarding Children and Young People website to provide students and their families and carers with information on child sexual abuse and how to report concerns137
• developed and internally published Advice for Staff on Responding to Incidents, Disclosures and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse, with accompanying flowcharts for principals (including a flowchart for harmful sexual behaviours)138
• distributed updated flowcharts on ‘preventing, identifying and responding to child sexual abuse’ to schools139
• implemented an interim Child Safe Code of Conduct for its staff.140

We heard some positive feedback about the recent policy changes. For example, Ms Collins described some policies relating to grooming and sexual assault as ‘quite good’.141 Principal Monique Carter also noted that recently revised flowcharts designed for principals to respond to child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviours were clearer and easier to follow.142

The Department published its framework for safeguarding children and young people in April 2023.143 The Safeguarding Framework is structured around the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations ‘with a particular emphasis on sexual abuse’.144 It provides some definitions of various forms of child sexual abuse and gives detailed examples of conduct that may constitute grooming.145 The Safeguarding Framework encompasses the broader remit of the Department, which includes out of home care and youth justice.146 It lists the relevant policies in relation to child safeguarding, which include:

• a child safe culture
• reporting obligations
• responding to incidents, disclosures and suspicions
• worker conduct and professional conduct
• duty of care
• risk management
• information sharing
• record keeping.

The Safeguarding Framework provides a welcome overarching framework to the Department’s response to child sexual abuse, although we note many of the relevant policies listed in the Safeguarding Framework are not publicly available.147

We were particularly pleased to note that the Safeguarding Framework adopts a child participation model that is ‘grounded in the [United Nations] Convention on the Rights of the Child and promotes a rights-based approach to the active involvement of children and young people in decision-making’.148

We hope that child participation is carried through in policy development and review. As noted, children and young people need to be involved in the systems and processes that impact them at schools.

1. Learning from South Australia—policies and guidance

Alana Girvin, former Director, Incident Management Directorate, South Australia, described fundamental changes to the way the South Australian Department for Education responds to child sexual abuse following the 2012–13 Report of the Independent Education Inquiry (‘Debelle Inquiry’). The Debelle Inquiry began in response to the mishandling of a sexual abuse case, which was the subject of significant community concern.

We heard that the South Australian Department for Education relies on the following policies:

• Code of Ethics (similar to Tasmania’s State Service Code of Conduct), by which all public servants are bound
• Protective Practices for Staff in their Interactions with Children and Young People: Guidelines for Staff Working or Volunteering in Education or Care Settings (‘Protective Practices Policy’)—this policy is ‘relatively prescriptive’ and gives examples of boundary violations, such as the unaccompanied transport of young people, filming or photographing of students when not authorised to do so, or initiating or permitting unnecessary or inappropriate physical contact with a child or young person (massage, kisses or tickling games).149 It forms part of the Code of Ethics150
• Responding to Problem Sexual Behaviour in Children and Young People, which describes processes for managing harmful sexual behaviour151
• Information Sharing Guidelines, which dictate what information is shared about child abuse allegations, when and with whom152
• Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings, which provides a comprehensive step-by-step guide on how to respond to a complaint or disclosure. Ms Girvin told us that all staff are trained to know this guide ‘inside out’.153

These policies are publicly available and central to the accompanying mandatory professional development program in South Australia, outlined in Section 5.

Ms Girvin described how South Australia’s Protective Practices Policy forms part of the South Australian Department for Education’s Code of Ethics.

The National Royal Commission also found that:

… institutions that deal with children should have a code of conduct that outlines behaviour towards children that the institution considers unacceptable, encompassing concerning conduct, misconduct and criminal conduct.154

The National Royal Commission recommended that a child-focused code of conduct should:

• include clear definitions of child sexual abuse and grooming
• require that all breaches or suspected breaches of the code be reported
• outline clear processes for responding to breaches
• specify consequences for breaches
• detail the protections available to those who make complaints or report potential breaches.155

In relation to the South Australia’s Protective Practices Policy, Ms Girvin noted:

In my opinion, it is important in an education setting … to have bespoke policies to clearly identify conduct with respect to children, including boundary breaches and child sexual abuse.156

She added that the level of detail in the policy helps staff feel confident about the Department’s expectations.157 Ms Girvin emphasised that protective policies are ‘designed to safeguard children, not to protect adults against allegations of misconduct’:158

Policies must assist adults to understand appropriate boundaries in relation to their role and interactions with children and young people. Bespoke policies enable staff to feel confident about the Department’s expectations and conduct obligations and enable line managers to clearly address any concerns raised in performance management discussions and written records.159

Ms Girvin went on to describe how the Protective Practices Policy serves an ‘educative function’ by defining what grooming is and giving examples of how it can occur. The policy creates proactive obligations on teachers to report any suspected grooming by colleagues or risk being in breach of the Code of Ethics themselves.160 She told us that the clarity of the policy helped minimise discretion and prevarication: ‘I think it changed the culture immediately; whether people thought it was right or wrong, didn’t matter, it wasn’t a debate’.161

We were impressed by the nuance in the guidance provided to staff working in rural and regional communities, where maintaining professional boundaries may be more challenging due to shared social and community events with students and their families.162 We believe the Department could benefit from the experience of its South Australian counterpart in implementing child safeguarding policies.

1. Our observations

We acknowledge the Department is working to refresh, combine and promote safeguarding policies. This reform must translate into meaningful improvements to child safety in schools.

We consider that the best way to support the Department’s new policies and procedures being adopted broadly across schools is through the mandatory professional development and training we recommend in Section 5. We also consider that the Department should ensure its new policies stay up to date by establishing a regular policy review program. These policies should also be publicly available so children and their parents and carers know what to expect in relation to the conduct of staff and volunteers, as well as in relation to the Department’s response to concerns or allegations of child sexual abuse.

In relation to professional conduct, in Chapter 20 we recommend that all Heads of Agencies whose agencies provide services to children should develop a professional conduct policy for the agency’s staff, contractors and volunteers. We specify that a breach of such policies may be taken to be a breach of the State Service Code of Conduct. Professional conduct policies should be based on National Royal Commission recommendations about codes of conduct and should focus on the distinctive operational environments and challenges presented in each of these sectors.163 As outlined in Chapter 20, the professional conduct policy should have the following features:

• explain what behaviours are unacceptable including concerning conduct, misconduct or criminal conduct
• define and prohibit child sexual abuse, grooming and boundary violations
• acknowledge the challenge of maintaining professional boundaries in small communities and provide clear identification of, instructions about, and examples of how to manage conflicts of interest and professional boundaries in small communities
• provide guidance on identifying behaviours that are indicative of child sexual abuse, grooming and boundary violations that are relevant to the particular context of the organisation (in this case schools)
• outline the types of behaviours that must be reported to authorities, including what behaviours should be reported to police, child protection authorities, the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme and the Independent Regulator of the Reportable Conduct Scheme or other relevant agencies, such as the Teachers Registration Board
• provide that not following reasonable directions is a breach of professional standards
• provide that a failure to report a breach or suspected breach of the policy may be taken to be a breach of the policy
• outline the protections available to individuals who make complaints or reports in good faith
• provide and clearly outline response mechanisms for alleged breaches of the policy
• specify the penalties for breach, including that a breach of the policy may be taken to be a breach of the State Service Code of Conduct and may result in disciplinary action
• cross-reference any other policies, procedures and guidelines that support, inform or otherwise relate to the professional conduct policy, for example, complaint handling or child protection policies or other codes of conduct relevant to particular professions.

In Chapter 20, we also specify that the professional conduct policy should be:

• easily accessible to everyone in the Department and communicated by a range of mechanisms
• explained to, acknowledged and signed by all employees
• accompanied by training and professional development
• communicated to children and young people and their families through a range of mechanisms including publication on the Department’s public-facing website.

We are pleased to note that the Safeguarding Framework lists different professional conduct policies for ‘learning’, the Child Safety Service and out of home care, and youth justice. We consider this approach appropriate to account for the distinct risks that arise in different areas. These professional conduct policies should apply to staff, volunteers and contractors.

In relation to responding to incidents, concerns and complaints about child sexual abuse, we recommend in Section 6 establishing a Child-Related Incident Management Directorate to help schools (and other agencies) respond to allegations of child sexual abuse by staff. We also recommend this Directorate develops guidelines and resources to support this response. The Department’s policies should reflect the new process this Directorate will support.

In Section 7, we make recommendations about harmful sexual behaviours, including developing appropriate policies, protocols and guidance to support staff responding to incidents in schools.

Recommendation 6.3

1. The Department for Education, Children and Young People should make its child safeguarding policies publicly available, including policies on mandatory reporting, professional conduct, and responses to allegations and concerns about child sexual abuse.
2. The Department should establish a regular review process for its child safeguarding policies.

Recommendation 6.4

The Department for Education, Children and Young People, in developing a professional conduct policy (Recommendation 20.2), should ensure:

1. there is a separate professional conduct policy for staff who have contact with children and young people in schools
2. the professional conduct policy for schools, in addition to the matters set out in Recommendation 20.2, specifies expectations outlined in other relevant school policies and procedures, including those covering online technology and a duty of care owed by staff members
3. the professional conduct policy for schools spells out expected standards of behaviour for volunteers, relief teachers, contractors and sub-contractors
4. the Department uses appropriate mechanisms to ensure compliance by volunteers, relief teachers, contractors and sub-contractors with the professional conduct policy for schools.

1. Professional development for school staff

Teachers, other staff and volunteers in schools should have appropriate professional development to understand their obligations towards students, particularly as these obligations relate to maintaining professional boundaries and complying with relevant policies and procedures. Appropriate professional development clarifies the Department’s expectations of adult behaviour and supports them to identify and respond to inappropriate behaviour by other adults.

In addition, teachers are uniquely placed to identify signs of abuse and harm. They know their students, often over many years, and will frequently be able to notice concerning changes in behaviour. Teachers may also be aware of risks faced by a student outside school (for example, if the student is known to the Child Safety Service), allowing them to pay closer attention to signs of abuse. Students often regard teachers as trusted adults, particularly if they do not have protective parents or other adults in their lives. For all these reasons, teachers should be equipped to identify abuse and harm at the earliest opportunity and to respond with sensitivity and confidence if they receive a complaint or disclosure.

1. Current training

During our hearings we heard that only mandatory reporting training was compulsory for departmental staff.164

Teacher Nigel Russell gave evidence that apart from one session on mandatory reporting training:

In all the time that I was teaching in the Tasmanian education system, I don’t remember receiving any training from the Department around child sexual abuse or harmful sexual behaviours.165

Mr Russell emphasised the importance of teachers being able to ‘spot’ risks to children and to normalise conversations about child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviours. He noted that this might be achieved through increased training.166

Principal Monique Carter noted that there is no central provision for annual mandatory reporting training and that this is resourced by schools themselves through their social work budgets.167 As a result, we heard that child safety training is often informal (for example, managed locally by principals) or ad hoc, depending on the priorities and budget of the school. Ms Collins said:

The Department of Education does not mandate a particular content to mandatory reporting training. This means that not all schools undertake that training, and it is generally up to the principal as to whether this takes place, and in what form … I sometimes find that mandatory reporting training is not treated with the prominence or seriousness that it deserves.168

We heard that principals play a critical role in promoting and reinforcing policies in their school environment. They are responsible for ensuring their staff understand child safety policies at the beginning of every school year.169

Ms Collins described the importance of a principal’s attitude when promoting and reinforcing policies:

There are some principals who are just incredible, you know, and they have just got such really good insight around what is and isn’t okay, staff boundaries, all of those things. There’s others that get nervous and either want to maintain the relationship with the family or, I’m not sure why, but there are staff that aren’t allowed to or don’t feel they’re allowed to mandatory report without running it past the principal first. We tell them that that’s not the case, but that’s definitely a culture that’s developed within the school and it’s also by the principal.170

As a principal, Ms Carter also described the value and importance of policies in dictating appropriate behaviour for staff, as well as the valuable reference point they offer when counselling staff on their behaviour.171 However, she acknowledged that the success of policies and procedures relies on a principal’s motivation to embed them. She stated that if a principal is not motivated to promote safeguarding policies, this could impede the school’s effective application of policies overall.172

Steven Smith, Senior Industrial Advocate of the Australian Education Union Tasmanian Branch, also believes that the degree to which different principals and other school leaders promote policies varies from school to school: ‘The impression I have is that employees are aware of these policies. However, the extent of understanding is variable’.173 Mr Smith said he was not aware of any methods the Department uses to record or track whether staff have read or understood policies.174 He also highlighted a ‘concerning gap’ in training and policy induction for relief educators and teaching assistants and was unclear about how schools might convey policies to new staff who have joined the school after the annual policy refresher, which generally occurs at the beginning of term 1.175

We consider that mandatory professional development on child sexual abuse, harmful sexual behaviours and relevant child safeguarding policies, for all education staff and volunteers, would address this inconsistency in knowledge and training across schools.

1. Recent departmental initiatives

The Department has recently made efforts to offer broader professional development beyond the compulsory mandatory reporting training.

When reflecting on barriers to implementing changes, Secretary Bullard noted that the scale of the then Department of Education (which had more than 10,000 employees across 200 sites) was a challenge in developing and delivering professional development, as was the ‘diversity of skills, knowledge and capabilities’ of the workforce.176 Ms Carter said that the volume of information for teachers and ‘ensuring we have access to the best and most accurate learning resources and materials is also a challenge’.177

Secretary Bullard felt that these challenges could be overcome with strong leadership, a ‘differentiated approach to training and delivery’ and appropriate engagement strategies.178 By way of example, he highlighted the Department’s recent efforts to raise awareness of child sexual abuse with staff through a range of communication forums, including via its website and intranet, emails to staff, online presentations, discussions at its Divisional Leaders Group and Principal Briefings, and discussions with peak organisations such as the Tasmanian Principals’ Association, the Tasmanian Association of State School Organisations, Tasmanian School Administrators’ Association, Catholic Education Tasmania, Independent Schools Tasmania and the Department’s LGBTIQ+ Working Group.179

In May 2022, Secretary Bullard described a range of initiatives underway to strengthen professional development of staff while recognising that ‘processes alone will not change behaviour’.180 These initiatives include:

• a review and update of mandatory reporting training as a priority, to be rolled out as compulsory annual training no later than the start of term 1, 2023181
• new professional development modules for school principals covering a range of topics on preventing, understanding and responding to child sexual abuse, which will also form part of compulsory annual training182
• new mandated professional development requirements as part of school leadership and management prerequisites, with topics covering core legal responsibilities, safeguarding children and young people, parental and community engagement, issues and complaints, the ethical conduct framework and industrial relations183
• a move to an online training environment, which will enable the Department to track training completion at the individual level, rather than relying on principal certification.184

Secretary Bullard informed us in February 2023 that the Department had developed professional development modules for all staff on mandatory reporting and Registration to Work with Vulnerable People. The mandatory reporting module is compulsory for all staff and must be completed annually. The Department tracks when staff complete the module. If staff do not complete it, this triggers a reminder.185 The Registration to Work with Vulnerable People module is, at the time of writing, being amended to incorporate Child and Family Services and Youth Justice. An online module is expected to be rolled out ‘later in 2023’.186

The Department also ‘soft launched’ (in October 2022) an online professional development module for principals and site leaders on student safeguarding. The module gives an overview of the National Child Safe Standards and the Rights of the Child and advice on trauma-informed approaches to ‘incidents, disclosures or suspicions of child sexual abuse in school settings’.187 Secretary Bullard said that work has now begun on ‘amending and augmenting’ the module so it can be used by all departmental staff and that it will be made available ‘department-wide later in 2023’.188

Secretary Bullard further noted that extra funding has been allocated through the State Budget, including $2.6 million over four years from 2022–23 (and $600,000 ongoing), for ‘mandatory professional development’ for all departmental staff in ‘understanding, preventing and responding to child sexual abuse in schools’.189

We support this increased focus on professional development and outline in Sections 5.3 and 5.4 some of the components needed for professional development directed at preventing and responding to child sexual abuse.

1. Learning from South Australia—professional development

South Australia’s Debelle Inquiry recommended that all key staff be trained to implement policies and procedures effectively.190 In South Australia, anyone who works or volunteers in an education setting must have completed the ‘Responding to Risks of Harm, Abuse and Neglect: Education and Care’ training. This training is delivered at two levels:

• masterclass course—for all new staff who work directly with children and young people, covering the fundamentals as well as another four-hour facilitator-led masterclass
• fundamental course—a two-hour self-directed online course designed as a refresher for those already certified, and as core knowledge for volunteers, bus drivers, canteen workers or corporate staff who do not work directly with children.191

The training focuses on the South Australian Department for Education’s key child sexual abuse policies, which are listed in Section 4.2—particularly the Protective Practices Policy and mandatory reporting obligations.192 This training is compulsory for all staff and volunteers working in the South Australian Department for Education. Ms Girvin reflected that this training has led to more proactive responses to complaints and concerns:

Because of the training I truly believe that—and because of the culture we’re in—I truly believe that teachers believe children in the main and respond immediately. And, even if they have doubts, that whole thing, it’s not for me to make a judgment, it’s for somebody else to make a judgment, so they report.193

1. Compulsory and ongoing professional development

We were impressed that the South Australian model requires training of all adults working in schools. In addition to employed and registered teachers, other staff encounter children and young people on school grounds. Ms Carter said that schools often have a range of other staff and volunteers onsite, including grounds people, cleaners, office staff, literacy support staff and others who would benefit from regular training.194

We recommend an approach that, in line with the South Australian model, provides foundational as well as more advanced professional development for staff on school premises. This professional development approach should closely align with the Department’s policies, procedures and guidance material. Specifically, such training should include information about the prevalence and impacts of child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviours, common signs of grooming and abuse, professional and ethical behaviours with students, and importantly, what to do if a disclosure or complaint is made (including mandatory reporting requirements). It should be compulsory, with a requirement to update regularly.

There is an opportunity for Tasmania to improve on the South Australian model by supplementing the masterclass and fundamentals modules with advanced modules that could help develop the expertise of Tasmanian teaching staff, rather than having them solely participate in ‘refresher courses’ for core knowledge. Professor Walsh highlighted the importance of ongoing professional development for teachers (including principals) to ‘refresh, update, and build their knowledge about child sexual abuse throughout their careers’.195

We make similar recommendations for professional development for all the government institutions we have examined in this report. The Tasmanian Government could consider increasing efficiency by sharing foundational child sexual abuse training content across child-facing service areas.

Recommendation 6.5

1. The Department for Education, Children and Young People should adopt and implement a training certification program that is mandatory for all education staff and volunteers. This training should be structured to provide basic and advanced levels of training for different role holders and targeted most directly at staff and volunteers operating in higher-risk settings.
2. Training should cover:
   1. key safeguarding policies of the Department, including appropriate standards of behaviour between adults and students and what to do if child sexual abuse or harmful sexual behaviours are witnessed or disclosed
   2. relevant legal obligations, including requirements for reporting to Tasmania Police, Child Safety Services, the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, the Independent Regulator under the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act 2023, and the Teachers Registration Board.
3. Training should be refreshed periodically and delivered at a time and in a format that will maximise engagement. It should be centrally recorded to monitor participation.
4. The Department should work with the Teachers Registration Board to establish the minimum training requirements for teachers (Recommendation 6.15).

1. Tertiary-level teacher education

Future teachers should be supported to understand their professional obligations and the risks of child sexual abuse during their teacher education. As the Independent Education Inquiry noted:

The disparity in power [between teachers and students] needs to be emphasised in training at the very start of their career—while teachers in training are being inducted into the profession.196

We agree with the Independent Education Inquiry’s recommendation and the National Royal Commission that child safeguarding should form part of teachers’ tertiary training.

There is limited child safety content embedded in the teacher curriculum at the University of Tasmania, where most teachers in Tasmanian government schools are educated.197

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, which inform the tertiary curriculum, contain responsibilities connected to mandatory reporting and appropriate standards of behaviour in the following areas:

• Standard 7.1 stipulates that teachers ‘understand and apply the key principles described in codes of ethics and conduct for the teaching profession’.
• Standard 7.2 stipulates that teachers understand ‘relevant legislative, administrative and organisational policies and processes … according to school stage’.198

The focus of the Professional Standards reflects the Independent Education Inquiry’s finding that training and education on child sexual abuse at the tertiary level is generally confined to mandatory reporting, duty of care and the ethical obligations of teachers.199

The Department has a strong interest in the tertiary training the University of Tasmania delivers, given that so many of its graduates go on to become employees. Yet the Independent Education Inquiry described a ‘largely indirect’ relationship between the Department and the University of Tasmania, as follows:

• A Teachers Registration Board-approved and Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership-supported panel of nationally trained accreditation members accredits the Bachelor of Education and Master of Teaching courses.200
• The Teachers Registration Board then undertakes an annual reporting process as part of the ongoing oversight of the programs in line with the national standards and Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership processes, as well as undertaking a review of accredited courses every five years.201
• Departmental staff sit (alongside non-government school representatives) on the Course Advisory Committee for the same courses.202

The Independent Education Inquiry recommended that the Department works with the University of Tasmania to introduce content on preventing and responding to child sexual abuse in schools into its curriculum.203 Professor Walsh similarly recommended that education on child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviours should begin during tertiary training and ‘build incrementally from that point’.204 She added that ‘quality service provision in educational settings is dependent upon the acquisition of specialist knowledge and skills’.205

The National Royal Commission noted that education for tertiary students is ‘part of a career-long continuum of building capacity in staff to prevent child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviours by children’.206 It suggested that a curriculum should be included in all tertiary courses aimed at preparing students ‘for child-related occupations’ and that any such curriculum covers topics including:

• the nature and incidence of child sexual abuse, and the risk and protective factors for victim-survivors and abusers
• the long-term impacts of child sexual abuse and the critical importance of preventing abuse for children in the future
• how to talk to children, recognise behavioural indicators of abuse, including the grooming of children and adults, and the importance of maintaining professional boundaries with child clients
• online safety, including the impact of online pornography on attitudes and its use as a grooming tool
• common myths and stereotypes that can enable abuse to occur and impede identification and disclosure of abuse
• best practice approaches to the prevention of and early intervention for child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviours by children and young people
• how and where to seek help for people who are concerned that a child may be at risk
• common psychological and other impacts on victim-survivors and their families
• the spectrum of healthy to harmful sexual behaviours displayed by children and young people.207

The Department and the University of Tasmania both acknowledge that course content on understanding and preventing child sexual abuse is not yet embedded in either the Bachelor of Education or Master of Teaching and agree that it should be.208 We also heard that harmful sexual behaviours content is not a core component of teacher training or continuing professional development.209

Secretary Bullard said that the Department has been working with the University of Tasmania on incorporating suitable content about child sexual abuse into university courses and professional development activities.210 This includes the University of Tasmania establishing a Trauma Informed Practice Research Lab. The Lab will build an evidence base for trauma-informed practice and principles that support classroom educators to recognise behaviours associated with child sexual abuse (including grooming), and how to prevent and respond to it.211

Correspondence between the Department and the University of Tasmania reflects a commitment that:

[The University of Tasmania’s] School of Education, the Trauma Informed Practice Research Lab and [the Department] will work together over the course of 2022 to support the development of a set of principles, protocols and practices relating to responsibilities and responses to child sexual abuse.212

We endorse the efforts of the Department and the University of Tasmania to address this gap in its tertiary curriculum. While outside our terms of reference, we note the potential for child sexual abuse to co-occur with other forms of abuse and neglect, and we encourage the Department and the University of Tasmania to ensure these reforms also improve knowledge about other forms of abuse and neglect.

1. Responding to and investigating complaints and concerns

The Department has a vital role in keeping children safe by responding to incidents of child sexual abuse in education settings. This role includes investigating complaints (often in consultation with police), supporting victim-survivors, making findings and disciplining employees if an allegation is substantiated, as well as making relevant notifications to external authorities.

The case studies we discuss in Chapter 5, like the Independent Education Inquiry, identify shortcomings in the Department’s response to allegations of child sexual abuse, particularly in 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. More specifically, the systemic problems we identify include:

• School leaders had a high degree of discretion when responding to concerns or complaints of child sexual abuse, leading to inconsistent responses.
• Complaints were not fully explored, due partly to poor understanding of child sexual abuse and grooming behaviours and, sometimes, the belief that complaints made by children were unreliable.
• Record keeping was inadequate and there was no comprehensive central source of information about complaints or concerns. This made it difficult to get a complete picture of issues of concern relating to individual employees (particularly relief teachers moving from school to school).
• There was a lack of clarity about the different roles and responsibilities of Learning Services, Workplace Relations and Legal Services in responding to concerns.
• There were delays in notifications to relevant entities, including in reports to the Teachers Registration Board, the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, Tasmania Police and the Strong Families, Safe Kids Advice and Referral Line.
• There was poor information sharing between these entities.
• Narrow and legalistic interpretations of the State Service Code of Conduct meant that, despite information suggesting that children might be at risk, the behaviour did not result in disciplinary action. This was particularly the case when behaviour occurred outside school grounds.
• Investigations tended to consider each individual allegation in a complaint separately rather than assessing whether the allegations reflected a pattern of behaviour consistent with sexual abuse or grooming.
• Investigation processes were slow, not trauma-informed, did not reflect good practice in interviewing children, and did not appear to understand grooming behaviours.
• Some recent briefings by Workplace Relations to the Secretary were poor, included little detail of the allegations and lacked an understanding of child sexual abuse and related concerns.
• Investigations ended if a teacher resigned.
• There was not enough support, care and communication provided to children, parents, staff and the school community.

