1. Introduction

An effective approach to preventing, identifying and responding to child sexual abuse in institutions requires a coordinated and sustained commitment across government and government funded agencies and statutory bodies. In this chapter, we outline what we consider is needed to ensure there is a united approach to child safety issues across the Tasmanian Government. We recommend developing a child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan to:

• bring together an extensive reform agenda
• hold government, government funded agencies and statutory bodies to account for their responsibilities in implementing child sexual abuse reforms
• help victim-survivors and their families, the community, and government and non-government agencies understand what is being done to address child sexual abuse in Tasmania.

We also recommend strengthened leadership, accountability and governance mechanisms to oversee this strategy and action plan, which, among other things, will ensure children and young people and adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse can inform government policy and reform work.

We also discuss the challenge of sharing information and coordination between agencies relating to child safety issues in Tasmania. We recommend any legislative barriers that hinder the sharing of information to protect the safety and wellbeing of children be identified and removed. To address cultural barriers to information sharing and further support responses to child safety issues, we also recommend the development of child safety information sharing, coordination and response guidelines that clearly set out the roles and responsibilities of agencies in responding to child safety concerns.

1. A fragmented system

As part of our inquiries, we asked the Tasmanian Government to describe its current service system—including services, initiatives, policies and procedures—related to preventing, identifying, reporting and responding to allegations or incidents of child sexual abuse in institutional contexts.1 Rather than receiving one coordinated response to this request that described the system across the whole of government, we received separate and varied responses from individual government departments including the:

• former Department of Communities, which produced a summary document and 109 attachments2
• former Department of Education (now the Department for Education, Children and Young People), which produced a summary document and 35 attachments3
• Department of Health, which produced a summary document and no attachments4
• Department of Justice, which produced a summary document and one attachment5
• Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management, which produced a summary document and 18 attachments.6

Our observations following a review of these responses were that:

• they listed or summarised policy documents and initiatives without explaining how they intersected or operated in practice, which made it difficult for us to understand the linkages between policies or to situate initiatives within the Government’s broader system response to child sexual abuse7
• most material referred to in the responses appeared to be directed towards child abuse and neglect more broadly, particularly familial abuse, and there was limited material within the responses that specifically contemplated child sexual abuse in institutional contexts
• a proportion of the material supplied as part of the responses, particularly policies, was past its stated review date or did not have a review date, so it was not clear whether the material remained operational, had been superseded by new material, or was no longer in use8
• some source material supplied as part of the responses was not signed or dated, which made it difficult for us to know whether particular documents had been executed and when they came into operation.9

Our concern extends beyond the format in which the information was provided. Our overall conclusion after reviewing the responses is that the Government could not clearly articulate a cohesive system for preventing, identifying, reporting and responding to allegations and incidents of child sexual abuse in institutions. Instead, it described elements of a service system without setting out how the system is intended to operate across the whole of government and intersect with other service systems, recognising the issues affecting children and young people do not occur in a silo and often cut across several portfolios.10 We acknowledge that many of the policies Tasmanian Government departments initially produced to our Commission of Inquiry have since been or are being updated.

Leanne McLean, Commissioner for Children and Young People, expressed a similar view to ours, describing the features of Tasmania’s current system response to institutional child sexual abuse as:

… a disconnected patchwork of systems and processes which, despite their good intent, fail to provide an integrated and systemic approach to keeping children safer from abuse in institutional settings. The flow on effects of the current system are that navigation by the public and agencies is difficult, there is little to no coordination or communication between regulatory agencies and there is no central body with responsibility for systemic oversight.11

Similarly, in consultations where we asked what was working well in the system that responds to child sexual abuse, participants expressed frustration that there was no system, or that the system was not well coordinated.12

We outline in Chapter 2 what we understand to be the current system for responding to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts. It took considerable work on our part to decipher this system. As described in that chapter, we understand the system covers:

• organisations, including:
  • the Child Safety Service
  • Tasmania Police
  • Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme
• professional registration bodies, including:
  • Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (‘Ahpra’)
  • Teachers Registration Board
• oversight bodies, including:
  • Commissioner for Children and Young People
  • Ombudsman
  • Integrity Commission
  • Auditor-General.

The system for responding to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts also encompasses sexual assault support services, the criminal justice system and the civil justice system, which includes the National Redress Scheme. Lastly, the system includes the processes through which specific government institutions—such as schools, out of home care, youth detention and health services—prevent, identify and respond to child sexual abuse.

1. Developing a child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan

In Chapter 2, we discussed several national strategies and frameworks relevant to child safety and child sexual abuse. We also identified Tasmanian strategies, frameworks and action plans that outline whole of government approaches to
issues affecting children and young people, including their safety and wellbeing. These national and local strategies and frameworks should inform Tasmania’s approach to child sexual abuse, including in government institutions. In this section, we outline the Tasmanian Government’s current policy approach to child sexual abuse. We recommend a child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan be developed to bring together an extensive reform agenda, provide information and guidance to victim-survivors and their families and the community about what is being done by the Government to specifically address child sexual abuse in Tasmania, and to hold government and government funded agencies and statutory bodies to account for their responsibilities in implementing child sexual abuse reforms. As Kathrine Morgan-Wicks, Secretary, Department of Health, told us:

Successful reform will require a multi-faceted and integrated response across Government, strong leadership, and clear governance and accountability on a whole of government level. Clear and consistent information and advice must be provided across government.13

These sentiments were echoed by Jan Shuard PSM, Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor for the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence:

I consider that, to avoid reliance on a single person for change, responsibility for reform needs to go beyond ministers and portfolios or agencies and be driven by a ‘whole of government’ approach across institutional settings, culture, procedure and policy.14

As we have acknowledged elsewhere in our report, cultural change is central to protecting children from child sexual abuse in institutions and ensuring that if it occurs, it is responded to appropriately.

1. Tasmania’s Family and Sexual Violence Action Plan

The Tasmanian Government’s primary policy approach to child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviours is its Family and Sexual Violence Action Plan. There have been three iterations of this plan since 2015:

• Safe Homes, Safe Families: Tasmania’s Family Violence Action Plan 2015–202015
• Safe Homes, Families, Communities: Tasmania’s Action Plan for Family and Sexual Violence 2019–202216
• Survivors at the Centre: Tasmania’s Third Family and Sexual Violence Action Plan 2022–2027 (‘Survivors at the Centre’).17

The first plan focused solely on family violence. However, the second and third iterations have included ‘sexual violence’, which is broadly defined in the following way:

Sexual violence is a behaviour of a sexual nature directed towards a person that makes them feel uncomfortable, distressed or threatened, and to which they have not consented. Sexual violence includes a wide range of unwanted,
non-consensual, traumatic and harmful sexual behaviours.

Sexual violence includes sexual harassment, technology facilitated abuse, unwanted kissing or sexual touching, coercion, sexual assault including rape, child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation, and stealthing (removal of a condom without consent).18

The family and sexual violence plans are accompanied by annual ‘responding and reporting’ reports, which outline key achievements under the plans.19 There is also a practice guide, which primarily focuses on adult victim-survivors and perpetrators of family and sexual violence. The guide provides some information about support pathways for children and young people, mostly in relation to family violence.20

The Government has indicated the family and sexual violence plans address the implementation of many of the National Royal Commission’s recommendations about responding to child sexual abuse in institutions and harmful sexual behaviours.21 The most recent plan, Survivors at the Centre, was released in November 2022. It represents the Government’s response to the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022–2032 (‘National Family Violence Plan’).22

1. Developing a strategy for child sexual abuse

Survivors at the Centre states it ‘has been developed in the context of the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Response to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings’ and that the ‘Tasmanian Government is deeply committed to learning from the past, hearing the stories of victim-survivors, and ensuring that children and young people are safeguarded now and into the future’. However, our review of the plan and earlier iterations reveals that many of its actions do not specifically respond to or address child sexual abuse, child sexual abuse in institutional settings or harmful sexual behaviours.23 Of the 38 actions in Survivors at the Centre, only the following actions appear to directly relate to child sexual abuse:

• Pilot the establishment of two Multidisciplinary Centres in the North and South of the State to provide survivor-centred, holistic and integrated responses to family and sexual violence.24
• Provide historic increased core funding to Tasmania’s specialist family and sexual violence services with five-year contracts to enable funding certainty.25
• Effectively embed Respectful Relationships and Consent Education in Tasmanian schools and develop a suite of resources informed by key stakeholders and children and young people that builds understanding of consent, coercive control and grooming in the Tasmanian community.26
• Continue to deliver the Harmful Sexual Behaviours Program for children and young people.27
• Establish Tasmania’s first victim-survivor advisory council, which will include victim-survivors of family and sexual violence and adults who may have experienced child sexual abuse as well as family and friends of victims who have lost their lives to family and sexual violence.28

Other actions that could affect the response to child sexual abuse, depending on how the action is interpreted, include:

• Expand the scope of the Safe Families Coordination Unit to undertake whole of government data coordination and integration for family and sexual violence.29
• Provide next generation technology and instruments for forensic scientists to ensure higher quality evidence for court proceedings, and increase capacity for storage of evidence, including sexual evidence kits.30
• Establish a family and sexual violence liaison service within the Tasmanian Health Service, which will provide Family Violence Liaison Officers statewide to support clients who identify as experiencing family and sexual violence to access services.31
• Investigate the establishment of a Tasmanian Family and Sexual Violence Peak to improve coordination of family and sexual violence services and advice on policy development and service design.32
• Continue to provide legal assistance to people experiencing family and sexual violence.33
• Deliver funding for community-based projects to support inclusion, access and equity to support diverse Tasmanians who experience barriers for accessing support for family and sexual violence.34
• Continue the Hearing Lived Experience 2022 Survey of Victim-Survivors of Family and Sexual Violence to inform implementation of the action plan and provide a comprehensive data set of victim-survivor experiences.35

