Speaker 1: Five year old Haley and seven year old Laura Jane
Speaker 1: are happily playing with toys at Bluemoor Family Daycare in
Speaker 1: Bateman's Bay on the New South Wales south coast. It's
Speaker 1: a center that offers overnight services to parents and takes
Speaker 1: kids up to fourteen years old. It's pretty remote, run
Speaker 1: from the family property of the only carer there, David Tuck.
Speaker 1: He's a jovial man in his thirties, charismatic and approachable,
Speaker 1: and Haley and Lj's parents feel comfortable leaving their kids
Speaker 1: in his home, but within hours Tuck will start grooming them.
Speaker 1: They realize he has some pretty unusual rules, like an
Speaker 1: open door policy for the toilets and no underwear whilst sleeping.
Speaker 1: The girls also quickly realize that every night someone sleeps
Speaker 1: in the big bed with him. Soon it's there to
Speaker 1: and at first they think it's special to be chosen lucky.
Speaker 1: It takes just one night for them to realize the truth.
Speaker 1: I'm Jemma Bath and you're listening to True Crime Conversations,
Speaker 1: a podcast exploring the world's most notorious crimes by speaking
Speaker 1: to the people who know the most about them. A
Speaker 1: warning this episode does involve discussion about child sexual abuse
Speaker 1: and suicide. Please take care while listening. For years, parents
Speaker 1: trusted David Tuck to look after their children at his
Speaker 1: family day care service in Bateman's Bay. It's only now
Speaker 1: decades later that the extent of his horrific abuse is
Speaker 1: being revealed, earning him the title of one of Australia's
Speaker 1: worst pedophiles. He was aged between thirty two and thirty
Speaker 1: seven when he ran the center. Between nineteen ninety four
Speaker 1: and nineteen ninety nine, it's believed he had more than
Speaker 1: fifty five victims. He also had access to children across
Speaker 1: his career, running school holiday camps in youth detention, as
Speaker 1: a gymnastics instructor, as a school bus driver for intellectually
Speaker 1: disabled children, and as a career for intellectually disabled children.
Speaker 1: He lived and worked across not just New South Wales,
Speaker 1: but Victoria, Queensland, the Act and South Australia. The true
Speaker 1: extent of his victims is unknown, partly because he died
Speaker 1: in two thousand and one, just as police were starting
Speaker 1: to catch.
Speaker 2: Up to him.
Speaker 1: This isn't just a story about Tuck and his crimes.
Speaker 1: It's also about the failure of local authorities to take
Speaker 1: allegations seriously. Our guests today are currently in court with
Speaker 1: Urubadalla Local Council trying to hold them to account for
Speaker 1: allowing him to operate in the first place and for
Speaker 1: so long. The other big glaring failures is the fact
Speaker 1: David Tuck's name was suppressed and shrouded in silence for years.
Speaker 1: That was changed in twenty twenty five thanks to legal
Speaker 1: blocks overcome by journalists and victims advocate Nina Fanel and
Speaker 1: news dot com do Au. Laura Jane and Hailey were
Speaker 1: just two of TUX victims. This is their story. LJ. Hailey.
Speaker 1: Thank you for joining me on True Crime Conversations. You
Speaker 1: told your story publicly for the first time just last year.
Speaker 1: Can you tell us about why and how you made
Speaker 1: that decision and what it's been like since sharing your story.
Speaker 3: We made the decision to come forward in the media
Speaker 3: because we had not been able to say our abusa's
Speaker 3: name for over twenty years. He and I had many
Speaker 3: discussions about the fact that he'd never been named publicly
Speaker 3: in the media, and we decided that it was time
Speaker 3: we wanted to reclaim our story, and part of that
Speaker 3: was naming him, not just for us, but for all
Speaker 3: of his survivors, so that they'd never have to they'd
Speaker 3: never have to type his name into a Google search,
Speaker 3: and nothing came up.
Speaker 1: To even be able to say his name. He had
Speaker 1: to go to court, didn't you.
Speaker 3: We didn't that there was some historical suppression orders which
Speaker 3: were lost, I guess in decades of no one speaking out.
Speaker 3: But the journalist that we worked with, Nina Fannel, was
Speaker 3: able to navigate that and realize that, you know, they
Speaker 3: were no longer in place.
Speaker 1: What has it meant to be able to say the
Speaker 1: name David Tuck publicly? That made the difference that you
Speaker 1: were hoping being able to say his name?
Speaker 2: Definitely. I think since we did our first article around
Speaker 2: twelve months ago, we've connected with numerous other victim survivors.
Speaker 2: And this is not just from the childcare and the
Speaker 2: experience that we had, but previous victim survivors of his
Speaker 2: as well. And I think that's huge for LJ and
Speaker 2: I growing up. I mean, I know myself definitely tried
Speaker 2: to at least read about or understand my own story
Speaker 2: and understand if there were others involved, and it was
Speaker 2: not possible. So I think the closure that's hopefully given
Speaker 2: to others who maybe don't want to speak out themselves,
Speaker 2: but at least can understand that they're not alone and
Speaker 2: there are others that are supporting them and understand what
Speaker 2: happened with the childcare, what happened with him committing suicide.
Speaker 2: These are all things that unless you remained in this
Speaker 2: or with a connection in that small town, that information
Speaker 2: just was not available to the wider community or to
Speaker 2: the remainder of his victims.
Speaker 1: Why why was none of that online?
Speaker 3: As far as we can tell, and I guess from
Speaker 3: speaking to Chris Graham, who was the editor of the
Speaker 3: local newspaper at the time, is that essentially the council
Speaker 3: played a significant role in ensuring that his name wasn't
Speaker 3: mentioned in the paper and he wasn't publicly identified. As
Speaker 3: to why, I can't tell you exactly, but I can
Speaker 3: tell you that it caused a lot of harm, and
Speaker 3: it meant that many victim survivors, potentially up until last year,
Speaker 3: didn't even know that he was dead.
Speaker 1: There's not even photos, is there. There's not like a
Speaker 1: recognizable photo of him.
Speaker 3: That photo that you see in the newspaper is a
Speaker 3: photo that I happened to stumble across in my not
Speaker 3: even my mother, my grandmother's photo appens and it's just
Speaker 3: one random photo with him in the background. And we've
Speaker 3: not only us but our current affair and Nina Fanel
Speaker 3: searched high and low, and we have still not been
Speaker 3: able to locate a.
Speaker 4: Photo of him.
Speaker 1: To explain to listeners, it's a photo of LJ in
Speaker 1: the foreground and then in the background there's a boat
Speaker 1: and he's in it and it's not even his face.
Speaker 1: It's kind of the back of hitting and almost a
Speaker 1: side profile, but you can't see anything.
Speaker 3: He's literally in the background as far as you can go, Like,
Speaker 3: he's just a tiny little like blur on a boat.
Speaker 1: Really, and that's the only photo you can find.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and let's put it this way. We are
Speaker 2: aware of close family friends. We are aware of family
Speaker 2: members that we personally as well as others assisting us,
Speaker 2: have reached out to directly that will not share photos
Speaker 2: of him. The police department will not release any mugshots
Speaker 2: of him. Now he was charged with crime, so yeah,
Speaker 2: there must be mugshots that exist. There is a large
Speaker 2: group of people still protecting his identity for some reason
Speaker 2: to this day, the.
Speaker 1: Mind boggles as to why we are protecting this person.
Speaker 2: And I think it's just there's no understanding maybe from
Speaker 2: the families, as to why we need this picture now.
