Open Letter: Demand for Accessible Parliamentary Participation for Abuse Survivors

I write to you as a survivor of childhood institutional abuse and as a person living with disabilities caused by that trauma. I write with the knowledge that my experience is shared by countless others. This is an urgent plea for our basic human right to participate in public life and to be informed about the very laws that concern our justice, in ways that are accessible, trauma-informed, and suited to our needs.

Yesterday, December 4, 2025, the Victorian Parliament debated the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025 – a crucial reform born from survivors’ long fight for justice. This bill seeks to urgently close a legal loophole created by a recent High Court decision (Bird v. DP) which held that institutions aren’t liable for abuse unless a formal employment relationship existed rachelpayne.com.au. In other words, as Rachel Payne MP explained when introducing an earlier version of this reform, the absence of an “employer/employee relationship” has become “a major barrier to accessing legal justice for victim-survivors of historical crimes which must be urgently amended” rachelpayne.com.au. The Bill now before Parliament would expand vicarious liability for child abuse to all relationships “akin to employment,” including volunteers, and apply this retrospectively, so that no survivor is barred from justice due to a technicality.

For us survivors, this debate is not abstract policy – it is deeply personal. Many of us have waited decades, even lifetimes, for these legal changes. Indeed, Ms. Payne herself noted during the May 2025 debate on the earlier Wrongs Amendment (Vicarious Liability) Bill that the most invaluable contributions came from “victim-survivors and their friends and families” who shared their stories and pushed for change rachelpayne.com.au. She acknowledged those of us watching remotely, saying: “I especially acknowledge those victim-survivors and their advocates sitting in the chamber with us today and those who are watching on at home… I stand with you on this road to justice.” rachelpayne.com.au.

Tragically, many of us could not watch that road to justice unfold – not because we lacked will, but because we were shut out by the system’s lack of accessibility. I attempted to watch the live-stream of the December 4 debate, only to be confronted with a message that access was conditioned on not recording or copying the stream parliament.vic.gov.au. Due to a medical appointment and, more importantly, due to my disability, I could not sit through the live broadcast in one uninterrupted session. As a survivor with complex trauma (including dissociative amnesia and other cognitive impacts of abuse), I cannot safely absorb emotionally charged information in real-time without breaks. I and many others like me need the ability to pause, rewind, or re-watch parts of such a proceeding – to pace ourselves, manage triggers, and truly comprehend what is being said.

Yet the Parliament’s rules effectively made that impossible. The Victorian Parliament provides no public archive or on-demand video of the debates, and explicitly forbids viewers from recording or saving the live stream parliament.vic.gov.au. In theory, we are offered an alternative: the Hansard transcript. The Parliament’s own accessibility statement notes that “users who are unable to view a live broadcast of proceedings may read a progressive transcript of debates via Hansard.” parliament.vic.gov.au But for many survivors, this is not a solution at all:

• Transcripts lack the human nuance – tone of voice, emotion, emphasis – that is crucial for us to fully understand the discussion. As a survivor, hearing the words directly can carry a validation and clarity that dry text does not. We have already had our experiences minimized or misunderstood in text for years; hearing our representatives discuss our pain in their own voices matters immensely.

• Many of us suffer cognitive and learning impairments as a direct result of trauma. Personally, I was left functionally illiterate for years due to the psychological injuries of abuse. I (and others) “learned to ingest material in other than the culturally defined appropriate way,” as a survival mechanism. We rely on auditory and visual learning because written words can be overwhelming or can fail to register during episodes of trauma-related dissociation. Expecting us to simply “read the Hansard” is an impossible cultural norm for those of us with trauma-related disabilities. It effectively discriminates against us, even if unintentionally.

• Most critically: Live, un-pausable broadcasts do not accommodate the realities of PTSD and trauma triggers. As the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse noted, survivors of childhood trauma often find that seemingly unrelated cues or discussions can trigger “unwanted thoughts, feelings and memories of their traumatic experience to come flooding back,” making them feel “like the trauma is occurring in the present” and leaving them “frightening, confusing and overwhelming.” blueknot.org.au Crucially, “it is not possible to predict and avoid every trigger in advance – this is often not possible even for the survivor themselves” blueknot.org.au. This means that even during a parliamentary debate about our own abuse and justice, we cannot always anticipate which statement or detail might set off a flashback or panic response. We need the ability to stop and step away – to ground ourselves, seek support, and return when ready. A live stream that we cannot pause is, for many of us, as inaccessible as a staircase is to a person in a wheelchair. Forcing survivors to consume this information in one real-time sitting, or not at all, is profoundly trauma-uninformed.

