The Yoorrook Justice Commission Report: Has Truth-Telling Met Its Mark?

Posted on 10/04/2025 by Associate Professor Becky Batagol

By Imogen Stephenson

This post is part of a series of the best blog posts written by undergraduate law students enrolled in 2024 in Non-Adversarial Justice at Monash Law.

The establishment of the Yoorrook Justice Commission in 2021 as Australia’s first formal truth-telling process into historical and ongoing injustices experienced by First Nations people marked a significant milestone in the nation’s journey towards reconciliation. Before it publishes its final report later in 2025, it is time to reflect on the Commission’s contributions and whether it has fulfilled its ambitious mandate.

Chaired by Professor Aunty Eleanor Bourke, a Wergaia/Wamba Wamba Elder, the Yoorrook Justice Commission was established in May 2021 with a mandate to investigate systemic injustice through First Nations people’s stories, experiences and concerns. A key goal in the mandate was to determine the causes and consequences of systemic injustice (including the role of State policies and laws), and to determine which entities bear responsibility for the harm suffered by First Nations people. In practice, the Commission had a critical focus on child protection and criminal justice systems, both of which are long-standing sources of trauma for First Nations communities as a direct result of colonisation. Now, with the hearing process complete, the Commission’s success can be qualified by its reception by the public, and most importantly, First Nations leaders and communities.

Significance of the Commission’s success

The deep-rooted trauma experienced by First Nations people is a backdrop to legal disputes in many jurisdictions, with a particularly pronounced effect in Australia. In addressing this issue, the Yoorrook Justice Commission has garnered attention for its use of trauma-informed platforms to listen to people’s stories in a receptive and understanding way.

Importantly, the success of this approach is not limited to First Nations matters. On a general scale, the Commission is a good demonstration of how processes aimed at bringing people together can help to address complex issues, including those involving significant trauma.

Emotionally informed approach to truth-telling

An overarching success regarding the Commission’s hearing process was the use of a social and emotional wellbeing support model, to avoid re-traumatisation of vulnerable communities. This emotional sensitivity encouraged engagement by First Nations people, ensuring their voices were heard across each Traditional Owner country in Victoria. By engaging with this broad range of communities, the Commission ensured its work was widespread and inclusive.

A significant outcome of this emotionally-driven hearing process was (then) Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton’s apology in his witness testimony, acknowledging that police uniform was a ‘symbol of fear’ for First Nations people. He renewed a commitment to eliminating bias and racism against First Nations people within police ranks, and bluntly admitted to having no First Nations-led services in the department. This public admission brought the existence of inequalities to the forefront of public consciousness, where they may otherwise have been viewed as ‘consigned to the past’. From this perspective, the Commission’s public engagement with responsible institutions has launched critical steps towards the genuine reconciliation aspired to by the mandate.

A middle aged many on a black or dark navy police uniform sits at a desk. There is a microphone in front of him and some leaves on the table visible in front of him. The chair behind his has some kind of animal skin on it. He is clearly high ranking as there are metal insignia on his shoulders. his badge reads Shane Patton Chief Commissioner. His hands are folded and he is looking to his right.

Image: Yoorrook Justice Commission, Shane Patton speaking at Yoorrook Justice Commission, Accessed on 26 March 2025, used under CC BY 3.0

Focus on child protection and criminal justice systems

The Commission’s most prominent area of inquiry has been into child protection and criminal justice systems, through the Yoorrook for Justice Report. This report exposed how Western conceptions of family continue to perpetuate racist systems of child removal – echoing the trauma associated with the ‘stolen generation’. In the report, the Commission called for significant changes such as transferring decision-making power, control, and resources to First Nations people in these systems. The report also recommended abolishing detention for children under 16 and urged Victoria Police to consider the unique backgrounds and systemic factors affecting First Nations people when making decisions. By identifying and addressing how interactions with the police significantly contribute to perceived systemic injustice, these recommendations directly respond to the mandate. However, despite the promising narrative propagated by the Commission, these recommendations have been met with substantial controversy – both by the public and by the government in response.

Criticism of the Commission

Overall, the Commission has indeed been met with support from the public. As stated by Uncle Bobby Nicholls, a Yorta Yorta, Dja Dja Wurrung and Wadjabalok man and previous Director of the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, ‘With Yoorrook, that gives me faith that we will get answers’.