Speaker 2: But you know, I guess to make it clear, not
Speaker 2: every one of his victim survivors will have known his
Speaker 2: name or his full name. Now putting that image out there,
Speaker 2: and we know that he abused children as young as
Speaker 2: two years old. Now that putting his face out there
Speaker 2: and connecting it with his name once again gives every
Speaker 2: one of his victims that opportunity to go, oh, my goodness,
Speaker 2: that is the man. That is the man that harmed me,
Speaker 2: and they can then from their understand it, you know
Speaker 2: he is dead. We have named him and identified him.
Speaker 2: It's just I think for us that really big missing
Speaker 2: piece of the puzzle, calling everyone what this guy looks like.
Speaker 3: He had a victim survivor reach out and she told
Speaker 3: me that every year around the same time she would
Speaker 3: do a search. She didn't have like a name, she
Speaker 3: just had a few key identifiers, and every year she
Speaker 3: would try and find out details. And then because the
Speaker 3: first article came out, she was able to do her
Speaker 3: annual search and have a name.
Speaker 1: Wow, and a lot of this.
Speaker 2: Was for me.
Speaker 4: That's what it was like.
Speaker 3: When I was eighteen, I went back to Bateman's Bay
Speaker 3: to try and find an information to meet with other
Speaker 3: victim survivors.
Speaker 4: It was from there that I was.
Speaker 3: Able to get like newspaper clippings and start to understand
Speaker 3: the extent one of the abuse and the amount of victims,
Speaker 3: but two just how hidden this had all been.
Speaker 4: And like the.
Speaker 3: By him not being named and there being no photos
Speaker 3: and no discussions, this sort of just disappeared. He just
Speaker 3: disappeared from the face of the earth. And no, I've
Speaker 3: had survivors that have come forward that are as old
Speaker 3: as my parents. So he's been doing this a really
Speaker 3: long time. And that's why, you know, ultimately his name
Speaker 3: being the media is so important because even if those
Speaker 3: people don't come forward, they might have a tiny sense
Speaker 3: of closure. I know that there is indeed people out
Speaker 3: there fighting for justice for all of David Tuck's victim survivors.
Speaker 1: Let's go back to the start and tell your story.
Speaker 1: When did you both start going to this daycare and
Speaker 1: how much care were you in. Were you there multiple
Speaker 1: days a week, multiple nights a week, what did the
Speaker 1: care kind of.
Speaker 3: Look like I was seven, so I was quite a lot.
Speaker 3: My mum was a shift worker, so I spent a
Speaker 3: lot of time there after school, before school, on the
Speaker 3: weekends and in the evenings.
Speaker 1: And do you remember what it looked like, what the
Speaker 1: property looked like, what the house looked like.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I do.
Speaker 3: I remember, like I was there yesterday, And also when
Speaker 3: I've made trips back to Bateman's Bay, I've driven out
Speaker 3: to the property just to make sure it was real.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I could remember exactly what it was like
Speaker 3: to walk up to the front stairs, where the rooms were,
Speaker 3: where the bathroom was, the backyard looked like. And I
Speaker 3: think the thing that stuck with me and Haley and
Speaker 3: I have had this conversation is just how small it was.
Speaker 3: Last year, Hailey was able to find some photos on
Speaker 3: real estate dot Com of the property.
Speaker 4: And it was just so small.
Speaker 3: And it's crazy to me that any type of regulatory
Speaker 3: body walked into that place and said this is a
Speaker 3: suitable place for twelve twelve or more children.
Speaker 1: Twelve or more kids, that's how many were there at
Speaker 1: a time.
Speaker 2: Well, this is I guess. Part of the information we've
Speaker 2: now have to find out is he wasn't meant to
Speaker 2: have that many children there at any one time. But
Speaker 2: any person who was attending the center, whether a parent
Speaker 2: or somebody that was doing checks or you know, the
Speaker 2: children themselves, knew that on quite a number of occasions,
Speaker 2: he was frequently over the allowable numbers of children he
Speaker 2: was meant to have in his care. And you know,
Speaker 2: even the property itself, the house was tiny, you know,
Speaker 2: one single bathroom, two very small rooms, not enough beds
Speaker 2: for the children that were staying overnight, but also a
Speaker 2: very large dam that was completely unfenced on the property
Speaker 2: that at least one child that I know of, fell into,
Speaker 2: thankfully was pulled out without any harm. But to Lj's point,
Speaker 2: the property itself was not something that should ever have
Speaker 2: been approved to allow children in a care facility to
Speaker 2: be attending. It wasn't a safe property, let alone the
Speaker 2: man running it being a safe person.
Speaker 1: Do you remember on the surface when you first went
Speaker 1: was it was their activities? What was the pool?
Speaker 4: For me?
Speaker 3: I had gone to a couple of different primary schools
Speaker 3: and Batemans based, so there were kids I went to
Speaker 3: school with, and you know, like there were familiar faces.
Speaker 3: There were so many kids. The yard was big, there
Speaker 3: were toys, there was TV. We could watch whatever movies
Speaker 3: we wanted.
Speaker 4: I remember we would.
Speaker 3: Watch like Titanic and ah, there was another movie can Greece,
Speaker 3: you know, And I didn't have a VCR at home,
Speaker 3: So being able to sit and watch those things that
Speaker 3: have access to things that I might not have had
Speaker 3: was a big pool, you know. And it's not like
Speaker 3: back then, you know, center daycare was really unaffordable, and
Speaker 3: family daycare was always a preferred option, particularly in small towns.
Speaker 3: So when you walked in and you've seen all of
Speaker 3: these other kids, people that you know, children that you recognized,
Speaker 3: there was no reason to think, even for a moment
Speaker 3: that it was unsafe.
Speaker 2: And it was a necessity, I guess. You know, for
Speaker 2: most all families there was low income families with multiple
Speaker 2: children typically and they were working, so you know, similar
Speaker 2: to LJ would be shift working or you know, hospitality
Speaker 2: workers that needed that extended hours care that was being
Speaker 2: offered rather than your standard after school care, you know,
Speaker 2: and your sort of daytime childcare that was that was
Speaker 2: the necessity for both most families that were attending the.
Speaker 1: Center, which even nowadays is hard to find to find
Speaker 1: kind of affordable childcare for evenings and weekends and those
Speaker 1: kinds of hours. You know, it is hard to find
Speaker 1: in Australia.
Speaker 4: Basically non existent.
Speaker 3: I mean my partner and I were looking at, you know,
Speaker 3: getting a baby setter for a night out, you know,
Speaker 3: to go to the movies or at shel or dinner
Speaker 3: and three hundred dollars, you.
Speaker 1: Know, three hundred dollars.
Speaker 3: You know, you're getting a private nanny or you're getting
Speaker 3: a private person who's charging him thirty forty dollars an hour.
Speaker 3: So if it's not affordable now, it absolutely was not
Speaker 3: affordable then. So anywhere that offered after hours care that
Speaker 3: you could use a childcare rebate for, you know, of
Speaker 3: course people are going to use that service. He was
Speaker 3: also well regarded in the community. He was registered with
Speaker 3: the council. When you look at some of the flyers
Speaker 3: and things like that, you know it was promoted as
Speaker 3: this really safe, family friendly, inclusive space for children.
Speaker 1: Did the grooming start pretty quickly For.
Speaker 3: Me, it was instantaneously from the first time I ever
Speaker 3: walked in that place.
Speaker 1: After the break, LJ and Hailey share what the overnight
Speaker 1: childcare center was like and how they felt when they
Speaker 1: first arrived there as children, What did it look like?