The South Australian Debelle Inquiry made extensive recommendations about responding to allegations of child sexual abuse, including how the disciplinary process should be conducted. The South Australian Department for Education implemented these recommendations through its Incident Management Directorate. This Directorate receives, investigates and coordinates the response to incidents and allegations of employee misconduct. In this section, we recommend that the Tasmanian Government sets up a similar Directorate.

Given many recent changes to the Department’s procedures following the Independent Education Inquiry, we begin by providing an overview of the Department’s response framework at the time of writing, before discussing some of the ongoing issues that have become clear over the course of our Inquiry.

In the final part of this section, we consider the South Australian model in some detail to give a sense of best practice in responding to child sexual abuse. On the evidence before us, this model appears to have built the trust and confidence—among children and young people, their families, site leaders and school staff—that complaints of misconduct will be taken seriously and addressed appropriately.213

We note that the Tasmanian Government has legislated Child and Youth Safe Standards and a Reportable Conduct Scheme in the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act 2023. All schools will be captured by these schemes.214 The Reportable Conduct Scheme will require heads of relevant entities to notify an Independent Regulator of any reportable conduct (which includes inappropriate sexualised contact with children or sexual abuse) by staff and volunteers regardless of where that conduct occurred, and provide an outline of the steps taken to respond to that conduct as soon as possible, and no later than 30 days.215 The Independent Regulator will oversee investigations and be empowered to offer guidance and assistance, and to intervene in the event it is not satisfied with the approach adopted.216

We consider the introduction of the Reportable Conduct Scheme and Child and Youth Safe Standards will encourage prioritising children’s safety in managing concerns about staff and volunteer conduct, lead to greater rigour and transparency in investigations, and improve information sharing between agencies. This will address many of the problems raised in our hearings. (For further discussion of the Reportable Conduct Scheme, refer to Chapter 18.)

Our recommendations to strengthen the Department’s responses to complaints and concerns about child sexual abuse will support the Department to show best practice in managing complaints and complying with its obligations under the Reportable Conduct Scheme.

1. The Department’s response to child sexual abuse

In this section, we outline how the Department currently responds to allegations of child sexual abuse.

1. Guidance for staff on the initial response

As previously noted, the Department has published flowcharts to help guide staff responses to an allegation or incident of child sexual abuse. The flowcharts give step-by-step instructions on reporting obligations, supporting the complainant, contacting parents or carers, ‘critical reflection’ and record keeping.217 The flowcharts also state that all actions are to be guided by the principal, site leader or delegate.

The Advice for School Staff: Responding to Incidents, Disclosures and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse flowchart sets out the steps staff must take when an incident is witnessed or disclosed, or an allegation is made, of child sexual abuse. The flowchart advises, in step 1, that the need for emergency action (such as contacting emergency services) must be assessed.218

Step 2 sets out reporting, advising that mandatory reporting obligations must be followed. If the matter involves a current member of staff then the principal must be notified of the incident or allegation (unless the principal is the subject of the allegation, in which case the Director of Operations, Learning, must be notified). The school must then contact Workplace Relations.219 Within 24 hours of an allegation being reported to Workplace Relations, the Department must notify police, the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, the Teachers Registration Board (if the allegation is about a teacher), the Integrity Commission and the Department’s Legal Services unit.220 If the matter involves a former employee, then Legal Services must be contacted. The flowchart advises that if the person who is the subject of the allegation is confirmed to be working at another location as an employee of the Department, then Legal Services will refer the matter to Workplace Relations. In matters involving former employees, Legal Services must (as soon as possible or within 24 hours) notify police, the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme and the Teachers Registration Board (if the matter involves a teacher).221

Step 3 involves ensuring the school provides appropriate support for the child or young person and advises that staff should not interview a child or young person.222

Step 4 provides information on contacting parents or carers, including that the staff member who is appointed as the lead for the matter must first consult with Workplace Relations, Legal Services and/or Learning Services to be advised on what information can be shared, and at what stage.223

Finally, step 5 gives instructions for ongoing support, critical reflection and documentation. It sets out that staff involved may need to be supported, that critical reflection on the incident may be required and that all aspects of the incident must be recorded in line with the Department’s Records Management Policy.224

Secretary Bullard explained the Department’s process for responding to an allegation of child sexual abuse if a departmental (as distinct from a school) employee is the ‘first receiver’ of the allegation (for example, if Learning Services receives the complaint).225

If the subject of the allegation is a current employee, the ‘first receiver’ at the Department must, within 24 hours, inform the Strong Families, Safe Kids Advice and Referral Line, the relevant school principal (if the allegation relates to a school-based employee), Workplace Relations (if the allegation relates to a principal) or the relevant departmental director or manager (if the allegation or incident does not relate to a school-based employee).226

Within Workplace Relations, notifications are made to the Assistant Director, Industrial Relations or the Manager, Workplace Relations (for clarity, we will refer only to Workplace Relations unless it is necessary to draw a distinction between these two positions). Once notified, Workplace Relations will provide the person referring the complaint with preliminary advice about what information may need to be gathered and whether the employee subject to the allegations should be ‘immediately directed to leave the workplace pending receipt of formal correspondence from the Secretary’.227 Workplace Relations will also direct the referrer to make a mandatory report to the Strong Families, Safe Kids Advice and Referral Line, if this has not already been done.228

If the incident or allegation relates to a permanent or fixed-term employee, Workplace Relations will advise the employee of the allegation and ask them to ‘remain away from the workplace whilst the matter is given further consideration’.229 If the employee is a relief teacher, Recruitment and Employment (within Human Resources at the Department) is instructed to ‘mark’ the employee as unsuitable for employment on the Fixed Term and Relief Employment Register, which means the relief teacher can no longer be employed by government schools.230 The process for dealing with relief employees is discussed below.

Within 24 hours of a notification, Workplace Relations must also notify the Secretary of the Department and ‘the relevant Deputy Secretary, Director of Workplace Relations and Legal Services’ about the complaint.231 Notifications must also be made to police, the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, the Teachers Registration Board (if the employee is a teacher), the Integrity Commission, the Head of the State Service and the Minister’s Office (deidentifying the employee).232

If an allegation is raised about a former employee, Workplace Relations should be immediately contacted.233 Workplace Relations will then refer the matter to Legal Services. Within 24 hours of being notified, Legal Services must notify police, the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme and the Teachers Registration Board (if the employee is a teacher).234

Secretary Bullard told us that support for complainants, parents and other students is coordinated directly through the relevant school and can involve contact with ‘onsite professional support staff or more broadly via contact with the Professional Support unit within Learning Services’.235 He noted that ongoing communication with complainants, parents, other children and officials is carried out by senior staff at the school, including ‘the principal, Social Workers and Senior School Psychologists’.236

Secretary Bullard also told us there are no formal reporting lines between schools that would allow them to share information about an allegation or incident of child sexual abuse.237 He stated that if there was an allegation or incident against an employee who had worked at multiple schools, Workplace Relations would check with those schools to determine whether there were any other matters of concern related to the employee’s conduct.238 We heard that, in some instances, schools rely on informal networks to assess the ‘safety’ of prospective employees.239

1. The investigative process

Secretary Bullard informed us that after the Department has been notified of an incident, allegation or suspicion of child sexual abuse by an employee or volunteer in an education context, an investigation is initiated within 48 hours.240

The investigation process will follow one of two courses, depending on whether the employee is fixed term or permanent, or a relief employee. If the employee is fixed term or permanent, the allegation is referred to the Secretary of the Department ‘for consideration of an [Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct] … investigation for an alleged breach of the State Service Act 2000 Code of Conduct’.241

Workplace Relations will prepare a brief and accompanying documents for the Secretary.242 If the Secretary forms a reasonable belief that the State Service Code of Conduct may have been breached, the allegation must be investigated. The Department then appoints an external investigator.243 The investigator will interview the child or young person and other relevant parties as required, and the employee against whom the allegation has been made. The investigator will prepare an investigation report for the Secretary, which the relevant employee also receives.244 The Secretary will consider the report and decide if a breach of the State Service Code of Conduct has occurred. If a determination is made that there has been a breach, the Secretary will decide what sanctions should apply.245 Possible sanctions for breaches of the Code of Conduct include counselling, a reprimand or termination.246 Employees may also be required to comply with any lawful and reasonable direction given by the Secretary.247

Investigations of potential breaches of the State Service Code of Conduct examine the employee’s conduct against the provisions in the Code of Conduct. Usually, the employee’s conduct is assessed against the following sections of the State Service Act 2000 (‘State Service Act’):

9(1) An employee must behave honestly and with integrity in the course of State Service employment.

9(2) An employee must act with care and diligence in the course of State Service employment.

9(3) An employee, when acting in the course of State Service employment, must treat everyone with respect and without harassment, victimisation or discrimination.

9(14) An employee must at all times behave in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity and good reputation of the State Service.248

The first three of these provisions require that the relevant conduct be ‘in the course of State Service employment’. Secretary Bullard told us that an Employee Direction No. 5—Breach of the Code of Conduct investigation will be triggered ‘even where a question remains as to whether or not the conduct was “in the course of employment”’, acknowledging that this is a matter that he considers ‘should be explored as part of the investigation rather than impede an investigation commencing’.249 (We discuss the requirement for conduct to be ‘in the course of employment’ in more detail in Chapter 20 and make recommendations to modify that requirement.)

As noted above, if the subject of the allegation is a relief employee, a different investigatory process follows. A matter involving a relief employee is referred to the Secretary, who will determine if there has been a breach of departmental policy (for example, the Conduct and Behaviour Standards policy), not the State Service Code of Conduct, because relief employees are not covered by the State Service Act.250 If the Secretary considers there may have been a breach of a departmental policy, the Secretary will write to the employee seeking a response to the allegations.251 Depending on the relief employee’s response, further enquiries, coordinated through Workplace Relations and the relevant principal, may be made.252

After considering the relief employee’s response, the Secretary determines whether the person poses an unacceptable risk to students or whether conditions should be imposed on the person before they are eligible for future employment.253 A determination that the relief employee poses an unacceptable risk and is therefore unsuitable for employment will result in their removal from the Fixed Term and Relief Employment Register.254 Secretary Bullard emphasised that a different test is employed for relief staff because they are not subject to restrictive code of conduct provisions:

… once a relief employee has been marked as unsuitable for employment on the fixed term and relief register, they are no longer available for employment, nor does the Department have any obligation to offer further employment. However, this process and the resulting decisions have been adopted through a duty of care lens, which is outside the existing employment framework, particularly code of conduct provisions, but is the paramount consideration.255

We are unsure what, if any, benefit is gained by using different investigative processes for relief employees. As we understand it, the reason for the difference is that relief teachers are not covered by the State Service Act and therefore cannot be subject to sanctions for breaches under the State Service Code of Conduct.256 We discuss how to hold contractors, volunteers and temporary staff, including relief teachers, accountable for their professional conduct in Chapter 20.

1. Current challenges

We have identified gaps in the Department’s response to allegations of child sexual abuse that require further reflection and improvement. In particular, we are concerned with aspects of the Department’s investigative process, the lack of appropriate support for complainants and victim-survivors after an allegation is made, and whether the State Service Code of Conduct is suitable for assessing allegations of, and sanctions for, child sexual abuse. This section considers the Department’s response to allegations of child sexual abuse perpetrated by adults and does not include harmful sexual behaviours displayed by children. We discuss the Department’s response to harmful sexual behaviours displayed by children in Section 7.

1. Preliminary assessments

There is considerable discretion in undertaking preliminary assessments. Secretary Bullard told us that any allegation of child sexual abuse is referred to him for consideration as to whether there has been a breach of the State Service Code of Conduct (based on a reasonable belief that this may be the case).257 He explained that:

In circumstances where a matter is unclear as to whether child sexual abuse may have occurred and following initial assessment there is no risk to children, an action can include further preliminary inquiries to enable further and better particulars to be obtained. This may involve discussions with staff or students and obtaining statements or similar material.258

We understand that, in some instances, the Department may need to gather more information before it can proceed with a matter—such as whether the alleged abuser worked at a particular school—but we are concerned that preliminary assessments occur outside policy or legal frameworks and are not subject to any formal rules. Essentially, as we have observed across our institution-specific inquiries, preliminary assessments appear to have been treated as mini-investigations and have developed as a way to deal with disciplinary matters before engaging with the more involved Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct process. The quality and appropriateness of the preliminary assessment can rely heavily on the skills and experience of the staff member undertaking it. A poor preliminary assessment can result in non-trauma informed, harmful engagements, such as Kerri Collins told us she experienced (refer to Chapter 5).

The lack of formal processes for a preliminary assessment means that even the small protections in place to support a trauma-informed investigation for disciplinary processes do not apply to preliminary assessments. For example, Steven Smith of the Australian Education Union told us that while Employment Direction No. 5 requires that interviews conducted with children be ‘sensitive and appropriate’, this is not a requirement for ‘preliminary investigations’, including for interviews with students conducted by educators and principals.259 Mr Smith’s view was that from the time an allegation is raised, ‘there should be a clear process for engaging with the children involved and trained staff who undertake those interviews and processes’.260

We are pleased to note that the Department’s flowchart, Advice for School Staff—Responding to Incidents, Disclosures or Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse cautions that in supporting a child or young person who has suffered sexual abuse, staff should not question or conduct an interview with the child or young person.261 However, we would like to see a specific policy on the process of conducting a preliminary assessment, which specifies the scope and timeframes of any preliminary assessments, as well as who can conduct them. The Integrity Commission’s Guide to Managing Misconduct in the Tasmanian Public Sector outlines best practice for preliminary assessments.262 We make recommendations about the State Service Code of Conduct and associated investigative processes, including preliminary assessments, in Chapter 20.

1. Accountability and flexibility

Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct is specific in the processes that must be followed and does not allow for different responses depending on the level of seriousness of the allegations. During our hearings, we asked Secretary Bullard how the Department decides which investigations should be prioritised. He responded that under Employment Direction No. 5, matters were assessed as they came to his attention.263 Secretary Bullard informed us that there is sometimes a queue of matters requiring investigation.264 He noted that in the past, a Head of Agency could refer more serious matters directly to the State Service Commissioner, providing for greater efficiencies in handling complaints.265 The Department later told us that all allegations of serious misconduct, including child sexual abuse, are dealt with immediately.266 It said:

… if a serious matter is reported to [the Department], it is progressed immediately through our established process and is responsive to the level of seriousness. All allegations that involve serious misconduct, e.g. assault, theft or child sexual abuse, are dealt with immediately. Lower-level conduct, though still regarded as serious (such as an allegation involving verbal comments or exchanges), is still dealt with expeditiously, but due to [Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct] provisions, must follow the same process.267

Despite the Department’s statements about how they prioritise investigations, we are concerned that the Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct process leaves little flexibility to triage complaints and ensure the most serious are dealt with promptly. Quite apart from the effect of delay on the child who may have been abused, this may delay action to protect other children and young people. We outline an alternative process in Chapter 20. We also consider that it must be clear that all types of allegations about child sexual abuse and related matters (including verbal comments and exchanges, and professional boundary breaches) should be regarded as high priority.

We also asked Secretary Bullard what accountability mechanisms were in place to give the Department confidence that their processes for dealing with allegations of child sexual abuse are working. Secretary Bullard responded:

… every allegation that is raised must be referred to Workplace Relations and Workplace Relations must refer it to me. Every allegation that is raised must be referred to 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.268

Secretary Bullard said staff now have increased awareness of the requirement to report all matters of concern. He acknowledged that the Department can only respond to an allegation if conduct is recognised by observers as child sexual abuse, grooming or a professional conduct breach, and he noted the importance of training in this regard.269 We make recommendations about improved training in Section 5.

1. Investigations where the person is no longer an employee

In some instances, workers will resign or retire before an investigation into their conduct is complete. At the time of giving evidence, Secretary Bullard said that the Department did not have the jurisdiction to carry out an investigation in relation to a former employee—that is, an employee who had resigned or retired.270

The practice was for the Secretary to write to the employee letting them know:

… that a condition precedent of future employment will be for an investigation to be undertaken and a resolution attained prior to commencing employment. … Furthermore, recruitment screening mechanisms also apply should an application for employment be made.271

We note some of the problems with this process in Chapter 5 (refer to the ‘Brad’ case study).

We are pleased that under the recently passed Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act 2023, investigations into workers whose employment with the Department ends during the investigation must be completed.272 Also, the Act allows for information sharing (including investigations into the conduct of a previous employee) between relevant entities, such as the Teachers Registration Board, which enables important information to be shared in circumstances where teachers may move to another school in the State or to another jurisdiction.273 We note, also, that the Teachers Registration Act 2000 (‘Teachers Registration Act’) requires employers to notify the Teachers Registration Board if a registered teacher resigns or retires in circumstances where the employer may have had grounds to consider the teacher’s behaviour to be unacceptable.274

In Chapter 20, we recommend that investigations be conducted, where appropriate, even if an employee has resigned before an investigation begins—that is, investigations should be conducted into former employees if warranted—and that all misconduct-related matters be recorded, regardless of the outcome (refer to Recommendation 20.9).

In addition, where the Department cannot undertake disciplinary action, it should ensure it has made all reports to relevant bodies—such as the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, the Teachers Registration Board and the Independent Regulator of the Reportable Conduct Scheme.275 The Department should also report breaches of the Code of Conduct by former employees to the new Register for Tasmanian State Service Code of Conduct Breaches in the State Service Management Office, Department of Premier and Cabinet, to ensure they are not employed elsewhere in the State Service in the future.276 Agencies should check with the State Service Management Office if people are on this register when screening new staff. In our chapter on State Service disciplinary processes, we further discuss a register of misconduct-related matters (refer to Chapter 20).

1. Investigators

It is fundamental to ensure that the investigation process does not further traumatise victim-survivors. The qualifications, skills and approach of investigators is central to achieving this aim. Victim-survivor Rachel told us that, in her case, investigators did not conduct themselves in a trauma-informed way and so she felt unable to tell them what had happened to her:277

... there were, from what I remember, two men in suits in a small office at school; I didn’t—it wasn’t a safe place for me, reflecting back, because I wasn’t willing to come out with anything, but I just felt like this little person with these men in suits hovering over the top of me, and scared, I feared it.278

Secretary Bullard gave evidence that the ‘vast majority of recent investigations’ into allegations of child sexual abuse are conducted by a single, independent investigation service.279 That service is staffed by two male investigators.280 The Department also occasionally uses three other investigative services, each staffed by single investigators—two of these investigators are female and one is male.281 While Workplace Relations helps investigators to contact schools and to gather documents and other relevant information, investigators are independent of the Department (including the Secretary).282

Mr Smith, of the Australian Education Union, pointed out that Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct instructs the Head of Agency to ensure investigatory interviews with children are conducted ‘sensitively and appropriately’, but he has not seen a policy in this respect, nor any practices ‘to monitor compliance’.283 Mr Smith believes that investigators should be trained to recognise grooming behaviours, as should others involved in decisions about the investigative process.284

While the Department’s investigators may each have many years of experience and various qualifications, we note that none of them has qualifications in interviewing children, trauma-informed interviewing techniques, or identifying and responding to child sexual abuse.285 Also, the Department does not provide specific training for investigators who investigate matters involving children or child sexual abuse, or in trauma-informed interviewing techniques.286

Secretary Bullard reported that investigations must also be conducted with ‘procedural fairness and in a timely manner, that is within a reasonable time and free from unreasonable delay’.287 When the Department’s investigation into Rachel’s case was undertaken in the 2000s, she told us that it took two years:

… two years is a very long time [for the alleged abuser] to be investigated. I wasn’t coping at all. I started drinking. I hated myself. I would see him … and when I saw him I was so fearful of running into him. I did run into him, he smiled arrogantly and I had to run away from him.288

Lengthy delays may also place other children at risk.

Secretary Bullard said that factors affecting how long an investigation takes include the complexity or seriousness of the allegations, the number of witnesses and whether police were also investigating with a view to charging the employee (in which case, police may request that the Department waits for the outcome of the police investigation).289 Secretary Bullard noted that when a delay does occur, it can be ‘compounded at a number of points’ in the investigative process.290

When questioned about why there were no specific timeframes placed on investigators, Secretary Bullard stated that the Department does not want to appear to be ‘fettering the independence’ of the investigator, adding that, in a small jurisdiction like Tasmania, there is a limited pool from which people capable of undertaking these investigations to the required standard can be drawn.291

We consider it reasonable that the Department sets a timeframe at the outset of an investigation that accounts for the complexity of the matter and provides the investigator with an opportunity to explain why more time may be needed before this timeframe expires.

We are pleased to note that in September 2022, in response to evidence provided by victim-survivors, the Department stated it was revising its approach to conducting investigations, including:

…. ensuring that departmental staff and investigators take a trauma-informed approach in their dealings with children and young people impacted by sexual abuse as well as adult victim-survivors.292

Specific measures taken by the Department include:

• Setting a general timeframe of 12 weeks (from the appointment of an investigator), within which the investigation report should be completed.293 The Department now requires ‘early notification of any delay including whether an extension will be required’.294 Investigators must provide monthly progress updates on the investigation to the Department.295 Investigators are further required to communicate to the Department any discovery of information during their investigation that may constitute a (further) breach of the State Service Code of Conduct.296
• Ensuring that if an investigation requires interviewing students, that ‘trauma-informed practice’ is used.297 This may include considering the ‘time, location, and support to ensure the student feels safe, with appropriate trust, empowerment and choice built in’ to the interview process.298

We also understand that, under further planned changes, the Department will require potential investigators to demonstrate ‘a range of standards’ including:

• experience in engaging with children and young people in stressful or traumatising situations
• training in trauma-informed practices, including the ability to apply trauma-informed practices to investigations
• experience and training (or the commitment to attend training) in contemporary interviewing techniques for children and young people.299

Secretary Bullard told us that the Department will set up a Standing Panel of investigators to ensure investigators have appropriate qualifications. The Standing Panel will be recruited through a tender process.300 Investigators appointed to the panel will conduct State Service Code of Conduct investigations for the Department as well as other State Service agencies.301 The Department should consider seeking tenders from investigators in other Australian jurisdictions as well as Tasmania.

We support these changes to the Department’s approach. However, in terms of the required qualifications for investigators, we note that training in child sexual abuse, in particular identifying grooming behaviours and boundary breaches, is missing. We are concerned that some developments that have improved best-practice police responses to child sexual abuse are not being adopted in non-criminal settings. We discuss these developments in more detail in Chapter 16, but they include:

• taking a ‘whole story’ approach to interviewing a victim-survivor to allow for a pattern of behaviour and extra corroborating context to be apparent
• ensuring the environment of the interview is comfortable for the victim-survivor, and that they have a support person present if they choose, to minimise the need for multiple interviews through techniques such as video recordings
• engaging in a developmentally appropriate and trauma-informed interaction with vulnerable witnesses (for example, children and young people, people with disability, adult victim-survivors).

We recommend that training in child sexual abuse and related concerns be included in the relevant standards.

