Concerned Friends Proposed Letter to Australia / New Zealand Overseers

WINGS Note:  A group of friends have written a response to the latest letter from overseers in Australia and New Zealand. They would like as many concerned and connected friends as possible to sign this letter before they send it. 

You can open the following links to see the letter and fill out the signing form. They will be sending this letter on Saturday, 26th August. You can share this with anyone who would like to add their name in support.

Letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M7v9hB-2Os4A2tu8xMJhMoSkChC0-oLR/view?usp=sharing

Signing Form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSckG5Oen2PMwjCt2pxYdevxH6of0aI2j3FasPFY8kt7XNexDQ/viewform?vc=0&c=0&w=1&flr=0&usp=mail_form_link

---

Dear Malcolm, Graeme, Wayne, Trevor, Alan Mitchell and Alan Richardson,

We would like to acknowledge your letter of the 18^th August, 2023, communicating with the friends  and workers in Australia and New Zealand, the work you are undertaking in response to the church’s  concerns of prevention of child sexual abuse within our fellowship. In the interest of transparency, working openly and your invitation for all of us to support each other throughout this process, we  write this letter in reply. We have drafted a letter to the friends and workers of Australia and New  Zealand and will be attaching a copy of this letter for their viewing. We also welcome you to share this  information widely. This will open up dialogue to ensure that the measures being put in place have  input from all stakeholders and in accordance with standard two and three of the Child Safe Standards  of the Royal Commission undertaken in Australia (Commonwealth of Australia, 2017).

“Standard 2 – Children participate in decisions affecting them and are taken seriously.

a) Children are able to express their views and are provided opportunities to participate in  decisions that affect their lives.

b) The importance of friendships is recognised and support from peers is encouraged,  helping children feel safe and be less isolated.

c) Children can access sexual abuse prevention programs and information.

d) Staff and volunteers are attuned to signs of harm and facilitate child-friendly ways for  children to communicate and raise their concerns.

Standard 3 – Families and communities are informed and involved.

a) Families have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of their  child and participate in decisions affecting their child.

b) The institution engages in open, two-way communication with families and  communities about its child safety approach and relevant information is accessible. c) Families and communities have a say in the institution’s policies and practices. d) Families and communities are informed about the institution’s operations and  governance.”

At a recent meeting of concerned friends, a discussion was held regarding your letter of the  18^th August, 2023, and we would like to present you with some feedback to help inform the advisory  group. We hope they will be able to address some of our concerns and that our questions will help  them in future decisions. In the absence of a direct contact on the advisory board, we are  communicating in this way in the hope that everyone is informed. For future communication, we  request a direct email to the advisory group. It has been noted that some survivors do not feel  comfortable to go to workers due to past traumatic experiences and would not feel comfortable with  information being filtered through senior workers.

While your focus is the protection of children and victim-survivors, it seems that we cannot ignore  other members in our fellowship that will take on a significant amount of risk due to the roles they  have. Risk assessments for these contexts need to be worked on transparently, as a matter of urgency. For example, our convention owners and families who have fellowship meetings in their home. How  can we assure them that they are protected from risk? How will they be involved in this process? Are  there contingencies in place such as appropriate insurance cover? Will visiting workers from overseas  hold the relevant child safety checks that are equivalent to our Working With Children Checks  (WWCC)? There is a duty to consider this aspect of our fellowship. It raises the question if conventions  and fellowship meetings should continue in the immediate future until appropriate safeguards have  been put in place.

Further concerns and questions have been raised and we would like to summarise them for you:

• Your letter expresses a desire to be open and transparent and highlights that the members of  the advisory committee wish to remain anonymous. While we understand the need for victim survivors to be respected in this process, these two points appear to contradict each other. Also, you mention that the group will need support of each one of us as they progress. How  can we offer this support throughout the process if there is no direct line of communication?

• In relation to your point of ‘consultation and engagement will be needed from time to time’ – there is a view that this consultation should occur right from the start. How does the advisory  group confidently report on the effect of CSA in the fellowship if they do not ask for survivor  stories from the beginning? How can they quantify the effect without substantial knowledge?