The result of these barriers is that survivors are being denied our rightful participation in law-making that affects us. This is not only cruel; it is a violation of our human rights. Article 21 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), to which Australia is a party, establishes that persons with disabilities have the right to seek and receive information intended for the general public in accessible formats of their choosing. More broadly, Article 9 of the CRPD requires governments to ensure people with disabilities have equal access to information, communications, and public services, including access to the internet and to public institutions, “in the same way others have access,” by removing obstacles and barriers ag.gov.au. In addition, Article 29 of the CRPD affirms our right to participate in public and political life, which includes engagement with parliamentary processes. These rights are echoed in our domestic laws and charters – for example, Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (s.18) protects the right to take part in public life and to have equal access to public positions and information. The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) also makes it unlawful to indirectly discriminate through policies that disadvantage people with disabilities in public services, unless it’s an unjustifiable hardship to accommodate them. In this case, providing accessible parliamentary content is far from an undue burden – it is 2025, and the technology to do so is readily available.

In fact, some Australian jurisdictions are already doing what we ask. The Australian Federal Parliament sets a strong example: it not only live-streams proceedings, but also provides a comprehensive video archive (ParlView) where anyone can “search, view and download clips from the archive of parliamentary proceedings” aph.gov.au. Likewise, the Queensland Parliament offers on-demand replays; as their website proudly states, “you can also watch live and archived broadcasts on demand.” parliament.qld.gov.au Other state parliaments, such as New South Wales and Western Australia, have video webcasts and in some cases maintain archives or YouTube channels for key sessions. There is no valid reason that the Victorian Parliament (or any other jurisdiction lagging in this regard) cannot implement the same level of access.

We acknowledge that parliamentary broadcasts come with concerns about misuse – hence the Victorian rules against using footage for satirical or political advertising purposes parliament.vic.gov.au. Those concerns, however, can be addressed without imposing a blanket ban on recording or entirely withholding archives. The Federal Parliament manages this balance through its Broadcasting Guidelines, which allow use of footage with certain reasonable restrictions (e.g. no editing that misrepresents proceedings, no political ads) while still making the footage available to the public. Victoria could adopt similar guidelines rather than the current draconian approach that punishes everyone in advance. The notice on the Victorian live stream even warns that any rebroadcast or publication of proceedings is not protected by parliamentary privilege parliament.vic.gov.au – a fair caution – but that is all the more reason to provide official, high-quality recordings. That way, survivors and the public can rely on an accurate record straight from Parliament, rather than risking fragmented or illicit recordings that might indeed lack context or protection.

It is heartening that the Victorian Parliament has begun to recognize accessibility needs in some areas. For example, just last year it initiated live closed captioning on all broadcasts to benefit viewers who are deaf or hard of hearing parliament.vic.gov.au, in line with its Disability Action and Inclusion Plan parliament.vic.gov.au. This demonstrates a commendable commitment to inclusion – one that should be extended to other forms of accessibility, including cognitive and trauma-related needs. Captions alone do not help those of us who simply cannot watch or comprehend a continuous live feed due to trauma. We need archives so that we can watch at our own pace with the option to pause and seek support. We may need to watch with a support person or mental health professional later, or break a 2-hour debate into manageable 5-minute segments over days. Denying us that option is effectively denying us access to the information altogether.

Consider what it feels like from our perspective: The government, by arranging these live streams, has effectively said “we want you to be able to witness your democracy in action, to see how we are standing up for you.” Rachel Payne’s email invitation, for instance, encouraged survivors to watch the debate online and spoke of standing with us. But then, at the moment of truth, a survivor in need – someone like me – clicks the link and is met with a virtual door slammed shut. “You can only participate on our terms, in real time, regardless of your health or trauma,” is the message. If we cannot comply with those terms, we are left behind, forced to rely on second-hand summaries or dense transcripts that we may not be able to parse. This is deeply isolating. It sends the message that our participation is not truly wanted – that the system remains centered on the convenience of institutions, not the inclusion of those most affected. After surviving years of being silenced and marginalised by powerful institutions (churches, governments, etc.), to now be silenced in the very process meant to deliver justice compounds our trauma.