1. Support for victim-survivors

Research we commissioned highlighted the importance of supporting children and young people who have disclosed abuse. The researchers found that a key concern of children and young people following an incident is that the response is not visible—for example, there may be little or no communication with the child or young person about what the school is doing or intends to do about the complaint, and little or no support offered by way of counselling.302

Victim-survivors told us they received limited or no support from the school or the Department following their allegation of abuse:

• Victim-survivor Katrina Munting (refer to Case study 4 in Chapter 5) told us that after her disclosure she was not informed about what, if any, action was taken in response: ‘so far as I know, there were no inquiries made to determine the extent of what Peter had done. I received no support for the psychological issues that arose for me then, which have persisted’.303
• Victim-survivor Kerri Collins (refer to Case study 1 in Chapter 5) similarly attested that after she alleged abuse in the late 1980s: ‘I was not offered with support or counselling by the school, and it was always my understanding that the principal did not believe us’.304
• In an extraordinary scenario, Rachel (refer to Case study 3 in Chapter 5) described her hurt and confusion when she discovered the outcome of an investigation into her complaints in the local paper. The paper reported that following an ‘extensive’ investigation, it was determined that her abuser had not breached the Code of Conduct. Rachel told us that she did not receive any reasons from the Department for the decision and felt ‘betrayed and publicly humiliated’ by the Department: ‘they had failed to support their student and chose instead to protect the teacher’.305

We also heard about the impact child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviours can have on staff and parents. Staff may witness abuse or harmful sexual behaviours and receive disclosures. They may need to come to terms with complaints about colleagues and manage ongoing anxiety or concerns with families and carers. Some will inevitably see the effects of abuse on victim-survivors in their classrooms:

• Nigel Russell, a former high school teacher, told us about the devastating and lasting effects he suffered after witnessing an incident involving harmful sexual behaviours in his classroom. Mr Russell said: ‘The principal of the school refused to acknowledge the incident for what it was, a sexual assault’.306
• Robert Boost gave evidence that, in 2020, a relief teacher at his daughter’s school made inappropriate comments to some of the girls at the school. Mr Boost told us that teachers made complaints to the principal. Mr Boost said that neither the school nor the Department communicated anything about the situation to parents, nor was the incident raised with staff—the member of staff who had made the inappropriate comments simply did not show up for work the next day and nothing was ever communicated by the Department about what had happened.307

When asked what sort of information from the Department would have helped him, as a parent of a child at that school, Mr Boost responded that ‘it didn’t need to have any detail, just that there was an incident and … if any kids needed counselling or if parents had queries, to contact the principal, just as simple as that’.308

He also reflected:

… how do we instil trust in an institution like the Department of Education when this person potentially the next day could have just gone to another school and done the same thing. … [The Department is] so worried about adults’ feelings that they’re not … protecting the kids … they’re so worried about it not getting out and it being bad publicity or whatnot. That kind of behaviour needs to be called out and … it’s for everyone’s benefit that they knew that that happened at that school.309

A clear and consistent process for communicating with victim-survivors is important beyond any initial departmental response. This is evident in the impact of poor communication on victim-survivor Sam Leishman, who was not contacted by the Department after the high-profile conviction of teacher Darrel Harington in early 2020 (refer to Case study 7 in Chapter 5).310

In this respect, we note that the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act 2023 provides for feedback to children and young people after an investigation.311

At hearings, Secretary Bullard acknowledged that a lack of communication from the Department to victim-survivors could be construed as inaction and can inhibit their ability to achieve closure.312 He stated that:

… providing information and communicating with the various parties involved is difficult given confidentiality provisions and procedural fairness requirements particularly in relation to unsubstantiated allegations and with disciplinary actions imposed on an employee.313

We are pleased to note that since hearing from victim-survivors, the Department is planning to allocate dedicated case managers when an allegation of sexual abuse is made. The case manager will be ‘accountable for ensuring that the supports required are provided to the child and their family, both immediately and over the course of time’.314 This support should be extended to adult victim-survivors where required. We consider this case manager role should sit within the Child-Related Incident Management Directorate we recommend in Recommendation 6.6.

In an update provided to us in February 2023, Secretary Bullard said that the Department had filled two ‘Student Support Response Coordinator’ positions. He explained that the coordinators are:

... responsible for professional management of responses to incidents of child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviour, ensuring that the best interests of the children and young people are the central consideration.315

Other responsibilities include ensuring the ‘capture and storage’ of school records about child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviours ‘meet legislative and departmental requirements and can support analysis to understand trends’ and inform improvements.316 On the information provided to us, it is unclear what role the coordinators will have, if any, in supporting students and how they will work with case managers.

1. Codes of conduct

The Independent Education Inquiry noted there was ‘broad agreement’ that the State Service Code of Conduct is not suited to the distinct context of schools and that this creates difficulties for the Department when responding to concerns or allegations of child sexual abuse.317 Formal disciplinary proceedings require a breach of the State Service Code of Conduct. Also, the requirement that the conduct must have occurred in the course of their employment ‘has been interpreted narrowly to mean that if the conduct in question did not occur at school or on a school activity the employee cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings’.318 We heard that this interpretation has allowed some teachers to argue that allegations of child sexual abuse against them have no merit because the conduct did not occur on school grounds or during school hours.319

The Independent Education Inquiry recommended that the Department develops a ‘schools-specific’ code of conduct covering employees and volunteers.320 As discussed in Chapter 4, the Department accepted all the recommendations.

When asked how the Department was approaching recommendations that an education-specific code of conduct be developed, Secretary Bullard told us that there were challenges with having two codes—that is, an education-specific code as well as the State Service Code of Conduct—because under the current drafting of the State Service Act there are practical barriers to introducing more codes of conduct.321

In Section 4, we discuss the need for an education-specific professional conduct policy, and we make a recommendation for this (refer to Recommendation 6.4). We consider this will avoid the problems associated with a separate education-specific code of conduct, while meeting the intent of the recommendation of the Independent Education Inquiry.

1. Learning from South Australia: a model for responding to child sexual abuse in educational settings

One of the recommendations of the Debelle Inquiry in South Australia was establishing an Incident Management Directorate (‘the Directorate’) in the South Australian Department for Education.322

The role of the Directorate is to:

… coordinate the receipt, assessment and response of incidents, particularly those of a severe/critical nature, those requiring urgent attention and/or the investigation of allegations of employee serious misconduct and all associated disciplinary processes.323

In contrast to the Department’s current responses to allegations of child sexual abuse, which occur primarily through Workplace Relations within the human resources unit, the South Australian Directorate operates independently of human resources in the South Australian Department for Education.

The policies that inform the Directorate’s work include the South Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics and the Protective Practices Policy, which have prescriptive guidelines on matters that may be subject to disciplinary action, such as boundary breaches and grooming.324 The Directorate’s work is also informed by the South Australian Department for Education’s Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings guidelines, which are based on recommendations in the Debelle Inquiry report.325

We heard that the outcome of establishing the Directorate, alongside implementing the Debelle Inquiry’s recommendations, has provided a comprehensive framework for responding to child sexual abuse in educational settings in South Australia. Alana Girvin, former Director of the Directorate, told us that part of the success of the unit is due to an awareness among departmental and school staff that clear processes will be followed in the wake of any allegations of child sexual abuse. This includes informing the school community of the allegations, informing families when a person is charged and activating processes for terminating employment if an allegation is upheld.326 According to Ms Girvin, ‘although the Directorate is concerned with investigation and response, my strong feeling is that its work has also had a preventative effect’.327

Ms Girvin’s further observations about the success of the Directorate are worth quoting at length:

While I was the Director of the Directorate, the Directorate received a lot of informal feedback from site leaders who were so thankful for the support they received from their Case Manager. For example, I heard lots of feedback along the following lines, which I think is a sign of the Directorate’s success: ‘thank you for your support. This was obviously a horrible situation and I never wanted to have to go through it in my career, but I felt supported and it has gone as smoothly as it possibly could have. You were there to listen to me at 9 o’clock at night’.

In relation to allegations of sexual misconduct matters the Directorate measures its success in terms of the timely response, flow of accurate information, the effectiveness of the case management and single file and adherence to the guidelines/procedures.

In my view, another reflection of the Directorate’s success is that the education union was supportive, or at least did not object, to the Directorate’s work and its implementation of the Debelle recommendations.328

Other key features instrumental to the success of the Directorate include:

• its operational independence from the South Australian Department for Education’s human resources unit
• an articulated process which applies even when conduct does not amount to criminal behaviour
• a close relationship with South Australia Police and an obligation on South Australia Police to notify the South Australian Department for Education of particular matters
• the use of investigators with policing backgrounds who act on the evidence
• a case manager to support every principal in relation to responding to an allegation.329

In the box below, we outline in detail key aspects of the South Australian Directorate model, as a starting point for the Tasmanian Government to adopt a similar model—a Child-Related Incident Management Directorate. We consider this a central recommendation that will support a significant change to the Tasmanian Government response to allegations of child sexual abuse by staff.

South Australia’s Incident Management Directorate

The South Australian Incident Management Directorate has three key units: the Incident Report Management Unit (‘Response Unit’), the Investigations Unit and the Misconduct and Disciplinary Advice Unit. Importantly, the Directorate’s role extends to independent schools.330

Response Unit

The Directorate’s Response Unit case manages allegations of sexual abuse and oversees the Incident Report Management System.331 The Response Unit aims to ensure that:

• parents and carers can be confident that the wellbeing and safety needs of their children are met
• ‘incidents (particularly those of a severe/critical nature) and reports of serious misconduct are responded to in an effective and timely manner, with respect, transparently and professionally’.332

Ms Girvin told us that case management involves assisting site leaders and principals to implement the Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct guidelines.333 Importantly, the Response Unit acts as the ‘prime point of contact for site leaders’ and oversees the ‘single file’ for all matters involving allegations of child sexual abuse.334

All ‘critical incidents’, which include harmful sexual behaviours by students, as well as fights and ‘inappropriate parent behaviour’, are logged in the Response Unit’s Incident Report Management System.335 When an incident report is entered into the system, a ‘severity rating … is automatically applied to … [the] incident report … dependent upon the categories and site actions selected by the person completing the report’.336 Critical Incident Coordinators review the incident reports each day to ensure ‘all appropriate actions are being taken’ by ‘sites’ (schools).337

Ms Girvin told us that when an allegation is referred for investigation:

… an Intake and Assessment Officer (whose role is line managed under the Incident Report Management Unit) assesses whether an allegation or incident is capable (if established) of constituting serious misconduct. If the answer to that question is ‘no’, then the Directorate will refer the matter to the Performance Management and Incapacity Unit within the corporate office. This unit will assist site leaders with performance management matters and minor misconduct matters.


If the Intake and Assessment Officer determines that it is not to be investigated, the report will be referred to the appropriate corporate office and recorded in the central online Incident Report Management System, as well as in any documentation kept on site. If there are ongoing problematic behaviours, [the report] may be relevant for the Directorate to investigate [those other behaviours].338

When an Intake and Assessment Officer receives a report that contains allegations of serious misconduct, such as child sexual abuse, the Officer will gather all relevant information and present it to an Assessment Panel.339 Assessment Panels are composed of the ‘[Directorate] Director, Assistant Director, Investigations Unit Manager and Misconduct Unit Principal Investigator’.340

Because school principals often have little to no experience with managing serious allegations involving child sexual abuse, the Response Unit has a vital role in offering support and assistance to navigate the response process. The Response Unit provides principals and other site leaders with a case manager who is available during and outside work hours.341 Case managers also help to minimise a site leader’s discretion in the process, allowing them to focus on the aspects of their role that are within the scope of their skills and training.342

According to Ms Girvin, once parents have been informed about an allegation of child sexual abuse, ‘rumours and gossip can run rampant. It often follows that the site leader is blamed’.343 While the Directorate does not play a role in managing information in this situation (with responsibility for this resting with site leaders and their managers), the assigned case manager can provide support to, and discuss concerns with, the site leader in this situation.344

Investigations Unit

The Directorate’s Investigations Unit investigates all allegations of ‘possible serious employee misconduct’.345

Investigators gather evidence, interview witnesses and take witness statements. They then prepare reports for the adjudicators to consider.346 Adjudicators sit in the Directorate’s Misconduct Disciplinary Advice Unit. The South Australian process distinguishes between investigators who gather the evidence and adjudicators who make recommendations based on that evidence for review by the Department’s Chief Executive (or Chief Operating Officer and the Director of the Directorate).347

All Investigation Unit investigators have a policing background and must complete ‘Specialist Vulnerable Witness Forensic Interview Training’, which is provided by the Centre for Investigative Interviewing at Griffith University.348

Ms Girvin noted that if, during an investigation, the investigator identifies ways in which aspects of the response process could be improved, the Directorate may request that the Executive Director of Partnerships, Schools and Preschools reviews the relevant process, ensuring a pathway for continual improvement over time.349 We envisage that Tasmania’s Office of Safeguarding could play a similar role.

Misconduct Disciplinary Advice Unit

The Directorate’s Misconduct Disciplinary Advice Unit is staffed by ‘Misconduct Adjudicators’. The primary function of the unit is to examine the reports prepared by the Investigations Unit and ‘determine if the evidence demonstrates serious misconduct’.350 If it does, a briefing is prepared for the ‘delegate (Chief Executive/Chief Operating Officer)’ outlining:

1. a summary of the allegation and the evidence gathered by the investigators
2. the adjudicator’s conclusion as to whether there is evidence of serious misconduct
3. the adjudicator’s recommendation as to any disciplinary sanction that should be made.351

Ms Girvin told us that adjudicators in the Misconduct Disciplinary Advice Unit have legal qualifications. Unlike investigators, they have not met the accused or any witnesses, allowing them to appraise the evidence with ‘an independent eye’.352

1. An Incident Management Directorate

The National Royal Commission identified a number of ways institutions should handle complaints and respond to child sexual abuse allegations (using a ‘child safe’ approach), including for:

• Investigating complaints—investigations should be conducted by impartial, objective, trained investigators.353
• Interviewing children—children should not be questioned by someone ‘without relevant specialist skills, such as child development, trauma-related behaviours, indicators of abuse and investigative techniques’.354
• Communicating with the affected parties—many people associated with the institution will be affected by a complaint of child sexual abuse, and policies and procedures should outline what information can be shared, when and in what circumstances.355
• Providing support and assistance to complainants—‘concern and support’ for the person making the complaint ‘must be at the heart of an institution’s response’.356 Institutions should respond in a supportive and protective way to child and adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse. Responses should be sensitive so as to not compound or cause more harm.357 Victim-survivors and other affected parties (including the subject of the complaint) should have access to support, therapeutic treatment services and advocacy.358
• Providing support and assistance to others—‘secondary victims may also require information, advocacy, support and therapeutic treatment as part of an institution’s complaint handling process’.359

The South Australian model embodies many of the features that the National Royal Commission recognised as being instrumental to an institution’s ability to respond to concerns or complaints of child sexual abuse in a way that is sensitive and child focused.

We recommend that the Tasmanian Government establishes a Child-Related Incident Management Directorate to oversee and respond to allegations of child sexual abuse by staff, including grooming, breaches of professional conduct policies and sexual misconduct (as defined by the Reportable Conduct Scheme). This Directorate should be based on the South Australian model and have three distinct units and functions—case management of the response, investigation and adjudication.

We recommend that this Directorate oversees the response to allegations about staff in relation to the education, the Child Safety Service, out of home care and youth justice contexts (refer to also Chapter 9 and Chapter 12). In addition to child sexual abuse, the Child-Related Incident Management Directorate should respond to other forms of staff-perpetrated abuse in schools, out of home care and youth justice, including other serious care concerns, excessive use of force and inappropriate isolation and search allegations. It could also respond to child-related critical incidents in health or family violence and homelessness services. To enable this, the unit responsible for case management should be staffed by people with knowledge and expertise of each of these organisational contexts.

During our hearings, Secretary Bullard was asked for his views on the South Australian model. He stated that he was very supportive but questioned whether a similar model should perhaps apply across the State Service in Tasmania rather than sit within the Department, considering the relatively small size of the Department and the Tasmanian State Service.360 We note that the State has indicated that a shared capability framework for the investigation of serious Code of Conduct breaches would be developed by June 2023 and a Project Manager was appointed in September 2022.361 We encourage the State to consider the role of the Directorate within the context of the shared capability framework.

We note in Chapter 5 that there have been many matters raised with the Department in recent years. Given we propose that the Directorate oversees schools, out of home care and youth justice, we consider that there will be a significant workload for the Directorate.

Despite this, we have not specified where this Directorate should be established in the Tasmanian Government, but note that the Department of Premier and Cabinet, with its responsibility for all State Servants, or the Department for Education, Children and Young People, with its responsibility for most child-facing state services, are obvious options. We recommend a similar functional capacity in the Department of Health, although again have not specified if this should form part of the same Directorate or a health-specific one (refer to Chapter 15, Recommendation 15.17).

Recommendation 6.6

1. The Tasmanian Government should establish a Child-Related Incident Management Directorate to respond to:
   1. allegations of child sexual abuse and related conduct by staff, breaches of the State Service Code of Conduct and professional conduct policies, and reportable conduct (as defined by the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act 2023) in schools, Child Safety Services, out of home care and youth justice
   2. other forms of staff-perpetrated abuse in schools, Child Safety Services, out of home care and youth justice, including other serious care concerns and allegations of excessive use of force, inappropriate isolation or inappropriate searches of children and young people in detention.
2. The directorate should comprise three units tasked as follows:
   1. Incident Report Management Unit. This unit should be responsible for case management—that is, assisting child-facing services within the Department for Education, Children and Young People with the management of incidents or allegations of child sexual abuse and related conduct, including being the point of contact for these services.
   2. Investigations Unit. This unit should undertake preliminary assessments and investigations. It should comprise appropriately trained and skilled investigators or use external investigators with the requisite qualifications and training.
   3. Adjudication Unit. This unit should examine the investigation reports prepared by investigators and make recommendations to the Head of Agency about what disciplinary decisions are available and the appropriate response. The unit should be staffed by personnel with relevant experience, including a background in law.
3. The directorate should appoint staff with knowledge of schools, Child Safety Services, out of home care, and youth justice.
4. Within 12 months of appointment, all staff in the Investigations Unit should:
   1. undertake specialist training in interviewing vulnerable witnesses
   2. undertake training in child development, child sexual abuse and trauma-related behaviours.
5. The directorate should maintain a case management platform and oversee a ‘single file’ for all child sexual abuse allegations and concerns about staff, including recording matters that do not result in disciplinary action.
6. The Tasmanian Government should decide where in the State Service this directorate should be established. Wherever it is established, it should be separated from traditional human resources functions.

1. Guidelines for managing allegations of sexual misconduct

Government and non-government education sectors in South Australia jointly developed the guidelines for Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct. This is to ‘ensure that staff, children and parents can expect the same standards of child protection practice no matter which sector they access’.362

The guidelines cover the government, independent and Catholic school sectors in South Australia. They apply to situations involving sexual misconduct by adults against children or young people. They aim to reduce further trauma for children and young people, parents and the staff involved when an incident occurs.363

The guidelines support the work of the Incident Management Directorate by guiding the response to an allegation of misconduct from first notification, through to the investigation and beyond. They are easily accessible on the South Australian Department for Education’s website, rendering the process publicly accountable.

1. The immediate response

Staff and volunteers who are involved in managing an incident of child sexual abuse may need to recall events or conversations later, such as in court proceedings. Accordingly, the Debelle Inquiry emphasised that it was critical for site leaders and other members of staff to ‘keep a written record of all conversations relating to the allegations’ of child sexual assault.364 The importance of making notes as soon as possible after conversations occur is incorporated into the South Australian guidelines.365

Ms Girvin summarised the immediate response to an allegation of sexual misconduct under the guidelines as follows, noting that these steps are not always undertaken in a sequential order and that some actions may be undertaken at the same time:366

(a) Step 1: Obtain medical assistance for the child or young person if required.

(b) Step 2: Receive report of the allegation. If the allegation is made to a staff member, it should be immediately reported to the site leader. If the allegation concerns the site leader, the report should be made to the relevant sector office.

(c) Step 3: Report the allegation to SA Police.

(d) Step 4: Notify the Child Abuse Report Line.

(e) Step 5: Take basic steps to preserve any evidence, if applicable. For example, by blocking access to the site’s computer network if an allegation regarding child pornography is made or locking the room in which an incident is alleged to have occurred.

(f) Step 6: Inform the sector office and establish who will be assisting.

(g) Step 7: Prevent the accused person from having any access to or further contact with children and young people.

(h) Step 8: Inform parents of the victim of the allegation, unless the parent is the accused person.

(i) Step 9: Inform the accused person of his or her immediate work requirements.

(j) Step 10: Complete sector specific reporting requirements, including for State schools, the Department’s critical incident report through the Incident Response Management System.

(k) Step 11: Document all information/discussions/observations.

In our analysis, the Tasmanian Department’s flowcharts outline a similar immediate response.367

1. The ongoing response

Unlike the Tasmanian flowcharts, the South Australian guidelines take a comprehensive approach to responding to allegations of misconduct beyond the initial response. The guidelines provide direction on:

• the employment status of the ‘accused person’
• delivering counselling and support to affected parties
• undertaking a risk assessment
• responsibly providing appropriate information to affected parties.368

In relation to the employment status of the accused person, the guidelines provide that the site leader should consult with the relevant ‘sector office’ (in the case of the public sector, the Directorate) to determine whether to suspend the person from duty pending the outcome of an investigation. If suspended, a formal letter is sent to the accused person. If the accused person is a volunteer, their role is terminated immediately.369

The Debelle Inquiry noted in its report that in the aftermath of the event that precipitated its inquiry, a common complaint of parents was the lack of appropriate counselling.370

The Inquiry recommended that continuing support should be offered to victim-survivors, their parents, other children or parents in the school community, and staff.371

The South Australian guidelines are detailed and require that appropriate support is provided to:

• victim-survivors and their parents—site leaders should meet with the parents and discuss continuing support for the child or young person. A written report of the meeting should be prepared and signed by the parents. Next, ‘a support and safety plan should be finalised, covering all aspects of the victim’s and the family’s ongoing needs and agreed actions’. Site leaders or the relevant sector office must monitor the wellbeing of the victim and the victim’s family through regular reviews of the plan372
• other children or young people and parents of the school—the counselling or support offered to children or young people and parents should vary depending on the circumstances of the incident. If a risk assessment finds that a wider group of parents should be informed, ‘then, generally speaking, the same services as outlined above should be offered’373
• staff members—staff (including the site leader) can be profoundly affected by sexual misconduct allegations and their ongoing wellbeing needs to be considered, particularly those who were close to the person subject to the allegations. Staff ‘will need clear guidance on how to respond to particular requests such as acting as a witness’.374 Staff should be reminded of the availability of supports in the weeks and months that follow, and the effect of potentially stressful events (for example, the conclusion of a trial) should be anticipated and monitored375
• counselling and the option of alternative placements should be considered for relatives of the accused person who are employees or enrolled students at the site or in the sector.376

The Debelle Inquiry’s report emphasised that how counselling is offered is important. Where possible, counselling should not be offered in ‘a mere letter’.377 However, any offer of counselling should be followed up in writing.378 The Department should also ‘offer counselling as quickly as possible, if not immediately, after it learns of the allegations’.379

The Debelle report also emphasises the importance of ensuring the safety, health and wellbeing of other children in the wake of an allegation against a staff member. It advocates conducting a risk assessment to discover whether there might be other victim-survivors of the alleged offending.380

Under the South Australian guidelines, risk assessments are conducted by the Directorate ‘in consultation with the site leader, drawing on information provided by South Australia Police’.381

In making the risk assessment, the following factors are considered:

• the nature of the offending
• the circumstances in which the alleged offending occurred
• the place or places where the alleged offending occurred
• the age and gender of the victim
• the age and gender of the accused person
• whether the accused person had regular and frequent contact with other children or a group or groups of children and the nature and circumstances of that contact
• the opportunities that were available to the accused person to offend against other children.382

The Debelle Inquiry also recommended that the South Australian Department for Education develops a policy that guides the communication of an allegation to the school community.383 This communication must achieve a balance between the rights of staff, students and parents to be informed, and the right of an individual staff member not to be identified before an assessment and/or investigation of the allegation. Avoiding liability for defamation is also a consideration when communicating about an allegation of child sexual abuse.

While there are laws in South Australia forbidding the publication of an accused person’s name, the Debelle Inquiry found that:

… it is proper for those with a legitimate interest in the matter to be informed of the alleged offending. Those who have a legitimate interest in the offending are the staff at the site, the members of the governing council of the site [school association committee], and parents of children who are likely to have been in contact with the accused person.384

Based on the Debelle Inquiry’s recommendations, the South Australian guidelines provide detailed directions for communicating an allegation based on the audience and the stage of the response. This approach is outlined in Appendix E. In summary, it outlines appropriate communications for staff, governing councils and parents when:

• there is an allegation only
• the accused person has been charged
• the court process is over.

The supporting documentation provides template letters for each stage of the process. Examples of letters from the Debelle Inquiry can be found at Appendix E.

Secretary Bullard noted the approach taken in the Debelle Inquiry to communicating with relevant parties and the considerations relevant at each stage of the process. He stated that he would go further by including guidance on communication where ‘the conduct does not amount to a criminal offence, or Police do not proceed with charges, but the Department investigates a potential breach of the State Service Code of Conduct’.385

In his February 2023 update on the safeguarding activities the Department was undertaking, Secretary Bullard informed us that there had been amendments to the letters sent to complainants and witnesses involved in Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct processes related to child sexual abuse matters. These letters, he said, are now more ‘accessible and trauma-informed’.386 While the relevant policy is still being drafted, we also understand that the Department will, where appropriate and authorised to do so, communicate information to relevant parties about a child sexual abuse incident within the Department’s service areas, including schools.