Speaker 1: What was the first time you walked into that place?
Speaker 3: Like there was lots of affection, lots of toys, lots
Speaker 3: of you're so special, I'm so glad you're here. You know,
Speaker 3: identifying I guess vulnerabilities and then being able to like
Speaker 3: weaponize that vulnerability against you. Particularly I say, there was
Speaker 3: any like issues at home or you know, if there
Speaker 3: was like poverty or anything like that, he was really
Speaker 3: able to fill those gaps and create that trust. And
Speaker 3: because there were so many kids, you know, when you
Speaker 3: see like another kid sitting on his lap, it wasn't
Speaker 3: like it was just a normalized behavior. And you know
Speaker 3: what I reflect on now is that he didn't just
Speaker 3: groom the kids. He groomed to the parents because it
Speaker 3: was like, oh, come in for that cup of tea
Speaker 3: or like, you know, it became very friendly, almost like
Speaker 3: a community within itself.
Speaker 1: Can you tell me about the odd rules that he
Speaker 1: had and he enforced.
Speaker 2: On the kids. Yeah, he had some rules, which I
Speaker 2: mean we've actually found in writing since our investigations started,
Speaker 2: some being for parents that they had to knock before entering,
Speaker 2: had to allow time. Now, if you compare that to
Speaker 2: a modern facility for childcare. I mean, you want to
Speaker 2: walk in and collect your child, you walk in and
Speaker 2: collect your child. But in terms of rules there was
Speaker 2: for the children, and these were of course kept from
Speaker 2: the parents, but you weren't meant to wear underwear to bed.
Speaker 2: There essentially was a child each night that would sleep
Speaker 2: in his bed. And you know what I mean, Yeah,
Speaker 2: they're probably the most significant ones.
Speaker 3: Normally too, Like for me, you know, I'd be getting
Speaker 3: dropped to school and he'd be like, oh, you look
Speaker 3: really sick.
Speaker 4: You have to stay home.
Speaker 3: And that was a common encourage as well for children,
Speaker 3: like there does always be one sick kid that had
Speaker 3: to stay home, particularly if they're of school age.
Speaker 2: We have access to some correspondence between organizations government organizations
Speaker 2: that was raising that as an issue between the organizations,
Speaker 2: and he was given warnings essentially that that wasn't appropriate behavior.
Speaker 2: Nothing further was addressed or done by counsel when they
Speaker 2: were made aware that the government funded childcare was having
Speaker 2: children sleep in his bed. I mean, you would think
Speaker 2: that's an immediate reason to shut down the center. Yeah,
Speaker 2: And that in the end was not even the reason
Speaker 2: that he was shut down for In the end, he
Speaker 2: was shut down for fraud, and that meant he was
Speaker 2: then allowed to move to a different state and continue essentially,
Speaker 2: you know, exposing himself to children. I at that point
Speaker 2: was harmed again because our parents were never notified that, hey,
Speaker 2: these allegations that have been raised. You know, he called
Speaker 2: my parents and said, well, you know, listen, I've stopped
Speaker 2: doing the child care for something to do with fraud.
Speaker 2: And then we went to go and have a visit,
Speaker 2: which it's like, had he had my family been notified,
Speaker 2: obviously at that point you cut ties, but no families
Speaker 2: were given that opportunity because you know, my opinion, it
Speaker 2: was swept under the rug.
Speaker 1: How soon after you both started going did the abuse start?
Speaker 4: Mine was in like the second or third time that
Speaker 4: I attended Hayley.
Speaker 1: Do you remember because you were so young?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was only five years old when I started
Speaker 2: at the center, and it was the first time that
Speaker 2: I was chosen to sleep in the bed essentially, which
Speaker 2: was again fairly immediate to starting at the center.
Speaker 1: And then the abuse in terms of frequency once he
Speaker 1: had started, was it every time you guys went for me?
Speaker 2: It was very often. As l J said, it's you know,
Speaker 2: it's almost like he picked a child he got to pick,
Speaker 2: you know, So it was definitely very frequent, particularly when
Speaker 2: most children were attending the center three or four times
Speaker 2: a week, it would be at least once a week.
Speaker 1: Do either of you or both of you remember how
Speaker 1: it made you feel.
Speaker 4: I don't think I knew what was happening, but I
Speaker 4: knew it was wrong.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I.
Speaker 3: Also realized it was happening to other children, so that
Speaker 3: I was confused about whether or not it was normal.
Speaker 3: Obviously there are you know, physical responses such as like
Speaker 3: pain and comfortability, all of those things. But for me,
Speaker 3: I just don't think I knew what was happening other
Speaker 3: than I didn't want it to happen.
Speaker 4: And you know, he was.
Speaker 3: Good at the manipulation, I guess, or ensuring that you
Speaker 3: didn't tell, and he himself normalized the behavior, maybing like
Speaker 3: I love you so much, this is what love is.
Speaker 3: You're my favorite, all of that kind of typical sex
Speaker 3: offender behavior.
Speaker 1: Were are their threats involved? How did he kind of
Speaker 1: keep this up without.
Speaker 3: I'm part of a bigger sibling group, So he was like,
Speaker 3: you know, if you tell anyone, like your mom's going
Speaker 3: to get in trouble, and then you'll like get taken
Speaker 3: away from her and you won't see your siblings again.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean for me it was small. You're going
Speaker 2: to get in trouble. You know this is because you
Speaker 2: do if you feel like it's your fault or like
Speaker 2: you know it's something wrong, you don't know how to
Speaker 2: express it, or you don't really understand what's going on.
Speaker 2: But when you're told this is your fault, you're bad.
Speaker 2: You're going to get in trouble if you tell anyone,
Speaker 2: you know at five years old. That obviously puts a
Speaker 2: lot of pressure on a child and causes a lot
Speaker 2: of confusion. So ultimately, yeah, you just stay quiet because
Speaker 2: you don't know. We don't have the ability to sort
Speaker 2: of weigh up the risks or understand that.
Speaker 4: The language Like I wouldn't have known what to say anyway.
Speaker 1: And even in the nineties, I mean I'm a nineties
Speaker 1: baby too, we weren't really taught consent as a kid
Speaker 1: and our bodies being ours or any of that kind
Speaker 1: of language that we use now.
Speaker 3: I think the best was like that life that you know,
Speaker 3: that giraffe. I think I learned some stuff from there.
Speaker 1: Healthy Herald Ye healthy, Harold.
Speaker 4: I think that was the best I got, really, not.
Speaker 2: One understanding what's going on and two not understanding where
Speaker 2: there's safe people. You can tell. That's something that has
Speaker 2: really improved over time. I mean, it's you know, we
Speaker 2: can still do better. But definitely, as a child, like
Speaker 2: you said, in the nineties, you were told to do
Speaker 2: what adults said you did, and if an adult said
Speaker 2: you can't tell anyone this, and you're going to be
Speaker 2: in big trouble, particularly when you come from a home
Speaker 2: that maybe isn't as loving and supportive, then you absolutely
Speaker 2: don't want to get in trouble, so you don't tell anyone.
Speaker 1: Did either of you try and tell anyone? Try and
Speaker 1: talk to your parents.
Speaker 4: I thought about it.