Survivors at the Centre also commits to a program of measurement, evaluation and learning, which will be formalised into an Outcomes Framework that will be
‘co-designed with victim-survivors, the family and sexual violence service system and community members, and will be delivered in the second year of [the] Action Plan’.36 The current plan does not outline the governance arrangements in place to oversee the implementation of actions in the plan, despite such arrangements having appeared in an earlier iteration.37

In our view, Survivors at the Centre, in its current form, is not sufficiently targeted towards child sexual abuse, child sexual abuse in institutions and harmful sexual behaviours. It does not contemplate reform work the Government announced in response to our Commission of Inquiry, including:

• the Premier’s priorities for action to keep children safe (also known as the Keeping Children Safer Actions that are summarised in Chapter 2)
• establishing the Child and Youth Safe Standards
• establishing the Reportable Conduct Scheme

These are key elements of a response to child sexual abuse in institutions.38

The plan also does not align with a contemporary understanding of child sexual abuse and family violence. The National Family Violence Plan acknowledged that ‘many of the risk factors and experiences of child abuse and neglect align closely with violence against women and children’.39 However, the National Family Violence Plan recognised the need for two distinct approaches to family violence and child sexual abuse because:

Sexual violence perpetrated against children below the age of consent is child sexual abuse. Although these issues are interrelated, the Commonwealth’s child sexual abuse response is covered by the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021–2030. The drivers and impacts of child sexual abuse can be vastly different to those of adult sexual abuse, and they require different responses [emphasis is ours].40

As a result, the Australian Government has two separate approaches to these issues that sit side-by-side:

• National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022–2032
• National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021–2030.41

This latter strategy encompasses all child sexual abuse, regardless of the context in which it occurs. We consider Tasmania should take a similar approach and develop its own child sexual abuse reform strategy. The Australian Childhood Maltreatment Study has shown the scale of the problem of child sexual abuse (including child sexual abuse in institutions) in Australia. This study found an overall national prevalence of child sexual abuse in Australia of 28.5 per cent, and a prevalence of child sexual abuse in Australia of 25.7 per cent among those surveyed who were aged 16–24.42 We consider a standalone strategy is not only justified but warranted. We note that in developing a separate reform strategy to respond to child sexual abuse, Tasmania would model a best practice whole of government response to child sexual abuse for other states and territories in Australia.

Tasmania’s child sexual abuse reform strategy should align with the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse and existing strategies and frameworks relating to children and young people that the Government has already developed. Taking this approach will provide information and guidance to victim-survivors and their families, the community and government and government funded agencies and statutory bodies on what is being done to address and respond to child sexual abuse, child sexual abuse in institutions and harmful sexual behaviours in Tasmania. It will ensure these agencies and statutory bodies meet their obligations. It will also ensure the different drivers associated with child sexual abuse (including in institutional settings) and harmful sexual behaviours are being appropriately addressed and are not lost within a much broader approach to family and sexual violence. Importantly, it will act as a safety net for the Government to be self-assured it has a coordinated whole of government approach to creating, monitoring and improving its response to child sexual abuse.

The Government has committed to an extensive reform agenda in relation to child sexual abuse in institutions. This reform agenda includes implementing:

• recommendations from the National Royal Commission
• recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into the Tasmanian Department of Education’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
• Keeping Children Safer Actions
• recommendations from the Child Safe Governance Review of the Launceston General Hospital and Human Resources and the Launceston General Hospital Community Recovery Initiative
• recommendations from our Commission of Inquiry.43

These reforms should be captured in the child sexual abuse reform strategy.

This strategy should outline a ‘theory of change’, that is, the system for preventing, identifying and responding to child sexual abuse that Tasmania is seeking to achieve, including the component parts of that system, how Tasmanians will know it is working, and the role of different reforms and recommendations in achieving the intended outcomes.

The strategy should address many of the matters we raise across our report or that are essential elements of a whole of government strategy. These elements include:

• identifying guiding principles
• ensuring empowerment of children
• defining key concepts
• addressing diversity
• outlining key reform agendas.

The development of the child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan will benefit from consultation. In Chapter 21, we recommend establishing a peak body for the sexual assault service system. In developing the strategy and action plan, the Government should consult with the:

• peak body
• Premier’s Youth Advisory Council
• adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse advisory group we recommend be established later in this chapter.

1. Developing an action plan for child sexual abuse reform

Implementing an extensive reform agenda requires coordinated planning and prioritisation across the whole of government.

Tim Cartwright APM, inaugural Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor for the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence from August 2016 until August 2019, told us that although there is often a degree of urgency to implementing recommendations after a royal commission, implementation must be undertaken in a way that is designed to ‘build a path to sustainable change’.44 A key step in this process is developing a detailed implementation plan.45

Mr Cartwright told us, in relation to implementing royal commission recommendations, it was important for an implementation plan to identify:

• intended completion dates for each recommendation
• the agency or government department responsible for each recommendation
• any milestones, dependencies and priority actions.46

Mr Cartwright said that in his role as the inaugural Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor, ‘[t]he absence of this information made it very difficult to report on progress against individual recommendations’.47 We consider similar principles also apply to implementing a reform strategy.

Ms Shuard emphasised the importance of understanding the intended outcomes of proposed reforms and the various roles that many departments play in achieving those reforms:

Reform requires the involvement of multiple agencies and departments. Implementing change is about everybody understanding how new elements fit into the overall existing system to achieve the desired outcomes. A whole lot of actions are required to make a specific recommendation work beyond just the specific reform. So there is a need to clearly identify and understand the intended outcomes.48

Mr Cartwright told us that responsibility for implementation ‘is best given to agencies that have a track record in program delivery and implementation’.49 Agencies allocated responsibility for implementing recommendations must have a track record for engaging stakeholders and the community, and be open to receiving scrutiny and criticism, including from an implementation monitor.50

In our view, the Tasmanian Government should develop a well-considered action plan that outlines how all the individual reforms comprising key reform initiatives identified in the child sexual abuse reform strategy, are to be prioritised for implementation over the short-, medium- and long-term. The action plan should consider the timeframes we propose for the implementation of our recommendations is Chapter 22. It should also assign responsibility for implementing the reforms to an agency and role holder, and include a transparent process for reporting against the implementation of recommendations. While we recognise the action plan may need to evolve over time due to changes in factors affecting the successful implementation of reform, at the outset, we consider it should contain several elements that we identify in Recommendation 19.1.

The child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan should be overseen and reviewed under a strong governance structure, which includes representation from children and young people and victim-survivors of child sexual abuse (refer to Recommendation 19.5). The Child Sexual Abuse Reform Implementation Monitor we recommend in Chapter 22 (refer to Recommendation 22.1) should monitor the Government’s progress against the strategy and action plan.

Recommendation 19.1

1. The Tasmanian Government should develop a whole of government child sexual abuse reform strategy for preventing, identifying and responding to child sexual abuse, including child sexual abuse in institutions and harmful sexual behaviours. The strategy should:
   1. describe the system that Tasmania seeks to achieve, including the component parts of that system, how Tasmanians will know it is working, and the role of key initiatives, reforms and recommendations in achieving the intended outcomes
   2. be separate from, but complement, the Government’s Family and Sexual Violence Action Plan
   3. be informed by the voices of children and young people and adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse (Recommendation 19.5)
   4. include agreed definitions of child sexual abuse, institutional child sexual abuse and harmful sexual behaviours
   5. set out guiding principles and objectives to inform preventing, identifying and responding to child sexual abuse
   6. identify the agencies, including statutory bodies and non-government organisations, involved in preventing, identifying and responding to child sexual abuse
   7. set out processes through which government agencies, statutory bodies and non-government organisations can consult on child sexual abuse reform
   8. set out considerations relevant to particular cohorts of children and young people, including Aboriginal children, children with disability, children with mental illness, children who identify as LGBTQIA+ and children from culturally and linguistically diverse communities
   9. outline the sources of funding for key initiatives and reforms set out in the strategy
   10. outline the governance, monitoring, review and evaluation arrangements for child sexual abuse reform, including that the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, as Chair of the Secretaries Board, is responsible for endorsing, overseeing, coordinating and reporting on the strategy and action plan (Recommendation 19.3).
2. The Tasmanian Government should develop an action plan for the implementation of the child sexual abuse reform strategy. The action plan should:
   1. prioritise all recommendations and reforms for implementation over the short, medium and long term and include expected timeframes for implementing each recommendation
   2. identify the role holders and agencies that have responsibility for implementation of each recommendation and reform
   3. describe the actions to be taken to implement the recommendations and reforms, including any milestones, sequencing and dependencies
   4. identify the status of each recommendation and reform (that is, complete, under way or not commenced) and whether it is progressing on time
   5. be endorsed and overseen by the governance structure identified in the strategy.
3. The child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan should be:
   1. tabled in each House of Parliament
   2. published on a dedicated website
   3. supported by a communication plan that seeks to inform and provide visibility of reform work to stakeholders and the community
   4. periodically reviewed and updated by the Secretaries Board through the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

1. Ensuring the system for preventing, identifying and responding to child sexual abuse is trauma-informed

The National Royal Commission identified that all human services should respond to the needs of victim-survivors of child sexual abuse and ‘should be trauma-informed and have an understanding of institutional child sexual abuse’.51 It recommended:

The Australian Government and state and territory government agencies responsible for the delivery of human services should ensure relevant policy frameworks and strategies recognise the needs of victims and survivors and the benefits of implementing trauma-informed approaches.52

Research commissioned by the National Royal Commission defined trauma-informed approaches as:

• recognising the impact of trauma on a victim-survivor
• understanding their behaviour in the context of their past trauma
• interacting in a way that supports recovery and reduces the possibility
  of re-traumatisation.53

The term ‘trauma-informed’ refers specifically to ‘the context in which services are offered’ (emphasis in original), as distinguished from ‘trauma-specific treatment services’, which refers to clinical treatments for the trauma itself.54 Both are essential.