• Further to quantifying ‘effect’, how is that measured? Are they measuring the mental trauma  or the financial cost of after care? Are they counting families or individuals? Are they counting  historical cases where the predator/perpetrator has died? What is their scope when  completing risk assessments? Given the complexity, it would be advisable that these risk  assessments be conducted by a third party to avoid any conflict of interest or legal  ramifications.

• Who formed this group, when was it formed and who decided who should be part of this  advisory group? Was there a transparent, democratic process in its development?

• If the advisory group members do not offer the facility to engage with the wider community,  how can stakeholders have input in the process if they are only communicated with when the  advisory group deems it necessary? You may view it as avoiding external pressures or  distraction but from our perspective, it is in contradiction with the Child Safe Standards – ‘families and communities have a say in the institution’s policies and practices.’ What process  will be provided for collaboration?

• Thank you for providing us with the break down of the group. We would also like clarification  of demographics of the group. For example, how many are from New Zealand and each state  of Australia? Are all contexts being taken into consideration? It would be advantageous to have a separate advisory group for New Zealand that is in communication with the Australian  advisory group, considering there would be a possible difference in laws. It also establishes  local support for victims and accountability of the ministry in this region.

• Will there be accommodation within future planning to ensure these groups are victim centred  and will there be opportunity for listening groups/collaboration with the wider community?

• You highlight that all members of the advisory group have relevant clearances and training.  However, these clearances do not assure other victim-survivors that the current members  have not covered up abuse within the fellowship in the past. With this lack of transparency, it  is difficult to develop trust in the process.

• How long a term are members of the advisory group volunteering for? Will there be a rotation  of people on the group to share the load long term? An advisory group will be needed  indefinitely considering the scope of abuse and there is a need for it to include elements of  advocacy. It would seem that it is not a ‘one and done’ scenario.

• The advisory board is to advise the ministry and has expressed a desire to act impartially. How  can this process be impartial if there are workers on an advisory group that are advising the  workers? This appears to be a conflict of interest. Also, as overseers, you have knowledge of  who these members are but the community you serve does not. You have an advantage of  being able to communicate with them that we do not have. This does not promote impartiality.

• Further to the topic of impartiality, there is a concern that an advisory group, while coming  from a range of professions and experiences, cannot remain unbiased due to their connection  with the fellowship.

• We were made aware that the advisory group is going to use publicly accessible material to  inform their risk assessments and guidelines. Will an independent lawyer be engaged to  ensure that they are sound and rigorous enough to align with current Australian and New  Zealand legal standards? Once again, the engagement of a third-party is needed.

• How is ‘zero tolerance’ of harming of children defined by your ministry? We are aware of a  number of people still in our fellowship meetings that have allegations and convictions. When  will your ‘zero tolerance’ be followed through?

• How will our fellowship be made aware of the advice given by the advisory group? What  accountability procedures will be put in place? How will we know that the advice being given  has been informed by the law and stakeholders and implemented to fidelity by the ministry?

• You have acknowledged in your letter that the scope of work to be completed is large and  there has been a prioritisation of tasks to be undertaken. Can we please be provided with an  indication of areas deemed the highest risk that will be addressed first?

• In relation to accountability of the appointed overseers, what provisions will be in place there?  Would there be a procedure where grievances could be communicated and acted upon?

Important concerns raised that require an urgent response are repeated below:

• Due to the imminent preparations and conventions in Australia and New Zealand, further  clarification is sought on the progress of risk assessments and safety procedures for these  gatherings. This needs to be done in a timely and collaborative manner to ensure all  measures can be in place.

• Provision of an email address to communicate directly with the advisory group to ensure a  transparent, collaborative approach throughout the process.

Once again, thank you for being proactive in beginning the process for change. We hope that this  feedback will help you as this important work continues. As mentioned, we will share this letter with  the friends and workers of Australia and New Zealand as an attachment to their letter so that they are  aware of the concerns raised, avoiding a duplication of questions inundating the advisory group. We  look forward to a formal published and shared response to these concerns being addressed, in the  interests of transparency.

Yours in gratitude,

Concerned and Connected Friends of Australia and New Zealand