Speaker 2: I do remember sort of one occasion where, you know,
Speaker 2: I was so close to disclosing. It was on the
Speaker 2: tip of my tongue. And unfortunately at the time, you know,
Speaker 2: the person I was trying to disclose to was really busy,
Speaker 2: and you know, sort of by the time I got
Speaker 2: their attention, they were a bit snappy of like, you know,
Speaker 2: what is it, I'm in the middle of something, and
Speaker 2: then you know, I just withdrew and couldn't get it
Speaker 2: out of my mouth. But that was a very distinct
Speaker 2: memory that I have because it was at the point
Speaker 2: where I needed it to stop.
Speaker 4: My situation is pretty similar.
Speaker 3: I remember sitting at the kitchen table and I had
Speaker 3: gotten in trouble for something, maybe at school, and I
Speaker 3: remember my mom being like, you know, what is wrong
Speaker 3: with you? Kind of thing, and I was so close
Speaker 3: to saying something, but I remember just like hearing his
Speaker 3: voice in my head, you know, basically being like, you'll
Speaker 3: lose everything and it'll be your fault.
Speaker 4: So I just didn't say it.
Speaker 1: You think, because were there signs that, you know, in hindsight,
Speaker 1: your parents, if they had been looking, might have noticed
Speaker 1: socially kind of mentally behaviorally that you guys were doing
Speaker 1: that that kind of showed what was happening one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: I look back now and think, you know, I was
Speaker 2: a very withdrawn chriald that was very emotionally underdeveloped. I
Speaker 2: would say, so even sort of in your later primary
Speaker 2: years would sulk, let's say, or you know, we called
Speaker 2: it sulking. I could never appropriately express express emotions. It
Speaker 2: would be you know, something's happened and I didn't like
Speaker 2: and I would just completely withdraw. Things like bed wedding
Speaker 2: was very consistent, you know, well beyond the years that
Speaker 2: it was age appropriate, and you know, sexualized behavior. I think,
Speaker 2: you know, these are all really really bit indicators that
Speaker 2: again with education and understanding what they look like, one
Speaker 2: hundred percent, they were there. But of course, you know,
Speaker 2: we were not in situations where our parents were familiar
Speaker 2: with those signs.
Speaker 3: I spent a lot of time struggling at school, to
Speaker 3: fights at school, not being able to maintain friendships. I
Speaker 3: also left school in year nine as a result of
Speaker 3: the abuse that I experienced. But you know, I think
Speaker 3: even up until he committed suicide, I think there are
Speaker 3: lots of behaviors that.
Speaker 4: If we were to look at it now, would have
Speaker 4: raised concerns or should have raised concerns.
Speaker 1: How long did the abuse go for? How long were
Speaker 1: you attending this daycare?
Speaker 4: The last was abuse bake around was eleven I think
Speaker 4: eleven or twelve. I think eleven, probably four years.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a long time to be enduring.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 1: You mentioned Hailey that you know, he got eventually shut
Speaker 1: down from fraud, but there were also a number of
Speaker 1: assault allegations while you were there that didn't get him
Speaker 1: shut down. Weren't there exactly right? And I think a
Speaker 1: lot more education needs to happen with the public in
Speaker 1: terms of what the process is when a child makes
Speaker 1: an allegation and the huge gap required to actually criminally
Speaker 1: charge and convict that person. I think there's a really
Speaker 1: big misconception that if someone is charged but not convicted,
Speaker 1: that they're innocent. And David Tuck had allegations against him
Speaker 1: and charges against him before he ever even opened the
Speaker 1: childcare center, and he was not convicted of those. And
Speaker 1: we can tell you right now well as we know
Speaker 1: who the original accuser was, that that one hundred percent happened,
Speaker 1: and had that child been believed and had he been
Speaker 1: criminally charged, you're talking dozens of children would have been
Speaker 1: protected from this man. So I think a really key
Speaker 1: point is we need to believe children, and we need
Speaker 1: to understand that not getting a conviction does not mean
Speaker 1: that they didn't commit the crime when we're talking about
Speaker 1: child predators, you know, because unfortunately, expecting a you know, five, six, seven,
Speaker 1: eight year old child to sit on a stand and
Speaker 1: give the amount of testimony needed for criminal conviction is just,
Speaker 1: you know, it's too much really to burden any child
Speaker 1: with and.
Speaker 3: We really need to reevaluate how the system marx now.
Speaker 3: And I think that you know, a lot of people
Speaker 3: read our story and go, well, that was then, but
Speaker 3: some of these things, particularly what Hayley you say, are
Speaker 3: not much different now. It's still harder than people think
Speaker 3: to have someone convicted of child sexual abuse, and the
Speaker 3: the victim.
Speaker 4: The harder it is.
Speaker 3: They're relying on things like medical evidence and other forms
Speaker 3: of evidence that isn't always possible to collect. And you know,
Speaker 3: I think it stands like children don't lie about being abused.
Speaker 3: This irrelevance is so unrelevant that it's not even worth mentioning.
Speaker 3: They might be confused or misidentify who, but their children
Speaker 3: don't lie about being abused.
Speaker 1: He went to trial for the charges you're talking about
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety one, so it was ten counts of
Speaker 1: child abuse against an eleven year old girl, found not guilty.
Speaker 1: And then by nineteen ninety four he had a daycare,
Speaker 1: so that means he passed police checks working with children checks.
Speaker 1: When you found that out that this man had these
Speaker 1: charges and then went on to abuse you in this setting,
Speaker 1: how did that feel?
Speaker 2: I mean, it makes you angry, of course, and I
Speaker 2: think that's a huge part of why LJ and I
Speaker 2: started speaking publicly about this and why we genuinely want
Speaker 2: to make changes in how people think about pedophile. So
Speaker 2: who they think a pedophile is, because someone this significant
Speaker 2: can slip through the cracks and just reoffend and reoffend.
Speaker 2: You know, you've got to say, Okay, there must have
Speaker 2: been signs, and we're telling you, yeah, there was plenty
Speaker 2: of signs, but no individual took responsibility for putting up
Speaker 2: those flags. You know, it's very much turn a blind eye,
Speaker 2: and a lot of people think, oh, well that was
Speaker 2: the nineties and this is now. As LJ said, well,
Speaker 2: we've had three major childcare sexual abuse cases in the
Speaker 2: last handful of years. This is exactly the same and
Speaker 2: they use the exact same tactics. Move states so they're
Speaker 2: not traceable. You know, as soon as there's a complaint,
Speaker 2: move shift, and you know, it's a lot easier for
Speaker 2: childcare services to move someone along then raise the red flags.
Speaker 2: And really, in the end, it's everyone's trying to protect
Speaker 2: their own business or themselves and it's not the right
Speaker 2: way to go about it. I mean, protecting the children
Speaker 2: should be the number one priority.
Speaker 3: And whilst there wasn't working with children check cards that
Speaker 3: look the way they look today, back then there were
Speaker 3: still required checks, there were still police checks, there were
Speaker 3: still reviews that needed to be done in order to
Speaker 3: have someone be allowed to work with children. And we
Speaker 3: need to ask, you know, for our case, what happened?
Speaker 4: How has this missed?
Speaker 3: But also acknowledged that in current day when we look
Speaker 3: at those three particular cases within the childcare sector, all
Speaker 3: of those people have working with children's checks.
Speaker 4: So where is the gap there?
Speaker 3: You know, I'm of the opinion all of working with
Speaker 3: children's check only works if you've been caught for something, Right,
Speaker 3: If you've never been caught, how are the people that
Speaker 3: you work with looking at behavior, looking at concerns, looking
Speaker 3: at gut feelings, and what are they doing about that?
Speaker 3: You know? One of the things that we've been advocating
Speaker 3: for is required training so that when people get a
Speaker 3: work and with children's check they have to do training.