However, criticism of the Commission’s work has appeared from both First Nations people and other Australian voices. Chris Meritt from the Rule of Law Institute of Australia criticised how the Yoorrook recommendations to introduce a First Nations-led system ‘would entrench racial division’, and how a ‘narrative of victimhood was set in train from the very beginning’ through the mandate itself.

While this opinion is rooted in the European-Australian ‘rule of law’, its criticism of ‘victimhood’ is shared by several First Nations perspectives. For instance, Nyunggai Warren Mundine, a Yuin, Bunjalung and Gumbaynggirr man and Executive Chairman of Nyungga Black Group Pty Ltd, has condemned the recommendation that the state’s police commissioner should understand the ‘role of Victoria Police in the dispossession, murder, and assimilation of First Peoples,’ by accusing the Commission of adopting a ‘grievance and victim approach.’ Mundine argues that such recommendations do not contribute to constructive solutions, and should instead consider the actions by First Nations people that cause them to be incarcerated: ‘What we look at in this area is the wrong target. People look at incarceration rates. We should be looking at lowering crime. The majority of those in prison are there for serious violent crimes.’ Similarly, Dr Anthony Dillon, who identifies as an Aboriginal Australian man and is a researcher, commentator and practicing psychologist at Australian Catholic University, has described some of the recommendations as ‘way over the top,’ suggesting that allegations of racism can sometimes distract from the harm First Nations people inflict on each other. These perspectives suggest that the root cause of First Nations people’s aggravated experiences in Australian legal system may go beyond what is acknowledged by the Commission.

From yet another First Nations perspective, some agree with the Commission’s routes of inquiry, yet question the constrictive framework for such an ambitious mandate. Marcus Stewart, Nira illim bulluk man of the Taungurung Nation and the inaugural Co-Chair of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, encompassed this in the hard-hitting question: ‘How in a three-year period do you unpack 200-plus years of the impacts of colonialisation?’ This rushed investigation period may have further limited the depth of inquiry available to the Commission.

Despite these concerns about the institutional motivations and implementation of the Commission, Yoorrook continues to demonstrate a promising sense of integrity as an independent body. The Commission has already obtained a year extension for its inquiries, and requested law-making to facilitate its operation, such as preserving confidentiality of truth-telling for at least 99 years.

However, while the Commission represents a first step to cultural change, true success will only be achieved if the government is willing to rectify systemic issues – something that appears to be in question.

Disappointment with government response

Although the Commission’s activities in isolation have been generally well-received, the public has expressed disappointment surrounding the dissonance between the Commission’s objectives and government action. The Allan Government has responded to Yoorrook’s 2023 Report with full support of less than 10% of the recommendations, and ‘in principle’ support of only half. The government fully rejected three recommendations, including modifications to bail laws and raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

This unwillingness to support Commission-led changes has been met with backlash. The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service stated the response was ‘unworthy of the heart wrenching truths that were told at the Yoorrook Justice Commission’. According to Nerita Waight, Yorta Yorta and Narrandjeri woman with Taungurung connections and CEO of the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, ‘Promises have been delayed or shelved, and there’s no clear direction coming from the Government.’

The government’s reluctance to implement change poses a significant hurdle for the continuation, and ultimate success, of the Commission’s objectives – as well as First Nations confidence in the state government.

Far from a failure

The above criticisms and reluctance to follow Commission recommendations clearly mark a dissonance between the aspirational approach of the Commission and the actual bandwidth for change within the existing system.

However, even in these circumstances, it is important to recognise the Commission’s pioneering success in initiating dialogue about truth and reconciliation in Victoria. Its underlying motivation is to distil issues as perceived by First Nations people, acting as a mouthpiece for First Nations interests. If the resulting message speaks of trauma, rage and victimisation, even if not immediately actionable within the current framework, the Commission can nonetheless be seen as fulfilling its purpose by relaying it to the government.

The Commission holds the confidence of many First Nations peoples. There is strong hope for the future of including First Nations perspectives in policy-making.

All Victorians have been invited to join Kerrupmara Gunditjmara, Yoorrook Justice Commission Deputy Chair, Travis Lovett in the Walk for Truth to walk 370 kilometres from Gunditjmara Country in Portland to the Victorian Parliament on Wurundjeri Woi-Wurrung Country in May and June 2025. The walk will bring together people from all walks of life to build shared understanding. It will create a space for people to have meaningful conversations, share stories, experiences and knowledge, and learn and explore more about the importance of truth telling in the State of Victoria. You can register here.

