Advertisement

“Problems with records and recordkeeping practices are not confined to the past”: a challenge from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

  • Frank GoldingEmail author
Original Paper
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

This paper describes and analyses the campaign by the Care Leaver community and other stakeholders to bring about a royal commission into child abuse in Australia. Care Leavers did not get the royal commission they wanted and expected—other more powerful forces were at play—but the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Royal Commission) was highly effective in exposing the complex nature and extent of the problem of child sexual abuse, “the core transgression of childhood innocence”. This paper aims to show that, although the Royal Commission disappointed many Care Leavers with its narrow focus on sexual abuse, when it eventually reported on records and recordkeeping, the Commission surprised many by moving beyond its narrow remit. Issues relating to records and recordkeeping were not originally a prominent part of the Commission’s mandate, but they emerged as one of the crucial issues that influence the quality of the out-of-home Care experience and child protection. This finding has created a fresh context in which Care Leaver advocates, academics and other professionals can work together to further a new agenda for recordkeeping in out-of-home Care.

Keywords

Care leavers advocacy Inquiries Royal commission Recordkeeping Child abuse 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Rights in Records by Design is funded through an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant. The Chief Investigators are Associate Professor Joanne Evans (Monash University), Associate Professor Jacqueline Wilson (Federation University), Professor Sue McKemmish (Monash University), Associate Professor Philip Mendes (Monash University), Professor Keir Reeves (Federation University), and Dr Jane Bone (Monash University). The author has acted as a consultant to the Project. The Project is investigating systems to support the recordkeeping rights of people who experience childhood out-of-home Care.