Speaker 3: And some people say, oh, well, what's training going to do.
Speaker 3: It's not about stopping the perpetrator. It's about the people
Speaker 3: working in these spaces having the ability to know the language,
Speaker 3: know what to look out for, know how to report
Speaker 3: and have the confidence so that they can report. Because
Speaker 3: it's not like it's not just about like catching the
Speaker 3: predator one on one. It's about child child prevention and
Speaker 3: the prevention of child sexual abuse being an everyone problem
Speaker 3: and then everyone issue, and we all have a role
Speaker 3: to play.
Speaker 1: In that, because it's almost like that working with children
Speaker 1: Check would lull parents into this false sense of security, right,
Speaker 1: that's right.
Speaker 2: It's like LJ said, before even looking for a private
Speaker 2: nanny or a private babysitter first, seeing most parents are
Speaker 2: asking for as a working with Children's Check. My opinion,
Speaker 2: it's not worth the paper it's written on. You can
Speaker 2: go online and you can apply for working with Children's
Speaker 2: Check and provided haven't been criminally charged, you can have one. Now,
Speaker 2: to get your driver's license, you need to do a test.
Speaker 2: To get your responsible service of alcohol, you have to
Speaker 2: do a test. Why is it we are putting children
Speaker 2: in the care of somebody who has no form of qualification.
Speaker 2: Essentially the only requirement is they haven't been caught doing
Speaker 2: something wrong. I think that's the biggest issue is understanding
Speaker 2: that working with Children Check does not make them a
Speaker 2: safe person. And there are multiple other things you need
Speaker 2: to be looking out for.
Speaker 1: I'm confused how Tuck got a working with children check
Speaker 1: if he did have charges. Is it because he was
Speaker 1: found not guilty?
Speaker 3: So it's ugly to be honest to actually unclear. There
Speaker 3: was some change in legislation in the early nineties that
Speaker 3: sort of looked similar to like the modern day spent
Speaker 3: conviction schemes. I don't know enough to speak on it,
Speaker 3: but I understand that there was some legislation change which
Speaker 3: may have allowed him somehow to slip through the gap.
Speaker 3: But at the end of the day, it's not good enough.
Speaker 3: I mean, like they weren't. It wasn't like he did
Speaker 3: a break an enter of something. No accused of abusing children.
Speaker 3: He should never ever been put in a position where
Speaker 3: he was working with children. And unfortunately the daycare isn't
Speaker 3: the only role that he had after those charges occurred.
Speaker 1: Because he worked with children across his whole career.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I used detention, worked with children with disabilities, worked
Speaker 3: at a hospital, he was a bus driver, he was
Speaker 3: a Scouts leader, So his entire adult life he worked
Speaker 3: with children.
Speaker 1: The last figure I saw was that there were potentially
Speaker 1: fifty five victims. Do you think that there could be
Speaker 1: more than that.
Speaker 4: Well, that's just of the child that's the that's just
Speaker 4: the childcare number that's assumed. But I would say there
Speaker 4: were would be hundreds of victims.
Speaker 2: Oh definitely. If you think the fifty five is over
Speaker 2: a four or five year time frame, and he was
Speaker 2: in his forties when he committed suicide. We know the
Speaker 2: earliest that we've been able to track that he offended
Speaker 2: was at seventeen years old. It's hundreds, It's hundreds and
Speaker 2: hundreds of victims. And this brings us back to this
Speaker 2: is why we want to get his photo out there,
Speaker 2: not just his name. This is why we are putting
Speaker 2: this photo out there is so that every one of
Speaker 2: those victims who did try and speak up and weren't believed,
Speaker 2: and we know of numerous of them that they know,
Speaker 2: they're believed now and they are supported and really that
Speaker 2: you know, like this guy was a really, really horrible person.
Speaker 1: Up next, LJ and Haley discuss how they discovered their
Speaker 1: abuser had died and whether it changed how they felt
Speaker 1: about getting justice. As you've mentioned, he died by suicide
Speaker 1: in two thousand and one, and he died while on
Speaker 1: bail four child abuse charges, so he was actually finally
Speaker 1: facing around you know, a dozen charges and then he died.
Speaker 1: Did you guys know about that? When did you find
Speaker 1: out about that?
Speaker 3: I found out my mom got a que I didn't
Speaker 3: live in Batemans Bay anymore. I lived in Camera and
Speaker 3: my mom got a call from someone in community who
Speaker 3: knew that we'd attended that daycare, and then she asked,
Speaker 3: and eventually I disclosed what had happened. But she didn't
Speaker 3: get any call from the police or the council or anyone.
Speaker 3: And when I went back to Bateman's Bay at eighteen
Speaker 3: or nineteen, I was clearly named as a victim, and
Speaker 3: you know, it was it was a lot to sit
Speaker 3: there and see my name as an identified victim and
Speaker 3: know that no wholehearted that no one called her. And
Speaker 3: like I said, I've got a big sibling group. So
Speaker 3: at any point in time, like she deserved a phone call,
Speaker 3: you know, she deserved the police to knock on her
Speaker 3: door and say, hey, this is what's happened, and your
Speaker 3: child's been named. But you know that the responsibility was
Speaker 3: put on her and to get like a random phone call,
Speaker 3: I can't imagine what that would have been like for her,
Speaker 3: for any parent, and from what I gather, like this
Speaker 3: is a lot of how parents found out was through community,
Speaker 3: not through formal contact with agencies.
Speaker 1: I'm confused as to why the police wouldn't have continued
Speaker 1: to investigate, because even if he died, there are victims here.
Speaker 2: Oh exactly. And that is something that has really enraged
Speaker 2: us since I found out, which I think was around
Speaker 2: six or seven years ago that I realized, and this
Speaker 2: was through contact with LJ, that he was never publicly named.
Speaker 2: And we found that out through newspaper articles which essentially
Speaker 2: said we've been told we can't name this man. And
Speaker 2: you know, ironically, within the same article it says any
Speaker 2: victims that come forward can have counseling, and you know,
Speaker 2: we're offering all of these services. Okay, well that's fantastic.
Speaker 2: At that time, I was around eight or nine years old.
Speaker 2: How was I knowing who I was contacting or you know,
Speaker 2: I don't read the newspaper. My family was not in
Speaker 2: Batement's Bay anymore, which meant they were not reading the
Speaker 2: newspaper where it was published. So at what point were
Speaker 2: they genuinely actually offering services and support to the families?
Speaker 2: It seems like a very empty offer when you say,
Speaker 2: we're not going to tell you the perpetrator's name, we're
Speaker 2: not going to tell you any information about him, but
Speaker 2: if you were his victim, please come and tell us
Speaker 2: and we'll support you. I mean, excuse my French, but
Speaker 2: what a load of shit.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And again like it looks at that like the
Speaker 3: illness and responsibility on children to get help for abuse
Speaker 3: when it was something that was done to them by adults,
Speaker 3: and there are adults are responsibility, had a responsibility to
Speaker 3: protect them.
Speaker 2: And it's not a situation of well, we don't know
Speaker 2: who the perpetrator was or we don't know who had
Speaker 2: contact with him. This was a registered childcare center where
Speaker 2: parents were receiving the childcare subsidy for their children attending,
Speaker 2: which means the council and the other state organizations had
Speaker 2: a very clear list of children that had had contact
Speaker 2: with the known predator. So at that point, whether or
Speaker 2: not they knew that all of these children had been
Speaker 2: exposed to abuse, they knew that they were at a
Speaker 2: very high risk of it, and they still chose to
Speaker 2: not contact the families directly and offer that support.