1. Our observations

These developments outlined by Secretary Bullard are encouraging. We recommend that the Department develops a specific policy about responsible communication in the context of legal obligations. The policy should outline what communications the Department should make, and to whom they should make them, at particular stages of investigating a child sexual abuse matter. This should be based on the resources developed by the South Australian Department for Education for responding to allegations about staff.

Similar resources should be developed to support the response to allegations about harmful sexual behaviours (refer to Section 7).

We also recommend that the Department adopts a similar approach to that recommended by the Debelle Inquiry to the supports it provides to students, families, staff and the school community when dealing with child sexual abuse matters.

As indicated, we recommend that the Child-Related Incident Management Directorate oversees the response to allegations about staff in relation to the education, Child Safety Service, out of home care and youth justice contexts. Similarly, guidelines should be developed to assist in the response to allegations in all these institutional contexts.

Drawing on the South Australian example, the Department should also look to provide leadership to the Catholic and independent school sectors and consider ways to support a statewide approach to responding to child sexual abuse in schools.

Recommendation 6.7

1. The Department for Education, Children and Young People should develop guidelines that outline the ongoing supports that should be provided for victim-survivors, families, staff and the school community when there are allegations or incidents of child sexual abuse by staff or harmful sexual behaviours.
2. The guidelines should include policies, procedures, and templates for:
   1. Counselling and support—a counselling and support plan should be developed for victim-survivors and their parents and carers, other children or young people at the school, staff at the school, and the alleged perpetrator and their family.
   2. Risk assessment—a risk assessment should be conducted to determine whether there is any concern for the ongoing safety of other children and whether there may be other victim-survivors.
   3. Informing responsibly—the Department should develop specific policies that outline what communications should be made by the Department, and to whom they should be made, at particular stages of a child sexual abuse matter. These policies should take account of all legal obligations and the importance of informing victim-survivors, parents and the community. Communication may be needed with children and young people, staff, School Association Committees, parents, previous students and other schools.
3. Any policy outlining the communications that should be made by the Department should extend to matters where conduct does not amount to a criminal offence or where police do not proceed with charges but the matter is investigated as a possible breach of the State Service Code of Conduct, a professional conduct policy or reportable conduct under the Reportable Conduct Scheme.
4. Guidelines should also be developed for Child Safety Services, out of home care and youth justice contexts.

Recommendation 6.8

The Department for Education, Children and Young People should work with the Catholic and independent school sectors to adopt a statewide approach to responding to child sexual abuse in schools.

1. Harmful sexual behaviours in schools

Harmful sexual behaviours are sexual behaviours displayed by a child or young person:

… that [fall] outside what may be considered developmentally, socially, and culturally expected, may cause harm to [themselves] or others, and [occur] either face to face and/or via technology. When these behaviours involve another child or young person, they may include a lack of consent, reciprocity, mutuality, and involve the use of coercion, force, or a misuse of power.387

Harmful sexual behaviours are occurring in Tasmanian schools and are causing immense distress and harm to students, their families and staff. Lack of understanding about harmful sexual behaviours may mean that they are either not responded to at all, or the response is disproportionate to developmentally expected or less serious problematic sexual behaviours. Consistent with the Independent Education Inquiry, we heard that schools need better guidance and training in preventing and responding to harmful sexual behaviours.

Addressing harmful sexual behaviours requires schools to balance their duty of care to the child displaying harmful sexual behaviours and to other children. An understandable desire to respond to harmful sexual behaviours in a therapeutic and thoughtful way should not overshadow the real and very damaging experiences of victim-survivors of such behaviours. Principals may be reluctant to exclude young people displaying harmful sexual behaviours from school (with all the related impacts on their education), particularly if the child has disability or if their behaviours are a product of their own victimisation. However, failures to ensure the safety of students (particularly of victim-survivors of harmful sexual behaviours) has its own impacts on their ability to learn and thrive at school. Balancing what can sometimes be competing considerations requires tailored planning and responses to meet the unique circumstances of each situation. Schools will often need access to specialist knowledge and guidance to get this balance right.

The National Royal Commission made one specific recommendation (Recommendation 13.6) about harmful sexual behaviours in the education context:

Consistent with the Child Safe Standards, complaint handling policies for schools … should include effective policies and procedures for managing complaints about children with harmful sexual behaviours.388

The Department of Education considered that it had implemented this recommendation because it ‘has existing policies/procedures/practices for managing complaints about children with harmful sexual behaviour’.389

However, questions around the effectiveness of the Department’s policies and measures came up in the Independent Education Inquiry. That inquiry found significant uncertainties among departmental staff on how to respond appropriately to suspected or alleged harmful sexual behaviours in schools. It recommended developing protocols to respond to concerns or complaints of this nature.390

Leanne McLean, Commissioner for Children and Young People, acknowledged that the Department was developing a flowchart to help guide responses to harmful sexual behaviours, but she was concerned by the apparent lack of policy or procedure given that:

… during my term as Commissioner, a number of incidents have been raised with me by members of the public related to harmful sexual behaviours in educational contexts, and in particular, the responses of Department of Education employees to such allegations.391

The Department told us of several initiatives to address this issue, including setting up a Harmful Sexual Behaviours Working Group, investing in staff expertise and developing clearer guidance for principals and staff. We discuss these initiatives and other changes throughout this section. However, we consider more needs to be done.

In this section, we begin by discussing the experiences of families affected by harmful sexual behaviours in schools. We outline steps taken since the Independent Education Inquiry to improve responses to harmful sexual behaviours in schools, including flowcharts developed to guide principals’ responses and the role of the Prevention, Assessment, Support and Treatment program in supporting the understanding and response to harmful sexual behaviours. We then discuss continuing challenges for schools in understanding and responding to harmful sexual behaviours and review positive recent initiatives to increase specialist support to schools. Finally, we outline the recommendations we have made across our report that will continue to enhance prevention, identification and responses to harmful sexual behaviours in government schools, and which build on the positive recent developments in the Department for Education, Children and Young People. We conclude by recommending the Department develops better policies, protocols and guidance for schools responding to harmful sexual behaviours.

1. Experiences of families affected by harmful sexual behaviours in schools

Some families (and people working with them) told us about their experiences navigating harmful sexual behaviours in schools. These experiences included significant trauma and distress because of the incident(s), as well as the way the school and/or the Department responded. Problems included:

• incidents of harmful sexual behaviours being downplayed or minimised by teachers, principals or others, including failures by schools to appropriately acknowledge and apologise for the harm caused392
• principals having too much discretion to determine whether an incident constitutes harmful sexual behaviours and the steps taken (or not) to manage it393
• the movements and actions of a victim-survivor being controlled or restricted to manage their safety, rather than the behaviour of the child or young person who had engaged in harmful sexual behaviours being managed or closely supervised394
• victim-survivors having to continue to encounter the young person who harmed them at school in ways that affected their sense of safety and exacerbated trauma395
• poor communication to affected parties (particularly parents and carers) about steps being taken following a complaint or incident, with confidentiality often cited as justification396
• inadequate information sharing and record keeping by schools and the Department, which can make it difficult to determine patterns of harmful sexual behaviours (particularly where a young person engaging in such behaviour moves schools)397
• inadequate access to appropriate psychological and support services for victim-survivors and young people engaging in harmful sexual behaviours.398

Some of these issues have been described to us in incidents as recent as 2021 (refer to the case study of ‘Andy’ in Chapter 5).

Parents and caregivers of children who had experienced harmful sexual behaviours from other children came forward to share their and their children’s experience with us. For example, the parents of one young child who was subjected to harmful sexual behaviours told us:

Post care for us was so minimal. The Department of Education just said, ‘I’m so sorry [redacted] I can’t believe that’s happened, would you like a call from Learning Support?’ … I never got an apology from the Department of Education I never got any acknowledgement, I just got the principal telling me [they were] sorry, and that they did the best they could and that they really couldn’t tell anybody about it.399

Parents of another young child said:

If this had [have] been dealt with a little bit more … a little bit more personally, a little bit more listening right from the beginning, well, we wouldn’t be in this situation. We just have no trust left.400

We also heard from parents who told us that the only reason their child got support was because they ‘yelled very loudly’ and because of their connections. They said, ‘if we didn’t have those … connections it would have been swept under the carpet’.401

Parents of victim-survivors of harmful sexual behaviours often expressed empathy for the child or young person engaging in the behaviours, recognising its complex drivers and the vulnerability of all the children and young people involved. These parents told us:

We believe the system failed both our child and the offending child as well as us as a family. The long-term damage that has occurred to our daughter and our families’ wellbeing has been a direct result of the education department not following protocol or having protocols in situ.402

Ignatius Kim, Clinical Lead, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service, described his experience helping a 15-year-old girl who was sexually abused by another student on school grounds. He told us that he attended a meeting of the young woman and her parents with the school:

I came away just really angry myself about what this family was met with, the response that they were met with, which was quite officious, two senior members of the school staff, and my clear impression was that it was clearly planned and rehearsed with a view to managing the meeting, perhaps with a sort of view focused on the reputational aspects.403

Mr Kim said that the young woman commented after the meeting that she had just wanted the school to apologise. Mr Kim reflected:

You know, I think, if an apology had been forthcoming and a really authentic, you know, really compassionate approach had been taken in that meeting, I do think it could have gone some way.404

He noted that the student did not feel protected and continued to have inadvertent contact with the older male student who assaulted her. She was eventually forced to change schools.405

1. Challenges for schools in preventing and responding to harmful sexual behaviours

We heard about several challenges for schools in preventing and responding to harmful sexual behaviours, including practical challenges of maintaining safety for victim-survivors and staff while providing support for students who have displayed harmful sexual behaviours, a lack of staff confidence, and challenges with accessing professional support.

1. Difficulties maintaining safety for students and supporting staff

Understandably, principals can be reluctant to exclude students from schools, or to isolate or stigmatise them, recognising the importance of education and social connection. But this can make it difficult to maintain the safety of victim-survivors or other students and it can contribute to victim-survivors feeling unsafe at school and disengaging from their studies.

Renae Pepper from the Sexual Assault Support Service told us that the challenge of keeping children safe may be particularly acute in rural schools, where it can be difficult to effectively separate students—for example, if there is only one class for each year level, or limited space, facilities and staff.406 She said that sometimes victim-survivors at rural schools would have to attend school feeling unsafe or anxious, or would disengage from school.407

Poor responses to harmful sexual behaviours can also affect staff involved.408 Mr Russell told us:

The lack of support offered by the Department following this [harmful sexual behaviour] incident made it hard for me to trust that the classroom would be a safe place for me or my students. My health has suffered because of this lack of support. I have had to seek my own support, and this has affected my ability to teach.409

1. Lack of confidence in identifying and responding to harmful sexual behaviours

Teachers and principals are often not confident in identifying harmful sexual behaviours. Ms Pepper described how most queries about harmful sexual behaviours that the service receives are from educators who do not fully understand the difference between normal sexual development and inappropriate behaviour, and therefore do not know how to respond.410 She said:

The skills gap, in terms of lack of training on harmful sexual behaviours for teachers, principals and support staff, has a very real cost for the children or young people affected by harmful sexual behaviours.411

Sometimes this lack of training and understanding results in inaction despite multiple reports of inappropriate behaviour, with Ms Pepper providing a recent (2021) example of a teacher not escalating complaints:

The disclosures all related to a single child within the class, who was alleged to have been inappropriately touching the complainants. The classroom teacher had dismissed the reports and told the children not to ‘tell lies’ or ‘be unkind’. It was not until the reports from a number of children, made over this extended six to twelve month period, made their way to the principal that they were acknowledged and addressed.412

Lack of training can also contribute to harsh discipline. Ms Pepper cited, as an example of an extreme response, the case of an eight-year-old boy who was expelled from school for holding another student’s hand and kissing them on the cheek.413

We heard that having good guidance on harmful sexual behaviours is critical and in the absence of such guidance, ‘the role of teachers becomes even more complex’.414 Professor Walsh acknowledged that teachers do not have to have the expertise to determine whether consent has occurred, but at a minimum they should understand the spectrum of typical sexual behaviours for a child’s age and stage and be able to identify signs to suggest that support services may be necessary.415

Ms Pepper agreed, stating that without such guidance there are ‘really inconsistent responses’ from schools:416

There needs to be clear policies and procedures within individual schools as schools vary in numbers, structure, layout and ability to safety plan and protect all students, and there needs to be clear policies and procedures more broadly across [the Department] around mandatory reporting, contacting [Sexual Assault Support Service] for consultation and how investigations are carried out in regard to incidents.417

Ms Pepper highlighted the need for training for all schools on harmful sexual behaviours including ‘how to respond appropriately and be trauma-informed, focusing on students feeling safe and able to engage in their education’.418

Dale Tolliday, a clinical adviser working in this area, said that judgment and discretion are important in managing harmful sexual behaviours incidents:

It does not require a specialist [therapeutic] response in all cases, rather there must be different layers of support where the appropriate persons are given the permission and confidence to respond.419

We discuss mandatory professional development in Section 5.

1. Role of professional support staff

We heard evidence about the role that social workers, in particular, play in supporting and upskilling school staff in responding to harmful sexual behaviours (and child sexual abuse more broadly). In an anonymous submission to our Inquiry, we were told that:

School social work and psychology are often the main intervention used in [the Department of Education for harmful sexual behaviours], however both professions are woefully understaffed. Both the … Australian Association of Social Workers and the Australian Psychological Society recommend 1 full-time social worker and psychologist per 500 students. The ratio in Tasmania is currently 1 full-time worker per 1,200 students.420

Ms Carter highlighted the value of social workers and professional support staff, not only in providing direct support to students but also in upskilling staff:

I mean, training in a one-off session is good, but having the people there actually supporting you through is the best sort of professional learning so that you become confident and you grow your understanding.421

She recommended a universal ‘realistic’ allocation of such staff to schools.422

Social worker Debra Drake acknowledged that she saw children displaying harmful sexual behaviours in schools, but ‘given the high caseloads of school social workers, we do not have the capacity to provide appropriate counselling for harmful sexual behaviours’.423 Ms Drake reflected that such support would ideally be offered by specialist services that are well trained, adequately funded and external to schools.424 Mr Kim said that ‘school psychologists and school social workers are often stretched across several schools in their work week, so their consistency of presence is lacking and I think we need more of them’.425

Secretary Bullard responded to calls for increased social workers and support staff by highlighting that ‘there has already been a significant increase in social workers and psychologists into the system’ since 2014, also pointing to the broader safeguarding responsibilities of teachers:426

And not saying that every teacher is a skilled social worker, but every teacher understands the importance of child safeguarding, understands what our expectations are, knows how to deal with a report and where to refer it.427

The 2021–22 State Budget has allocated $3.8 million over four years from 2022–23 (and $1.68 million ongoing) to employ extra psychologists and social workers to directly support schools.428 These professional support staff would be ideally placed to respond to inappropriate and problematic sexual behaviours if they are provided with more professional development, guidance and practice resources to build their capability to do so. However, best practice responses suggest a more intensive specialist therapeutic response is likely to be needed for persistent, abusive and violent harmful sexual behaviours, such as a referral to a specialist service like the Prevention, Assessment, Support and Treatment program, which we discuss further in the next section.

1. Processes to respond to harmful sexual behaviours in schools

Schools have access to some resources to support responses to harmful sexual behaviours, including specialist therapeutic supports provided externally and recent initiatives of the Department.

1. Programs and training on harmful sexual behaviours

Schools can make referrals to specialist programs for young people displaying harmful sexual behaviours and for those who have been harmed by the behaviours. They can also access training programs for school staff on identifying and responding to such conduct.

The Prevention, Assessment, Support and Treatment program, offered by the Sexual Assault Support Service, is directed at children and young people (aged 17 or younger) who have displayed harmful sexual behaviours. Secretary Bullard described the two streams of the program:

• therapeutic intervention, assessment and case management for children and young people using harmful sexual behaviours—schools, family members or agencies can refer young people to this program429
• a shorter training session of about three hours for school staff (teaching years 3 to 12) on how to identify and respond to harmful sexual behaviours called ‘HSB: Overview for Educators’.430 This is offered on a fee-for-service basis and schools generally contact the Sexual Assault Support Service directly for this training.431

The Prevention, Assessment, Support and Treatment program and our recommendation for increased specialist services are discussed in Chapter 21.

1. Departmental initiatives to improve responses to harmful sexual behaviours

Secretary Bullard described recent departmental initiatives to prevent and respond to harmful sexual behaviours in Tasmanian schools. These include:

• building the capacity of school social workers and psychologists to respond to children and young people who are victim-survivors of harmful sexual behaviours (and child sexual abuse)432
• the Department’s Harmful Sexual Behaviours Working Group (in operation since 2020), which identifies the signs of, and improves responses to, harmful sexual behaviours and equips support staff to identify it and respond in trauma-informed ways433
• appointing extra staff to ‘oversee the coordination, case management and follow up of the support provided to children and young people impacted’.434

Following up on these initiatives, Secretary Bullard told us in February 2023 that the Department had committed to employing four more full-time-equivalent senior support staff—two psychologists and two social workers—‘to provide further support for children and young people affected by harmful sexual behaviours or child sexual abuse’.435

He told us that three of the four positions had been filled, with the remaining position being readvertised in early 2023.436 The Department has also filled two more Student Support Response Coordinator positions to manage ‘responses to incidents of child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviour, ensuring that the best interests of children and young people are the central consideration’.437

We see the opportunity for these positions to form a specialist Harmful Sexual Behaviours Support Unit to help schools (and other government institutions) correctly identify harmful sexual behaviours, respond locally to inappropriate and problematic behaviour and support a critical incident response to persistent, abusive or violent harmful sexual behaviours. We recommend a Harmful Sexual Behaviours Support Unit for education, out of home care and youth justice settings in Chapter 9 (Recommendation 9.28).

1. Steps in response to allegations of harmful sexual behaviours

Principals and ‘site leaders’ are guided by a departmental flowchart entitled Responding to Incidents, Disclosures or Suspicions of Harmful Sexual Behaviour Initiated by a Child or Young Person when responding to disclosures or concerns about harmful sexual behaviours. The Department’s Harmful Sexual Behaviours Working Group informed the updated version of this document.438

According to this flowchart, principals must collect information about the alleged behaviour and then ‘immediately’ consult a student support leader, senior professional support staff, a school social worker or a psychologist to assess the situation.439 The reference for this assessment is Hackett’s continuum of harmful sexual behaviours, which ‘is based on a continuum model to demonstrate the range of sexual behaviours presented by children and young people, from those that are normal, to those that are highly deviant’.440 Secretary Bullard explained:

The context of the behaviour is then considered as part of the overall assessment (that is; do any of the students have a disability, what is the frequency of the behaviours, is there coercion, a difference of ages, etc.?).441

The flowchart divides behaviours into only two categories—‘harmful or problematic’ or ‘developmentally appropriate’—and directs a different response for each category.

On our reading of the flowchart, we understand that if the behaviour is assessed as constituting harmful or problematic sexual behaviours, the student support leader and senior professional support staff must:

• notify the Strong Families, Safe Kids Advice and Referral Line and police, and meet with parents/carers to ‘inform, reassure and include in the response’
• form a care team and develop a risk assessment, safety plan and referrals for therapeutic support
• develop a ‘community response/containment strategy’ (where appropriate)
• store all documentation in the Student Support System.442

If, on the other hand, the behaviour is assessed as developmentally appropriate, the flowchart outlines the principal must notify parents/carers, provide support and ‘educate regarding the nature of the incident’ and ‘update and consult’ with relevant staff.443 The school social worker or psychologist is to assess the needs of student(s) and provide support.444 The principal must also ensure relevant documentation is stored in the Student Support System and turn their mind to how they can build understanding of consent and child sexual abuse prevention in their school.445

When considering the extent to which principals can apply discretion and depart from these requirements, Secretary Bullard was clear in stating:

… all school principals have a mandated responsibility to follow all departmental policies and procedures, including those related to harmful sexual behaviours, and for ensuring staff are aware of and follow all relevant policies and procedures.446

Concerns about the flowchart

While we understand the desire for a simplified flowchart to guide principals’ responses, we are concerned that reducing harmful sexual behaviours to an ‘either/or’ oversimplifies the issue and may give rise to inappropriate responses. The spectrum of behaviours described on Hackett’s continuum requires a range of more nuanced responses than described in the flowchart. For instance, sexual behaviours that are assessed to be inappropriate or problematic on Hackett’s continuum may not require statutory or specialist treatment responses, but will still require some form of local school response. We consider the guidance for developmentally appropriate behaviours to be more consistent with what would be expected for locally managed inappropriate or concerning sexual behaviours. We are concerned that the guidance in the flowchart for developmentally appropriate behaviours is not a proportionate or appropriate response to healthy sexual development. We are not clear as to why parents would be notified or records created for developmentally appropriate behaviours. As we outline below, the Department needs a more tailored response to the children and families involved, rather than an ‘either/or’ approach.

Also, any care plan and risk assessment should not be viewed as static. In any safety planning, the least intrusive actions necessary to secure the safety of all children and young people involved should be implemented. The plan should also recognise that risk is likely to change—for example, in response to effective treatment. Finally, we note that, where required, arrangements should be made for any background information, risk assessment and care plan to follow a child or young person (or children or young people) if they change schools in the aftermath of a harmful sexual behaviours incident, as is often the case.

While the flowchart covers the basics of an appropriate response, the policy should ensure attention is given to the child displaying the behaviours and any child (or children) and young people who were harmed by or witness to those behaviours, and their families. The flowchart also needs to be clearer about who takes particular actions. In Section 7.5, we recommend improved guidance on responding to harmful sexual behaviours. This guidance should align with and be complemented by the holistic across government approach to harmful sexual behaviours we recommend throughout our report, and which we summarise in relation to schools in Section 7.4.

1. A holistic approach to preventing, identifying and responding to harmful sexual behaviours

Given the challenges and complexities in balancing the needs of all children affected when a child displays harmful sexual behaviours, a holistic whole of government, whole of Department approach is needed. We have made recommendations across our report that will help improve the prevention and identification of, and responses to, harmful sexual behaviours in Tasmanian government schools:

• The Tasmanian Government should develop a statewide framework and plan for preventing, identifying and responding to harmful sexual behaviours that provides a common understanding of harmful sexual behaviours and high-level guidance on how to respond, and clearly articulates the roles and responsibilities of different government and government funded agencies in the response (refer to Chapter 21, Recommendation 21.8).
• The Department for Education, Children and Young People should establish a Harmful Sexual Behaviours Support Unit to support all child-facing areas of the Department (refer to Chapter 9, Recommendation 9.28). The role of the Unit would be to provide advice, support and guidance to local areas to facilitate consistent, best practice, proportionate approaches to responding to harmful sexual behaviours that balances the needs of victim-survivors, children who have displayed harmful sexual behaviours and other affected parties. The Unit would also lead harmful sexual behaviours policy development and build on the new positions already devoted to supporting responses to harmful sexual behaviours in schools, which were outlined above.
• The Tasmanian Government should fund and appropriately resource sexual assault and abuse therapeutic services, including for harmful sexual behaviours (refer to Chapter 21, Recommendations 21.1, 21.4 and 21.6).
• All teachers should have minimum mandatory education in child sexual abuse, grooming and harmful sexual behaviours (refer to Section 5 of this chapter, Recommendation 6.5). Our intent is that minimum mandatory education will assist teachers to develop a minimum level of knowledge and awareness of what are harmful sexual behaviours and how they should respond.
• There should be advanced professional education on responding to harmful sexual behaviours made available to employees who directly respond to harmful sexual behaviours. This would include principals, school social workers, school psychologists, child safety officers, youth workers and residential carers. This could be developed and provided by the Harmful Sexual Behaviours Support Unit or outsourced to specialist providers (refer to Chapter 9, Recommendation 9.28).
• There should be mandatory child sexual abuse prevention curriculum for students from early learning programs to year 12. We consider this education to be an important element in preventing harmful sexual behaviours (refer to Recommendation 6.1).

We also recommend detailed education-specific policies, protocols and guidance for principals and site leaders in identifying and responding to harmful sexual behaviours, which we discuss in Section 7.5.

1. Clear, specialised advice and support for schools responding to harmful sexual behaviours

While we consider that the revised flowchart for harmful sexual behaviours is an improvement on previous guidance, we consider it should be refined to allow for a more nuanced approach and underpinned by more comprehensive guidance that can explain in more detail how it should be applied. This includes greater guidance on:

• the recommended Harmful Sexual Behaviours Support Unit, how and when to access the Unit and its role in supporting school responses
• correctly identifying and distinguishing developmentally appropriate, inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviours
• proportionate local responses to inappropriate and problematic sexual behaviours
• how the needs of children displaying harmful sexual behaviours, victim-survivors of harmful sexual behaviours and other children and young people can be addressed through safety assessment and school participation planning (including describing key considerations and possible features of a safety and school participation plan, balancing the safety of all children with the school participation needs of the child displaying harmful sexual behaviours)
• supports and guidance that can be offered to victim-survivors of harmful sexual behaviours, their family and other affected parties (such as teachers or other students) including what departmental and external supports are available
• strategies to ensure appropriate supervision, support and referrals/reports occur in response to a child displaying harmful sexual behaviours
• what information should be recorded and the circumstances in which it should be shared with external authorities, affected parties and other schools
• guidance about communicating with families, other children and affected parties—this includes supports such as template letters (similar to the approach to allegations of child sexual abuse by adults discussed in Section 6.5 of this chapter)
• review processes for safety and participation plans, recognising that risk is not static.

