Statement – Further Serious Concerns Arising from Commission of Inquiry Report
During the Legislative Council Adjournment debate on Tuesday the 31st of October 2023, Meg Webb MLC placed on the public record, further significant concerns arising from the Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Response to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings.
The Parliamentary Adjournment speech delivered by Ms Webb can be viewed below.
A copy of the speech is also provided.
Additionally, a Background Briefing Paper and a media statement are available below, as released by Ms Webb on the day.
Meg Webb MLC – Speech: Adjournment Matter regarding Further Concerns Arising from the Commission of Inquiry Report
delivered in the Legislative Council, Parliament of Tasmania
Tuesday 31 October 2023
*** Check against Delivery ***
Mr President, I rise on adjournment to speak on an urgent matter related to the recently completed Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Response to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings.
First, a brief summary of some pertinent facts as context – the final report of the Commission of Inquiry was provided to government on 31 August 2023 and tabled on 26 Sept 2023.
Titled Who was looking after me? Prioritising the Safety of Tasmanian Children, the Report is extensive – 3000 pages, in 23 Chapters, over 8 Volumes, making 75 findings and 191 recommendations.
In response to the direct question posed by the title – Who was looking after me? – most expected the Commission’s Report to provide answers and accountability.
However, as we know, notably and shockingly, the Report presents only one finding of misconduct against one individual, and none of its 75 findings were specified as ‘adverse’.
Many in the community, especially those who have been involved as witnesses in the Commission of Inquiry, found this unfathomable and at odds with the stated purpose and expected outcomes of the inquiry process.
While the Commission met its responsibilities during the progress of the inquiry in referring over 100 people to police and child protection authorities as required, a key tangible output of its investigations – the findings presented – contain a glaring lack of specific accountability for the extensive, egregious and protracted failures presented and discussed in the body of the report.
It appears clear on reading the Report that the Commission’s attempts to pursue adverse findings and findings of misconduct was complicated by legislative changes made after the Commission was established, and by interpretations of those legislative changes insisted on by the legal representatives of the state.
The result of this was the Commission being constrained in its ability to make adverse findings and findings of misconduct, to the point that it appears intended findings of both these types had to be abandoned by the Commissioners in the interests of prioritizing currently vulnerable children and were consequently omitted from being explicitly included in the Report.
In making that statement and arriving at that undeniable and entirely unacceptable conclusion, I am drawing, in particular, on the following sections of the Report:
Vol 1, 5.1 Challenges we faced; Vol 2, 2.3.1 Legislative and regulatory amendments; Vol 2, 2.3.4 Power to make a finding of misconduct and an adverse finding; and, Vol 8, 3.1 Adverse findings and misconduct findings.
Some may also recall this alarming situation was reported by news outlets following the tabling of the Commission’s Report.
Mr President, to my specific matter of urgency today.
First, I must stress, I do not take this action lightly.
I have had many sleepless nights since I first became aware over the last week of the matters I am about to raise.
I have also given serious consideration to my responsibility as an elected member to raise with the responsible authority at the earliest available opportunity matters of serious consequence – which I believe this to be.
Further I believe in this instance the Parliament is the relevant authority, and the adjournment today is the first available mechanism for me to do so.
Looking at the Report, we see stated that in the course of its work, the Commission issued 30 section 18 misconduct notices to 22 people.
From section 18 of the Act, we know that issuing such a notice means the Commission was satisfied that an allegation of misconduct against that person had been or should be made in its inquiry, and that that person should be required, or was likely to be required to give evidence to the inquiry in relation to the allegations.
We also know that at the insistence of the State’s legal representatives, any instances in which the Commission wanted to make an adverse finding, as per section 19(2A) and (2B), it felt obliged to utilise the same full procedural fairness response as for misconduct in section 18.
The Commission makes it clear that due to being blocked by protracted legislative impediments and calculated legal wrangling on the part of the state, it was not able to finalise the apparently intended adverse findings and findings of misconduct indicated by the issuance of 30 section 18 notices to 22 people.