References

  1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2015) Australia’s welfare series No. 12, Cat. No. AUS 189, AIHW, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  2. BBC News (2018) Catholic Church ‘an empire of misogyny’—Mary McAleeseGoogle Scholar
  3. Breckenridge J, Flax G (2016) Service and support needs of specific population groups that have experienced child sexual abuse. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  4. Child Rights International Network (2018) Australia: care leavers’ fight for redress for historical abuse, Child Rights International Network. https://archive.crin.org/en/library/publications/australia-care-leavers-fight-redress-historical-abuse.html. Accessed 5 April 2019
  5. CLAN (2012–13) The Clanicle: newsletter. CLAN, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  6. CLAN (2013) The Clanicle, Number 76, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  7. CLAN (2017) ‘I know more about captain cook than I know about my father’: CLAN’s submission on records and record keeping to the royal commission. CLAN, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  8. Coate J (2016) Perspectives on records and archives: an update from the royal commission, Keynote address, Australian society of archivists, 31st national conference, Parramatta, 20 October. https://www.archivists.org.au/learning-publications/2016-conference. Accessed 29 March 2019
  9. Coate J (2017) An update from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse on their records and recordkeeping findings and potential recommendations, national summit: setting the record straight: for the right of the child, Melbourne, 9 May. https://rights-records.it.monash.edu/summit/program-schedule/. Accessed 29 March 2019
  10. Croucher R (2018) Letter to The Hon Prue Goward MP NSW Minister for Family and Community Services and The Hon Mark Speakman, NSW Attorney-General, 28 August 2018, Copy held in CLAN Inward Correspondence File C03/2218Google Scholar
  11. De Wilde L, Vanobbergen B (2017) Puzzling history—the personal file in residential care: a source for life history and historical research. History Educ 46(3):384–397.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2016.1268213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs together with the National Framework Implementation Working Group (2011) An outline of standards for out-of-home care: a priority project under the national framework for protecting Australia’s Children 2009–2020. Commonwealth of AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  13. Eberhard K (2015) Unresolved issues: recordkeeping recommendations arising from Australian commissions of inquiry into the welfare of children in out-of-home care, 1997–2012. Arch Manuscr 43(1):4–17.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2014.959536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ericsson K (2015) Children’s agency: the struggles of the powerless. In: Sköld J, Swain S (eds) Apologies and the legacy of abuse of children in ‘care’: international perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 42–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans J (2017) Setting the record straight for the rights of the child summit. Arch Manuscr 45(3):247–252.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2017.1373244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans J, Wilson J (2018) Inclusive archives: towards a critical manifesto. Int J Historical Stud 24:8.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1428671 Google Scholar
  17. Evans JE, McKemmish SM, Rolan G (2017) Critical approaches to archiving and recordkeeping in the continuum. J Crit Libr Inf Stud 1(2):1–38.  https://doi.org/10.24242/jclis.v1i2.35 Google Scholar
  18. Gillard J (2012) Letter to James Luthy, President of CLAN, 16 November 2012 (CLAN Inward Correspondence File C12/4705) Reproduced in the clanicle: newsletter Number 76, January, p 3Google Scholar
  19. Gilliland AJ, McKemmish S (2014) Rights in records as a platform for participative archiving. In: Cox RJ, Langmead A, Mattern E (eds) Archival education and research: selected papers from the 2014 AERI conference. Litwin Books, Sacramento, pp 355–385Google Scholar
  20. Golding F (2015) A charter of rights to childhood records, Frank Golding (blog). http://frankgolding.com/a-charter-of-rights-to-childhood-records/. Accessed 29 March 2019
  21. Golding F (2017) Capturing the record—building a storehouse of hope, presentation at the Records Management Network Meeting, Melbourne, 19 May 2017Google Scholar
  22. Golding F (2018a) Sexual abuse as the core transgression of childhood innocence: unintended consequences for care leavers. J Aust Stud 42(2):191–203.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14443058.2018.1445121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Golding F (2018b) Submission No. 9 to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Commonwealth of Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  24. Golding F (2018c) Transcript of Hearing, Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, 6 March 2018Google Scholar
  25. Golding F, O’Neill C and Story N (2013) Improving access to Victoria’s historical child welfare records. Proven: J Public Rec Off Vic 12Google Scholar
  26. Heinrichs P (2004) Call for royal commission into abused wards of state. The Age, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  27. Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (1997) Bringing them home: report of the national inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres strait islander children from their families. Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  28. Inquiry into Children in Institutional Care (2009) National apology. Text from the National Apology delivered by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Great Hall, Parliament House on 16 November 2009 and then followed by speeches given in the House of Representative and the Senate. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Completedinquiries/2004-07/inst_Care/national_apology/index. Accessed 29 March 2019
  29. McClellan P (2016) Addressing the needs of those who have experienced abuse in care as children—implications of findings from the Royal Commission. Association of Children’s Welfare Agencies Conference, Sydney 15Google Scholar
  30. McClellan P (2017) Correspondence to CEO CLAN, 17 February 2017 CLAN Inward Correspondence File C2/0034Google Scholar
  31. McDowall JJ (2013) Experiencing out-of-home care in Australia: the views of children and young people, CREATE report card 2013. CREATE Foundation, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  32. Murray A (2004) Speech at opening the CLAN Office in Bankstown, Sydney, 6 March 2004. CLAN Library. See also The Clanicle: newsletter Number 20, March, pp 1–3Google Scholar
  33. O’Neill C, Selakovic V, Tropea R (2012) Access to records for people who were in out-of-home care: moving beyond ‘third dimension’ archival practice. Arch Manuscr 40(1):29–41.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2012.668841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Olick J (2007) The politics of regret: on collective memory and historical responsibility. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Ombudsman V (2012) Investigation into the storage and management of ward records by the department of human services. Victorian Government Printer, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  36. Powell F, Scanlon M (2015) Dark secrets of childhood: media, power, child abuse and public scandals. Policy Press, BristolCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Recordkeeping Innovation (2015) Access to records by forgotten Australians and former child migrants: access principles for records holders, and best practice guidelines in providing access to records. DSS1687.11.15. Department of Social Services, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  38. Rolan G (2017) Agency in the archive: a model for participatory recordkeeping. Arch Sci 17(3):195–225.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-016-9267-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2015) Redress and civil litigation. The Commission, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  40. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2016) Records and recordkeeping practices. The Commission, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  41. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2017a) Final report: Private sessions, vol. 5. The Commission, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  42. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2017b) Final report, Preface and executive summary. The Commission, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  43. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2017c) Final report: Recordkeeping and information sharing, vol. 8. The Commission, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  44. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2017d) Final report: Our inquiry, vol. 1. The Commission, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  45. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2017e) Final report: Historical residential institutions, vol. 11. The Commission, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  46. Senate Community Affairs References Committee (2001) Lost innocents: righting the record: report on child migration. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/1999-02/child_migrat/report/index. Accessed 4 April 2019
  47. Senate Community Affairs References Committee (2004) Forgotten Australians: report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2004-07/inst_care/report/index. Accessed 4 April 2019
  48. Senate Community Affairs References Committee (2009) Lost innocents and forgotten Australians revisited. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2008-10/recs_lost_innocents_forgotten_aust_rpts/report/index. Accessed 4 April 2019
  49. Senate Community Affairs References Committee (2018) Submissions on national redress scheme. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/NationalRedressScheme/Submissions. Accessed 4 April 2019
  50. Setting the record straight for the rights of the child (2017) National summit 8–9 May 2017. Report. Monash University, Melbourne. http://rights-records.it.monash.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ReportFinal-1.pdf. Accessed 4 April 2019
  51. Sköld J (2013) Historical abuse—a contemporary issue: compiling inquiries into abuse and neglect of children in out-of-home care worldwide, J Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 14, Supp 1Google Scholar
  52. Swain S (2014a) History of Australian inquiries reviewing institutions providing care for children. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  53. Swain S (2014b) Stakeholders as subjects: the role of historians in the development of Australia’s find & connect web resource. Public Historian 36(4):38–50.  https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2014.36.4.38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Truth Justice and Healing Council (2018) Final report: where from and where to: the Truth Justice and Healing Council, the Royal Commission and the Catholic Church in Australia, vol. 1. The Council, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  55. United Nations (1989) Convention on the rights of the child. United Nations, New York. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en
  56. Victoria. Auditor-General (2012) Freedom of information. Victorian Auditor-General’s Office. http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/latest_reports/2011-12/20120418-foi.aspx
  57. Victoria (2018) Victims and other legislation amendment billGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson JZ, Golding F (2015) Contested memories: caring about the past—or past caring? In: Sköld J, Swain S (eds) Apologies and the legacy of abuse of children in “care”: international perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilson JZ, Golding F (2016) Latent scrutiny: personal archives as perpetual mementos of the official gaze. Arch Sci 16(1):93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wright K (2017) Remaking collective knowledge: an analysis of the complex and multiple effects of inquiries into historical institutional child abuse. Child Abus Negl.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.08.028 Google Scholar
  61. Wright K, Swain S, Sköld J (2017) The age of inquiry: a global mapping of institutional abuse inquiries. La Trobe University, Melbourne.  https://doi.org/10.4225/22/591e1e3a36139 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federation University AustraliaKensingtonAustralia

Personalised recommendations