Moreover, requiring us to depend on “verified others” to tell us what happened in the debate is problematic. The whole point of open parliamentary proceedings is transparency – “nothing about us without us.” If survivors cannot directly witness what is said, we fear that filtering and gatekeeping of information (even unintentionally) may occur. We have learned from bitter experience that when information passes through many hands, cover-ups and distortions can thrive. (Indeed, the history of institutional child abuse is a history of secrecy and controlled narratives – we are painfully aware of how “official versions” of events can omit or soften the truth.) We deserve to hear every word spoken in that chamber about our lives and rights, with our own ears and on our own terms. Only a full recording, publicly accessible, guarantees that level of transparency and trust. Even the most well-meaning summary by a third party cannot substitute for seeing and hearing the proceedings unfiltered.

To be absolutely clear: We have a right to this access. The right to seek, receive, and impart information, and the right to participate in public affairs, are fundamental human rights (as recognized by instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the CRPD for persons with disabilities). For survivors of abuse who have developed disabilities as a result of our trauma, the denial of accommodations like recorded parliamentary streams is a form of discrimination. It means we do not get an equal seat in the public gallery – our seat is effectively taken away unless we can sit through pain that others are not asked to endure. This must change.

Therefore, we call on you to take immediate action to make parliamentary participation accessible for abuse survivors and others with disabilities. In particular, we urge the following:

1. Provide On-Demand Video Access – All parliamentary debates and hearings (especially those dealing with matters of public interest or affecting vulnerable groups) should be recorded and archived for the public. These recordings should be easily accessible online, just as the Commonwealth Parliament’s ParlView archive is aph.gov.au. At a minimum, the recordings of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill debates should be made available to survivors who request them. Ideally, this becomes standard practice across Victoria and all states and territories: a Video On Demand service for each Parliament.

2. Amend Outdated Policies – Revise any terms of service or rules (such as the Victorian live stream conditions) that prohibit personal recording or downloading of proceedings parliament.vic.gov.au. Instead of a blanket ban, adopt a model that permits personal, non-commercial use of parliamentary footage – or simply obviates the need for private recording by providing official downloads. The goal is to ensure no individual is threatened with “contempt of Parliament” simply for trying to watch later what they have a right to see. Reasonable restrictions can remain (for example, to prevent misuse in misleading propaganda or satire that distorts context parliament.vic.gov.au), but these should not extend to preventing survivors from saving a video for their own later viewing.

3. Implement Trauma-Informed Accessibility – Consult with trauma experts and survivor advocacy groups (such as the National Survivors Foundation and Blue Knot Foundation) to develop guidelines for trauma-informed access to parliamentary content. This might include trigger warnings before particularly graphic content (similar to content notes already provided in some reports), or offering the option for survivors to watch with a support person present in a safe environment. It could also include scheduling important debates at times that maximize accessibility (e.g., not late at night when support services are closed) or at least ensuring recordings are posted promptly so that we can choose a safe time to watch. In short, apply the same compassion and adjustments that you would in other civic contexts (like courts, which increasingly allow support persons, remote testimony, intermediaries, etc., for vulnerable witnesses lawreform.vic.gov.au lawreform.vic.gov.au) to the arena of parliamentary engagement.

4. Enhance Supportive Technologies – Continue to improve accessibility features such as closed captioning, transcripts, and possibly audio description for all parliamentary videos. The addition of live captions in Victoria was a positive step parliament.vic.gov.au; ensure that archived videos also carry accurate captions or transcripts. Additionally, consider publishing easy-to-read summaries of complex legislation in plain language, for those with cognitive difficulties – though again, this is supplemental and not a replacement for actual footage. We need both clarity and authenticity.

5. Honor the Spirit of Inclusion – All jurisdictions should remember that open government is not truly open if it’s only open to the able-bodied, neurotypical, and trauma-unaffected. When planning public consultations, committee hearings, or inviting survivors to engage, proactively offer accessible formats. For example, if someone cannot physically attend a parliamentary gallery due to trauma triggers, consider mechanisms for virtual attendance that do not sacrifice their ability to follow along at their own pace. Participation in public life is our right, not a privilege granted only to those who fit a narrow mold. Every state and territory should audit their parliamentary broadcasting practices against disability access standards and make any necessary improvements without delay.