In Tasmania, several victim-survivors and those who worked with them told us how their experiences with government services—such as the Child Safety Service, Tasmania Police, Director of Public Prosecutions, the Teachers Registration Board and hospitals—had not been trauma-informed. In some cases, we heard these services increased the harm caused by the abuse.55 Kathryn Fordyce, Chief Executive Officer, Laurel House, observed that first contact with services is a particular challenge for victim-survivors of institutional abuse because their confidence that an institution will act in their best interests has already been ‘damaged’.56 Jillian Maxwell, Chief Executive Officer, Sexual Assault Support Service, said victim-survivors report that they have often tried to disclose their abuse and seek help and ‘either feel not heard, believed or silenced’.57 She expressed concern that there was ‘a lack of or sufficient trauma-informed training about child sexual assault in some government settings and facilities’.58

The child sexual abuse reform strategy we recommend the Tasmanian Government develops (refer to Recommendation 19.1) should require all relevant staff to undertake regular professional development in responding to trauma.

We note that ‘relevant staff’ is a broad category and includes:

• many government and government funded staff of human service organisations including employees, volunteers, contractors and sub-contractors
• staff involved in direct responses to child sexual abuse such as the police, health workers and counsellors
• staff working in services in which child sexual abuse survivors are disproportionately represented, such as drug and alcohol, health, housing, legal services and prisons
• staff who are tasked with developing policy and are empowered to make decisions about people affected by trauma
• staff working within statutory bodies (such as the Commissioner for Children and Young People) who may have contact with child sexual abuse victim-survivors.

We note that as part of the Keeping Children Safer Actions, the Government made the following commitments:

• investigate rolling out trauma-informed training across the State Service with those in leadership positions, including Heads of Agencies59
• review the structure and processes across civil litigation to ensure the approach is trauma-informed and that legal practitioners recognise evidence-based understandings of the nature and impact of child sexual abuse60
• require mandatory professional development for all Department for Education, Children and Young People staff61
• make trauma-informed practice training mandatory for investigators
  and other state servants involved in misconduct investigation processes.62

These commitments have been marked as complete, except for the third, which has an expected delivery date of September 2023.63

In several other volumes and chapters of our report we have also made context-specific recommendations regarding mandatory minimum knowledge about child sexual abuse, grooming, professional boundary breaches, harmful sexual behaviours, reporting and responding. Regarding mandatory education, the Government’s overall aim should be to ensure the delivery of appropriate mandatory education to as many people as possible in the most cost-effective way. Some roles will require a more advanced level of knowledge and skill (for example, child safety officers), or professional development tailored to elevated risks in a specific context, such as residential care, youth detention or policing. However, there will also be a minimum level of knowledge in child sexual abuse, grooming, professional boundary breaches and harmful sexual behaviours that is common across sectors. We recognise the Department of Health and the Department for Education, Children and Young People have recently developed and started rolling out mandatory reporter training. To help in cost efficiency and consistency of understanding, we suggest that state-owned and developed child sexual abuse professional development materials be collated and made available when new training is being developed by state agencies. In the future, consideration should also be given to whether any of these training offerings can be consolidated.

Recommendation 19.2

The Tasmanian Government should develop a whole of government approach to professional development on responding to trauma within government and government funded services, as well as statutory bodies, that provide services to children and young people or adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse.

1. Establishing leadership, accountability and governance for child safety

The successful implementation of reform requires strong and sustainable leadership, accountability and governance mechanisms. The Tasmanian Government will need to establish these mechanisms before starting the reform work included in the child sexual abuse reform strategy and accompanying action plan.

1. Leadership and accountability for child safety

At the beginning of our Inquiry, we were concerned there was an absence of clear leadership, responsibility or accountability for child safety across the Tasmanian Government.

In week one of our hearings, Jenny Gale, Secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet and Head of the State Service, and Ginna Webster, Secretary, Department of Justice, gave evidence on system responses, accountability and the implementation of the National Royal Commission recommendations.64 Secretary Webster is responsible for the Child Abuse Royal Commission Response Unit, which coordinates the Government’s response to, and implementation of, the National Royal Commission’s recommendations. This Unit also develops the annual progress reports and action plans that indicate Tasmania’s progress against these recommendations.65 Responsibility for implementing specific recommendations has also been allocated to the Department of Justice and other government departments and agencies, including the:

• former Department of Communities
• former Department of Education (now the Department for Education, Children and Young People)
• Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
• Department of Premier and Cabinet
• Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.66

The Department of Health does not have responsibility for implementing any recommendations, although we note it is now leading the response to the Child Safe Governance Review of the Launceston General Hospital and Human Resources and the Launceston General Hospital Community Recovery Initiative (which we discuss in Chapter 15).

We had anticipated that both Secretaries would jointly or individually be able to outline the cross-government system for preventing, identifying and responding to child sexual abuse and the role and responsibilities of the various government agencies within this system.

Secretary Gale gave evidence that the prevention and detection of child sexual abuse in institutions was a priority for the State of Tasmania but did not articulate how this prioritisation was being achieved in practice. She deferred to Secretary Webster on the question of implementing the National Royal Commission’s recommendations.67 Secretary Gale conceded that child safety had not previously been a focus of her department under her leadership.68

Secretary Webster explained that the Department of Justice was responsible for compiling information about other departments’ progress in implementing reforms but not for holding them to account:

… the department leads the whole of government response to those recommendations, and whilst we wouldn’t be responsible for other agencies and their implementation, we would certainly be responsible for getting information about how progressed they are; assisting in terms of any barriers that might exist in its implementation, and compiling the report, the reporting process that’s required.69

Secretary Webster indicated she did not have capacity to direct other Heads of Agencies or government departments in relation to implementing the recommendations.70 However, she clarified that, as the Chair of the interdepartmental committee established in relation to implementing the National Royal Commission recommendations, she could raise the progress of a recommendation with the relevant agency member on the committee, Head of Agency or Deputy Secretary.71

Secretary Webster agreed she had accountability and oversight regarding the implementation of some of the National Royal Commission’s recommendations but limited power to actually influence the progression of recommendations that sat outside of her own department.72 When asked by Counsel Assisting our Inquiry whether she was satisfied with the progress of implementing the National Royal Commission’s recommendations, Secretary Webster said she was ‘very comfortable that it is a priority for our department and that we are taking the action we need to take; of course, I’d always like things to move a lot faster than they do in lots of areas’.73

We also learned during our Commission of Inquiry that Heads of Agencies across the Government, including those with responsibility for direct service provision to children, did not have any direct or specific accountability for safeguarding children or accountability regarding child sexual abuse as part of their performance agreements.74

1. Efforts to improve leadership and accountability for child safety and reform

Through the course of our Inquiry, we saw significant improvement in whole of government leadership, including in relation to reform regarding child sexual abuse in institutions.

1. Establishment of the Secretaries Board

The Independent Review of the Tasmanian State Service (‘State Service Review’) (published in July 2021) considered whether the governing framework for the State Service was fit for purpose. The review made 77 recommendations to improve the overall operation of the State Service.75

The Secretaries Board was established in early 2022 in response to the State Service Review.76 It comprises ‘every departmental Secretary’.77 Secretary Gale chairs the Secretaries Board and meets on a monthly basis.78 Secretary Gale told us the Secretaries Board is guided by terms of reference that require the identification of priorities for the Tasmanian State Service. It is also guided by regular updates and discussion on whole of government implementation of these priorities.79 This reflects a significant shift in whole of government accountability, noting that Tasmania’s previous arrangements for Heads of Agencies meetings were informal and not subject to terms of reference or formalised reporting requirements.80

Secretary Gale told us the Secretaries Board would provide improved governance and accountability for reforms relating to preventing, identifying, reporting and responding to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts. Secretary Gale explained that the Secretaries Board now has collective oversight of the Keeping Children Safer Actions.81 She said the Premier had tasked the Department of Premier and Cabinet with responsibility for leading reporting to Cabinet on implementation progress in relation to these actions.82 Although specific actions have been tasked to different government agencies for implementation, as Chair of the Secretaries Board, Secretary Gale is accountable for this work.83 We consider this responsibility should extend to the oversight and accountability for the child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan (refer to Recommendation 19.1).

1. Changes to Head of Agency Performance Agreements

During our Inquiry, Heads of Agency Performance Agreements have been changed to ‘clarify expectations and improve accountability [for] making sure child safety and wellbeing is embedded in organisational leadership, governance and culture’.84

This was made possible due to changes in response to the State Service Review. The review observed that for the Tasmanian State Service to ‘function well’ the ‘reporting and decision-making responsibilities between ministers, ministerial staff, Heads of Agencies and senior executives must be clearly stated’ and that ‘all parties must understand their role and their accountabilities, particularly in the case of
statutory and legislative responsibilities’.85 The review observed that the:

• existing performance management process did not always effectively hold departmental secretaries to account for whole of government initiatives86
• performance assessment processes for Heads of Agencies should be reshaped to ensure that whole of government outcomes feature alongside portfolio-based accountabilities, and that the Premier is more centrally involved in the process87
• performance agreement for Heads of Agencies should explicitly set out the responsibility of Heads of Agencies to contribute to cross-portfolio programs (including whole of government priorities) and whole of government capability development as well as that of their own agencies.88

The review made three recommendations to improve performance agreements and assessments for departmental secretaries:

Recommendation 7

That the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, in full consultation with relevant portfolio ministers and the Premier, develop and undertake departmental secretaries’ annual performance agreements and assessments.89

Recommendation 8

That the Premier undertake the annual performance agreement and assessment of the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, informed by discussions with ministers (as the Premier sees appropriate) and consolidated advice from other departmental secretaries.90

Recommendation 9

Consider [Heads of Agencies] contribution to developing the [Tasmanian State Service] as a genuinely single state service, including the delivery of cross-portfolio outcomes (such as whole-of-government priorities) and whole-of-government capability development, in agency heads’ performance assessments.91

Secretary Gale told us this new approach to developing departmental secretaries’ annual performance agreements and assessments enables common themes to be included in performance agreements. These themes include shared accountability for the safety of Tasmanian children in government institutions, particularly for secretaries whose departments engage in child-related work.92

Secretary Gale spoke about what these changes mean in relation to departmental secretaries’ performance agreements and her own performance agreement:

Every Head of Agency’s performance agreement with the Premier will commit them to identify and take action within their own department and across the service that will keep children safer. This commitment applies regardless of whether that agency engages directly in child-related work.