Speaker 1: Is that illegal as far as you know, it should
Speaker 1: be it's not.
Speaker 3: It's just it should be illegal and it's unethical. You know,
Speaker 3: we could talk about like ethics and morals because they
Speaker 3: certainly were not considered at that time. Yeah, and we
Speaker 3: can't even say, like, I think it's really important to
Speaker 3: be here. This is nothing about the time because there
Speaker 3: was legislation in place, there were rules in place. Organizations
Speaker 3: both state and nationally knew about institutional child sexual abuse.
Speaker 3: It wasn't like they'd never heard of this thing before
Speaker 3: it was documented.
Speaker 4: They knew.
Speaker 3: There were processes that could have been followed. There were
Speaker 3: things that could have been done, and they weren't done
Speaker 3: for whatever is it.
Speaker 1: Well, Nina Fanell, who you mentioned earlier you wrote your
Speaker 1: original article with, she mentioned that the decision, you know,
Speaker 1: it goes further than that. They decided not to reach
Speaker 1: out to schools, to local councilors, to places where other
Speaker 1: children were to try and spread the word, you know,
Speaker 1: help victims, support the community. Like that's a very Yeah,
Speaker 1: it goes further than just not ringing the list of
Speaker 1: names on the childcare.
Speaker 2: And the question, I guess so that is who benefited
Speaker 2: from that? Because victims didn't benefit the family's impacted didn't benefit.
Speaker 2: There was only one person at that point, I mean,
Speaker 2: the perpetrators dead, so it didn't you know, there was
Speaker 2: no risks there of naming the wrong person at this point.
Speaker 2: There is only one group of people that benefited. And
Speaker 2: you know, really it was completely the wrong thing to do,
Speaker 2: and what it meant was so many victims have had
Speaker 2: not had the opportunity to access support and heal from
Speaker 2: this experience when they could have, you know, in early childhood,
Speaker 2: when really that offer of support would have been so
Speaker 2: much more significant than now as adults, where we're here
Speaker 2: trying to fight for our own justice, spending six seven
Speaker 2: years in a court case, trying to fight for accountability.
Speaker 2: I mean, we shouldn't have to.
Speaker 4: As a victim survivors.
Speaker 3: Something that I've really struggled with throughout my whole life
Speaker 3: is wondering who I could have been had not only
Speaker 3: had this had not happened, but had I got the
Speaker 3: support needed. You know, my life would have been infinitely
Speaker 3: easier and I would have been able to have opportunities,
Speaker 3: My trajectory, my ability to function the world would have
Speaker 3: been so much different. Because I know now from my
Speaker 3: own professional experiencing that recovery and healing starts with safe
Speaker 3: places to have conversations and to talk about it and
Speaker 3: have you know, even if it's not justice, but some
Speaker 3: sort of accountability and acknowledgment that it happened.
Speaker 4: And without having him named, most of us never.
Speaker 3: Got that, and then we had to move through the
Speaker 3: world alone, in our great ef and in our pain
Speaker 3: without even being able to google this man to find
Speaker 3: out if it was really I can't tell you the
Speaker 3: amount of times and I thought did I just make
Speaker 3: this up?
Speaker 4: Like is this not a real thing?
Speaker 3: And it wasn't until I found other victims, survivors that
Speaker 3: I was like, no, actually this really happened.
Speaker 4: Because you can google.
Speaker 3: Sex offenders from like the sixties and their names come up,
Speaker 3: but David's didn't come up, not even so much as
Speaker 3: like a anythink anyway?
Speaker 1: Can you expand on what you mean for both of you,
Speaker 1: on how this abuse and this the trauma that followed
Speaker 1: affected you into your teenage years and adulthood and how
Speaker 1: it kind of shaped your experiences for sure.
Speaker 4: I mean I left school in year nine.
Speaker 3: I have struggled with I struggled with substance you use
Speaker 3: well into my twenties I've struggled with suicidality and self harm.
Speaker 3: I've chronic social anxiety. All of my study I've done
Speaker 3: now like I'm lucky. I've turned my life around. I'm
Speaker 3: an academic now, but I had to go. I went
Speaker 3: back to union in my thirties. I now A you know,
Speaker 3: I've struggled with relationships with my family. I've experienced intimate
Speaker 3: intimate partner violence and these all of these things can
Speaker 3: be like deeply linked into the experiences of child sexual
Speaker 3: abuse and not being able to access support. It's really
Speaker 3: hard to move on with your life if you have
Speaker 3: nowhere to go and you don't know how to ask
Speaker 3: for help. You don't even know how to name what's
Speaker 3: happened to you. And you know, when we think about,
Speaker 3: like we started the conversation thinking about words like consent,
Speaker 3: a really good way to not understand concern is if
Speaker 3: you've never had it, and so then there's risks of
Speaker 3: being like revictimized, experiencing further abuse in multiple different settings.
Speaker 3: And that has been my experience really up and up
Speaker 3: until I was in my twenties and met my husband.
Speaker 3: And that's a long time to suffer, I.
Speaker 2: You know, and A lot of the similar experiences to LJ.
Speaker 2: But another massive impact for me, and it's I think
Speaker 2: one that we're slowly learning more about but it's still
Speaker 2: not talked about often, is I've developed an autoimmune disease
Speaker 2: which when you go back and you look at the statistics,
Speaker 2: is heavily linked to early childhood trauma, to significant stress.
Speaker 2: Now it has progressed a point now in my life
Speaker 2: at thirty four years old where it's attacking my bones
Speaker 2: and you know, I need constant, monthly treatment that is
Speaker 2: very hard to access, that is not continual and is
Speaker 2: not always effective. And essentially, at some point where this
Speaker 2: disease progresses, the patient can end up in a wheelchair
Speaker 2: and lose mobility. And that's a very serious issue. And
Speaker 2: that is worst case state scenario. Yes, but there are
Speaker 2: Like I said, I'm young. I'm very much on the
Speaker 2: younger end of people that should be suffering to the
Speaker 2: severity that I have this autoimmune and it is not
Speaker 2: something that I will ever recover from. And of course
Speaker 2: that within itself, you know, with the anxiety depression I
Speaker 2: already have from the abuse, on top of dealing with
Speaker 2: you know, the physical manifestation of that. It's really significant.
Speaker 4: People, So don't talk about how this impacts parenting. No,
Speaker 4: I'm super hyper vigilant. You know, my children aren't really
Speaker 4: allowed out of my sight.
Speaker 3: You know, like I'm super protective of them, and they're
Speaker 3: really good things to have. But being hyper vigilant all
Speaker 3: the time is not good for your immune system, it's
Speaker 3: not good for your mental health, it's not good for
Speaker 3: your sleep. It has lasting impacts. And no one wants
Speaker 3: to walk around the world being like, are you one
Speaker 3: of them?
Speaker 1: I know that you're both moms, you also have kids,
Speaker 1: highly how did you both kind of approach the idea
Speaker 1: of childcare for your kids? Because I can imagine that
Speaker 1: would have been a very triggering idea to conceptualize.
Speaker 2: Oh and it still is. It's still the constant balance
Speaker 2: of trying to be a career mum but also not
Speaker 2: leave your children in the care of anybody is a
Speaker 2: constant daily struggle. And you know, my older child is
Speaker 2: at the age where they want sleepovers and it's something
Speaker 2: that I'm sorry but we just don't allow. And you know,
Speaker 2: they want to be able to go on school camp.