We consider this guidance should become part of core school procedures and be used by principals and site leaders in conjunction with advice, support and guidance from the Harmful Sexual Behaviours Support Unit. A public version of the policy should be easily accessible to the public on the Department’s website with an appropriate level of detail to help parents/carers and the broader community understand the steps that will be taken in response to incidents, to help drive accountability, and to overcome the information vacuum that exacerbates distress and gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that no action has been taken. Being able to point to more detailed guidance can also satisfy an understandable desire from the school community for information, without compromising aspects of an incident response that need to be managed privately for the young people involved.

Guidance should direct staff on when and how to seek support from the new Harmful Sexual Behaviours Support Unit for help identifying and responding to harmful sexual behaviours in schools. The Harmful Sexual Behaviours Support Unit may provide guidance on how the students involved can be safely supported in the school, recommend involving professional support staff in schools to assist, or provide more intensive support where a child has displayed persistent, abusive and/or violent harmful sexual behaviours.

Recommendation 6.9

The Department for Education, Children and Young People should develop detailed education-specific policies, protocols and guidelines for preventing, identifying and responding to harmful sexual behaviours in schools. The development of these policies, protocols and guidelines should be:

1. led and informed by the Harmful Sexual Behaviours Support Unit (Recommendation 9.28)
2. informed by the Tasmanian Government’s statewide framework and plan to address harmful sexual behaviours (Recommendation 21.8).

1. Teacher registration

In her second reading speech for the Teachers Registration Bill 2000, the then Minister for Education said:

Parents of students are entitled to a guarantee that their children are being taught by fully and appropriately qualified teachers who will not abuse their position of trust with students. This guarantee can be best achieved by having a fully and properly regulated teaching profession.447

The National Royal Commission recognised that teacher registration is a key mechanism through which Australian states and territories can ensure teachers meet minimum professional standards, including suitability to work with children. The National Royal Commission observed that, common to all Australian jurisdictions, teachers must:

• satisfy requirements related to professional learning and qualifications
• be able to meet the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, including Standard 4 that requires teachers to ‘maintain student safety’448
• pass criminal history checks and/or have current authorisation to work with vulnerable people
• observe any code of conduct concerning ‘professional and ethical standards’.449

In Tasmania, the Teachers Registration Board plays an important role in protecting students from abuse by teachers. It does this by vetting the applications of new teachers for teacher registration, as well as the applications of continuing teachers seeking renewal of their registration, which is required every five years. The Board has the power to refuse, suspend or cancel the registration of a teacher if they (in the Teachers Registration Board’s opinion) are not of good character or are not fit to teach. The Board’s authority to permit or bar a person from teaching is an essential part of child safeguarding in the education system.

The Department also requires that all departmental employees, whether or not they have direct contact with children, hold Registration to Work with Vulnerable People.450 This registration is a prerequisite to registration as a teacher. Non-teaching staff working in educational settings—for example, administrators, contractors, sports coaches, parent volunteers and maintenance staff—must also hold Registration to Work with Vulnerable People.451

As we discuss in Section 8.2, we heard that the teacher registration framework is not operating as well as it could, particularly for protecting children in schools.

In her second reading speech for the Teachers Registration Bill 2000, the then Minister for Education stated that the ‘introduction of the legislation will protect children in government and non-government schools from the possibility of sexual or other abuse’.452 Yet the Teachers Registration Act (which, among other things establishes the Teachers Registration Board), does not contain any provisions specifically requiring the Board to prevent, identify or report on child sexual abuse in schools, although it includes a good character requirement. Rather, the Act’s provisions relate to teacher registration, good character and fitness to teach, and regulate how the Board should respond to complaints about teacher conduct, including about child sexual abuse.453

In this section, we provide an overview of the role and powers of the Teachers Registration Board. We then consider the shortcomings in the Board’s operation and how these shortcomings might best be overcome.

1. The role of the Teachers Registration Board

All Australian states and territories require teachers to be registered (or accredited) by a statutory board or authority that is ‘responsible for ensuring that registered persons have the appropriate professional qualifications and personal qualities to teach’.454 In Tasmania, the Teachers Registration Board undertakes these functions, registering teachers to work in government, Catholic and independent schools.455

The Teachers Registration Board is an independent statutory authority established under the Teachers Registration Act. The Board consists of several people appointed by the Minister: a chairperson, practising teachers from schools across the independent, Catholic and government education sectors, a nominee of the University of Tasmania’s Faculty of Education, a nominee of the Department, and a parent or guardian of a student attending a Tasmanian school.456

The Board regulates the teaching profession for the wellbeing and best interests of Tasmanian students.457 One of its key functions is to register appropriately qualified teachers who ‘have been determined to be of good character, competent, and fit to teach in Tasmanian schools’.458

The Board’s other functions include:

• conducting investigations, inquiries and hearings to determine whether there have been breaches of the Act459
• taking disciplinary action, including placing conditions on, or suspending or cancelling, a teacher’s registration460
• maintaining a code of ethics for the teaching profession.461

In performing its functions and in any action taken by the Board, the Board must ‘consider the welfare and best interests of students to be of paramount importance’.462

While the Board has a much broader role than identifying, preventing or responding to child sexual abuse, the requirements of registration, along with other powers granted to the Board under the Act, mean that much of its work is ‘aimed at preventing potential abusers from becoming registered as teachers’.463

All teachers who intend to work in a Tasmanian school or college must be a registered teacher or be granted a ‘Limited Authority to Teach’ by the Board.464 A Limited Authority to Teach is designed to allow a person with specialist knowledge or skills, who is not a registered teacher, to teach in circumstances where there are no registered teachers with the requisite knowledge or skills available to fill the role.465 It is an offence under the Act to teach without being registered or holding a Limited Authority to Teach.466

In determining if an applicant is of good character, the Board considers whether:

• the person has been charged with or convicted of an offence467
• the person holds a Registration to Work with Vulnerable People, including whether the person’s Registration to Work with Vulnerable People status has ever been suspended or cancelled468
• the person has engaged in conduct that does not satisfy the standard generally expected of a teacher or is ‘otherwise disgraceful or improper’469
• there are other matters the Board considers relevant such as ‘employment and registration history and any previous and/or current disciplinary proceedings’.470

In determining whether an applicant is fit to teach, the Board may consider a person’s medical or psychological conditions, their competence as a teacher and any other relevant matter.471 The ‘good character’ assessment is most relevant to allegations of child sexual abuse and related concerns.

The Board requires applicants for registration to make declarations as to their character and fitness to teach and to authorise the Board to conduct a National Police Check.472 The Board is also authorised to obtain information from a corresponding registration authority from interstate, a government department or a relevant body, and request that the applicant undergo psychiatric and/or psychological examination.473 Registration is for up to five years, after which time a person must apply to have their registration renewed.474

The Board produces the resource Professional Boundaries: Guidelines for Tasmanian Teachers to educate applicants for registration, as well as registered teachers, about maintaining appropriate boundaries with students. The guidelines state that:

For teachers, engaging in sexualised or romantic/sexual relationships with any student, regardless of their age, is completely inappropriate, and—depending on the age of the student—may also be a crime. It will result in disciplinary action.475

Teachers are advised that sexualised, romantic or sexual relationships with former students ‘may breach teacher-student professional boundaries’, including a ‘relationship that commences within two years of the student completing compulsory education or turning 18 (whichever is later)’ [original emphasis].476 We discuss sexual abuse by a person in a position of authority in Chapter 16. The guidelines also define grooming and explain how to identify grooming behaviours.477 Breaching the guidelines may result in a finding of ‘misconduct, serious misconduct, and a lack of suitability/fitness to teach’.478 Depending on the circumstances, a breach of the guidelines may also result in criminal charges.479 The guidelines are provided to all applicants for teacher registration, who must declare on their application they have read and understood them. The guidelines are also given to all employers of teachers.480

Other provisions in the Teachers Registration Act regulate professional conduct and empower the Board to take action against a teacher for unprofessional conduct including sexual abuse:

• Section 18 requires registered teachers (or holders of a Limited Authority to Teach) to notify the Board if they are charged with or found guilty of a prescribed offence.481 Prescribed offences include offences committed in Tasmania for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed, or an offence committed elsewhere if a sentence of imprisonment may have been imposed had the offence been committed in Tasmania.482 The Board must notify employers and other registration authorities as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware that a registered teacher has been charged with or found guilty of a prescribed offence.483 This would include a sexual offence.
• Section 19 provides that a person can complain to the Board in writing about the professional conduct or competence of a registered teacher (or a holder of a Limited Authority to Teach).484 As soon as practicable after receiving a complaint, the Board must provide ‘notice of the making of the complaint, the name of the complainant and the contents of the complaint’ to the person who is the subject of the complaint and to the employers of that person.485
• Section 6A authorises the Board to investigate a complaint made under the Act.486 When investigating the complaint, the Board will conduct a risk assessment for the alleged conduct and prepare a report for the relevant committee of the Board, which will determine an outcome.487 In a ‘high-risk situation’—for example, where the complaint alleges child sexual abuse—the investigation is expedited.488 The Board may also recommend prosecution for offences committed against the Act, although the Registrar of the Teachers Registration Board, Ann Moxham, told us that, to the best of her knowledge, this has never happened.489
• Section 20 provides that the Board may inquire into any matter relating to a registered teacher (or holder of a Limited Authority to Teach), or someone who was formerly a registered teacher (or holder of a Limited Authority to Teach), including for disciplinary actions taken by an employer against a registered teacher.490 Having completed an inquiry, the Board may impose conditions on the person’s registration, suspend, revoke or cancel the person’s registration, or determine that the complaint or disciplinary action is without substance.491
• Section 17BA, which was inserted into the Act in 2020, allows the Board to suspend or cancel a person’s registration without an inquiry, if the person’s Registration to Work with Vulnerable People has been suspended or revoked.492
• Section 24B covers ‘emergency’ situations and allows the Board to suspend a teacher’s registration if it believes on reasonable grounds that the person may pose a risk to a student.493 Ms Moxham told us that emergency suspensions are used when ‘risk of harm to a student materialises and the [Board] is required to act expeditiously’.494 Decisions about an ‘emergency suspension [are] undertaken by reference to a risk assessment matrix procedure’.495 Following an emergency suspension, the Board must ensure an inquiry is held as soon as possible.496
• Section 32A permits for the Board to share information with other relevant entities, including corresponding registration authorities in other jurisdictions, police, child protection authorities in Tasmania, and other state and national bodies such as the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership.497

The Board can also impose conditions on a person’s registration without an inquiry or investigation if it considers this to be warranted.498 Conditions include that a teacher undertakes professional development, accesses coaching and/or mentoring, or that the teacher be monitored in-school and an assessment of their conduct provided to the Board.499

In 2020, there were 31 people whose registration was subject to conditions. Of these, 26 per cent had met the conditions imposed and 48 per cent were still being monitored. The other 26 per cent had their registration lapse or expire.500

Conditions placed on a teacher’s registration are included in an online database established by the Board called Watched Registrations. This database is not publicly accessible but gives teachers’ employers direct access to the Tasmanian Register of Teachers.501 If a teacher’s registration is subject to conditions, this is indicated by two asterisks against that teacher’s name. However, the details of the conditions are not included in the database. School principals are advised to contact the Board’s Professional Conduct Team to find out the specific nature of any conditions on a teacher’s registration if the teacher appears on the Watched Registrations list.502 The onus is on individual schools to update the list of teachers they employ on the database.503

1. Strengthening the Board’s safeguarding measures

Through public hearings, witness statements, submissions and engagement with the community, as well as through information provided to us by the Department, we have identified problems with the teacher registration system. These problems undermine the Board’s capacity to act in the best interests of Tasmanian students.

We heard that, as a result of advice provided by the Office of the Solicitor-General, the Department’s approach to sharing information with the Teachers Registration Board about a teacher’s conduct is restrictive and undermines the Board’s ability to quickly assess whether a teacher should remain registered. We understand that the Government is considering solutions that will ‘make it easier to share information about risks to children, including looking at whether issues of custom, practice and culture are creating unnecessary barriers’.504 We support an approach that facilitates rather than restricts information sharing about risks to children and suggest that any changes in this regard include independent regulators such as the Teachers Registration Board. Information sharing must be supported by legislation in a way that prioritises the safety of children over privacy concerns.

We also heard that the Teachers Registration Act does not equip the Board to keep track of where teachers are employed, making it difficult for the Board to monitor teachers’ conduct where concerns have been raised about the safety of children.

As reported by the National Royal Commission, a number of risks to children arise when information about child sexual abuse perpetrated by teachers (or others in educational settings) is not shared ‘by and with schools (or other employers of teachers) and state and territory teacher registration authorities’.505 A lack of information exchange can allow teachers who are or have been the subject of conduct complaints ‘to move between schools, systems and jurisdictions’ without conduct issues being identified or addressed.506 We heard of situations where teachers in Tasmania, including some teachers from interstate, have continued to be registered and to teach despite concerns about their conduct at other schools.

In keeping with the National Royal Commission’s finding that ‘improved and consistent information on teacher registers should be considered’ for inclusion on registers, we recommend that a teacher’s place of employment be included on the Register of Teachers.507

We also heard:

• It is difficult for the Teachers Registration Board to enforce the provisions of the Teachers Registration Act, even in instances where it is aware that an unregistered teacher is teaching in a Tasmanian school.
• Changes to Commonwealth laws will mean that teachers from other jurisdictions are automatically recognised as being registered to teach in Tasmania, and this poses risks to child safety.
• The Board is not authorised to mandate training and ongoing professional development as a prerequisite to teacher registration.
• Insufficient resourcing has undermined the Board’s capacity to fulfil its statutory obligations relevant to ensuring teachers comply with professional standards.

We make recommendations that address each of these issues in the following sections.

1. Information sharing

Information sharing between institutions with responsibilities for children’s safety and wellbeing, and between those institutions and relevant professionals, is necessary to identify, prevent and respond to incidents and risks of child sexual abuse.508

The Teachers Registration Act governs what information the Board can and must share, and with whom and under what circumstances it is to be shared.

Information on the Register of Teachers that can be made publicly available is governed by section 25 of the Act, as set out in Appendix F. This information can be accessed via a search facility on the Board’s website.509 While any person can request certain information on the Register, the Act prohibits public access to information about a teacher’s registration conditions or whether a registration has been previously suspended.510 If the request for information comes from a ‘teacher employing authority’ (the Department, Catholic Education, the governing body of a registered school or TasTAFE), the Board may provide particulars of any conditions or suspension. The Act does not allow other information about a teacher’s conduct to be released unless the teacher (or holder of a Limited Authority to Teach) gives their consent.

The Board can also share information about registered teachers, or someone who has applied to be registered, with other teacher registration authorities. This can include any information the Board comes across in performing its functions or exercising its powers in relation to registered teachers or a person who has applied to be registered.511

While the provisions of the Teachers Registration Act restrict what information the Board can share, Ms Moxham told us that to share information ‘to prevent, identify, report on, and respond to child sexual abuse (as well as other potential and actual harms against students) in relation to teachers’, the Board relies on the notification provisions in the Teachers Registration Act that allow the Board to ‘do anything necessary or convenient to perform its functions’.512

Under the Teachers Registration Act, the Board can access police reports when considering an application for registration or renewal of registration.513 Ms Moxham told us that, generally, police respond to these requests promptly.514 But we were also told that in terms of criminal history checks, it would be more efficient if the Board could ‘sync the entire register with Tasmania Police overnight so that information, including charges, is known in real-time’.515 Also, the Board has no way of knowing when a registered teacher is currently charged with an offence.516 While the Act requires that a person must notify the Board if they are charged with a prescribed offence, Ms Moxham told us is it is ‘uncommon for people to provide these notifications’.517

Ms Moxham informed us that the Board has generally found it difficult to ‘obtain primary evidence held by other agencies, bodies and employers in relation to people it regulates’.518 This, we were told, has affected the Board’s ability to conduct its own investigations with efficiency and can result in the Board not conducting investigations in a trauma-informed way.519 Ms Moxham said that the way the Department provides information to the Board about professional conduct matters is ‘patchy’ and sometimes depends on who in the Department is in communication with the Board.520

While the Board will receive information from the Department about an allegation involving a teacher and the final decision about that allegation, it will not receive information collected during the investigation.521 This makes it more difficult for the Board to determine if a teacher is of good character.

Ms Moxham told us that she understood limits on information sharing were due to advice from the Office of the Solicitor-General that the Department cannot disclose information collected in its investigations to a third party.522 We understand this advice is based on an interpretation of the Personal Information Protection Act 2004 (‘Personal Information Protection Act’), which we discuss in Chapter 19. This problem exists to varying degrees across education sectors in Tasmania, with some sectors recently changing their practices at the risk of breaching their privacy obligations.523

Ms Moxham noted three key reasons for sharing investigative information with the Board. First, children and young people should not be subjected to multiple interviews because this has the potential to cause or exacerbate trauma. Emily Sanders, Director, Regulation, Victorian Commission for Children and Young People, noted in her evidence:

Reducing the number of times a child or young person is asked to give their account helps to minimise the risk of exacerbating trauma through an interview. We suggest organisations check if they can gain access to an interview conducted by other investigative agencies … to reduce multiple interviews.524

Second, the Board has limited resources, and using those resources to conduct investigations into matters already investigated is inefficient. Third, a significant amount of time may pass before the Board can investigate a matter (because the Department’s disciplinary process may take a long time), and this may affect the quality of the evidence it can get.525 We would add that delays in resolving a matter can also exacerbate a complainant’s trauma.526

Secretary Bullard commented on aspects of Ms Moxham’s characterisation of the Department providing information and the impact on Board investigations. He told us that the Department provides ‘as much information as [it is] legally able’ to the Board:527

The Investigation Report into an [Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct] matter is not routinely provided … [to entities including the Teachers Registration Board]. This is on the basis of legal advice from the Office of the Solicitor General, that in the absence of consent, the provisions of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIP Act) prevent the Department from disclosing the [Employment Direction No. 5] report.528

Secretary Bullard also said that while he understood Ms Moxham’s evidence to be that the Board will wait to receive a ‘full investigation file’ before starting its investigative processes, he ‘wanted to be very clear’ that when a matter of concern is raised, the Registrar could start investigating straightaway.529 He also asserted there was nothing preventing the Board from conducting its own investigations into matters before receiving any information from the Department.530 We note, however, that conducting parallel investigations into the same matter is not only a waste of resources, it may also cause further trauma to victim-survivors. Secretary Bullard ultimately agreed that it was ‘nonsensical’ for the Board to have to expend resources investigating a matter that has (or is being) investigated by the Department:531

It does seem that we end up duplicating investigations in terms of, we undertake a process, I end up with a [large] file … it would be expedient to be able to provide that through to the Teachers Registration Board in full.532

We also heard of problems with the Board sharing information with the Department, particularly about relief teachers ‘who have had employment conditions imposed upon them’.533 This means that the Department may not know when allegations of unprofessional conduct have been made against relief teachers who are teaching in Tasmanian schools.534 Ms Moxham told us that the Board responds to all requests for information from the Department of Justice under section 52A of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act 2013 (‘Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act’) for information about registered teachers.535 Similar information sharing should occur with the Department.

Secretary Bullard was asked in hearings whether he would support removing any barriers to the flow of information between various regulators. He replied that he would be ‘very supportive’ of this.536 Jenny Gale, Secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet, informed us that her Department was working on a legislative reform as part of the Keeping Children Safer Actions that will enable certain information to be shared between the Department for Education, Children and Young People and entities such as the Teachers Registration Board.537

Ms Sanders provided evidence about how information sharing is facilitated in Victoria, with a view to avoiding the duplication of investigations. Under Victoria’s Reportable Conduct Scheme, ‘co-regulators’ can be requested to conduct reportable conduct investigations while investigating for another purpose, such as disciplinary purposes.538 In the Tasmanian context, this would operate, for example, to allow the Department or the Teachers Registration Board to investigate for the purposes of both an Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct matter and an assessment of fitness to teach.

Ms Sanders noted that while different regulators may assess matters based on different criteria, in Victoria, the fact that there has not been a ‘substantiated finding under the [Reportable Conduct] Scheme’ by one co-regulator does not preclude another co-regulator, for example the Victorian Institute of Teaching (the Victorian equivalent of the Tasmanian Teachers Registration Board), from finding that professional conduct standards have been breached. Ms Sanders told us that if information sharing occurs properly, ‘the co-regulators in a particular matter should all have access to the relevant information held by others that they need for their role’.539

In terms of information sharing across jurisdictions, the Teachers Registration Act specifies that the Board can provide limited information to corresponding teacher registration authorities.540 The Board may also seek information from a corresponding authority about a registered teacher, on the proviso that written authorisation is provided by the teacher concerned.541

Secretary Bullard’s view of information sharing across jurisdictions was that a ‘coordinated response at the Commonwealth level to information sharing between state and territory education agencies would be useful’.542 He noted that:

A scoping project on national information sharing as it relates to teacher registrations is currently underway. It is being led by NSW with the involvement of all state and territory education departments, as well as all teacher registration authorities. The scope includes provision of advice on risks associated with the introduction of Automatic Mutual Recognition (AMR) for teachers.543

Automatic mutual recognition is discussed in Section 8.2.5.

The situation in Tasmania for sharing information between the Board and the Department—in particular, information gathered by the Department during its investigations into misconduct involving allegations or suspicions of child sexual abuse—is unsatisfactory. The situation does not prioritise the safety of children, nor meet the needs of victim-survivors.544 The reluctance to share information between government entities, even when there would be clear benefits to children to do so, appears to be the product of an excessively risk-averse culture in the State Service, possibly influenced by narrow legal advice. Also, the focus is on the wrong risk—that of breaching a person’s privacy, and not of exposing children to potential harm. As expressed by Secretary Gale, it ‘almost beggars belief that people guard information as if they own it and that that would [potentially put] young children at risk’.545

There appears to be a clear desire on behalf of the Tasmanian Government to overcome actual and perceived barriers to sharing information about child sexual abuse in order to protect children. To help remedy the current situation, the Department of Premier and Cabinet is planning reforms for government-wide information sharing in the form of ‘overarching legislation that would be superior to … all other … legislation in relation to that information’.546 This issue is discussed in Chapters 18 and 19.

Presumably, the reforms noted by Secretary Gale will also affect how the Department shares information with entities such as the Teachers Registration Board and the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme. However, in the absence of more detail about the reforms, and irrespective of any changes to the privacy legislative framework, we recommend short- and long-term solutions to restrictions on sharing information between the Department and the Board.

There is a relatively straightforward interim solution to this issue: the Department can seek an exemption under the Personal Information Protection Act, thereby allowing it to share information about investigations into employees suspected of child sexual abuse with the Board.

Section 13 of the Personal Information Protection Act allows a ‘personal information custodian’ to apply for exemptions ‘from compliance with any or all provisions’ of the Act.547 In determining whether or not to approve an application for an exemption, the Minister must be satisfied that ‘the public benefit outweighs to a substantial degree the public benefit from compliance with the personal information protection principles’.548 In our view, providing information to the Board in these circumstances would nearly always satisfy this requirement. We note that in a later hearing Secretary Bullard informed us there is ‘work under way’ towards applying for an exemption from the Act.549

While the longer-term measures in Recommendation 6.10 are being implemented, the Department should seek a section 13 exemption from the Personal Information Protection Act.

In the longer term, the Government should amend the Teachers Registration Act to support information sharing. An amended Act should empower the Teachers Registration Board to compel other entities to provide relevant information to the Board, including information gathered by the Department as part of an investigation into alleged misconduct by a teacher, in circumstances where child sexual abuse of a student by a registered teacher or holder of a Limited Authority to Teach is alleged or suspected. Providing such information will allow the Board to conduct investigations more efficiently, thereby reducing potential trauma to witnesses.

Part 6A of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act, which allows the Registrar under that Act to compel information or documents, provides a useful model for amendments to the Teachers Registration Act.550 We note that the Personal Information Protection Act would not pose a barrier to sharing such information because if a provision of the Personal Information Protection Act is inconsistent with a provision in another Act, the other Act will prevail.551 Also, the Personal Protection Principles in Schedule 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act allow personal information to be revealed if disclosure is required or authorised by another law.552 This approach will help create consistency in the ability of independent regulators to request information relevant to child sexual abuse while limiting the personal information shared in these circumstances to that which is requested.