About the Author

Imogen Stephenson is a final-year student at Monash University, studying a double degree in Law (Hons) and Physics (Hons). She currently works as a paralegal in Intellectual Property at Corrs Chambers Westgarth and performs clinical data analysis at Cyban. She has developed a keen interest in non-adversarial justice and therapeutic dispute resolution through her studies with Associate Professor Becky Batagol at Monash.

New Law Reform Report: The role of Restorative Justice in responding to sexual violence. A focus on First Nations women

Posted on 07/03/2025 by Associate Professor Becky Batagol

By Lavanya de Mel

This post is part of a series of the best blog posts written by undergraduate law students enrolled in 2024 in Non-Adversarial Justice at Monash Law.

The criminal justice system often leaves victim-survivors feeling that they themselves are on trial, paving the way for Restorative Justice (‘RJ’) to emerge as a compelling alternative. However, is RJ suitable for responding to sexual violence? More importantly, does it resonate with the experiences of First Nations women, who are significantly overrepresented in sexual violence statistics?

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) yesterday released its report, Safe, Informed, Supported: Reforming Justice Responses to Sexual Violence, recommending use of RJ in some sexual violence matters. In particular, the ALRC recommends funding for First Nations communities to design, build, and deliver accredited restorative justice programs for First Nations people (recommendation 63).

This blog post explores the extent to which RJ can effectively respond to sexual violence, and how it can be implemented to respect First Nations women’s experiences. We hope the ALRC’s proposals lead to prioritising First Nations voices in discussions around RJ as a response to sexual violence.

– “June Oscar signing” by AusHumanRights, used under CC BY 2.0

Due to the limited availability of direct testimonies, this post primarily draws on general perspectives of First Nations women gathered from reports by First Nations organisations and the Wiyi Yani U Thangani (‘Women’s Voices’) project.

The need for an alternative justice response

First Nations women experience sexual violence at a rate approximately three times higher than non-Indigenous women. This alarming statistic both stems from and perpetuates the ongoing negative impacts of colonisation, which have resulted in increased socioeconomic disadvantage and intergenerational trauma.

The criminal justice system often compounds this issue, by failing to provide an adequate response to First Nations women. A staggering 90% of violence goes unreported due to a fundamental fear of the police, compounded by police inaction and discriminatory decision-making. First Nations women describe their interactions with the justice system as having exacerbated the impacts of violence and worsened their trauma. Research shows that typical ‘Western’ responses to sexual violence, including the current criminal justice response, are often ineffective for First Nations communities.

The question then becomes whether alternative forms of justice, such as RJ, can provide a better response to sexual violence.

What is RJ and how can it respond to sexual violence?

RJ is multifaceted concept, sometimes perceived as confusing and incoherent. The Australian Law Reform Commission defines RJ is a ‘victim-centred, party-led process’ focused on identifying and addressing the harm caused by the offence and exploring options for repairing that harm’. Unlike the criminal justice system, which prioritises punishing the offender, RJ is designed to address the victim-survivor’s needs and experiences. It typically involves a voluntary and confidential dialogue between the victim-survivor and personal responsible.

The use of RJ in cases of sexual violence has sparked debate. Proponents argue that RJ can meet the complex needs of victim-survivors in ways the criminal justice system often cannot. For instance, victim-survivors often need to tell their story in their own words, have their story believed, and ask the person responsible any unresolved questions, and see them take accountability. RJ can provide a platform for these needs to be met.

However, critics are concerned that RJ risks re-privatising and decriminalising sexual violence. It may be seen as a ‘soft’ approach that diminishes the seriousness of sexual violence. Given that persons responsible often abuse the trust of victim-survivors, there are concerns that they might exploit their position of relative power in the RJ process and further harm victim-survivors. Additionally, RJ processes might not be culturally appropriate for some participants and might face challenges with linguistically diverse individuals.

Conclusively determining the effectiveness of RJ as a response to sexual violence is difficult due to the limited number of peer-reviewed studies. However, the risks of RJ are real and should be managed through a well-designed principle-based approach.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission has recommended the following principles to address some of these challenges:

Voluntary participation: Participants join voluntarily and can leave at any point.
Accountability: The person responsible must be truthful and admit to their actions.
Prioritising victim-survivors: RJ processes should prioritise the victim survivor’s needs and interests.
Safety and respect: RJ processes should adapt to different needs, with power imbalances addressed and skilled experts in sexual violence involved.
Confidentiality: What happens during RJ remains strictly confidential.
Transparency: Anonymised data is used to continually improve RJ processes.
Integrated justice response: RJ processes should work alongside the criminal justice system and therapeutic services.
Clear governance: Legislation should empower and oversee RJ.