In my own performance agreement I commit to being accountable for facilitation and coordination of the suite of actions known as, Keeping Children Safer Actions….

I also commit to continuing to roll out more trauma-informed training across the [State Service] and to supporting improvements that will see trauma-informed complaints handling processes across the [State Service].93

1. Our observations

We consider the reforms we recommend regarding child sexual abuse in institutions should be a whole of government priority. As such, the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, as Chair of the Secretaries Board, should be responsible for endorsing, overseeing, coordinating and reporting on the child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan.

All relevant secretaries, as members of the Secretaries Board, should be responsible for actioning particular reforms under the child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan within their portfolio responsibilities. These responsibilities should be included in their performance agreements and reviewed annually.

We also consider that accountability for implementing the child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan should be extended to the performance agreements of other relevant State Service executives. Over time, the statements of duties for relevant departmental staff, particularly those who provide services to children and young people, should also reflect their responsibilities in relation to the strategy and action plan. This signifies that everyone has a responsibility for keeping children and young people safe within government institutions.

Recommendation 19.3

The Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, as Chair of the Secretaries Board, should be responsible for endorsing, overseeing, coordinating and reporting on the child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan.

Recommendation 19.4

1. The Premier should, through their performance agreements, ensure Heads of Agencies are responsible for reforms under the child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan within their portfolio responsibilities.
2. Heads of Agencies should ensure relevant State Service executives are also responsible for implementing the strategy and action plan.
3. The statements of duties for relevant departmental staff should refer to their responsibilities in relation to the strategy and action plan.

1. Existing governance structures for child safety reform

At our hearings, Ms Shuard told us that a governance structure must be inclusive
of a ‘whole range of agencies’ to ensure coordination and that no one is left behind in relation to reform work.94 Ms Shuard said reporting mechanisms are also important for ensuring there is a shared understanding of what’s happening across all the reforms.95 She was of the view that system-wide risks should be brought to the attention of the Secretaries Board.96 She also emphasised the importance of hearing the voices of children and young people:

Their voice must be heard in these arrangements, otherwise we design around our old constructs and forget what that might mean for children and young people, so the peak bodies or advocates for children and young people are essential voices to be heard …97

The Tasmanian Government has established a governance structure for overseeing and implementing the Keeping Children Safer Actions. This structure comprises:

• Department of Premier and Cabinet, which is responsible for coordinating, monitoring and reporting on the Keeping Children Safer Actions.98
  The Department drafts monthly briefings and implementation status reports for Cabinet.99
• Departmental secretaries and Heads of Agencies, who have been allocated responsibility for implementing the Keeping Children Safer Actions by the Premier (either as a sole agency or with another agency or agencies).100 Departmental secretaries are accountable to the Premier for implementing the Keeping Children Safer Actions under performance management instruments.101 Department leads prepare fortnightly reports for the Keeping Children Safer Working Group.102
• Keeping Children Safer Working Group, which comprises Deputy Secretaries and Directors from across government and has been established to coordinate and oversee implementation activity regarding the Keeping Children Safer actions, provide authoritative advice and endorse fortnightly implementation status reports and reports to Cabinet.103 The Working Group is guided by terms of reference and meets fortnightly.104 It also has access to advice and consultation from subject matter experts as needed.105 The Working Group reports to the Secretaries Board through written reports after each meeting.106 The Working Group is supported by a Secretariat from the Policy Branch within the Department of Premier and Cabinet.107
• Secretaries Board, which steers implementation activity, helps resolve barriers to implementation and endorses implementation plans and status reports.108
• Cabinet, which receives and endorses monthly implementation status reports prepared by the Department of Premier and Cabinet.109

The governance structure for the Keeping Children Safer Actions is shown in the following figure.

Figure 19.1: Governance structure for the Keeping Children Safer Actions110

Source: Statement of Jenny Gale, 23 November 2022.

Secretary Gale also told us:

• The Children, Young People and Families Safety and Wellbeing Cabinet Committee oversees policies and programs that focus on family and sexual violence and the safety and wellbeing of children, young people and their families in Tasmania.111 Their work includes overseeing the implementation of the Safe Homes, Families, Communities initiative, Strong Families Safe Kids initiative and the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy.112 The Committee is supported by a ‘senior officials’ committee’, which is chaired by Secretary Gale.113
• The Department of Premier and Cabinet has responsibility for developing and delivering whole of government policies relating to child safety and wellbeing, including stewardship of the It Takes a Tasmanian Village: Tasmania’s Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy and the Safe Homes, Safe Families: Tasmania’s Family Violence Action Plan 2015–2020.114

We consider this governance structure provides a strong foundation for overseeing and implementing the child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan. In the following sections, we discuss how this governance structure could be strengthened by providing a mechanism for children and young people and adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse to influence the system designed to benefit them.

We also consider this governance structure could be strengthened by ongoing sector engagement with agencies outside of government. Throughout our report, we have identified the key role of non-government agencies, including in relation to providing out of home care services and sexual assault counselling. These entities will be a good measure of the success of reforms and should be consulted when developing the strategy and action plan.

We also observe that there does not appear to be any governance arrangements in place to provide an ongoing voice to government from children and young people, such as through the Premier’s Youth Advisory Council, or from adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse. There are no arrangements to ensure representation from diverse communities in Tasmania, including the Aboriginal community, people with disability, people with mental illness, LGBTQIA+ people, and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. We discuss the inclusion of these voices in the following section of this chapter.

1. Empowering children and young people and adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse

Children and young people and adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse should be empowered to participate in regular discussion on issues that directly affect them and contribute to change and reform. They should also be able to advise the Tasmanian Government on the best ways to coordinate and implement reform work.115
The participation of children and young people and adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse ensures the voices of service users and affected populations can contribute to designing and implementing a system that meets the needs of service users, service providers and the Government.116

The Australian Human Rights Commission report Keeping Kids Safe and Well—Your Voices (released on 6 April 2022) was based on consultations led by Anne Hollonds, National Children’s Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission, to inform the Australian Government’s Actions Plans on Safe and Supported: The National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2021–2031.117 In relation to the consultations that informed the report, Ms Hollonds said:

Overwhelmingly, children, young people and families told us how important
it is that governments and service providers listen to them when making decisions that affect them.118

At our hearings, Ms Hollonds also said:

… my experience has been that actually when kids are at the table they’re surprisingly insightful and refreshing in all of their wisdom, and they actually bring something that adults don’t bring to the conversation …119

We note that steps to involve children and young people as well as adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse have already been taken by some government agencies regarding child sexual abuse reform activity.

For example, children and young people and adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse were engaged when developing the Child and Youth Safe Organisation Framework—comprising the Child and Youth Safe Standards and Reportable Conduct Scheme—being implemented by the Department of Justice.120 Secretary Webster told us advisory panels were established relating to developing the framework and included a Lived Experience Advisory Panel comprising adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse in institutional settings and family and friends of victim-survivors.121

A suite of consultation methods was also used to capture the views and opinions of children and young people in the community, including children and young people with experience of the out of home care system.122

Secretary Webster also told us:

People with lived experience of child sexual abuse in institutional settings and children and young people are critical stakeholders in the project to develop and implement the Framework. Their expertise gained through lived experience will be a valuable contribution to the policy development and implementation planning for the Framework. Genuine engagement with children and young people and victim-survivor advocates through the project cycle also reflects the Government’s commitment to the Child Safe Standards.123

As noted above, the Government is also establishing its first Victim-Survivor Advisory Council as an action under its most recent Family and Sexual Violence Action Plan—Survivors at the Centre.124 The Council will include victim-survivors of family and sexual violence, including adults who may have experienced child sexual abuse, and family and friends of victims who lost their lives to family and sexual violence. It will provide an ongoing voice to government.125 However, it is not clear how many members will have lived experience of child sexual abuse, or whether the Council will be consulted about reform work falling outside the actions identified in Survivors at the Centre, including reforms relating to child sexual abuse in institutions. We consider victim-survivors of child sexual abuse to have distinct experiences and needs that differentiate them from adult victim-survivors of family and sexual violence.

In our view, the Government must show an ongoing preparedness to hear the voices of children and young people and adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse, including child sexual abuse in institutions, at a broader whole of government level and across all reforms. We recommend the governance structures for the child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan incorporate the voices of children and young people and adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse, including child sexual abuse in institutions. Sustained and ongoing engagement of children and young people and adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse is crucial to building an understanding of issues relating to child safety, child sexual abuse (including child sexual abuse in institutions) and harmful sexual behaviours. It is also crucial for ensuring policy and reform work meets service user needs. We consider the Government can achieve this governance structure through the already established Premier’s Youth Advisory Council and through the establishment of an adult-victim survivors of child sexual abuse advisory group.

The Premier’s Youth Advisory Council comprises a group of young people aged between 12 and 25 years. It provides an opportunity for ‘young people to inform the Tasmanian Government on issues and policies that affect them and their peers’ through meetings with the Premier and the Minister for Education, Children and Youth ‘several times a year’.126

We consider the adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse advisory group should comprise some members who have experienced child sexual abuse in institutions.

These groups should be representative of the diverse communities in Tasmania, including the Aboriginal community, people with disability, people with mental illness, LGBTQIA+ people and culturally and linguistically diverse communities.