We believe these requests are reasonable, achievable, and just. They are not expensive or technically difficult – they merely require the political will to uphold principles that leaders like you have already sworn to uphold: equality, justice, and respect for all citizens. In the context of institutional abuse, governments across Australia have repeatedly promised to put survivors first, to “never let this happen again,” and to reform the systems that failed us. Ensuring we can hear and see our representatives debate laws about our abuse is a small but significant part of that promise. It speaks to accountability and respect.

Imagine the impact of granting this request. Instead of sitting at home feeling shut out and retraumatized, survivors would be empowered to fully engage with the democratic process. We could watch these historic debates safely – pausing when we feel overwhelmed, discussing what we heard with our therapists or peer supporters, processing the complex feelings that arise, and returning to finish listening when ready. We could thereby educate ourselves and our communities about what our leaders are doing. We could hold our representatives accountable by hearing their words in full. Ultimately, we could be better informed to contribute to subsequent discussions, submissions, or even our own legal cases. In short, we would be included – as active citizens, not passive subjects.

By contrast, if our plea is ignored, the message to survivors is that our voices and needs still do not matter in the halls of power. It would perpetuate the very dynamic that allowed abuse to flourish in the past: a dynamic of exclusion, where decisions are made about us, without us. That would be profoundly disappointing, especially given how far we have come and how clearly survivor advocates like Ms. Payne, Ms. Last, and Ms. Wood have signaled their support for our inclusion.

Rachel Payne MP said in her email that “Legalise Cannabis Victoria continues to stand with victim survivors and remains committed to being a voice for them in parliament and elsewhere.” We appeal to her and her colleagues: be a voice for us now, on this issue of accessibility. Likewise, we appeal to all parliamentarians and public servants reading this: you have the power to make this change immediately. Parliamentary debates are already recorded for Hansard transcription; simply release the tapes (with any necessary minor edits to remove pauses or as dictated by standing orders). The public archives should be the default, not the exception.

To Rachel Last and Anthea Wood, and other survivor advocates: we urge you to champion this cause within your networks and advisory roles. It may seem a small procedural matter, but for survivors it is a lifeline to our democratic rights. Your support in highlighting how essential trauma-informed access is will be invaluable.

In closing, I want to emphasize that this open letter is written from my personal heartache, but it carries the weight of many. We survivors have endured unspeakable trauma and decades of being ignored or sidelined. Today, as society finally seeks to right those wrongs – through bills like the one in question – do not let old habits of exclusion tarnish that progress. Show us, through actions and not just words, that our participation is valued. Show us that “open” government truly means open to all, including the most vulnerable.

We ask – no, we insist – that you do the right thing. Let us in. Give us the tools we need to safely engage. Let us witness the pursuit of justice in our parliaments without suffering new injustices in the process.

Thank you for your attention to this plea. We will be watching (in one way or another), and we remain hopeful that accessibility and compassion will prevail. Our road to justice has been long and arduous, but with your help, it can lead to a place of genuine inclusion and empowerment for every survivor.

Sincerely,

John Brown (on behalf of Australian survivors of institutional abuse who demand accessible participation in our democracy)

References:

• Victorian Parliament Live Broadcast Terms of Service parliament.vic.gov.au (prohibiting recording or copying of proceedings)

• Victorian Parliament Accessibility Statement parliament.vic.gov.au (no live captions at the time; suggesting Hansard transcript as alternative to live broadcast)

• Closed Captions added to broadcasts – Parliament of Victoria News (14 May 2024) parliament.vic.gov.au (announcement of live captioning to improve access, per Disability Action Plan)

• Rachel Payne MP, Wrongs Amendment (Vicarious Liability) Bill 2025 speech (14 May 2025) – acknowledging urgency to fix legal barriers for survivors rachelpayne.com.au and recognizing survivors watching remotely rachelpayne.com.au.

• Blue Knot Foundation quoting Royal Commission Final Report (Vol.9) on trauma triggers blueknot.org.au blueknot.org.au (survivors can be overwhelmed by triggers, which are unpredictable).

• CRPD Article 9 obligations – Australian Govt AG Department Guidance ag.gov.au (equal access to information, communications, public institutions and activities for people with disabilities).

• Parliament of Australia – Watch, Read, Listen portal aph.gov.au (providing public video archives of proceedings via ParlView).

• Parliament of Queensland – Live and Archived Broadcasts page parliament.qld.gov.au (offering on-demand viewing of past parliamentary broadcasts).

Find me on X.com || New ID on Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon.Social || Strangeminds.Social