Speaker 2: I have allowed that, but the anxiety that I felt
Speaker 2: and had to I was pretty much incapacitated for the
Speaker 2: three days and probably even a few days after, because yeah,
Speaker 2: it's just this constant fear that you can't protect your children,
Speaker 2: and also you can't spot a pedophile, and it only
Speaker 2: takes a short amount of time for someone to take
Speaker 2: advantage of your child.
Speaker 4: I've spent twelve years working.
Speaker 3: In the sort of social work sector research now, but
Speaker 3: I worked in worked with families in child protection, so
Speaker 3: I really this is like encompassed to my whole identity
Speaker 3: in life, because I am fearful for my children, but
Speaker 3: fearful for other people's children. I remember when I first
Speaker 3: enrolled my older daughter into childcare, I was like, I
Speaker 3: don't want to see working with children checks. I want
Speaker 3: to know when people got there, police checks done, you know,
Speaker 3: like I was a really heavy handed, I guess you
Speaker 3: would say. On the on the daycas that she went to,
Speaker 3: I really struggled if there was any male.
Speaker 4: Childcare workers enough.
Speaker 3: Not that there's anything wrong with male childcare workers, but
Speaker 3: due to lived experience, you're always a little bit more worried.
Speaker 3: And like Hayley, when my daughter went on camp, I
Speaker 3: gave her my Apple Watch, which is you're not allowed
Speaker 3: to do but I was like, I need to know
Speaker 3: that if she is not okay, she can call us,
Speaker 3: and then I just call the school all the time,
Speaker 3: which you know for her is not ideal, but you know,
Speaker 3: we're also not allowed to know not allowing sleepovers. I
Speaker 3: heavily monitor technology and these are really good protective things,
Speaker 3: and I would encourage parents to make sure they do
Speaker 3: their education and have knowledge and have understanding. But it
Speaker 3: takes a toll on you as a parent because it's
Speaker 3: this is no way to be And even though we
Speaker 3: should all be aware of these things, when you're a
Speaker 3: victims survivor of abuse and you have children, it's something
Speaker 3: that you're thinking about all the time, especially as they
Speaker 3: hit the ages you were when you first started being abused,
Speaker 3: or any slight changes in behavior, you know, you're just
Speaker 3: that little bit more.
Speaker 4: Aware of risk.
Speaker 1: Well, I've got two children currently in daycare. I am
Speaker 1: not a victim survivor, and it's been something that's been
Speaker 1: on my mind multiple times, and I was hyper vigilant
Speaker 1: while trying to pick a childcare because, as you said,
Speaker 1: the amount of pedophiles that have been found in childcare
Speaker 1: settings today, last year, the year before, like in modern
Speaker 1: society is unbelievable, really, Oh.
Speaker 2: And that's why a massive part of what LJ and
Speaker 2: I are trying to do is an overhaul of all
Speaker 2: of these safeguards which were meant to be in place
Speaker 2: in the nineties and were in place but were not upheld,
Speaker 2: and that were in place when all of these more
Speaker 2: recent cases have come out. We have these case studies
Speaker 2: now they should be looked at and we should identify
Speaker 2: what these cracks are. And there's been promises made that
Speaker 2: things will change, but nothing's changed. There's no national Working
Speaker 2: with Children's Check. Huge step in the right direction doesn't
Speaker 2: solve things, but it stops a lot of those perpetrators
Speaker 2: when you look moved from state to state, and that
Speaker 2: is your first step in making that avoidable.
Speaker 1: So you're you're saying that the Working with Children Check
Speaker 1: is different in every state and territory, which allows kind
Speaker 1: of abuses to manipulate the system.
Speaker 3: If you have an allegation or a concerned raised against
Speaker 3: you in Queensland and the investigation only just starts, you
Speaker 3: can relocate to Melbourne, get a Working with Children's Check
Speaker 3: and it won't be automatically sent. And you know, the
Speaker 3: important thing to note here is I gave evidence in
Speaker 3: the Royal Commission into Institutionalized Sexual Abuse. One of the
Speaker 3: first and most important recommendations from that Royal Commission was
Speaker 3: a National Working with Children's Check and reform around working
Speaker 3: with Children's Check. The Royal Commission happened ten years ago.
Speaker 3: That still has not been implemented. And there are many
Speaker 3: recommendations over half from the Royal Commission that have not
Speaker 3: been implemented. And the Royal Commission looked at institutionalized sexual
Speaker 3: abuse over decades and the fact that these cases are
Speaker 3: still happening shows how important that reform was and it
Speaker 3: should have happened and it hasn't. And you know here
Speaker 3: in Victoria actually even West Melbourn where Joshuah Brown is located,
Speaker 3: and he was he's the most recent case around abuse
Speaker 3: in childcare.
Speaker 4: My daughter went to one of the daycarees he attended.
Speaker 3: Thank god nothing happened to her, but it hit our
Speaker 3: community really hard out here. And the Victorian government has
Speaker 3: moved towards creating a reform and a register, but.
Speaker 4: In my opinion it's too little, too late.
Speaker 3: Like these things have been known, they were clearly outlined
Speaker 3: in the Royal Commission and there's really no excuse good
Speaker 3: enough as to why this reform hasn't already happened. We
Speaker 3: know risk, it's clearly identified risk, and there's still no
Speaker 3: national working.
Speaker 4: With Children's check.
Speaker 1: It doesn't feel like that hard a thing that recommendation
Speaker 1: in particular to put in place. I'm confused as to
Speaker 1: why it hasn't been put in place.
Speaker 4: Are we need to ask the Prime Minister to that question?
Speaker 3: Because real there is really no excuse good enough. And
Speaker 3: I know that there are many organizations that are advocating
Speaker 3: for reforms, such as the National Center Fractional Child Sexual Abuse,
Speaker 3: Strange Childhood Foundation, Snake Like. There are many national organizations
Speaker 3: that have been advocating for reform for a really long time.
Speaker 3: And we're still here, still having to have this discussion,
Speaker 3: and all you have to google is child abuse in daycare.
Speaker 3: We've spoken about three cases here. There are many, many
Speaker 3: more spending over the last ten years alone. They just
Speaker 3: don't all make it to the TV.
Speaker 1: What does your advocacy for overhauling the system look like?
Speaker 1: I know that there's a petition that was started by
Speaker 1: Nina Fanel that's both of your faces. Is that helping
Speaker 1: or how are you guys trying to overhaul the system.
Speaker 3: We need twenty thousand signatures to be able to take
Speaker 3: this to the government. Nino is really driving us on
Speaker 3: the more logistical aspect of it. But if we do
Speaker 3: get twenty thousand signatures, we can start to open the
Speaker 3: doors to a discussion around what's needed in terms of
Speaker 3: reform around the working children's check and training. These are
Speaker 3: being advocated by multiple different victim survivors who are let
Speaker 3: down in various different settings due to this gap within
Speaker 3: working with children's check. So it's important to note like
Speaker 3: we are one of many people affocating for this, but
Speaker 3: it must start with government reform and ideally an inquiry,
Speaker 3: a national inquiry into the childcare sector. You know, we
Speaker 3: are seeing individual states do versions of inquiries, but we
Speaker 3: actually need a national response to this and remove the
Speaker 3: requirement of it being state by state, because that's half
Speaker 3: the reason we're here in the first place. You know,
Speaker 3: there are many nash Nor standards. This needs to be
Speaker 3: something that is prioritized. You know, on average, a working
Speaker 3: family spend twenty five thousand dollars to send their child
Speaker 3: to daycare, which is a requirement if you would like
Speaker 3: to work. We need to make sure that a child
Speaker 3: walks into a daycare and they are safe and no
Speaker 3: more like knee jerk reactions like in Victoria. Here we're
Speaker 3: talking about like no phones in daycares, no iPads, cameras.