The issues we consider each advisory group can contribute to include:

• the therapeutic service system that supports victim-survivors
  and their families and carers
• whole of government policies relating to child safety
• strategies to raise awareness about child safety, including in government institutions
• resources for children and young people in relation to the prevention, identification and response to child sexual abuse
• forms of engagement with children and young people and adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse
• initiatives designed to improve and respond to the safety of children and young people and harmful sexual behaviours, including initiatives designed for particular cohorts of children
• professional development initiatives to promote trauma-informed practices across government
• recruiting senior leadership roles focused on children and safety
  (for example, the Commissioner for Children and Young People).

Each advisory group should be promoted across government as a key mechanism through which to test ideas, policies and reform initiatives relating to child safety.

In other chapters of our report, we also recommend establishing advisory
groups for specific institutional contexts, such as out of home care, Ashley Youth Detention Centre and health services (refer to Recommendations 9.6, 12.8 and 15.7). We considered whether, for efficiency, there could be one advisory group to meet these different purposes. However, in our view, these specific institutional contexts require specialist knowledge, gained through lived experience, about those systems. We consider these institution-specific advisory groups should also be consulted on policy and reform work when this is appropriate. In contrast, given the lower level of vulnerability of most children and young people in schools, we consider the Premier’s Youth Advisory Council, and other existing broad student representative voice mechanisms, should be engaged regarding policy and reform work in schools.

We also recommend that the mechanisms for engaging with children and young people and adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse, including child sexual abuse in institutions, be set out in the child sexual abuse reform strategy (Recommendation 19.1).
Promoting these mechanisms through the strategy will build awareness of the mechanisms and ensure they are consistently and regularly engaged in policy design and reform work as standard practice across government.

Recommendation 19.5

1. The Tasmanian Government should ensure, in setting out the governance structure for the child sexual abuse reform strategy and action plan, that children and young people and adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse are part of this governance structure through:
   1. the Premier’s Youth Advisory Council
   2. the establishment of an advisory group comprising adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse, including child sexual abuse in institutions, of different ages, backgrounds, cultures, gender identities and geographical locations and parents of child victim-survivors.
2. The Department of Premier and Cabinet should report on the activities of these advisory groups in its annual report.
3. These advisory groups should:
   1. be guided by clear terms of reference that have been developed in consultation with the advisory groups
   2. have a clear purpose and objectives in terms of how they can contribute across the whole of government
   3. receive secretarial support and be adequately funded and resourced
   4. ensure trauma-informed processes apply in their interactions
   5. support and enable members’ attendance by covering the costs of travel and expenses, and providing honorariums where appropriate.

1. Improving information sharing and cross-agency coordination for child safety

To prevent, identify, report and respond to child sexual abuse in institutions, it is essential government and government funded agencies and statutory bodies work effectively with one another. As outlined, many agencies have a role in addressing child sexual abuse in institutions. However, to achieve an effective response, agencies must be clear on the scope of their role and responsibilities and maintain strong communication.127

In this section, we summarise some problems we heard about information sharing and coordination across agencies relating to child safety issues, and the steps the Tasmanian Government is taking to address these issues. We recommend that any legislative barriers that hinder the sharing of information to protect the safety and wellbeing of children in Tasmania’s legislation be identified and removed.

To further support effective responses to child safety issues, we also
recommend the development of child safety information sharing, coordination and response for government and government provided agencies and statutory bodies. These guidelines should clearly articulate the roles and responsibilities of collaborating agencies in responding to child safety issues, including their information sharing obligations.

1. The National Royal Commission

The National Royal Commission defined ‘information sharing’ or ‘information exchange’ in the following way:

‘Information sharing’ and ‘information exchange’ refers to the sharing or exchange of information, including personal information, about, or related to, child sexual abuse in institutional contexts. The terms refer to the sharing of information between (and, in some cases, within) institutions, including non-government institutions, government and law enforcement agencies, and independent regulatory or oversight bodies. They also refer to the sharing of information by and with professionals who operate as individuals to provide key services to or for children.128

The National Royal Commission considered that information sharing between institutions with responsibilities for the safety of children is important to ‘identify, prevent and respond to incidents and risks of child sexual abuse’.129 It also considered the exchange of information to be important in ensuring the ‘proper functioning of reportable conduct and Working With Children Check schemes’.130 It noted that no single institution collects all the relevant information that can protect children, which is why information must be shared across institutions to enable effective responses to incidents and risks of child sexual abuse.131

As a matter of principle, we consider information sharing should occur when there is a concern about a risk of harm (including of child sexual abuse) to a child or a group of children, such as those in a particular institutional context. We also consider information should be shared with any entity that could act to address this risk now or in the future.

1. Recommendations on information sharing

The National Royal Commission observed the exchange of information relating to child safety often involves personal and sensitive information (such as information about a child’s harmful sexual behaviours or information about adults who pose a potential risk to children), which is often protected by legislation.132 It noted that even where legislation permits the exchange of this information for child safety, there may be a reluctance to share such personal and sensitive information due to concerns about privacy, confidentiality, defamation and confusion about the application of complex and inconsistent laws.133 It also observed the exchange of information may be inhibited due to institutional cultures, poor leadership and weak or unclear governance arrangements.134

The National Royal Commission recommended a nationally consistent information sharing scheme between key agencies and institutions be developed and implemented to improve information sharing in relation to the safety and wellbeing of children within and across jurisdictions and sectors.135 It said the scheme should:

1. enable direct exchange of relevant information between a range of prescribed bodies, including service providers, government and non-government agencies, law enforcement agencies, and regulatory and oversight bodies, which have responsibilities related to children’s safety and wellbeing
2. permit prescribed bodies to provide relevant information to other prescribed bodies without a request, for purposes related to preventing, identifying and responding to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts
3. require prescribed bodies to share relevant information on request from other prescribed bodies, for purposes relating to preventing, identifying and responding to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts, subject to limited exceptions
4. explicitly prioritise children’s safety and wellbeing and override laws that might otherwise prohibit or restrict disclosure of information to prevent, identify and respond to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts
5. provide safeguards and other measures for oversight and accountability to prevent unauthorised sharing and improper use of information obtained under the information exchange scheme
6. require prescribed bodies to provide adversely affected persons with an opportunity to respond to untested or unsubstantiated allegations, where such information is received under the information exchange scheme, prior to taking adverse action against such persons, except where to do so could place another person at risk of harm.136

The National Royal Commission considered the core group of institutions that should be considered to include in the information exchange scheme to be:

• accommodation and residential services for children
• childcare services
• child protection and out of home care services
• disability services and supports for children with disability
• education services for children
• health services for children
• justice and detention services for children
• state and territory government agencies and public authorities
• law enforcement agencies
• Working With Children Check screening agencies
• regulatory and oversight agencies (including, for example, teacher registration authorities)
• Australian Government agencies that may hold information relating to the safety and wellbeing of children
• professionals who provide key services and supports to children as individual service providers, rather than through agencies or organisations (such as medical practitioners and psychologists)
• professional and disciplinary bodies that oversee professional practice in the institutions set out above.137

It also indicated that religious institutions, sport and recreation institutions and non-government organisations that provide particular services to adults (such as drug, alcohol and mental health services) be considered for inclusion.138

The National Royal Commission also recommended strengthening information sharing in the education and out of home care sectors. These recommendations provide for the sharing of information about:

• teachers regarding teacher registration across jurisdictions
• students who move schools and may, for example, have exhibited harmful sexual behaviours
• carers as part of introducing carers’ registers across jurisdictions to collect information about carers who have applied to work or do work at various out of home care agencies.139

Work has commenced to implement some of these recommendations in Tasmania, and some have already been implemented.140 However, as we outline in the following section, we still heard of problems relating to sharing child safety information.

Secretary Webster told us reform that related to improving access to and the sharing of information to protect children is a difficult area.141 She said although the National Royal Commission undertook significant work on the issue, it ‘fell short of providing definitive guidance about balancing privacy and risk to children’.142

1. Legislation governing the sharing of information about child safety in Tasmania

Legislation governing the exchange of information regarding the safety of children includes general privacy legislation and specific legislative schemes. In Tasmania, specific legislative schemes that govern the exchange of information between agencies about the safety of children in particular situations include:

• Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997 (‘Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act’)
• Youth Justice Act 1997 (‘Youth Justice Act’)
• Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act 2013 (‘Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act’).

The Personal Information Protection Act 2004 (‘Personal Information Protection Act’) regulates general information sharing between government agencies that falls outside of a legislative scheme. We discuss key pieces of legislation in the following sub-sections.

1. Personal Information Protection Act

The Personal Information Protection Act regulates the collection, maintenance, use, correction and disclosure of personal information relating to individuals. ‘Personal information’ encompasses any information or opinion in any recorded format about an individual whose identity is apparent or is reasonably ascertainable from the information or opinion. That individual must be alive or not have been dead for more than 25 years.143

A ‘personal information custodian’, which includes a government department, must comply with the Personal Information Protection Principles.144 These Principles state that a personal information custodian must not use or disclose personal information about an individual for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was collected unless, among other things:

• the personal information custodian reasonably believes that the use or disclosure is necessary to lessen or prevent a serious threat to an individual’s life, health, safety or welfare, or a serious threat to public health or public safety
• the personal information custodian has reason to suspect that unlawful activity has been, is being or may be engaged in, and uses or discloses the personal information as a necessary part of its investigation of the matter or in reporting its concerns to relevant persons or authorities
• the use or disclosure is required or authorised by or under law
• the personal information custodian reasonably believes the use or disclosure is reasonably necessary for the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of criminal offences or breaches of a law imposing a penalty or sanction by or on behalf of a law enforcement agency
• the personal information is to be used as employee information in relation to the suitability of the individual for appointment or the suitability of the individual for employment held by the individual
• the personal information is employee information that is being transferred from one personal information custodian to another personal information custodian for use as employee information relating to the individual.145

When a provision in the Personal Information Protection Act is inconsistent with a provision in another piece of legislation, the provision in the other legislation prevails.146

1. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act

The Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act provides for the care and protection of children in Tasmania. It sets out responsibilities and obligations regarding reporting concerns to the Child Safety Service about the abuse or neglect of children.147 It states that an adult who ‘knows, or believes or suspects on reasonable grounds’ that a child is suffering or is likely to suffer abuse or neglect has a responsibility to act to prevent the abuse. This action includes informing the relevant Secretary or the Strong Families Safe Kids Advice and Referral Line.148

Specific professionals, including state servants, also have mandatory reporting obligations. They must inform the relevant Secretary or the Strong Families Safe Kids Advice and Referral Line if, in carrying out official duties or in the course of their work, they know or believe or suspect on reasonable grounds that a child has been or is being abused.149 While there has been some confusion across the Tasmanian Government about whether mandatory reporting obligations arise when information suggests a potential risk to children generally, rather than a risk to a specifically identified child, we consider it best practice to make a report even when this uncertainty exists.

The Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act also provides for information exchange between the Child Safety Service and an ‘information-sharing entity’ for the safety, welfare or wellbeing of a person who is the subject of a notification to, or under an order of, the Child Safety Service (a relevant person).150 An ‘information-sharing entity’ includes a:

• mandatory reporter
• state servant
• person in charge of specified health and disability services
• person in charge of an organisation that receives a referral from the Child Safety Service.151

The Secretary may provide information to, or require information from, any of these entities.152 The information-sharing entity may, if satisfied that information in its possession relates to the safety, welfare or wellbeing of a relevant person, provide the Secretary with this information as well as another information-sharing entity if they are involved with, or are likely to be involved with, the relevant person or a significant person to the relevant person.153

The Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act provides that a person who receives a report from a notifier, or who becomes aware of the identity of a notifier of a report, as a result of administering the Act must not disclose the notifier’s identity to another person unless the disclosure is made:

• in the course of their official duties under the Act to another person who is acting in the course of their official duties
• with the consent of the notifier
• by way of evidence adduced with leave granted by the court
• to a law enforcement agency (since 2 October 2019).154

Although an individual engaged in administering the Act is obliged to maintain confidentiality, they may divulge information where, among other things, it is necessary or appropriate for the proper administration of the Act or they are legally authorised or required to do so.155 Individuals are protected from liability when performing or exercising functions and powers under the Act, including the disclosure of information.156 A similar protection is provided to the police.157

Since 1 March 2021, there have also been exceptions to the duty to maintain confidentiality for providing:

• relevant personal information for criminal and civil actions against alleged perpetrators who are the subject of the personal information
• information to agencies undertaking an employment screening or review process, or disciplinary investigations or proceedings, against a current or prospective employee or a volunteer.158

These 1 March 2021 exceptions apply if sharing the information does not disclose the identity of, or lead to the identification of, a person other than the person who is the subject of the civil or criminal proceedings or employment screening or disciplinary investigation or proceeding.159 Using this information is subject to the rules of procedural fairness.160

1. Youth Justice Act

The Youth Justice Act provides for the treatment and sanctioning of young people who have offended. It contains provisions relating to confidentiality. Specifically, the Youth Justice Act provides that, subject to some exceptions, a person must not publish any information regarding any action or proceeding that is to be, is being or has been taken against a young person and may lead to the identification of the youth, victim or another person involved who has not consented to publishing the information.161

1. Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act

The Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act establishes a screening and monitoring system for people who work with vulnerable people, including children and young people.162 A ‘reporting body’, which includes a State Service agency and the police service, that becomes aware by any means, or suspects on reasonable grounds that a person registered under the Act has engaged, or may have engaged, in reportable behaviour, must notify the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, as soon as practicable, of the name and other identifying details of the person and the behaviour.163 ‘Reportable behaviour’ is behaviour that poses a risk of harm to vulnerable persons, whether by neglect, abuse or other conduct.164

The Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act also contemplates the Registrar receiving information about reportable behaviour other than through the duty that a reporting body has to notify the Registrar. However, there is no specific legislative provision for receiving this information.165 There is nothing in the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act preventing an entity, including a government department or any individual, from notifying the Registrar of concerning behaviour involving any person. However, they would need to ensure they are not in breach of the general prohibition on the use or disclosure of personal information under the Personal Information Protection Act. Sharing relevant information with the Registrar would generally be for determining whether the person is suitable to:

• be registered under the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme (through a risk assessment)
• stay registered under the Scheme (through an additional risk assessment).

These purposes are for the broader purpose of protecting public safety or for the assessment of the suitability of the person for employment. Both purposes are exceptions to the general prohibition on the use or disclosure of personal information in the Personal Information Protection Act. Our view is that the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act should be amended to clarify that any person can notify reportable behaviour to the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme.

When the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme reasonably considers that an ‘entity’, which includes an individual, public authority or another body, may have information relevant to their functions and powers under the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act, they may require the entity to provide this information.166 The entity must comply with the request or provide a reasonable excuse for its failure to comply.167 Information the Registrar obtains arising from a request may only be used to administer the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act.168

Peter Graham, former Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, described the obligation to notify the Registrar of ‘reportable behaviour’ as the ‘backbone of the scheme’ because ‘it forms the basis of information available to the Registrar to consider when conducting a risk assessment [of a person applying for registration] or additional risk assessment [of a person who is already registered]’ under the Scheme.169

Mr Graham said notifications made under this obligation give the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme ‘significantly more information’ when undertaking risk assessments than is contemplated by the National Standards for Working with Children Checks. The information available to the Registrar includes criminal intelligence and other information provided by reporting bodies, including allegations that have not been tested by an investigation (unsubstantiated allegations).170

The Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme and their staff must not use or disclose information about a person that has been disclosed or obtained as part of the performance or exercise of a function or power under the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act, unless it is divulged under the Act, another Act or corresponding law, or with the person’s consent.171 The Registrar may disclose the result of a risk assessment, that the registration of a person has been suspended or cancelled, or other information relating to a registered person to another registering authority that has similar functions under another corresponding law.172

The Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme may also disclose this information to specified bodies or a person if they consider it appropriate to protect vulnerable persons or a class of vulnerable person from a risk of harm.173 We were told it is ‘typical’ for the Registrar to advise a State Service agency of a negative risk assessment regarding an individual, but not share the underlying information or grounds for the assessment. This is because it will generally have been informed by information that is available to the Registrar but not available to the State Service agency (that is, through criminal intelligence information).174

Recommendation 19.6

The Tasmanian Government should introduce legislation to amend the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act 2013 to clarify that, in addition to the duty to report in certain circumstances, any person can notify reportable behaviour to the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme.

1. Barriers to information sharing and coordination in Tasmania

During our Inquiry, we heard information sharing and coordination between agencies is not always done in a way that prioritises the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. We also heard it does not always support the needs of victim-survivors of child sexual abuse in institutions. While some of these barriers were explained to us in terms of legislative barriers, we consider culture to be the main barrier to appropriate information sharing and a coordinated response to child safety concerns.

Regarding mandatory reporting to the Child Safety Service and the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, we make findings in relation to or heard about the following barriers to information sharing:

• We find in Chapter 14, Case study 3, relating to James Griffin that Launceston General Hospital had no clear system or process in place to support complaints to external agencies and, as a result, staff were not aware of their reporting obligations, including to the Child Safety Service and Ahpra. We also highlighted in Chapter 15 that the Tasmanian Health Service Protocol – Complaint or Concern about Health Professional Conduct (November 2020) included an expectation that staff would not make a mandatory report without executive leadership approval.
• In Chapter 11, Case study 7, we find the Department of Justice does not have an appropriate process to ensure that information in National Redress Scheme applications is shared in a timely manner to protect children. We also discuss how poor information sharing between agencies increased the risk of child sexual abuse at Ashley Youth Detention Centre.
• Tasmania Police told us in its submission that ‘because different classes of people are required to report different types of conduct to different departments, the system is vulnerable to information exchange breakdown and consequent delays in investigation’.175
• Mr Graham told us it is clear there is a varied understanding of the reporting obligations under the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act across the State Service.176 Previously, legal advice provided to the Department of Justice was based on a narrow interpretation of the use of the word ‘finds’ regarding the reporting of reportable behaviour under the Act. This advice influenced agencies to not report to the Registrar until after a misconduct investigation had made a ‘finding’ of misconduct against a staff member.177 Since 1 February 2021, the wording in the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act in relation to this point has been clarified.178
• Secretary Webster told us that outside of Tasmania Police and the Child Safety Service, it has taken longer for other agencies to understand and meet their obligations of reporting to the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme.179

We also heard the following in relation to the sharing of information between Tasmania Police and the Child Safety Service:

• Until the 2021 Keeping Children Safe Memorandum of Understanding, Tasmania Police sometimes had to seek warrants to obtain information from the Child Safety Service.180 Both the memorandum and accompanying Keeping Children Safe Handbook now state: ‘Warrants are not required in order to facilitate the release of information relating to the safety of a child from either party and warrants will not be requested by either party in relation to the provision of such information’.181

Regarding State Service disciplinary processes, we heard of the following problems:

• Secretary Bullard told us the general prohibition in the Personal Information Protection Act restricted the former Department of Education’s ability to share information about a teacher that had been obtained through an investigation into a breach of the State Service Code of Conduct (referred to as an Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigation), including with the Teachers Registration Board.182 Secretary Bullard said this was based on advice that the purpose the information had been collected for (employee disciplinary processes by the Department) was different from the purpose the information was sought to be disclosed (determining good character and fitness to teach
  
  by the Teachers Registration Board).183 It is unclear to us why the public safety or employment reasons exceptions in the Personal Information Protection Act would not apply.
• Secretary Bullard and Secretary Gale both indicated the Personal Information Protection Act is a barrier to keeping complainants and victim-survivors informed about how abuse complaints are managed and the status of investigations.184
• Based on legal advice about the privacy provisions in the Children, Young People and Their Families Act and Youth Justice Act, the former Department of Communities had not provided un-redacted material (specifically the files of children who had been in Ashley Youth Detention Centre and Unit Diaries from the Centre) to investigators undertaking Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigations.185 As outlined before, these legislative provisions prevent publishing information about care and protection proceedings as well as court proceedings, formal or informal cautions or community conferences in particular circumstances regarding children and young people.186