While allowing the Teachers Registration Board to compel information from other government entities will help improve the Board’s investigative processes, the Board may still not know when to request that an entity provides such information. In other words, the Board may not be aware of child sexual abuse allegations or suspicions against a teacher. We understand the Department’s policy is to notify the Board within 24 hours of receiving information about allegations of child sexual abuse by a teacher.553 Secretary Bullard told us that the Department also notifies the Board when it starts a formal investigation into misconduct by a teacher under Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct.554

We consider, however, that such notifications, which are vital to helping the Board safeguard children, should be legal requirements. Also, these notification requirements should apply to other entities that may have information about allegations or suspicions of child sexual abuse by a teacher. For example, other employers of teachers (such as non-government schools) the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, police and the Child Safety Service should all be subject to a mandatory requirement to notify the Board. Equally, the Board should be allowed to share information relevant to matters involving alleged or suspected child sexual abuse by a teacher, with all relevant entities. We note that under the new Child and Youth Safe Organisation Act 2023, entities will be able to share information relevant to the Child and Youth Safe Standards and the Reportable Conduct Scheme.555

To facilitate more efficient information sharing and use of resources, and to reduce the possibility of investigations into child sexual abuse matters being duplicated, any investigation of allegations or suspicions of child sexual abuse by a teacher that the Department (or the Board) seeks to undertake should be done jointly, taking into account the relevant criteria of the Department and the Board.

Recommendation 6.10

The Tasmanian Government should introduce legislation to:

1. allow the Teachers Registration Board to compel relevant entities—including the Department for Education, Children and Young People, other employers of teachers, the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, police, and Child Safety Services—to give the Board information or documentation that is relevant to child sexual abuse matters involving a registered teacher or a holder of a Limited Authority to Teach
2. compel these relevant entities to notify the Teachers Registration Board when they become aware of allegations or suspicions of child sexual abuse by a teacher. Such entities should also be required to notify the Board if they begin any formal investigation that involves allegations or suspicions of child sexual abuse by a teacher or a holder of a Limited Authority to Teach, and the outcome of any investigation
3. allow entities, when investigating matters involving child sexual abuse by a registered teacher or holder of a Limited Authority to Teach, to jointly appoint investigators to investigate the matter, taking into account the different criteria required for investigations by the Department and the Board.

1. Keeping track of where teachers are working

Ms Moxham told us that the Teachers Registration Board ‘does not have reliable information about where a teacher is employed’ because a teacher’s registration is not associated with a particular school, and under the Teachers Registration Act, there is no provision requiring that a teacher’s location of employment be disclosed.556 Also, a teacher does not have to inform the Board when they change their place of employment, although they must let the Board know about a change of residential address.557 As Ms Moxham noted:

Teachers are not required under the Act to update us whenever they change schools, only if they change address and they don’t even always do that, and there’s some limitations with our Act about actually pursuing them over those matters.558

As discussed in Section 8.1, the Watched Registrations list helps the Board keep track of teachers with conditions on their registration.559 But this relies on individual schools to maintain updates. Ms Moxham noted that even if schools update their lists, the whereabouts of relief teachers may remain unknown to the Board because these teachers ‘commonly do not appear on Watched Registration lists’.560 Ms Moxham told us that ‘it’s almost impossible’ for the Board to know where a relief teacher is employed on any given day.561

The National Royal Commission found that:

… including employers’ details [on teacher registers] may enable registration authorities to notify them of circumstances related to allegations or incidents of child sexual abuse by a teacher employee.562

Including such details may be particularly useful where teachers work at more than one school or in more than one school system.563

Most Australian jurisdictions require details about a teacher’s place of employment to be recorded on the Register of Teachers or notified to the relevant teacher registration authority. Most jurisdictions also require that the relevant teacher registration authority be notified when a teacher’s place of employment changes. In some Australian jurisdictions, there are penalties for failing to notify the relevant teacher registration authority of a change to place of employment. Tasmania is the only state that does not require place of employment to be included on the Register of Teachers.

We note that although most jurisdictions require teachers to notify the relevant registration authority of their place of employment, including any changes to their place of employment, there may be gaps in compliance. Such gaps mean that a registration authority may not know the whereabouts of an unknown number of teachers for a period. Another issue is that the requirement to inform the relevant authority of place of employment does not apply to relief teachers, who may teach at different schools within short periods.

To help keep children safe in Tasmanian schools, we consider that a teacher’s work-related address(es) should be included on the Register of Teachers. This requirement should also apply to holders of a Limited Authority to Teach. When a registered teacher or a holder of a Limited Authority to Teach begins teaching at a different school, a notification should be made to the Teachers Registration Board, and the Register updated accordingly. Schools should be able to capture these details electronically, which would allow notifications to occur simply and quickly, thereby providing improved visibility of where teachers, particularly relief teachers, are teaching. Also, rather than requiring teachers (or a holder of a Limited Authority to Teach) to notify the Board, a more effective approach may be to require employers to make such notifications.

To facilitate the accurate and timely recording and exchange of information about teachers, we understand that improvements may be required to be made to the Register of Teachers. The Board noted that it would require resources for an upgraded, fit-for-purpose Customer Records Management System that can support information exchange in real time with third parties, including other jurisdictions. We were told this is proving to be a resourcing challenge that is delaying efforts to keep students safe.564

Recommendation 6.11

The Tasmanian Government should:

1. introduce legislation to amend the Teachers Registration Act 2000 (or regulations) to require details of the prospective or current place of employment of a teacher (or a holder of Limited Authority to Teach) to be included on the Register of Teachers
2. develop an electronic means of updating the Register of Teachers with details of the place of employment of a teacher (or a holder of Limited Authority to Teach)
3. require employers to make updates to a teacher’s place of employment—including when a teacher (or a holder of Limited Authority to Teach) begins working at the school or is no longer working at the school
4. fund the Teachers Registration Board to develop an upgraded, fit-for-purpose Customer Records Management System to enable the Board to maintain a Register of Teachers which can support information exchange in real time with other bodies working with children, and other jurisdictions.

1. Improving compliance and enforcement

Under several provisions of the Teachers Registration Act, non-compliance with the provision attracts a penalty. For example, if a person who is not a registered teacher teaches in a school in Tasmania, they can be fined up to 50 penalty units (approximately $9,000 at the time of writing).565 The Act also specifies that a person must not employ someone who is an unregistered teacher. The penalty is a fine of up to 50 penalty units for a first offence and up to 100 penalty units for a second offence (and an ongoing daily fine of 10 penalty units for each day the offence continues).566 All other states and territories have similar provisions.567

We heard that:

• there are ‘regular offenders who employ unregistered teachers’568
• although the Teachers Registration Act requires that teachers notify the Board if they are charged with a prescribed offence, teachers seldom comply with this provision569
• although the Act requires that employers notify the Board when they take disciplinary action or dismiss a teacher due to unacceptable behaviour, this provision is not always followed, at least by some independent schools570
• although the Act requires teachers to update the Board of changes to their residential address, some teachers do not do so, despite non-compliance attracting a penalty.571

Ms Moxham gave evidence that, despite the Act including ‘enforcement’ provisions for a range of ‘offences’, the Board has never undertaken an investigation to determine whether someone has contravened the provisions of the Act nor has it recommended prosecution against the Act.572 Ms Moxham explained that this is largely due to the ‘costly and time-consuming process of filing matters with the Administrative Division of the Magistrates Court’ to have a fine issued for a contravention.573 Regarding taking action against a school that employs an unregistered teacher, she stated:

… the only process by which we can do that is to take the matter to the Magistrates Court, the administrative division of the Magistrates Court, and the time, energy, effort and resources to undertake that process has [worked] against the board ever taking any of those matters. So, we write letters, but you can imagine that if you’ve got a school that regularly offends and they’ve had five letters and a visit from us—no teeth. It’s something that should be fixed in our Act.574

As with all legislation, effective enforcement is key to ensuring compliance with the Act. In turn, compliance with the Act is essential to ensuring that only qualified, fit and proper people are registered as teachers. Providing the Board with a simplified means of enforcing the provisions in the Act, particularly those that have relatively low-level sanctions attached, could help improve compliance with the Act and, in some instances, relieve the Board of costly and time-consuming enforcement processes.

As was pointed out in a submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Review of Federal Civil and Administrative Penalties, infringement schemes can be an appropriate means to address non-compliant behaviour, particularly in the context of a failure to provide notification or information to a regulator, which potentially reduces the effectiveness of the regulator ‘in performing its regulatory functions’.575 Such schemes have the advantage of providing a relatively quick and cost-effective means of dealing with contraventions of legislative provisions and are not uncommon in Tasmanian legislation.576

Under section 55 of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act, an infringement notice can be issued if the Registrar ‘believes that the person has committed an infringement offence’.577 Infringement offences are listed in Schedule 2 of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Regulations 2014. Infringement offences include engaging in a regulated activity as an unregistered person and employing an unregistered person in a regulated activity. Infringement notice schemes such as that in the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act are not uncommon in Tasmanian legislation and have the advantage of providing a relatively quick and efficient means of dealing with contraventions of legislative provisions.578

While other states and territories do not have infringement notice provisions in their teacher registration legislation, some jurisdictions do specify that breaches of particular provisions are strict liability offences. For example, in the Northern Territory it is an offence (as it is in Tasmania) to teach while unregistered or without authorisation (the maximum penalty for this is 50 penalty units). The Act specifies that this is a strict liability offence.579 Similarly, in the Australian Capital Territory a person will commit an offence under the Teacher Quality Institute Act 2010 (ACT) if they teach in a school without being an approved teacher. This is also a strict liability offence (attracting a penalty of 50 penalty units).580

To enforce the Teachers Registration Act and thereby enhance the Board’s ability to protect children and young people in Tasmanian schools, we recommend that the Act be amended to allow the Board to issue infringement notices for those provisions in the Act that carry penalties in the form of fines.

We understand that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions provides advice to, and undertakes summary prosecutions on behalf of government departments and State Service agencies.581 The Teachers Registration Board should consider entering an agreement with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute summary offences.

Recommendation 6.12

The Tasmanian Government should introduce legislation to amend the Teachers Registration Act 2000 to allow administrative infringement notices to be issued for noncompliance with the provisions of the Act that currently carry penalties in the form of fines.

1. The emergency suspension provision

The Teachers Registration Act allows for an ‘emergency suspension’ of a teacher’s registration if the Board believes, on reasonable grounds, that a registered teacher (or holder of a Limited Authority to Teach) poses ‘a risk of harm to a student’.582 In 2020, the Board used this provision to suspend the registration of six teachers.583

The emergency suspension provision has recently been subject to an appeal, which was upheld by the Magistrates Court. The Court found that if the Department has already suspended a teacher’s employment, there is no ‘emergency’ justifying the Board to use the provision. The Court therefore ordered that the suspension of the teacher’s registration be set aside, but that a condition be placed on his registration that he not be able to teach. The Registrar of the Teachers Registration Board described this as ‘contrary to the function of the Board’.584 This arose as an issue in the ‘Jeremy’ case study (refer to Chapter 5).

In other jurisdictions, there is no specification that the relevant registering authority must demonstrate an ‘emergency’ to suspend a teacher’s registration. For example, in Queensland, the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) says that a teacher may be suspended if they pose an unacceptable risk to children or if they are charged with a serious offence.585

The Victorian Institute of Teaching may suspend a teacher’s registration if it forms a reasonable belief that the teacher poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children. The Institute may also suspend a registration if a person is charged with ‘a Category B offence’ (these include sexual offences).586

Ms Moxham told us that the ‘emergency suspension’ provision in the Teachers Registration Act should be amended to read ‘immediate suspension’, which ‘would provide greater clarity about the purpose of the section’.587 We agree. Also, allowing the Board to suspend registration where a person has been charged with a serious offence (as is the case in Queensland and Victoria) would help the Board to ensure children are protected in a timely manner in such circumstances.

Recommendation 6.13

The Tasmanian Government should introduce legislation to amend section 24B of the Teachers Registration Act 2000 to:

1. allow for the immediate rather than emergency suspension of registration or a Limited Authority to Teach when the Teachers Registration Board considers there is an unacceptable risk of harm to children
2. allow the Board to suspend a person’s registration or a Limited Authority to Teach where that person has been charged with a serious offence.

1. Mutual and automatic mutual recognition for teachers

The national mutual recognition scheme allows registered and licensed professionals to work throughout Australia. Under the scheme, a registered teacher in another Australian jurisdiction can ‘lodge a notice’ to become a registered teacher in Tasmania. If the application is lodged correctly, within seven days the Board will provide the applicant with a notification of ‘deemed registration’.588 Once deemed registration is granted, the applicant can start teaching in Tasmania, pending the ‘granting or refusal of substantive registration’ within 30 days.589 This is commonly referred to as mutual recognition.

A requirement for lodging a valid notice is that the teacher seeking mutual recognition must state whether they have been subject to any disciplinary proceedings in any other jurisdiction, including a ‘preliminary investigation’ or other action that could result in disciplinary proceedings.590 Ms Moxham told us that if the notice contains any materially false or misleading information, the application may be refused.591 The Board can receive and share relevant information with equivalent registration boards in other jurisdictions, to inform a decision to grant or refuse substantive registration.592

Building on the mutual recognition scheme, national changes to mutual recognition laws in 2021 provide for automatic mutual recognition in some circumstances. In Tasmania, teaching is exempt from the automatic recognition scheme until July 2025.593 Once automatic mutual recognition is implemented, it will dispense with the requirement for a teacher to ‘lodge a notice’ for recognition of their registration in another jurisdiction.594

The Independent Education Inquiry heard about concerns with mutual recognition:

An example provided to us described an applicant who falsified this declaration, gained registration as a relief teacher in Tasmania and went on to allegedly offend at multiple Tasmanian Government schools. We were told that a systemic weakness of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) is that a teacher’s previous registration body is not obliged to disclose information about disciplinary proceedings to the teacher’s new registration body. We heard that under the current processes in Tasmania, a teacher can obtain registration under the mutual recognition legislation much quicker than it takes to receive [Registration to Work with Vulnerable People]. This has the potential to result in instances where a teacher is able to begin work as a registered teacher in a school prior to being cleared to work with children.595

We heard similar concerns. Both Ms Moxham and Secretary Bullard expressed concerns about the mutual recognition scheme, particularly automatic mutual recognition.596 Their primary concern was that the Board may not be notified if teachers from interstate start working in Tasmania. Without a requirement for notification, the Board cannot assess whether the person is suitable to work as a teacher in Tasmania, even if registered in their original jurisdiction.597 The automatic mutual recognition scheme will also make it difficult for the Board to know who is working in this jurisdiction (and whether those who are working in Tasmania are registered in another jurisdiction). It may also make it difficult to validate teachers’ principal place of residence and/or work, to monitor their ongoing eligibility to work under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth), and to identify previous places of employment to access information about their conduct.598

We note that the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) allows for an occupation to be excluded from the operation of the automatic mutual recognition scheme if automatic recognition poses a significant risk to consumer protection, environment protection, animal welfare or the health and safety of workers or the public. Exemptions from the scheme can be granted for up to five years.599

Given that the operation of the automatic mutual recognition scheme has been paused for teacher registration, we recommend that the Board continues to advocate at the national level that the risks posed by the scheme to the safety of children in Tasmanian schools be addressed before the exemption expires.

Recommendation 6.11 about teachers’ employers being required to notify the Board of their place of employment may go some way to addressing some of the risks described above. The Board would be aware of a ‘new’ teacher in their jurisdiction and could conduct its own checks.

Recommendation 6.14

The Tasmanian Government, Department for Education, Children and Young People and the Teachers Registration Board should continue to advocate at the national level for an automatic mutual recognition scheme that takes into account risks to child safety and imposes measures to address these risks.

1. Professional development and training

During our hearings Ms Moxham indicated that it would be beneficial if training on mandatory reporting was part of Tasmania’s teacher registration process.600 She pointed out that in South Australia mandatory reporting training is a requirement of teacher registration; that is, teachers cannot be registered until they have successfully completed this training.601 In Section 5, we make recommendations about compulsory and ongoing professional development on child safeguarding and related matters.

There is benefit in requiring that training for identifying, preventing and responding to child sexual abuse be completed as a prerequisite to registration. This is in keeping with the role of governments to enforce appropriate professional standards, as argued in the seminal work The Professions.602 We note, however, that the Teachers Registration Board does not have the authority to set requirements for teacher registration.

We recommend that the Teachers Registration Act be amended to allow the Board to require that particular training be undertaken for the purpose of registration, renewal of registration and professional development. The content of that training should be set out in the Regulations so the Board can revise the training as required, without the need for more amendments to the principal Act.

Recommendation 6.15

1. The Tasmanian Government should introduce legislation to amend the Teachers Registration Act 2000 to allow the Teachers Registration Board to set requirements for minimum training and ongoing professional development.
2. The Teachers Registration Board should make child safeguarding training (Recommendation 6.5) a mandatory requirement for the granting of teacher registration and as part of ongoing registration requirements.

1. Resourcing

When asked whether the current level of funding was sufficient for the Teachers Registration Board to perform all its regulatory functions, Ms Moxham told us that ‘the short answer to this question is no’.603 She added that due to lack of funding, developing policy and procedures as well as ‘leveraging … technical solutions’ lag behind other parts of the Board’s work.604 If the Board is to take a more active role in enforcing the provisions of the Teachers Registration Act, this may place more pressure on available resources.

Ms Moxham told us that the ability to undertake investigations was also hampered by a lack of resources in a context where the Board is ‘currently inundated with matters requiring complex and, in many cases, historical investigations’.605 The Board’s ‘conduct team’ comprises only two full-time investigators—a person who deals with applications (checking good character and fitness to teach based on national criminal history checks and other declarations made by applicants) and a person whose role primarily involves processing right to information requests.606 Our recommendation that investigators be jointly appointed and for increased information sharing with the Board by relevant entities may help to reduce unnecessary duplication and thereby save resources.

Ms Moxham stated while the Board’s funding was once exclusively sourced through registration fees, since 2017 it has also received some funding from the Tasmanian Government.

We heard that in the past the Board has advocated for a significant increase to teacher registration fees to help meet the costs of performing its functions under the Teachers Registration Act.607 The Department has denied this request.608 Instead, the Department reviewed the functions and powers of the Board and determined which areas were within the Board’s ‘central role of registration’ and which were ‘other’. ‘Other’ included functions concerned with professional conduct. More funding was then provided for roles deemed to not be part of the core teacher registration function of the Board (including functions concerned with professional conduct).609 We are concerned that professional conduct matters were not seen as core business of the Board.

This funding is indexed to increase each year, but it is unclear for how long this will continue.610 Ms Moxham noted that although the Board will receive extra funding in 2023 and 2024, this funding is akin to a two-year grant, ‘not a structural/recurrent funding arrangement’.611 According to Ms Moxham, greater certainty of funds would enable the Board to ‘fully address [its] regulatory remit (inclusive of educative and co-regulation processes)’.612

We note that the Board also has concerns about how its funding arrangements may affect its independence. Ms Moxham’s view was that ‘ad hoc grants on a per annum or project basis’ are not enough to ensure the independence of the Board and that, for the Board to be ‘truly independent’, funding should be drawn from consolidated revenue rather than the departmental purse.613

We also note that, in response to the recent Education Regulation Review, the Education Legislation Amendments (Education Regulation) Act 2022 has amended the Education Act 2016 to require the Registrar of the Teachers Registration Board and the Secretary of the Department to enter into a ‘Framework Agreement’.614 The Framework Agreement will cover matters such as the Registrar’s staffing, budgets and the application of departmental policies.615 The intention of the amendment is to further safeguard the independence of education regulators (such as the Board) by providing ‘greater transparency and clarity on administrative support’ provided by the Department.616

Ms Moxham told us that this amendment ‘appears to give effect to what is already achieved by the [Teachers Registration Board] and the Department via Memoranda of Understanding and … Service Level Agreements’.617 She also stated:

… while ever the regulator is subject to the Department for the funding it needs over and above teacher registration fees (rather than from consolidated government revenue), the Department can continue to consider the regulator as a business unit of the Department and subject [to] its strategic intent, rather than to the important reforms needed to ensure the most efficient and effective use of resources for the best outcomes for the welfare and best interests of students (vulnerable children and young people).618

During our hearings, Secretary Bullard commented on Ms Moxham’s concerns that changes effected by the Education Regulation Review mean that the Board will become less independent. His view was that rather than bringing the Board closer to Government, the changes will have the opposite effect, in part due to introducing a skills-based Board to replace the representative Board and the ‘higher level of scrutiny and regulatory oversight to the activities of the [Teachers Registration Board]’ that this change will bring.619

Ultimately, from the perspective of keeping children safe in Tasmanian schools, the most important point is that the Board can perform its statutory functions. Given Ms Moxham’s concerns and noting that one of the purposes of establishing the Board was to ‘protect children in government and non-government schools from the possibility of sexual or other abuse’, consideration should be given to whether the Board’s funding levels are enough for it to perform all of its functions under its Act—whether under current funding arrangements or through the new Framework Agreement.620

While the registration of teachers is a core function of the Board, those functions deemed ‘other’ by the Department—that is, functions concerned with professional conduct, compliance and enforcement—are equally important to protecting children and fostering student wellbeing. Adequate resources should be provided to enable the Teachers Registration Board to perform these functions, without which students may be at increased risk. In this respect, we note that the Review of Education Regulation report recommended that the Department develops a methodology, with input from regulators such as the Board, to determine sustainable funding.621

Recommendation 6.16

The Tasmanian Government should ensure the Teachers Registration Board is funded to perform its core function of regulating the professional conduct of teachers.

1. Conclusion

Schools should always be a safe place for children and young people. Students are entitled to expect that school staff will always act in their best interests and are equipped to help them if they disclose concerns. We acknowledge that, overwhelmingly, teachers and school staff are committed to ensuring the safety, wellbeing and educational achievement of students in their care. Their actions can have an enormous impact on the lives of children and young people—many teachers will shape the lives of their students for the better.

The Department should consistently strive to prevent child sexual abuse through strong screening and registration requirements, clear and practical policies and guidance, and a commitment to ongoing training and education. The Department can make an important contribution to the knowledge and confidence of young people, and their ability to recognise and understand risks to their safety, by providing child sexual abuse prevention education to all children in Tasmanian Government schools. The Teachers Registration Board should be equipped to robustly regulate the registration and professional conduct of teachers. The Board should have access to the powers, information and funding that it needs to acquit its functions and to be responsive to the risks that teachers may pose to students.

There are instances where students are not kept safe. Sometimes they are harmed by teachers who they trusted, in other instances by fellow students who display harmful sexual behaviours. While these incidents are more common than we would like to believe, they often occur relatively infrequently in the careers of individual principals and teachers. While school staff and leadership should have foundational skills in line with their responsibilities to receive a disclosure and know what to do, there is a place for specialist roles to closely guide and support schools when concerns are raised about a teacher’s conduct or a student’s safety. While it is inevitable that such incidents will cause distress and concern, the impact of abuse can be greatly alleviated by an effective and supportive response.

We are greatly encouraged by the efforts of the Department in implementing the recommendations of the Independent Education Inquiry and progressing a range of other safeguarding initiatives designed to improve the safety of students. We see great promise in these initiatives. However, we consider it is important that the Department be accountable for its commitments. We consider it appropriate that the Child Sexual Abuse Reform Implementation Monitor we recommend in Chapter 22 monitors the implementation of the Independent Education Inquiry’s recommendations.

For many victim-survivors, the most pressing concern is preventing what happened to them from happening to another student. We expect the Department to share this commitment of victim-survivors and to prove this commitment through its actions.

Notes

1 Refer to, for example, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021–2030 (2021) 37–39; National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse, Here for Change: Five Year Strategy 2023–2027 (June 2023) 22–23.

2 Tim Moore and Morag McArthur, Take notice, believe us and act! Exploring the safety of children and young people in government run organisations (Research Report prepared for the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings, February 2023) 65.

3 Tim Moore and Morag McArthur, Take notice, believe us and act! Exploring the safety of children and young people in government run organisations (Research Report prepared for the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings, February 2023) 65.

4 Transcript of Leah Sallese, 8 July 2022, 2638 [35–39].

5 Transcript of Sam Leishman, 13 May 2022, 1054 [35]–1055 [3].

6 The name ‘Rachel’ is a pseudonym; Order of the Commission of Inquiry, restricted publication order, 11 May 2022; Statement of ‘Rachel’, 14 April 2022, 8 [38].

7 Transcript of Kerri Collins, 9 May 2022, 611 [27–34].

8 Carmel Hobbs, Young, In Love and In Danger: Teen Domestic Violence and Abuse in Tasmania (Report, Social Action & Research Centre, Anglicare Tasmania, November 2022) 50.