As a result, as mentioned earlier, we see only one actual finding of misconduct ultimately appeared in the Report.
So, 21 people, against whom it would appear the Commissioners may have wished or intended to make either findings of misconduct or adverse findings, are not explicitly listed in the body of the Report – meaning they have not been fully or publicly held to account for their actions.
Mr President, on closer reading of the Report, however, we begin to be able to put pieces of information together, which may point us to individuals who were issued section 18 notices relating to misconduct or adverse findings.
My understanding is that once a section 18 notice is issued to a person, they would have been required to submit a Procedural Fairness Response to the matters outlined in the notice.
In the past week, I have become aware that the Report does contain the names and/or roles of some individuals who provided Procedural Fairness Responses to the Commission.
It may be that these individuals were recipients of the section 18 notices the Commission stated were issued.
The names and/or roles of those individuals can be located in the Notes sections of the Report, where there are numerous references to Procedural Fairness Responses submitted to the Commission.
Mr President, located throughout the Notes sections across the various volumes of the report, there are references to Procedural Fairness Responses from the following 22 individuals:
- Solicitor-General of Tasmania
- Commissioner for Children and Young People
- Richard Connock
- Michael Easton
- Michael Pervan
- Manager, AYDC
- Patrick Ryan
- Stuart Watson
- Greg Brown
- Pamela Honan
- Mandy Clarke
- Kathy Baker
- Jacqueline Allen
- Sarah Spencer
- Sue McBeath
- Janette Tonks
- Helen Bryan
- James Bellinger
- Michael Sherring
- Eric Daniels
- Mathew Harvey
- Peter Renshaw
Mr President, in addition to those 22 individuals, the Notes sections of the Report, also refer to Procedural Fairness Responses from the following Tasmanian departments, statutory authorities and entities:
- State of Tasmania
- Office of the Solicitor-General
- Department of Health
- Department for Education, Children and Young People
- Tasmania Police
- Office of the DPP
- Integrity Commission
- Teachers Registration Board
Mr President, this is an astonishing list, and to my knowledge, despite being locatable in the Notes sections of the Report, the government is yet to acknowledge publicly whether these 22 individuals and 8 entities were subject to section 18 misconduct notices.
This is entirely unacceptable.
On a prima facie reading of the Commission’s Report, legitimate questions arise relating to each of these individuals and entities, and whether the Commission was considering or intending to make a finding of misconduct or an adverse finding against them.
As I stated earlier, Mr President, the Commission’s Report makes it clear that the absence of specific misconduct or adverse findings is because those processes had to be abandoned unfinished, due to apparent obstacles raised, primarily by the State – not necessarily because of lack of merit of any potential thwarted findings.
What that clearly means is that significant clouds – rightly or wrongly – remain over those eight entities, and 22 individuals.
This is why I’ve had sleepless nights, Mr President.
This is of grave and urgent concern because the entities listed contain most of Tasmania’s key independent oversight watchdogs – and, separately, amongst the individuals listed are a number of the statutory office holders attached to them.
It cannot be emphasised strongly enough, public confidence and trust in these entities and these office holders must be paramount.
If the Commission had been able to present further findings of misconduct plainly in the Report, even if they involved these individuals and entities, it would have been concerning, but able to be transparently understood and openly addressed.
As it is, there is all the appearance of a deliberate effort to suppress such findings, denying the opportunity for full understanding and transparent accountability.
Furthermore, these entities and some individuals referred to could have key responsibilities in implementing – or providing oversight of the implementation of – the formal government response to the Commission’s recommendations.
How are we to trust, or have confidence in, any Commission of Inquiry implementation plan moving forward if some of those with key responsibilities in implementing it have been left with such a serious question mark over them from a stymied Commission process?
Mr President, it is unacceptable for this opacity of outcome to be left unaddressed, hanging over the heads of those 22 people, and casting public doubt over those 8 departments, authorities and entities.