Adopting a RJ model based on these principles shows promising potential for dealing effectively with sexual violence. The question then, is how might it be successfully implemented for First Nations women?

RJ and First Nations women: a potential solution

Research in the context of family violence indicates that First Nations women tend to favour RJ more than non-First Nations women. This preference is linked to their perception of the criminal justice system as oppressive and contributing to the violence against them. First Nations women interviewed by Heather Nancarrow expressed optimism that RJ processes could empower them. They believed that involving their families and broader community in RJ would lead to successful outcomes. A practical model for this might involve Elders and respected members of First Nations communities on an expert panel that conveners in the RJ conference could consult with.

Implementing RJ in a way that allows victim-survivors to share their story in a culturally appropriate and safe setting, would likely facilitate more effective healing and validate their experiences. First Nations victim-survivors have long understood that they ‘have the answers to confront what is wrong and to create what is right’.

By offering opportunities for self-determination that respect cultural values, RJ might help First Nations women feel empowered, and lead to more meaningful resolutions to sexual violence.

RJ and First Nations women: challenges and concerns

Despite these potential benefits, the application of RJ must carefully navigate concerns raised by First Nations women. There are significant fears that RJ processes could inadvertently perpetuate harm rather than heal it. Some women fear that RJ, if not carefully managed, might become a vehicle for reinforcing power imbalances within their communities or become another ‘white justice model’ that doesn’t fully respect or address their needs.

There are also concerns about how RJ might be received within their communities. Concerns include the potential for male leaders or community members to misuse the RJ process to their advantage, or for cultural arguments to be employed in ways that undermine victim-survivors’ needs.

For RJ processes to be an effective response to sexual violence, it is crucial to design them with these risks in mind and establish strong safeguards.

What needs to be done?

To effectively implement RJ for First Nations women, a collaborative design process involving meaningful engagement with their lived experiences is vital. Many First Nations organisations, such as Djirra, stress that any RJ model must be co-designed with First Nations women to ensure it is sufficiently sensitive to their needs and does not become another mechanism of oppression. It is necessary to hear from First Nations women directly to identify the wellbeing, safety, procedural and privacy aspects they might need for an RJ model to work.

Ultimately, the potential benefits of RJ as a response to sexual violence appear to outweigh the challenges, provided a principle-based approach is implemented to address the risks. RJ offers a promising alternative to the criminal justice system for addressing sexual violence against First Nations women. Its success, however, depends on the active participation of families and communities as well as the establishment of a culturally safe environment. Through a collaborative design process, RJ has the potential to be a powerful response to sexual violence that aligns with the experiences of First Nations women.

ChatGPT (version 4.0) was used to check grammatical errors and suggest improvements in writing style in this blog post.

About Lavanya de Mel

Lavanya is a final-year law student at Monash University, minoring in Economics and Business Strategy. She is passionate about improving access to justice for culturally diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals. Later this year, she will begin her legal career as a graduate lawyer at a commercial law firm, where she hopes to explore the role of alternative dispute resolution in a commercial context.

Gathering food for thought: First Nations peoples’ approaches to peacebuilding and peacemaking in Australia

Posted on 17/05/2024 by AlysounBoyle

We recognise and respect the intimate custodial relationships First Nations peoples observe in their lands, their waterways and the oceans that caress their lands. We are mindful that their cultural and spiritual affiliations are healing ongoing colonial harms, and hope that this project creates healthy pathways for recording, recognising, and restoring their ancient ceremonies, and for supporting ancient and contemporary peacebuilding practices.

We respect the significant role of Elders, and are committed to reconciliation among all people.

Gathering Food for Thought – the Project

This landmark research project was funded by an MSB grant in 2022, with additional funding from the College of Human and Social Futures at the University of Newcastle. The Research Team’s lead investigator was Professor Tania Sourdin, with Dr Helen Bishop (a First Nations woman) as the lead researcher. Other team members were Dr Bin Li (University of Newcastle), Sally Prowse (University of Newcastle) and Alysoun Boyle (University of Newcastle and RMIT). We were assisted by a Project Advisory Group, a majority of whose members are First Nations experts and practitioners.