9 Carmel Hobbs, Young, In Love and In Danger: Teen Domestic Violence and Abuse in Tasmania (Report, Social Action & Research Centre, Anglicare Tasmania, November 2022) 63.

10 Carmel Hobbs, Young, In Love and In Danger: Teen Domestic Violence and Abuse in Tasmania (Report, Social Action & Research Centre, Anglicare Tasmania, November 2022) 40.

11 Carmel Hobbs, Young, In Love and In Danger: Teen Domestic Violence and Abuse in Tasmania (Report, Social Action & Research Centre, Anglicare Tasmania, November 2022) 40.

12 Australian Government eSafety Commissioner, ‘Online Porn’, Issues and Advice (Web Page, 2023) <https://www.esafety.gov.au/parents/issues-and-advice/online-porn>.

13 Statement of Kathryn Fordyce, 3 May 2022, 15 [47]–16 [48].

14 Statement of Kathryn Fordyce, 3 May 2022, 16 [50].

15 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 6, Recommendation 6.2.

16 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 6, Recommendation 6.2.

17 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 6, 72.

18 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 6, 72.

19 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 6, 73.

20 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 13, 156.

21 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 13, 156.

22 Statement of Kerryann Walsh, 15 April 2022, 11–12 [38].

23 Transcript of Kerryann Walsh, 13 May 2022, 1105 [14–40].

24 Transcript of Kerryann Walsh, 13 May 2022, 1106 [18–41].

25 Transcript of Kerryann Walsh, 13 May 2022, 1107 [12–45].

26 Transcript of Kerryann Walsh, 13 May 2022, 1107 [12–45].

27 Submission 067 Body Safety Australia, 2.

28 Transcript of Kerryann Walsh, 13 May 2022, 1106 [6–14].

29 Transcript of Kerryann Walsh, 13 May 2022, 1107 [28–34].

30 Submission 067 Body Safety Australia, 5.

31 Burnie consultation, 24 August 2021.

32 Statement of Kerryann Walsh, 15 April 2022, 12 [39].

33 Statement of Kerryann Walsh, 15 April 2022, 12 [39].

34 Statement of Kerryann Walsh, 15 April 2022, 12 [42].

35 Transcript of Kerryann Walsh, 13 May 2022, 1103 [17–21].

36 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 11 [63].

37 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, 7 [36].

38 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 11 [67].

39 Tasmanian Government, Safe Homes, Families, Communities: Tasmania’s Action Plan for Family and Sexual Violence 2019–2022 (2019) 9.

40 Tasmanian Government, Survivors at the Centre: Tasmania’s Third Family and Sexual Violence Action Plan 2022–2027 (November 2022) 19.

41 Tasmanian Government, Survivors at the Centre: Tasmania’s Third Family and Sexual Violence Action Plan 2022–2027 (November 2022) 19.

42 Tasmanian Government, ‘About Respectful Relationships Education’, Respectful Relationships (Web Page, 6 June 2023) <https://www.respectfulrelationships.education.tas.gov.au/about/>.>.

43 Tasmanian Government, ‘About Respectful Relationships Education’, Respectful Relationships (Web Page, 6 June 2023) <https://www.respectfulrelationships.education.tas.gov.au/about/>. >.

44 Tasmanian Government, ‘School Leadership’, Respectful Relationships (Web Page, 20 March 2023) <https://www.respectfulrelationships.education.tas.gov.au/school-leadership/>.

45 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, 7 [37]; Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 31 [186].

46 Transcript of Elizabeth Jack, 13 May 2022, 1111 [2–9].

47 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 11 [64].

48 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 11 [65].

49 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 30 [19(d)].

50 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, Annexure 6 (Table: ‘Prevention Programs run across Tasmanian Government Schools’, 29 April 2022).

51 Hobart consultation, 13 August 2021.

52 Launceston consultation, 19 August 2021.

53 Statement of Elizabeth Jack in response to Questions on Notice, 3 June 2022, 1.

54 Statement of Elizabeth Jack in response to Questions on Notice, 3 June 2022, 2.

55 Statement of Elizabeth Jack in response to Questions on Notice, 3 June 2022, 2.

56 Transcript of Elizabeth Jack, 13 May 2022, 1111 [11–14].

57 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, 8 [39].

58 Statement of Elizabeth Jack in response to Questions on Notice, 3 June 2022, 2.

59 Statement of Elizabeth Jack in response to Questions on Notice, 3 June 2022, 2.

60 Statement of Kerryann Walsh, 15 April 2022, 12 [39].

61 Transcript of Kerryann Walsh, 13 May 2022, 1117 [14–22].

62 Statement of Elizabeth Jack in response to Questions on Notice, 3 June 2022, 3.

63 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 31 [187].

64 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 31 [187].

65 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 31 [187].

66 Department for Education South Australia, ‘Keeping Safe: Child Protection Curriculum information for educators’, Curriculum Programs (Web Page, 17 November 2022) <https://www.education.sa.gov.au/schools-and-educators/curriculum-and-teaching/curriculum-programs/keeping-safe-child-protection-curriculum-information-educators>.

67 Transcript of Kerryann Walsh, 13 May 2022, 1110 [19–21].

68 Department for Education South Australia, ‘About’, Keeping Safe: Child Protection Curriculum (Web Page, 19 July 2023) <https://kscpc.sa.edu.au/about/>.

69 Department for Education South Australia, ‘Keeping Safe: Child Protection Curriculum information for parents and carers’, Curriculum Programs (Web Page, 19 July 2023) <https://www.education.sa.gov.au/parents-and-families/curriculum-and-learning/early-years/keeping-safe-child-protection-curriculum-information-parents-and-carers>.

70 Department for Education South Australia, ‘About’, Keeping Safe: Child Protection Curriculum (Web Page, 19 July 2023) <https://kscpc.sa.edu.au/about/>.

71 Divna Haslam et al, The Prevalence and Impact of Child Maltreatment in Australia: Findings from the Australian Child Maltreatment Study: Brief Report (Report, Australian Child Maltreatment Study, Queensland University of Technology, 2023) 17.

72 Tasmanian Government, Survivors at the Centre: Tasmania’s Third Family and Sexual Violence Action Plan 2022–2027 (November 2022) 19.

73 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, 7 June 2021) Recommendations 5–7, 76–77.

74 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, 7 June 2021) Recommendations 3, 75.

75 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, Annexure 2 (Department of Education, ‘Statement of Duties for Executive Director, Safeguarding Children and Young People’, July 2021) 3 [13].

76 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, Annexure 2 (Department of Education, ‘Statement of Duties for Executive Director, Safeguarding Children and Young People,’ July 2021) 3 [13].

77 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, 6 [28].

78 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, 5 [27].

79 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, 6 [30].

80 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, 6 [31].

81 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 4 [25–26].

82 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 6 June 2022, 13 [53].

83 Department for Education, Children and Young People, DECYP Organisational Chart (Web Page, 30 April 2023) <https://publicdocumentcentre.education.tas.gov.au/library/Shared%20Documents/DECYP-Organisation-Chart.pdf.>.

84 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Safe. Secure. Supported. Our Safeguarding Framework (April 2023).

85 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 77.

86 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 6 June 2022, 13 [53].

87 Transcript of Elizabeth Jack, 13 May 2022, 1120 [13–19].

88 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, 5 [26]; Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 77.

89 Statement of Kerryann Walsh, 15 April 2022, 13 [46].

90 Statement of Kerryann Walsh, 15 April 2022, 14 [49].

91 Transcript of Elizabeth Jack, 13 May 2022, 1119 [47]–1120 [10].

92 Letter from Timothy Bullard to the Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 1.

93 Letter from Timothy Bullard to the Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 1.

94 Letter from Timothy Bullard to the Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 1.

95 Letter from Timothy Bullard to the Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 1.

96 Tim Moore and Morag McArthur, Take notice, believe us and act! Exploring the safety of children and young people in government run organisations (Research Report prepared for the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings, February 2023) 72.

97 Tim Moore and Morag McArthur, Take notice, believe us and act! Exploring the safety of children and young people in government run organisations (Research Report prepared for the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings, February 2023) 49.

98 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 82.

99 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 82.

100 Department of Education, Safeguarding Children and Young People – System Review Panel Report (Report, 16 December 2021) 3.

101 Department of Education, Safeguarding Children and Young People – System Review Panel Report (Report, 16 December 2021) 4.

102 Department of Education, Safeguarding Children and Young People – System Review Panel Report (Report, 16 December 2021) 4.

103 Department of Education, Safeguarding Children and Young People – System Review Panel Report (Report, 16 December 2021) 3.

104 Department of Education, Safeguarding Children and Young People – System Review Panel Report (Report, 16 December 2021) 3.

105 Department of Education, Safeguarding Children and Young People – System Review Panel Report (Report, 16 December 2021) 8.

106 Department of Education, Safeguarding Children and Young People – System Review Panel Report (Report, 16 December 2021) 8.

107 Department of Education, Safeguarding Children and Young People – System Review Panel Report (Report, 16 December 2021) 7.

108 Department of Education, Safeguarding Children and Young People – System Review Panel Report (Report, 16 December 2021) 8.

109 Department of Education, Safeguarding Children and Young People – System Review Panel Report (Report, 16 December 2021) 12.

110 Department of Education, Safeguarding Children and Young People – System Review Panel Report (Report, 16 December 2021) 24.

111 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Procedural Fairness Response, 17 March 2023, 10.

112 The Department has since told us that although its deliberations were not detailed in the review, the Review Panel did give specific consideration to whether the relevant young person and/or their family should be invited to participate in an interview. We are told that the Review Panel determined that it would be inappropriate to do so in the circumstances. We consider it important that any similar future reports detail all critical deliberations. Department for Education, Children and Young People, Procedural Fairness Response, 17 March 2023, 11–12.

113 Integrity Commission, ‘Audit Report: MM21/0102; MM20/0141’, 10 August 2022, 15 [77].

114 Integrity Commission, ‘Audit Report: MM21/0102; MM20/0141’, 10 August 2022, 15 [78].

115 Integrity Commission, ‘Audit Report: MM21/0102; MM20/0141’, 10 August 2022, 15 [74].

116 Integrity Commission, ‘Audit Report: MM21/0102; MM20/0141’, 10 August 2022, 16 [82].

117 Integrity Commission, ‘Audit Report: MM21/0102; MM20/0141’, 10 August 2022, 16 [83].

118 Integrity Commission, ‘Audit Report: MM21/0102; MM20/0141’, 10 August 2022, 16 [85].

119 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, 9 [44].

120 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 12 September 2022, 3934 [35–37].

121 Australian Human Rights Commission, National Principles for Child Safe Organisations (2018) 6.

122 Statement of Kerryann Walsh, 15 April 2022, 8 [24], [26].

123 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, 7 June 2021) 9, 17, 59, 70.

124 Statement of Nigel Russell, 29 April 2022, 2 [11].

125 Transcript of Kerri Collins, 9 May 2022, 636 [19–24].

126 Transcript of Debra Drake, 10 May 2022, 771 [12–46].

127 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 76.

128 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 78–79.

129 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 79.

130 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 79.

131 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse Report, 7 June 2021) 80.

132 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 81–82.

133 Statement of Stephen Smallbone, 28 April 2022, 8 [31]; Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, Annexure 12 (Excel spreadsheet: ‘Planned and completed implementation of DoE Inquiry Recommendations’, 29 April 2022) 5.

134 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 7 [39].

135 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 43 [250].

136 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 14 [91].

137 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 23 [143].

138 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 27 [169].

139 Letter from Timothy Bullard to the Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 2.

140 A URL link for the Child Safe Code of Conduct (Interim) can be found in Department for Education, Children and Young People, Safe. Secure. Supported. Our Safeguarding Framework (April 2023) 69.

141 Transcript of Kerri Collins, 9 May 2022, 636 [26–34].

142 Transcript of Monique Carter, 10 May 2022, 752 [23–27].

143 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Safe. Secure. Supported. Our Safeguarding Framework (April 2023).

144 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Safe. Secure. Supported. Our Safeguarding Framework (April 2023) 6.

145 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Safe. Secure. Supported. Our Safeguarding Framework (April 2023) 65.

146 Letter from Timothy Bullard to the Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 6.

147 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Safe. Secure. Supported. Our Safeguarding Framework (April 2023) 69.

148 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Safe. Secure. Supported. Our Safeguarding Framework (April 2023) 9.

149 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 6 [28].

150 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 4 [22].

151 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 5 [26].

152 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 5 [26].

153 Transcript of Alana Girvin, 11 May 2022, 862 [36–39].

154 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 7, 185.

155 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 7, 186.

156 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 4–5 [24].

157 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 4–5 [24].

158 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 5 [25].

159 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 5 [24].

160 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 6 [29].

161 Transcript of Alana Girvin, 11 May 2022, 863 [15–17].

162 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, Annexure ASG-3 (Guideline: ‘Protective practices for staff in their interactions with children and young people’, 2019) 11.

163 Refer to Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 7, 186.

164 Transcript of Elizabeth Jack, 13 May 2022, 1114 [45–46].

165 Statement of Nigel Russell, 29 April 2022, 1 [8].

166 Statement of Nigel Russell, 29 April 2022, 4 [29]–5 [31].

167 Transcript of Monique Carter, 10 May 2022, 773 [28–36].

168 Statement of Kerri Collins, 11 April 2022, 9 [40].

169 Transcript of Monique Carter, 10 May 2022, 760 [9–13].

170 Transcript of Kerri Collins, 9 May 2022, 637 [9–19].

171 Transcript of Monique Carter, 10 May 2022, 759 [7–11].

172 Transcript of Monique Carter, 10 May 2022, 760 [22–35].

173 Statement of Steven Smith, 22 April 2022, 5 [35].

174 Statement of Steven Smith, 22 April 2022, 6 [36].

175 Statement of Steven Smith, 22 April 2022, 6 [37].

176 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 15 [94].

177 Statement of Monique Carter, 26 April 2022, 8 [52].

178 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 15 [94].

179 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 22–23 [142].

180 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 22 [137].

181 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 6 [33].

182 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 6 [34].

183 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 32 [189].

184 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 12 May 2022, 987 [46]–988 [5].

185 Letter from Timothy Bullard to Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 7.

186 Letter from Timothy Bullard to Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 7.

187 Letter from Timothy Bullard to Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 6.

188 Letter from Timothy Bullard to Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 6.

189 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 6 June 2022, 13 [53].

190 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, Annexure ASG-2 (‘Key Debelle Report Recommendations’, 28 April 2022) 6 [16–17], [21]; refer to Recommendations 16, 17, 21.

191 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 5–6 [26].

192 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 5 [25].

193 Transcript of Alana Girvin, 11 May 2022, 868 [27–32].

194 Transcript of Monique Carter, 10 May 2022, 774 [34–46], 775 [1–12].

195 Statement of Kerryann Walsh, 15 April 2022, 6 [18].

196 Statement of Katrina Munting, 5 April 2022, 9 [45].

197 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 12.

198 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, Annexure 17 (Letter from Elizabeth Jack to Dean and Head of School, Education, University of Tasmania, 21 December 2021) 1–2.

199 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 12.

200 Teachers Registration Board, Procedural Fairness Response, 17 March 2023, 2.

201 Teachers Registration Board, Procedural Fairness Response, 17 March 2023, 2.

202 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 12.

203 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 78.

204 Statement of Kerryann Walsh, 15 April 2022, 6 [18].

205 Statement of Kerryann Walsh, 15 April 2022, 7 [23].

206 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 6, 89.

207 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 6, 90.

208 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, Annexure 17 (Letter from Elizabeth Jack to Dean and Head of School, Education, University of Tasmania, 21 December 2021) 1–2.

209 Statement of Kerryann Walsh, 15 April 2022, 8 [25].

210 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 6 [35].

211 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, Annexure 17 (Letter from Elizabeth Jack to Dean and Head of School, Education, University of Tasmania, 21 December 2021) 2.

212 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, Annexure 17 (Letter from Elizabeth Jack to Dean and Head of School, Education, University of Tasmania, 21 December 2021) 2.

213 We note that increases and decreases in allegations or incidents of child sexual abuse must be viewed in a broader context. A decrease in reporting does not necessarily coincide with a decrease in incidents, just as an apparent increase in incidents may reflect increased awareness and reporting. For example, we note in Chapter 5 that Secretary Bullard has attributed a recent increase in reports in the Department to ‘people getting the message’. However, over time, if the measures designed to prevent child sexual abuse and their implementation are successful, we would expect there to be an overall decrease in incidents, as appears to be the case in South Australia.

214 Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act 2023 ss 14 and 22.

215 Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act 2023 s 34.

216 Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act 2023 s 30.

217 For example, Department for Education, Children and Young People, Advice for School Staff – Responding to Incidents, Disclosures and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse (2022). Other flowcharts include: Department for Education, Children and Young People, Responding to Incidents, Disclosures or Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse by a Current Department Employee or Volunteer (version 2.0, undated); Department for Education, Children and Young People, Responding to Incidents, Disclosures or Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse by a Former Department Employee (version 2.0, undated); Department for Education, Children and Young People, Responding to Incidents, Disclosures or Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse by an Adult in the Family or Community, Including Visitors in Schools (version 2.0, undated); Department for Education, Children and Young People, Responding to Incidents, Disclosures or Suspicions of Harmful Sexual Behaviour (version 2.0, undated); Department for Education, Children and Young People, Online Child Sexual Abuse Material: Response Flowchart for Staff (version 2.0, undated). In February 2023, Secretary Bullard told us that flowcharts relating to preventing, identifying and responding to child sexual abuse were updated and distributed to schools: Letter from Timothy Bullard to Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 2.

218 Refer to Department for Education, Children and Young People, Advice for School Staff – Responding to Incidents, Disclosures and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse (2022).

219 Refer to Department for Education, Children and Young People, Advice for School Staff – Responding to Incidents, Disclosures and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse (2022).

220 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Advice for School Staff – Responding to Incidents, Disclosures and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse (2022).

221 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Advice for School Staff – Responding to Incidents, Disclosures and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse (2022). The flowchart also provides contacts that should be made for matters involving harmful sexual behaviours and abuse by a family member or member of the community.

222 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Advice for School Staff – Responding to Incidents, Disclosures and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse (2022).

223 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Advice for School Staff – Responding to Incidents, Disclosures and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse (2022).

224 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Advice for School Staff – Responding to Incidents, Disclosures and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse (2022).

225 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 55 [336].

226 Department of Education, Department of Education Process Where an Allegations(s) of Child Sexual Abuse is Made Against a Current Employee (2021) 1. This policy is available on the Workplace Relations Child Sexual Abuse Intranet page.

227 Department of Education, Department of Education Process Where an Allegations(s) of Child Sexual Abuse is Made Against a Current Employee (2021) 1.

228 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 33 [191].

229 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 33 [191].

230 This occurs in relation to the fixed term and relief employment register: Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 33 [191].

231 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 33 [191].

232 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 33 [191].

233 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Advice for DoE Staff – Responding to Incidents, Disclosures and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse (2022).

234 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Advice for DoE Staff – Responding to Incidents, Disclosures and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse (2022).

235 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 33 [192].

236 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 34 [193].

237 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 41 [244].

238 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 41 [244].

239 Transcript of Monique Carter, 10 May 2022, 765 [3–40].

240 Department of Education, Department of Education Process Where an Allegations(s) of Child Sexual Abuse is Made Against a Current Employee (2021) 2.

241 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 34 [194].

242 Department of Education, Department of Education Process Where an Allegations(s) of Child Sexual Abuse is Made Against a Current Employee (2021) 2.

243 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 34 [194].

244 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 34 [194].

245 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 34 [194].

246 State Service Act 2000 s 10(1).

247 State Service Act 2000 s 9(6).

248 State Service Act 2000 s 9.

249 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 10 [60].

250 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 34 [194].

251 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 34 [194].

252 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 34 [194].

253 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 34 [194].

254 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 35 [202].

255 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 36 [217].

256 Refer to State Service Act 2000 s 3 (definition of ‘employee’), 10(1). Refer also to Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 35 [202].

257 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 56 [347].

258 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 56 [348].

259 Statement of Steven Smith, 22 April 2022, 6 [39].

260 Statement of Steven Smith, 22 April 2022, 6 [39].

261 Refer to Department for Education, Children and Young People, Advice for School Staff – Responding to Incidents, Disclosures or Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse (2022) 2.

262 Integrity Commission, Guide to Managing Misconduct in the Tasmanian Public Sector (March, 2021).

263 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 11 May 2022, 904 [4–9].

264 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 11 May 2022, 904 [23–30].

265 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 11 May 2022, 904 [11–21]. Refer also to Commissioner’s Direction 5/2002.

266 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Procedural Fairness Response, 17 March 2023, 23.

267 Department for Education, Children and Young People, Procedural Fairness Response, 17 March 2023, 23.

268 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 12 May 2022, 955 [27–33].

269 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 12 May 2022, 957 [5–29].

270 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 12 May 2022, 960 [23–25].

271 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 57 [357].

272 Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act 2023 s 35(3).

273 Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act 2023 s 40(3).

274 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 31(3).

275 Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act 2023 s 34.

276 We note that the State Service Management Office issued practices, procedures and standards on 8 July 2022 that enabled these breaches to be recorded: State Service Management Office, Practices, Procedures and Standards No. 5: Register for Tasmanian State Service Code of Conduct Breaches Resulting in or that would have Resulted in Termination (8 July 2022).

277 Transcript of ‘Rachel’, 11 May 2022, 811 [14–16].

278 Transcript of ‘Rachel’, 11 May 2022, 809 [45]–810 [3].

279 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 56 [342].

280 Statement of Timothy Bullard in response to Questions on Notice, 6 June 2022, 2 [7].

281 Statement of Timothy Bullard in response to Questions on Notice, 6 June 2022, 2 [6]–3 [10].

282 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 56 [343–346].

283 Statement of Steven Smith, 22 April 2022, 6 [39]. Refer also to Employment Direction No. 5, Procedures for the Investigation and Determination of Whether an Employee Has Breached the Code of Conduct (2013) cl 7.3.

284 Statement of Steven Smith, 22 April 2022, 7 [39].

285 Statement of Timothy Bullard in response to Questions on Notice, 6 June 2022, 2 [6]–3 [10].

286 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 55 [341].

287 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 3 [24].

288 Transcript of ‘Rachel’, 11 May 2022, 813 [17–26].

289 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 58 [361–364].

290 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 11 May 2022, 901 [28–32].

291 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 11 May 2022, 902 [29–35].

292 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 12 September 2022, 6 [18].

293 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 12 September 2022, 10 [32].

294 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 12 September 2022, 10 [32].

295 Statement of Timothy Bullard in response to Questions on Notice, 6 June 2022, 3 [16].

296 Statement of Timothy Bullard in response to Questions on Notice, 6 June 2022, 3 [16].

297 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 12 September 2022, 10 [32].

298 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 12 September 2022, 10 [32].

299 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 12 September 2022, 6 [19].

300 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 12 September 2022, 10 [33].

301 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 12 September 2022, 10 [33].

302 Tim Moore and Morag McArthur, Take notice, believe us and act! Exploring the safety of children and young people in government run organisations (Research Report prepared for the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings, February 2023) 47.

303 Statement of Katrina Munting, 5 April 2022, 5 [23]. The name ‘Peter’ is a pseudonym; Order of the Commission of Inquiry, restricted publication order, 10 May 2022.

304 Statement of Kerri Collins, 11 April 2022, 2 [11].

305 Statement of ‘Rachel’, 14 April 2022, 4 [22]–5 [23]. The name ‘Wayne’ is a pseudonym; Order of the Commission of Inquiry, restricted publication order, 11 May 2022.

306 Statement of Nigel Russell, 28 April 2022, 3 [22–23].

307 Transcript of Robert Boost, 12 September 2022, 3894 [34–47].

308 Transcript of Robert Boost, 12 September 2022, 3895 [10–18].

309 Transcript of Robert Boost, 12 September 2022, 3894 [45]–3895 [8].

310 Statement of Sam Leishman, 15 March 2022, 2 [11] and [15].

311 Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act 2023, s 42.

312 Statement of Timothy Bullard, regarding Sam Leishman, 8 April 2022, 6 [43].

313 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 58 [365].

314 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 10 [60].

315 Letter from Timothy Bullard to the Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 2.

316 Letter from Timothy Bullard to the Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 2.

317 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, June 2021) 50, 10.

318 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, June 2021) 10.

319 Refer to, for example, Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 12 May 2022, 930 [9–43].

320 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, June 2021) 79, Recommendation 12.

321 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 12 September 2022, 3938 [26–30].

322 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 2 [11].

323 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 2 [14].

324 Department for Education, Protective Practices for Staff in Their Interactions with Children and Young People (2nd ed, Government of South Australia, 2019) 7.

325 Department for Education, Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings (Government of South Australia, 2019) 3.

326 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 20 [86].

327 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 20 [87].

328 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 21 [88–90].