In our view, these information sharing failures have placed children at risk by not ensuring relevant agencies or entities have the adequate information they need to perform their functions and fulfil their obligations to protect children. We agree with Secretary Bullard’s observation that information sharing is critical to assessing risk and ensuring the necessary supports are in place for the safety and wellbeing of children and young people.187

We acknowledge that some told us information sharing problems stem from legislative barriers. For example, Mr Graham told us a general exemption should be included in the Personal Information Protection Act that enables information about the safety of children to be shared, noting it would combat the reluctance some people have in sharing information because the Personal Information Protection Act is often used as a barrier to information exchange.188

Similarly, Secretary Bullard embraced including such a legislative provision in the Personal Information Protection Act. He queried whether such a provision should be mandatory or permissive.189 Secretary Bullard said making it mandatory would likely be easier because this removes the need for deliberation and judgment.190

In our view, the Personal Information Protection Act already contains sufficient exemptions which would, if interpreted in a way that seeks to promote the safety and wellbeing of children and young people, enable information about the safety of children to be shared, particularly where:

… the personal information custodian reasonably believes that the use or disclosure [of personal information] is necessary to lessen or prevent … a serious threat to an individual’s life, health, safety or welfare; or a serious threat to public health or public safety.191

These provisions reflect provisions in other jurisdictions, including the Australian Privacy Principles.192

As noted, Secretary Webster told us it was her belief that one of the most difficult areas of reform will be improving access to and sharing information.193 Secretary Webster explained this particularly in relation to any legislative changes required:

These reforms impinge on the existing privacy rights of individuals. Legislative reforms to information sharing and erosion of privacy protections can be fraught and controversial. I fully support the need to significantly increase the rights of children to be safe and understand the processes that have affected them, but I note that these reforms will need to be carefully considered and balanced. I also note that these reforms will be complex drafting exercises because of the numerous Tasmanian statutes that contain confidentiality provisions for a [sic] various policy reasons.194

Secretary Bullard said changing information sharing practices requires ‘sustained change management’ including clarity about what information agencies hold, what information can and should be shared, purposes for which it can be shared and with whom.195 He said it then requires a concerted effort to understand and address underlying beliefs or assumptions about what information should or should not be shared.196 He said it also requires an understanding of legal and other barriers to change and a willingness to make legislative amendments as required.197 Despite this challenge, Secretary Bullard said information sharing between departments, independent statutory bodies and with victim-survivors needs to be improved within the bounds of what is legally permissible.198

Where there are legislative barriers, these should be removed. We recommend confidentiality and secrecy provisions in Tasmanian legislation be reviewed. Where these provisions create specific legislative barriers to the sharing of information to protect the safety and wellbeing of children and young people, these barriers should be removed.

We consider, however, that many failures to share information stem from a culture within parts of the State Service, including those providing advice. This advice preferences a person’s right to privacy over the protection of the safety and wellbeing of children. There is also a lack of understanding of mandatory reporting obligations and staff ability to share information to protect children. These cultural barriers must be addressed. We discuss measures to address cultural barriers to information sharing in the following section.

Recommendation 19.7

The Tasmanian Government should review confidentiality and secrecy provisions in Tasmanian legislation, including the Personal Information Protection Act 2004, to identify any specific legislative barriers that hinder the sharing of information necessary to protect the safety and wellbeing of children and young people and remove these barriers.

1. Existing guidance on information sharing, coordination and responses for child safety

Given the cultural resistance to sharing information, it is fundamental that there is clear guidance about how information can and should be shared to protect children, and to facilitate a coordinated response to child safety concerns. Further, it is critical that information affecting children’s safety is purposefully shared and leads to action by appropriate entities and services.

Darren Hine AO APM, former Commissioner, Tasmania Police, told us several formal documents guide Tasmania Police on information sharing and coordinating investigations and responding to child sexual abuse. These documents include:

• Tasmania Police Manual, which provides guidance to police officers on performing their duties, including in relation to child sexual abuse, and the types of notifications they must make to external agencies, including (but not limited to) the Strong Families Safe Kids Advice and Referral Line, Registrar of the Registration to Work With Vulnerable People Scheme, Ahpra and the Teachers Registration Board.199
• Tasmania Police Initial Investigation and Notification of Child Sexual Abuse Guidelines, which provide ‘policy and practice guidance to Tasmania Police officers in responding to children and young people who have, or may have been, sexually abused’.200 The guidelines outline objectives, procedures (including reporting), roles and responsibilities (including initial response, interviews, forensics and information sharing requirements) and relevant legislation and policy documents.
• Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Information Sharing Protocol between the Department of Justice and Tasmania Police, which outlines the process for Tasmania Police to share information with the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Unit in the Department of Justice.201 Since 2016, an interface between both agencies has supported the exchange of information under the protocol where information is shared daily with the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Unit from Tasmania Police’s information systems.202 A similar information-sharing arrangement has also been in place for the Child Safety Service to share information daily with the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Unit since 2017.203
• Memorandums of Understanding between Tasmania Police and various government departments, which includes the Keeping Children Safe Memorandum of Understanding that guides the relationship between Tasmania Police and the Child Safety Service regarding statutory responses to suspected child abuse and neglect.204 This Memorandum designates Tasmania Police as the lead agency in all child safety matters when an offence is disclosed and the Child Safety Service as the lead agency in matters relating to the care and protection of a child.205 Joint responses under the Memorandum are to be coordinated in a way that ensures the interests and safety of a child are paramount.206 The Memorandum is accompanied by the Keeping Children Safe Handbook, which provides additional context and guidance to staff about fulfilling their roles and responsibilities under the Memorandum.207 It also includes forms and templates for use in cross-agency coordination to ensure there is consistent practice between both agencies.208 Both documents explicitly state: ‘Information will be exchanged freely as requested between the parties in relation to the protection of children, facilitating the complete picture of a child’s experience, enabling decisive and effective action’.209

We do not consider that the Memorandum or the Handbook responds specifically to the issue of information sharing or coordination of responses to child sexual abuse in institutions.

During our Commission of Inquiry, some government agencies also developed memorandums of understanding with Tasmania Police to clarify their roles and responsibilities in preventing and responding to child sexual abuse in institutions.210 These memorandums are similar and address the following topics:

• purpose
• shared operating principles
• management of incidents or disclosures of child sexual abuse in education and health settings, including reporting, investigation, communication and information sharing
• governance.211

We received no evidence that any formal documents had been developed to specifically guide government or government funded agencies or statutory bodies regarding responses to child sexual abuse in institutions. This includes when a staff member is the subject of an allegation or incident of child sexual abuse.

1. Efforts to improve information sharing and coordination of responses to child sexual abuse in institutions

During our Commission of Inquiry, the Tasmanian Government started or committed to undertake several projects to improve information sharing across agencies. We summarise this work in the following sub-sections.

1. Keeping Children Safer Actions

As part of the Keeping Children Safer Actions, the Tasmanian Government is considering ‘legislative solutions and other initiatives 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’.212 The Department of Premier and Cabinet is leading this work. The Government has indicated that legislative options will be developed for it to consider.213 This action has an expected delivery date of March 2024.214

In the final week of our hearings, Secretary Gale told us the Department of Premier and Cabinet is planning reforms to facilitate government-wide information sharing, in the form of ‘overarching legislation that would be superior to … all other … legislation in relation to that information’.215 When asked whether a positive obligation to share information about child safety needed to be considered as part of the Department’s work, Secretary Gale said: ‘if we need to make it absolutely clear by making it mandatory that we share information, then we will certainly consider that strongly’.216 Secretary Webster told us the Department of Justice is helping with this work and information was prepared for Cabinet at the end of 2022.217

When questioned in the final week of our hearings about professional development for staff to ensure they understand their child safety information sharing obligations, Secretary Gale said information sharing is ‘largely driven by custom and practice’:218

… even though we know that there is no barrier to sharing that information between agencies, it has been difficult. And I think this gets to the cultural piece that will need to be a very significant part of the work that we do … it’s one thing to enable through processes, legislation, and so on, but it is another to change the way in which people behave.219

Also related to this work is the Keeping Children Safer action of developing clear information about the circumstances in which agencies can and should share information about the status of investigations and/or investigative material.220 We understand this work forms part of a broader project to build shared capability across government agencies for serious disciplinary investigations and is expected to be completed in October 2023.221 We support this work and encourage the Government to develop a plan to ensure this information is known and accessible to relevant staff across agencies.

In the final week of our hearings, Secretary Gale also told us the Department is working on developing procedures to keep complainants informed about Employment Direction No. 5—Breach of Code of Conduct investigations within the parameters of the Personal Information Protection Act.222 She said this will involve exploring how the Act can be changed to enable complainants to be kept better informed about these types of investigations.223 We have not received further information about this initiative but support its continuation.

1. Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act

One of the Keeping Children Safer Actions is to develop a Child and Youth Safe Organisations Framework including Child and Youth Safe Standards and a Reportable Conduct Scheme.224 Introducing child safe standards and a reportable conduct scheme were recommendations the National Royal Commission made in December 2017.225

On 22 November 2022, the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Bill 2022 was introduced into the Tasmanian Parliament. The Bill received Royal Assent and commenced as the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act 2023 (‘Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act’) on 1 July 2023. Implementation of the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Framework, which comprises the Child and Youth Safe Standards and Reportable Conduct Scheme, is now underway and has an expected delivery date of July 2024.226

We discuss the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act in detail in Chapter 18 but, for current purposes, Part 5 of the Act provides for information sharing. In addition to giving the Independent Regulator under the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act broad information-sharing powers (described further in this chapter and in Chapter 18), the Act also provides for sharing information between specified individuals and organisations. This includes powers to share information between:

• the Independent Regulator (of the Child and Youth Safe Standards and Reportable Conduct Scheme)
• an entity regulator (this can include government agencies or other bodies that assume regulatory functions related to the Reportable Conduct Scheme—the Independent Regulator is to determine these)
• the head of an entity (which would include a Secretary of a Department) (including in relation to contractors)
• the Commissioner of Police, a police officer, or police from other Australian jurisdictions
• an independent investigator, in some situations
• the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme
• the Integrity Commissioner
• a Minister
• any other roles prescribed by regulations.227

In Chapter 18, we recommend the Ombudsman be included in the entities required to share information (refer to Recommendation 18.3). Information that can be shared by and between these bodies relates to information or documents relating to the Child and Youth Safe Standards and Reportable Conduct Scheme (noting that the Standards are broad in scope). This includes:

• information or documents relating to concerns about compliance with the Standards and Universal Principle
• information relating to reportable allegations and associated investigations, including findings and outcomes relating to reportable conduct.228

The disclosure of information relating to these matters must relate to:

• the purposes of the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act
• the promotion of the safety and wellbeing of children
• a prescribed purpose.229

If there is any inconsistency with other legislation (for example, restrictions imposed by the Personal Information Protection Act or the Right to Information Act 2009 (‘Right to Information Act’)) the permissive information sharing powers of the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act are intended to apply and override them.230

The Independent Regulator can also obtain information, make a record of information, disclose information to any person, and otherwise use information in situations where such an action is taken:

• to protect and promote the safety and wellbeing of children
• to enable the investigation or the enforcement of a law
• for investigatory, disciplinary or employment-related purposes related to the safety and wellbeing of children
• to share information with other jurisdictions and child safety oversight bodies to collect, publish and analyse data on approaches to child safety
• to perform a function or exercise a power in the Act
• for a prescribed purpose.231

The Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act also allows the Independent Regulator to disclose information relating to the administration of the Reportable Conduct Scheme, including:

• the details of an allegation, investigation and findings to a worker the subject of an allegation
• children and young people involved in an allegation and their guardian in particular situations.232

The Independent Regulator must also notify the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme of information relating to a ‘relevant finding’ made regarding reportable conduct. This includes:

• the fact that a finding has been made
• an outline of the finding and the reasons for it
• the name (including former names or aliases, if known) of the worker
  who is the subject of the finding
• the worker’s date of birth (if known).233

The Act also offers protections relating to disclosing information that would identify a child or a person who has disclosed reportable conduct.234

Secretary Webster told us that allowing the flow of information between the Independent Regulator and a range of entities by overriding elements of the Right to Information Act and Personal Information Protection Act helps to ensure the safety of children is at the centre of information sharing.235 We discuss the Right to Information Act in more detail in Chapter 17.

1. Department for Education, Children and Young People

We were also told that merging the former Department of Communities and the Department of Education into the Department for Education, Children and Young People on 1 October 2022 may help overcome some barriers to information sharing. We discuss the structure of the new Department in Chapter 7.

Secretary Bullard said that he saw this change as:

… an opportunity to build closer links across all areas working to safeguard and protect Tasmania’s children and young people; thereby building a more effective process for sharing information and taking a holistic approach to the prevention, identification and response to child sexual abuse in an institutional context.236

Secretary Gale also told us that ‘putting the key functions relating to children in the one Agency will help to breakdown cultural and systems-based barriers to information

sharing that could keep children safe’.237 These views were echoed by Secretary Webster who indicated the new department would help ensure a more coordinated and consistent approach to child safety across key child services provided by government.238

The Department for Education, Children and Young People has established an oversight committee and advisory group comprising departmental staff to identify and advise about opportunities to, among other things:

• build mechanisms for coordinated decision-making, action and accountability
• improve the information staff have available to make better decisions about the safety, wellbeing and learning of children and young people.239

We support these efforts.

1. Our observations and recommendations

We consider, if successfully implemented, the work already underway across Tasmanian Government departments will go some way to improving information sharing and coordination of responses to child safety issues in Tasmania, including to child sexual abuse in institutions. However, we consider a key element missing from this work across government is the existence of clear and concise information about child safety information sharing obligations and the roles and responsibilities of staff in coordinating responses to child safety issues. We were told there is no publicly available memorandums or statements that set out how the Government manages information sharing internally (including as it relates to child safety).240

To address this gap, we recommend government and government funded agencies and statutory bodies work together to develop child safety information sharing, coordination and response guidelines. These guidelines must provide clear direction on the roles and responsibilities of agencies and staff in responding to child safety issues. The guidelines should be drafted to give effect to the guiding principle that the safety and wellbeing of children is paramount.

Aspects of a response we consider should be covered by the guidelines include:

• clarifying the lead agency in responses to child safety issues and their role and responsibilities
• clarifying the role and responsibilities of supporting agencies, including how to ensure the ongoing safety of children within the care of an agency, that any risks to children have been addressed, and that there has been timely fulfilment of relevant reporting and notification obligations and information sharing requirements
• clarifying the role and responsibilities of receiving agencies when information is shared
• developing processes for keeping affected children, families, carers
  and the community informed about responses to child safety issues
• developing processes for providing support to affected children and their immediate family and carers
• considering the use of disciplinary processes in parallel with any investigations undertaken by police and other regulators and professional bodies such as the Registrar of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Scheme, Ahpra or the Teachers Registration Board
• developing processes for responding to reports of child safety issues when they are connected to another government or government funded agency or statutory body, including alerting the relevant agency of the report
• developing escalation and dispute resolution processes to resolve disagreements that may arise between agencies in responses to child safety issues.

Where necessary, the guidelines can be further supplemented with agency-specific information and resources. For example, in Chapter 21 we recommend that the Tasmanian Government, in collaboration with key stakeholders, should develop a statewide framework and plan for preventing, identifying and responding to harmful sexual behaviours (refer to Recommendation 21.8).

We also consider it important that agencies and statutory bodies examine the professional development needs of staff in relation to responding to child safety issues and the scope of their reporting and information sharing obligations. In a submission to our Commission of Inquiry, Laurel House said:

There is a need for training and capacity building opportunities to be provided to institutions to ensure that all employees, regardless of their position, understand their role in keeping children safe. All employees and decision makers who work within services that support children should be required to undergo mandatory training that alerts them to the warning signs of childhood sexual abuse, to make them vigilant to grooming behaviours and other sexual misconduct, and to understand their reporting obligations and the risks that failing to act places on children, the employee, the workplace and the community.241

We note that one of the Keeping Children Safer Actions is to ‘[e]ncourage and support staff to raise child safety concerns’.242 We also note the Keeping Children Safer Working Group (discussed in Section 4.3) has started mapping government agency resources relating to child safety so they can be tailored to departmental needs and support staff training and wider cultural change across the State Service.243 This work is expected to be delivered in December 2023.244 We are also aware that individual government departments (particularly the Department for Education, Children and Young People and the Department of Health) have made additional training available to staff on these issues.245 We consider the guidelines should also identify relevant resources and professional development opportunities available to staff regarding responding to child safety issues.

As a whole of government initiative, the Department of Premier and Cabinet should lead the development of the child safety information sharing, coordination and response guidelines. It should also lead efforts to promote their use across government and government funded agencies and statutory bodies. This work will require a large culture change element, which the Government should fund.

Recommendation 19.8

1. The Department of Premier and Cabinet should lead the development of child safety information sharing, coordination and response guidelines to support government and government funded agencies and statutory bodies to respond to child safety issues. The guidelines should:
   1. set out the principles which guide information sharing, cross-agency coordination and the roles of different services and entities in responding to child safety issues, and require that staff are trained on these issues
   2. identify a process for nominating a lead agency for cross-agency responses to individual child safety issues and set out the lead agency’s role and responsibilities
   3. identify a process for setting out the roles and responsibilities of collaborating agencies in responding to child safety issues
   4. explain child safety information-sharing obligations and responsibilities and how staff can fulfil them
   5. set out an escalation and dispute resolution process to resolve disagreements that may arise across agencies
   6. identify resources and professional development opportunities for staff in relation to responding to child safety issues
   7. be subject to periodic review to ensure they remain up to date and accurately reflect best practice cross-agency information sharing and coordination arrangements.
2. The Tasmanian Government should fund the culture change work required to achieve good information-sharing practices.

The Tasmanian Government should fund the culture change work required to achieve good information sharing practices.

1. Conclusion

An effective approach to preventing, identifying, reporting and responding to child sexual abuse in institutions requires a coordinated and sustained commitment across government and government funded agencies and statutory bodies. This starts with developing a clear strategy that directs how Tasmania intends to respond to child safety issues, including child sexual abuse in institutions. This strategy should be accompanied by an action plan to implement child sexual abuse reform over the short, medium, and long-term. The strategy and action plan should be supported by strong governance structures, including input from children and young people and adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse.

Staff working within government and government funded agencies and statutory bodies must also be empowered and supported to respond to child safety issues. This requires that they are clear on how they are expected to act when information is received and can confidently share information to protect the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. Legislation must be clear on when this can occur and should not hinder information sharing when it is necessary to address risks to child safety. Staff within government and government funded agencies and statutory bodies must also understand their broader roles and responsibilities to safeguard children, including how to:

• address risks to other children
• support victim-survivors
• escalate disagreements in relation to responses across agencies.

We consider the recommendations that we make in this chapter will help to create a united and coordinated whole of government approach to child sexual abuse that prioritises the safety and wellbeing of children in Tasmania.