Our final report was released to the MSB and the university in February this year, and is available online at the websites of both institutions: Mediator Standards Board and University of Newcastle.

Being restricted to available funding, the research was limited to a desktop review of collected materials relating to First Nations peoples’ approaches to managing conflict: peacebuilding and peacemaking. A key finding included in the report is that there is a notable lack of inclusion of First Nations researchers in studies of matters that affect their peoples. This has led to research outcomes that have been defined by mainstream preferences, rather than reflecting First Nations viewpoints and ideas. Similar limited First Nations peoples’ primary engagement was noted in commissions of enquiry as well as in the design, delivery, and evaluation of a range of community-based dispute resolution programs and services.

Research significance

According to Dr Helen Bishop, “The Gathering Food for Thought Report is profoundly significant. It unveils both ancient and contemporary knowledge and practices essential to First Nations peoples’ coexistence, governance, and social systems. I eagerly await the involvement and insights of my fellow First Nations researchers into future studies of First Nations peacebuilding and peacemaking approaches, needs, and resources. I want to thank the Research team, the MSB and the University of Newcastle for their commitment to this landmark work.”

To our knowledge, this is the first time such a collection of materials has been systematically reviewed and analysed. The collection is currently stored in a secure online facility, and the primary longer-term intent is that it be readily available to all First Nations’ communities and practitioners and this is likely to be facilitated by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS). The materials reviewed in the report include historical anthropological reports (some dating back to the late 1800s), reports from Royal Commissions, case studies, journal articles, books, and other publications. We have also explored the pivotal role of language in maintaining and safeguarding culture, and the links between wellbeing and cultural connection.

Research approach

We have taken a dispute system design approach to our research, and this arose from the clear need to set the project in an appropriate context: acknowledging First Nations peoples’ approaches to conflict, and their age-old systems, processes, techniques and skills, and exploring ways in which they might be recognised within existing Australian dispute resolution frameworks and standards. It is clear that there is incredible variety, depth and ways to talk in the First Nations experience of conflict management, and the final report represents only the first stage in a much larger research undertaking.

Throughout the project, we are taking a First Nations peoples-centric approach, amplifying their perspectives and knowledge, working collaboratively in ways that recognise and respect each other’s capability and learning. Our priority is to ensure participation by First Nations peoples, and provide benefit to their peacebuilders and peacemakers.

Next steps

There is very limited professional recognition and effective professional support for First Nations peacebuilders and peacemakers reflecting a broader lack of sensitivity to and recognition of their culturally diverse and specific practices and skills. In our report, we have called for more inclusive approaches to research in this area, promoting the engagement of First Nations researchers in the design and delivery of all future studies.

It is expected that this unique project will result in an invaluable knowledge base to inform ongoing and future research in this area, as well as making a significant contribution to the scope and design of support networks, training programmes, and practice frameworks relating to First Nations peoples’ peacebuilding and peacemaking systems, processes, techniques, and skills, both in Australia, and elsewhere.

Our report includes twelve areas of research in which “Next Steps” are suggested, including:

The importance of:

Engaging First Nations peoples in the design, delivery, and analysis of research studies; and
Establishing culturally appropriate protections of the intellectual property relating to historical and contemporary First Nations materials.

The need for:

Research materials to be accessible to non-researchers, and be presented in plain English;
Appropriate recognition and responsiveness to cultural sensitivities in this area (the Research Team developed their own “Cultural Responsiveness Statement” which is included in the report);
Further exploration of the influence of Elders and other community leaders in the safeguarding of social cohesion and the management of conflict in a community context;
Further exploration of the extraordinary diversity of First Nations peoples’ approaches to peacebuilding and peacemaking, including the influence of complex social relationships such as kinship groups; and
Government-funded conflict management programs and services to more fully engage First Nations communities in the design, delivery and evaluation of such programs and services, ensuring that mainstream preferences do not dominate in these areas.

Sitting in Many Camps

In May this year, members of the Research Team and the Advisory Group met on Gadigal Country (Sydney) and planned the next phase of this project. They agreed that it is to be called “Sitting in Many Camps: Celebrating and Supporting First Nations Peacebuilding and Peacemaking”. The phrase, Sitting in Many Camps, was first used some years ago by Mr Charlie Watson, a Kangalu and Birri Gubba (Wiri) man who grew up in his Mother’s Kangalu Country in Central Queensland.