This is an intolerable situation for those Tasmanians who engaged with this Commission of Inquiry in good faith, oftentimes at great personal distress, with the expectation that it would provide genuine acknowledgement and accountability at all levels.
The Report lays out catastrophic failures of both individuals and systems to adequately protect children in state institutions, and yet the state appears to have gone to great lengths to prevent the Commission from making any findings of misconduct or adverse findings, especially against individuals.
This concern must be transparently examined and tested – it cannot be swept under the already threadbare carpet.
Mr President, the Report is gut-wrenching reading, and at times it presents what appears to be close to a pedophile protection racket in Tasmanian state institutions.
This is utterly wretched.
To find, even at the latest stages of the Commission process, that there appears to have been calculated blocking by the state of misconduct and adverse findings being made, looks like nothing short of a devastating continuation of that same protection racket mentality.
This is a disgrace. It is unconscionable.
Any further perception that government is closing ranks and that back-covering is occurring must be removed – immediately and entirely.
The Ministerial Statement made by the Premier on 17 October 2023 promised anyone identified in the Report as needing to be held to account would be held accountable – it now appears the State itself must needs be held to account, including key personnel in the state service, in government, and possibly oversight entities.
On an issue as sensitive as this, all efforts must be made to rebuild public trust and confidence in the state and our oversight entities, but the relevant government actions announced by the Premier are largely internal processes, not suitably independent of government and not guaranteed to be transparent.
Mr President, in conclusion, I put on the record here, questions that must be answered as a matter of urgency on this situation – noting that in the days, weeks and months to come, there will no doubt be many further questions requiring answers.
- Did the (current) Solicitor-General, Ombudsman, CEO of the Integrity Commission, Commissioner for Children and Young People and Manager of Ashley Youth Detention Centre receive section 18 notices from the Commission of Inquiry indicating they may be the subject of misconduct findings? If not, did they receive section 19 notices indicating possible adverse findings?
- Are any of the Commission of Inquiry recommendations being implemented or overseen by senior public servants who received section 18 notices from the Commission of Inquiry?
- If the Solicitor-General received a section 18 notice indicating that she herself may be the subject of a misconduct finding, will she be stepping aside from providing legal advice to Tasmanian departments and statutory authorities on the government response to the Commission of Inquiry and also from any civil litigation matters that involve child sexual abuse?
- Who will provide legal advice to the government in relation to matters raised about the Solicitor-General at the Commission of Inquiry?
- Did the Commission intend but find itself unable to make either misconduct findings or adverse findings against the 22 individuals and eight entities that appear in the Notes of the Report as having provided a Procedural Fairness Response?
- Did the state deliberately draft the amendments made to the Act in 2021 in order to argue an interpretation that would create obstacles for the Commission to make adverse findings and findings of misconduct against the state, other entities and individuals?
- Under whose instruction or direction did the legal representatives for the state assert an interpretation of section 18 and 19 of the Act, that the Commission regarded as onerous and a barrier to fully undertaking its role?
- When did the Premier first become aware of the Commissioners’ concerns that section 18 and 19 of the Act, including the State’s interpretation of those sections, was impeding their capacity to make the adverse and/or misconduct findings they felt necessary?
- When did the Department of Justice first become aware of the Commissioners’ concerns that section 18 and 19 of the Act, including the State’s interpretation of those sections, was impeding their capacity to make the adverse and/or misconduct findings they felt necessary?
- After the Department of Justice became aware of the Commissioners’ concerns over section 18 and 19 of the Act, what action was taken by the Department and/or the Attorney-General?
Mr President, I appreciate the indulgence of the Chamber. I will finish by again reiterating I did not take this step lightly.
I did so, because I genuinely believe the Commission’s Report title “Who was looking after me” was not chosen lightly either.
I do not read it as merely a rhetorical question – but one directed to us all in this Parliament.
And, distressingly, I cannot answer it for those children then or even now – and worryingly, looking ahead, I cannot in good conscience answer “who will be looking after me”.
It is now incumbent on the Parliament to follow the trail set by the Commission and seek those answers.
*** ends ***