Speaker 3: That's all great, a lot of centers have had those
Speaker 3: in place for a really long time. It's still not
Speaker 3: protecting kids. So there needs to be more done, and
Speaker 3: whatever is done, it needs to be the same everywhere.
Speaker 1: It's amazing what you're both doing fighting for the children
Speaker 1: of today. But in terms of justice in your own story,
Speaker 1: obviously your abuser is dead. What does justice there look like?
Speaker 1: Are you able to get it by doing this fight elsewhere?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I think for myself at least, justice is a
Speaker 2: about accountability, and in this situation, we're looking to hold
Speaker 2: the party that licensed and oversaw David Tuck and failed
Speaker 2: to undertake the appropriate checks. And that's not just prior
Speaker 2: to him being licensed, but that is for all of
Speaker 2: the years that he was licensed that allegations were made.
Speaker 2: In the end, if we can at least hold the
Speaker 2: council accountable, it paves, I guess a way for other
Speaker 2: operators to see that they can be held accountable, because
Speaker 2: what we want to stop is the sweeping of under
Speaker 2: the rug. It is at the moment easier for a
Speaker 2: childcare service to move somebody on. They've faced the repercussions
Speaker 2: of identifi identifying a predator. So and a big part
Speaker 2: of what we're asking for is looking at and whether
Speaker 2: that's a financial punishment fine for not reporting. There needs
Speaker 2: to be very clear reporting guidelines that individual centers and
Speaker 2: operators need to follow, and if they don't follow, then
Speaker 2: they are then held accountable.
Speaker 3: And for me, I mean justice is a funny word
Speaker 3: because will we get justice, I don't know, but I
Speaker 3: would like accountability and I'd like there to be reform
Speaker 3: and I want all childcare workers and teachers and anyone
Speaker 3: who works with children not feel like they risk. There's
Speaker 3: a risk in reporting in terms of like will I
Speaker 3: lose my job? Will I get in trouble? You know
Speaker 3: what if I report and I'm wrong? Like there needs
Speaker 3: to be conversations to conversations that I had to make
Speaker 3: sure people feel empowered enough to report because this is
Speaker 3: what we need to happen, and then have those reports
Speaker 3: be acted upon. When you looked at the Joshua Brown case,
Speaker 3: which is the case in Western Melbourne.
Speaker 4: There are people who.
Speaker 3: Are like, I need something or I thought something was wrong,
Speaker 3: but I didn't say anything. Even when I've worked within
Speaker 3: this sector, I've spoken to child protection to child care
Speaker 3: work because we were like, oh, I had an inkling,
Speaker 3: but I didn't say anything, and then it turned out,
Speaker 3: you know, the child was being abused. We need to
Speaker 3: change that mentality. If you see something, say something. The
Speaker 3: bystander effect is hurting so many people, from women in
Speaker 3: domestic violence.
Speaker 4: To children who are being abused.
Speaker 3: We need to let go of that and if you see,
Speaker 3: if you even have a slight gut feeling, tell someone
Speaker 3: about it. Because children don't have the language or the
Speaker 3: ability to tell someone. That's our jobs as the adults.
Speaker 3: And then the other side of that is for parents
Speaker 3: and cares and teachers to have clear conversations with children
Speaker 3: about safety. I was recently in Zimbabwe. I'm working with
Speaker 3: a program that looks at the prevention of child sexual abuse.
Speaker 3: They spoke so clearly to children about the right terminology
Speaker 3: for body parts, about what is consent, what is abuse,
Speaker 3: in a really matter of fact way, and what they've
Speaker 3: seen is that those children had a much higher rate
Speaker 3: of disclosure to adults because they had the damn language,
Speaker 3: you know. In it's hard and parents are scared, But
Speaker 3: if your child is being sexually abused and they know
Speaker 3: what a penis is and a vagina is, they're way.
Speaker 4: More likely to disclose.
Speaker 3: And when they know that those aren't dirty words, that
Speaker 3: they're going to get in trouble for we as adults
Speaker 3: have to reconcile why why we're scared of saying those words,
Speaker 3: why we're scared of hearing them? Because that is, we
Speaker 3: can't stop child sexual abuses. I wish we could, but
Speaker 3: no one's sort of figured out that yet. But we
Speaker 3: can protect children having frank and honest conversations. And for me,
Speaker 3: maybe that's what justice is is a change in the
Speaker 3: way we communicate about abuse in general.
Speaker 1: Even just I can't help but think, Kaylee, when you're
Speaker 1: telling us about bed wedding. I've heard that numerous times
Speaker 1: now that child abuse survivors often show that sign. So
Speaker 1: it's like picking up on signs like that and using
Speaker 1: that as a conversation started with your child to then
Speaker 1: have those conversations and knowing these kinds of you know,
Speaker 1: like behavioral changes or things to pick up on to
Speaker 1: then start conversations with your kids.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of really good resources for parents to
Speaker 2: read and communicate to children's there's a lot of children's
Speaker 2: books that I use with my own children. But then
Speaker 2: there's also the education pieces for parents to understand and
Speaker 2: lookout for the signs. I think the missing piece is
Speaker 2: more around if you do suspect parents don't know where
Speaker 2: to go, and it's not so simple. And you know,
Speaker 2: the first time I was sat down and asked by
Speaker 2: my parent after this all came out, I said no,
Speaker 2: I was still too afraid and too confused to be
Speaker 2: able to disclose. So I think it's important to understand
Speaker 2: that not every child wants to tell a parent. Maybe
Speaker 2: they need professional or a more private setting. You can't
Speaker 2: rely on parents to be able to get this information
Speaker 2: out of children in the appropriate way either. But there's
Speaker 2: also not a very straightforward way to access the information
Speaker 2: or the steps to parents if they do suspect abuse.
Speaker 2: So that is really I think a missing piece.
Speaker 3: I'd like to see investment too into services for children
Speaker 3: and parents who have experienced child sexual abuse, so that
Speaker 3: when a child does come forward, parents known what to do,
Speaker 3: not just in terms of like reporting it to the
Speaker 3: police or child protection or the authorities, but also how
Speaker 3: to get help, how to help children recover and move
Speaker 3: through it, and how to help parents do the same,
Speaker 3: because it's not easy for anyone in that instance when
Speaker 3: abuse has been.
Speaker 4: Experienced, but you know.
Speaker 3: Without support services, the child ultimately continues to suffer lifelong pain.
Speaker 1: You mentioned that there could be hundreds of victims out
Speaker 1: there of David Tucks. You're both in your thirties. You
Speaker 1: know these are people in their thirties, potentially forties even
Speaker 1: older that might have never told anyone what happened to them.
Speaker 1: Do you have a message for them, Having only recently
Speaker 1: shared your own stories.
Speaker 4: We believe you. We believe you.
Speaker 1: Thank you to LJ and Hailey for joining us on
Speaker 1: this episode. You can sign their petition keep Kids Safe
Speaker 1: at the link in our show notes. They're calling for
Speaker 1: an overhaul of working with children chech schemes in Australia.
Speaker 1: Make sure you're following our show on Apple Podcasts and
Speaker 1: Spotify for updates on this story and all the stories
Speaker 1: we cover. Thanks so much for listening. I'll be back
Speaker 1: next week with another true crime Conversation.