329 Conversation with Alana Girvin, former Director of the Incident Management Directorate in the South Australian Department for Education (staff, Commission of Inquiry, 3 March 2022).

330 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 2 [12].

331 The current Incident Report Management System is to be replaced from 2022 with a new system based on a new technology platform. Refer to Department for Education, Annual Report 2021 (Report, Government of South Australia, 2021) 37.

332 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 3 [15].

333 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 11 [43].

334 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 11 [43].

335 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 11 [43].

336 Department for Education, Management of Complaints, Incidents and Non-Compliance in Family Day Care and Respite Care Program Procedure (Government of South Australia, 2022) 6.

337 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 11 [43].

338 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 12 [44–45].

339 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 12 [46].

340 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 12 [46].

341 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 12 [49].

342 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 13 [50].

343 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 13 [51].

344 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 13 [53].

345 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 13 [54].

346 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 13 [56].

347 Transcript of Alana Girvin, 11 May 2022, 868 [41]–869 [4]; Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 16 [70].

348 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 14 [57].

349 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 15 [64].

350 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 15 [66].

351 Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 16–17 [70].

352 Transcript of Alan Girvin, 11 May 2022, 855 [6–11].

353 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 7, 206.

354 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 7, 206.

355 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 7, 193.

356 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 7, 211.

357 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 7, 211

358 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 7, 213.

359 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 7, 211.

360 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 13 May 2022, 1092 [4–23].

361 Department of Premier and Cabinet, ‘Keeping Children Safer Implementation Status Report’, Keeping Children Safer (Policy Document, 31 May 2023) 6, Action 21 <https://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/keepingchildrensafer>.

362 Department for Education, Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings (Government of South Australia, 2019) 3.

363 Department for Education, Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings (Government of South Australia, 2019) 3.

364 Government of South Australia, Report of the Independent Education Inquiry (Report, 2013) 231 [695]; Department for Education, Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings (Government of South Australia, 2019) 11 [3.1].

365 Department for Education, Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings (Government of South Australia, 2019) 11 [3.1].

366 There are other actions that should be taken by the ‘sector office’: Statement of Alana Girvin, 28 April 2022, 8 [36].

367 Refer to Department for Education, Children and Young People, Advice for DoE Staff – Responding to Incidents, Disclosures and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse (2022).

368 Department for Education, Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings (Government of South Australia, 2019) 14 [3.3]; Government of South Australia, Report of the Independent Education Inquiry (Report, 2013) 252 [3.3].

369 Department for Education, Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings (Government of South Australia, 2019) 14 [3.3.1]; Government of South Australia, Report of the Independent Education Inquiry (Report, 2013) 252 [3.3.1].

370 Government of South Australia, Report of the Independent Education Inquiry (Report, 2013) 200 [610].

371 Government of South Australia, Report of the Independent Education Inquiry (Report, 2013) 230 [692]–231 [693], 252 [3.3.2], 280 [12].

372 Department for Education, Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings (Government of South Australia, 2019) 14 [3.3.2].

373 Department for Education, Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings (Government of South Australia, 2019) 14 [3.3.2].

374 Department for Education, Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings (Government of South Australia, 2019) 15 [3.3.2].

375 Department for Education, Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings (Government of South Australia, 2019) 15 [3.3.2].

376 Department for Education, Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings (Government of South Australia, 2019) 14 [3.3.2]; Government of South Australia, Report of the Independent Education Inquiry (Report, 2013) 252 [3.3.2].

377 Government of South Australia, Report of the Independent Education Inquiry (Report, 2013) 231 [693].

378 Government of South Australia, Report of the Independent Education Inquiry (Report, 2013) 231 [693], 252 [3.3.2], 280 [12].

379 Government of South Australia, Report of the Independent Education Inquiry (Report, 2013) 231 [693].

380 Government of South Australia, Report of the Independent Education Inquiry (Report, 2013) 183 [555], 252 [3.3.2], 253 [3.3.3].

381 Department for Education, Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings (Government of South Australia, 2019) 15 [3.3.3].

382 Government of South Australia, Report of the Independent Education Inquiry (Report, 2013) 194 [592], 253 [3.3.3]. Refer also to Department for Education, Managing Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in SA Education and Care Settings (Government of South Australia, 2019) 15 [3.3.3].

383 Government of South Australia, Report of the Independent Education Inquiry (Report, 2013) 277 [1–2].

384 Government of South Australia, Report of the Independent Education Inquiry (Report, 2013) 253–254 [3.3.4].

385 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 31 October 2022, 3 [13].

386 Letter from Timothy Bullard to the Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 8.

387 National Office for Child Safety, ‘Discussion Paper from the National Clinical Reference Group – Language and Terminology’ (Discussion Paper, December 2022); Statement of Dale Tolliday, 29 April 2022, 3 [14]. Harmful sexual behaviours are also discussed in the out of home care setting in Chapter 9, Ashley Youth Detention Centre in Chapter 12, and therapeutic interventions in Chapter 21. For more information about harmful sexual behaviours in institutional contexts, refer to the National Royal Commission’s final report, which outlines important research and understanding of this form of child sexual abuse: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 10.

388 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 13, 29.

389 Department of Justice, ‘Summary Table of Tasmanian Government Progress Towards Implementing the National Royal Commission Recommendations’, 22 September 2021, 49 [13.6], produced by the Tasmanian Government in response to a Commission notice to produce.

390 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 80.

391 Statement of Leanne McLean, 12 April 2022, 32 [111].

392 Anonymous session, 12 October 2022; Anonymous session, 16 August 2022; Anonymous session, 17 February 2022.

393 Submission 093 Anonymous, 1; Statement of Nigel Russell, 29 April 2022, 2–3 [15]; Transcript of Ignatius Kim, 9 May 2022, 689 [12–13].

394 Submission 093 Anonymous, 1; Submission 086 Angela Sdrinis Legal, 78; Statement of Ignatius Kim, 20 April 2022, 7 [45].

395 Anonymous session, 16 August 2022; Anonymous session, 12 October 2022; Anonymous session, 17 February 2022; Submission 086 Angela Sdrinis Legal, 78; Burnie consultation, 24 August 2021; Hobart consultation, 13 August 2021.

396 Submission 086 Angela Sdrinis Legal, 78; Anonymous session, 16 August 2022; Anonymous session, 12 October 2022; Anonymous session, 17 February 2022.

397 Consultation with Tasmania Police (Hobart), 25 August 2021; Anonymous session, 12 October 2022.

398 Burnie consultation, 24 August 2021; Hobart consultation, 13 August 2021.

399 Anonymous session, 12 October 2022.

400 Anonymous session, 17 February 2022.

401 Anonymous session, 13 October 2021.

402 Submission 093 Anonymous, 1.

403 Transcript of Ignatius Kim, 9 May 2022, 684 [39–45].

404 Transcript of Ignatius Kim, 9 May 2022, 686 [41–45].

405 Statement of Ignatius Kim, 20 April 2022, 7 [45]; Transcript of Ignatius Kim, 9 May 2022, 687 [1–6].

406 Statement of Renae Pepper, 30 April 2022, 12 [51].

407 Statement of Renae Pepper, 30 April 2022, 12 [51].

408 Statement of Nigel Russell, 28 April 2022, 3 [22–23].

409 Statement of Nigel Russell, 28 April 2022, 3 [22].

410 Statement of Renae Pepper, 30 April 2022, 6 [25].

411 Statement of Renae Pepper, 30 April 2022, 12 [50].

412 Statement of Renae Pepper, 30 April 2022, 6 [26].

413 Statement of Renae Pepper, 30 April 2022, 11 [46].

414 Statement of Kerryann Walsh, 15 April 2022, 6 [19].

415 Statement of Kerryann Walsh, 15 April 2022, 6 [19].

416 Transcript of Renae Pepper, 10 May 2022, 733 [4–5].

417 Statement of Renae Pepper, 30 April 2022, 13 [51].

418 Statement of Renae Pepper, 30 April 2022, 13 [51].

419 Statement of Dale Tolliday, 29 April 2022, 17 [71].

420 Submission 078 Anonymous, 3.

421 Transcript of Monique Carter, 10 May 2022, 774 [28–32].

422 Transcript of Monique Carter, 10 May 2022, 773 [22–24].

423 Statement of Debra Drake, 6 May 2022, 7 [45].

424 Statement of Debra Drake, 6 May 2022, 7 [44].

425 Transcript of Ignatius Kim, 9 May 2022, 688 [32–36].

426 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 12 May 2022, 988 [21–24].

427 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 12 May 2022, 988 [39–43].

428 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 6 June 2022, 13 [53].

429 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 30 [19(d)].

430 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 30 [19(d)]; Statement of Renae Pepper, 30 April 2022, 3 [14].

431 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 30 [19(d)].

432 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 12 [72].

433 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 12 [73], 39 [236].

434 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 12 [73].

435 Letter from Timothy Bullard to Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 2.

436 Letter from Timothy Bullard to Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 2.

437 Letter from Timothy Bullard to Commission of Inquiry, 9 February 2023, 2.

438 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 37 [226]–39 [235]; Department for Education, Children and Young People, ‘Responding to Incidents, Disclosures or Suspicions of Harmful Sexual Behaviour Initiated by a Child or Young Person (Flowchart)’, undated, produced by the Tasmanian Government in response to a Commission notice to produce.

439 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, Annexure 8 (Flowchart: ‘Responding to Incidents, Disclosures or Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse by a Current or Former DoE Employee’, undated).

440 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 38 [229]; Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, Annexure 8 (Flowchart: ‘Responding to Incidents, Disclosures or Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse by a Current or Former DoE Employee’, undated).

441 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 38 [230].

442 Department for Education, Children and Young People, ‘Responding to Incidents, Disclosures or Suspicions of Harmful Sexual Behaviour Initiated by a Child or Young Person (Flowchart)’, undated, produced by the Tasmanian Government in response to a Commission notice to produce.

443 Department for Education, Children and Young People, ‘Responding to Incidents, Disclosures or Suspicions of Harmful Sexual Behaviour Initiated by a Child or Young Person (Flowchart)’, undated, produced by the Tasmanian Government in response to a Commission notice to produce.

444 Department for Education, Children and Young People, ‘Responding to Incidents, Disclosures or Suspicions of Harmful Sexual Behaviour Initiated by a Child or Young Person (Flowchart)’, undated, produced by the Tasmanian Government in response to a Commission notice to produce.

445 Statement of Elizabeth Jack, 29 April 2022, Annexure 8 (Flowchart: ‘Responding to Incidents, Disclosures or Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse by a Current or Former DoE Employee’, undated).

446 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 10 May 2022, 40 [240].

447 Tasmania, Parliamentary Debates, House of Assembly, 14 November 2000, 43 (Paula Wriedt, Minister for Education).

448 Refer to Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, Standard 4, Focus area 4.4.

449 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 13, 60.

450 Refer to Department for Education, Children and Young People, Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Policy (2021).

451 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 13, 168.

452 Tasmania, Parliamentary Debates, House of Assembly, 14 November 2000, 40 (Paula Wriedt, Minister for Education).

453 In relation to applications for registration, refer to Teachers Registration Act 2000 pt 3. In relation to discipline and inquiries, refer to Teachers Registration Act 2000 pt 4.

454 Ben Mathews, Oversight and Regulatory Mechanisms Aimed at Protecting Children from Sexual Abuse: Understanding Current Evidence of Efficacy (Report prepared for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, 2017) 88 [2.7.4.4.1].

455 Refer to Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 6A; Teachers Registration Board, Employing Teachers in Tasmania (Web Page, 2022) <https://www.trb.tas.gov.au/employing-teachers-in-tasmania/>.

456 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 6.

457 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 7A.

458 Teachers Registration Board, About Us (Web Page, 2022) <https://www.trb.tas.gov.au/about-us/>.

459 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 6A(d)–(e).

460 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 6A(f) s 24.

461 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 6A(i).

462 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 7A.

463 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 2 [1.5].

464 Under the Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 11, it is an offence to teach in these institutions without registration or a Limited Authority to Teach.

465 Teachers Registration Act 2000 pt 3, div 3.

466 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 11.

467 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 17J(a).

468 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 17J(a)(b).

469 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 17J(b); Teachers Registration Board, Determining Good Character and Fitness to Teach: Board Policy July 2020 (Version 1.2, 8 October 2022). The Teachers Registration Board may also take into account any other matter it considers relevant: Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 17J.

470 Teachers Registration Act 2000 ss 7A, 17J(c); Teachers Registration Board, Annual Report 2020 (Report, 2021) 30.

471 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 17K; Teachers Registration Board, Determining Good Character and Fitness to Teach: Board Policy July 2020 (Version 1.2, 8 October 2022).

472 Teachers Registration Board, Determining Good Character and Fitness to Teach: Board Policy July 2020 (Version 1.2, 8 October 2022).

473 Teachers Registration Board, Determining Good Character and Fitness to Teach: Board Policy July 2020 (Version 1.2, 8 October 2022).

474 Teachers Registration Act 2000 ss 16, 17A. Provisionally registered teachers should become fully registered within five years. Limited Authorities to Teach are granted for a period of up to two years.

475 Teachers Registration Board, Professional Boundaries: Guidelines for Tasmanian Teachers (2021) 8.

476 Teachers Registration Board, Professional Boundaries: Guidelines for Tasmanian Teachers (2021) 8.

477 Teachers Registration Board, Professional Boundaries: Guidelines for Tasmanian Teachers (2021) 7–8.

478 Teachers Registration Board, Professional Boundaries: Guidelines for Tasmanian Teachers (2021) 9.

479 Teachers Registration Board, Professional Boundaries: Guidelines for Tasmanian Teachers (2021) 9. Teachers must also abide by the Code of Professional Ethics, which is a statement about ‘the ethical commitments, practices and aspirations that underpins the identity of the teaching profession in Tasmania’. Refer to Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 9 [6.3].

480 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 9 [6.2].

481 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 18.

482 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 3 (definition of ‘prescribed offence’).

483 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 27A(3)–(4).

484 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 19.

485 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 19(3)(a)(i)–(ii). Section 19(2) of the Teachers Registration Act 2000 requires complaints to be in writing and disclose the name and address of the complainant.

486 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 6A(d).

487 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 21 [13.2].

488 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 21 [13.4].

489 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 8 [5.13].

490 Teachers Registration Act 2000 ss 20(1)(a), 20(1)(c), 31.

491 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 24. This also applies in respect of a Limited Authority to Teach.

492 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 17BA(2)–(3).

493 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 24B.

494 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 17 [10.23].

495 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 17 [10.23].

496 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 24B(2)(b).

497 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 26A; Teachers Registration Regulations 2021 reg 5(1).

498 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 17(a).

499 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 18 [11.5].

500 Teachers Registration Board, Annual Report 2020 (Report, 2021) 43.

501 Watched Registrations contains a person’s Teachers Registration Board number, their registration type, the expiry date of their registration and the cycle expiry date (end of five-year cycle registration). Refer to Teachers Registration Board, Watched Registrations (Web Page) <https://www.trb.tas.gov.au/watched-registrations>.

502 Teachers Registration Board, Watched Registrations (Web Page) <https://www.trb.tas.gov.au/watched-registrations>.

503 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 3 [3.4].

504 Statement of Jenny Gale, 23 November 2022, Annexure 3 (Keeping Children Safer – Implementation Status Report – as at 16 November 2022, Ref 18); refer to Department of Premier and Cabinet, ‘Keeping Children Safer Implementation Status Report’, Keeping Children Safer (Policy Document, 31 May 2023) 5, Action 18 <https://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/keepingchildrensafer>.

505 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 13, 248.

506 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 13, 248. Refer also to vol 8, 283.

507 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 8, 292.

508 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 8, 30.

509 Refer to Teachers Registration Board, ‘Teacher Search’, TRB Online (Web Page) <https://trbonline.trb.tas.gov.au/Home/Search>. Information provided includes registration number, name, type of registration and date until which the person is registered.

510 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 25(4)(a).

511 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 32A.

512 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 13 [9.10].

513 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 17L.

514 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 13 [9.10].

515 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 13 [9.23].

516 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 13 [9.25].

517 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 13 [9.25].

518 Statement of Ann Moxham, 10 June 2022, 2 [2][A].

519 Statement of Ann Moxham, 10 June 2022, 2 [2][A]. Note that under the Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 12(3), the Board can request information relating to an applicant from any registration authority or any other person or government department. However, this only applies in respect of an application for registration and the applicant must authorise the Board to obtain the information.

520 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 995 [11–15].

521 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 995 [14–24].

522 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 995 [16–20]. Note that this would be subject to any other applicable exceptions to the application of the Act’s principles as set out in sch 1 cl 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act 2004: sch 1 cl 2(1)(b).

523 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 995 [1–7], 1011 [35–36].

524 Statement of Emily Sanders, 5 May 2022, 22 [91].

525 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 998 [5–16].

526 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 997 [39–44].

527 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 13 May 2022, 1081 [3–4].

528 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 6 June 2022, 3–4 [10].

529 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 13 May 2022, 1091 [20–24].

530 Refer to Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 13 May 2022, 1091 [9–12]; Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 12 September 2022, 3941 [37–44].

531 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 13 May 2022, 1083 [34–42].

532 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 13 May 2022, 1081 [39–44].

533 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 14.

534 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 14.

535 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 12 [9.16].

536 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 13 May 2022, 1084 [10–14].

537 Transcript of Jenny Gale, 13 September 2022, 4021 [9–22].

538 Statement of Emily Sanders, 5 May 2022, 11 [46].

539 Statement of Emily Sanders, 5 May 2022, 11 [48].

540 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 32A(1).

541 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 32A(2).

542 Statement of Timothy Bullard, ‘Brad’, 4 April 2022, 17 [65].

543 Statement of Timothy Bullard, ‘Brad’, 4 April 2022, 17 [66].

544 It should also be noted that the Personal Information Act 2004 is also currently a barrier to keeping complainants informed about their complaints.

545 Transcript of Jenny Gale, 13 September 2022, 4022 [34–36].

546 Transcript of Jenny Gale, 13 September 2022, 4021 [17–21].

547 Personal Information Protection Act 2004 s 13.

548 Personal Information Protection Act 2004 s 14(1)(a).

549 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 12 September 2022, 3941 [12–15].

550 Refer to Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act 2013 s 52A.

551 Personal Information Protection Act 2004 s 4.

552 Personal Information Protection Act 2004 sch 1 cl 2(1)(f).

553 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 6 June 2022, 2 [6]. The notification is made by Workplace Relations. Refer to Department for Education, Children and Young People, Advice for DoE Staff – Responding to Incidents, Disclosures and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse (2022) 1.

554 Statement of Timothy Bullard, 6 June 2022, 2 [7].

555 Child and Youth Safe Organisation Act 2023 s 42.

556 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 3 [3.2]; Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1008 [12–20].

557 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1008 [11–21].

558 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1008 [14–20].

559 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1008 [22–26].

560 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 3 [3.6].

561 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1008 [8–11].

562 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 13, 249.

563 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Final Report, December 2017) vol 13, 249.

564 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 8 [5.15]–9 [5.21].

565 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 11(1). A penalty unit is the base amount from which a monetary penalty is calculated. The base amount is adjusted each year according to movements in the consumer price index (for Hobart) in the previous year and notice of the amount is published in the Gazette: refer to Penalty Units and Other Penalties Act 1987. The penalty unit amount for 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023 is $181.

566 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 27(1).

567 ACT Teacher Quality Institute Act 2010 (ACT) ss 28–29; Teacher Accreditation Act 2004 (NSW) s 28; Teacher Registration (Northern Territory) Act 2004 (NT) s 73; Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) ss 82–83; Teachers Registration and Standards Act 2004 (SA) s 20; Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic) ss 2.6.56–2.6.56B; Teacher Registration Act 2012 (WA) ss 6–7.

568 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1012 [30–31].

569 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 13 [9.25]; Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 18. Section 3 of the Teachers Registration Act 2000 defines prescribed offences as offences for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed.

570 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1011 [44]–1012 [6].

571 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1008 [14–21].

572 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 8 [5.13]; refer to Teachers Registration Act 2000 ss 6A(e), 6A(l).

573 Statement of Ann Moxham, 10 June 2022, 3.

574 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1012 [19–29].

575 Australian Law Reform Commission, Principled Regulation: Federal Civil and Administrative Penalties in Australia (Report No 95, March 2003) 445.

576 Refer generally to Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005. There are over 70 Tasmanian Acts that allow for infringement notices to be issued.

577 Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act 2013 s 55(2).

578 Infringement notices are governed by the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005.

579 Teacher Registration (Northern Territory) Act 2004 (NT) s 73(1)–(2).

580 ACT Teacher Quality Institute Act 2010 (ACT) s 28.

581 Government of Tasmania, Director of Public Prosecutions, Prosecution Policy and Guidelines (2022) 121.

582 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 24B.

583 Teachers Registration Board, Annual Report 2020 (Report, 2021) 45.

584 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 22 [21.2].

585 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) ss 48 and 49. ‘Harm’ is defined in s 7.

586 Refer to Victorian Institute of Teaching, Immediate Action (Web Page, 2021) <https://www.vit.vic.edu.au/conduct/immediate-action>.

587 Statement of Ann Moxham, 14 June 2022, 3 [2(C)].

588 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1004 [23–30]. Commonwealth legislation adopted in 1992 sets out the scheme (refer to Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth)). All states and territories have implemented the scheme in their respective jurisdictions – for example, Mutual Recognition (Tasmania) Act 1993; Mutual Recognition (New South Wales) Act 1992 (NSW); Mutual Recognition (Victoria) Act 1998 (Vic); Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Act 1992 (Qld); Mutual Recognition (South Australia) Act 1993 (SA); Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2020 (WA); Mutual Recognition (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1992 (ACT); Mutual Recognition (Northern Territory) Act 1992 (NT). A similar scheme exists with New Zealand: refer to Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (Cth).

589 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1004 [23–30]; Teachers Registration Board, Mutual Recognition Policy (9 March 2022) 3.

590 Teachers Registration Board, Mutual Recognition Policy (9 March 2022) 2.

591 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 17 [10.28].

592 Teachers Registration Act 2000 s 32A.

593 Department of Treasury and Finance, ‘Automatic mutual recognition for occupational licences’, Economy (Web Page, 2022) <https://www.treasury.tas.gov.au/economy/economic-policy-and-reform/automatic-mutual-recognition>.

594 Refer to, for example, Department of Treasury and Finance, ‘Automatic Mutual Recognition for Occupational Licences’, Economy (Web Page, 2022) <https://www.treasury.tas.gov.au/economy/economic-policy-and-reform/automatic-mutual-recognition>; refer generally to Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Improving Occupational Mobility (Web Page) <https://deregulation.pmc.gov.au/priorities/improving-occupational-mobility>.

595 Stephen Smallbone and Tim McCormack, Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Report, 7 June 2021) 11.

596 Statement of Ann Moxham, 14 June 2022, 5; Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 12 May 2022, 977 [14–34].

597 Statement of Ann Moxham, 14 June 2022, 5.

598 Statement of Ann Moxham, 14 June 2022, 5.

599 Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) s 42S.

600 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1013 [9–18]. Mandatory reporting requirements are set out in the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997.

601 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1013 [9–18].

602 Alexander Morris Carr-Saunders and Paul Alexander Wilson, The Professions (Frank Cass & Co., 1964).

603 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 7 [5.6].

604 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1006 [32–37].

605 Statement of Ann Moxham, 27 April 2022, 8 [5.18].

606 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 999 [14–43].

607 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1007 [22–37].

608 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1007 [20–29].

609 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1007 [22–37].

610 Transcript of Ann Moxham, 12 May 2022, 1007 [37–40].

611 Statement of Ann Moxham, 10 June 2022, 4 [2(G)].

612 Statement of Ann Moxham, 10 June 2022, 5.

613 Statement of Ann Moxham, 10 June 2022, 4 [2(G)].

614 Education Legislation Amendments (Education Regulation) Act 2022 s 13.

615 Clause Notes, Education Legislation Amendments (Education Regulation) Bill 2021, cl 150, s 10C.

616 Refer to Review of Education Regulation Steering Committee, Review of Education Regulation – Steering Committee Report (Report, December 2020) 42, Recommendation 18.

617 Teachers Registration Board, Education Regulation Review – Draft Legislation: Response from the Board of the TRB, its Registrar and Staff (Web Page, undated) 10 <https://publicdocumentcentre.education.tas.gov.au/library/Shared Documents/Submission-7-Teachers-Registration-Board.pdf>.

618 Statement of Ann Moxham, 10 June 2022, 11 [13].

619 Transcript of Timothy Bullard, 13 May 2022, 1091 [26–43].

620 Tasmania, Parliamentary Debates, House of Assembly, 14 November 2000, 40 (Paula Wriedt, Minister for Education).

621 Review of Education Regulation Steering Committee, Review of Education Regulation – Steering Committee Report (Report, December 2020) 48, Recommendation 24.