Women, Listening and Law

Rachel Loney-Howes:

So, thank you for so much for joining us this evening, and I'd like to start by asking you all here, we'd like to hear from you about how you have been involved in law reform addressing violence against women. And so Saxon, we will start with you and your involvement in this space.

Saxon Mullins:

Sure. So, this was touched upon in my introduction. So after my assault I decided to come forward with my story, and the New South Wales Attorney-General decided to the refer the sections of the law on consent to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. I kind of didn’t really, you know, have a huge amount of input into that other than, you know, I put in a submission as just an individual during the first round of submissions and sort of during their, the Law Reform Commission’s deliberations I came out for that and after that Rachel and I connected on Twitter and came together. And it sort of really the you know hone in my focus on advocacy and kind of what that meant for me. And so Rachel and our other colleague were really instrumental in helping me understand the way that the law interacted with survivors in, you know, in this theory sense rather than, you know, I knew the practicality of what it looks like. But the way that a certain clause fits and it does something different and you know, all these intricacies that a lay person doesn’t really understand.

So when I started working with Rachel and John that is when we really started to get super involved in the campaign to make sure that New South Wales really took on this law reform in the right way, and just kind of you know, do another tick a box exercise. So it's kind of how we got involved.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

Noelle would you like to discuss your involvement with law reform?

Noelle Martin:

I was involved in law reform in New South Wales, Western Australia, and at the Commonwealth level to help criminalize image based sexual abuse in those jurisdictions. I never set out to speak out, or to be involved in law reform. In fact, you know it was never something that I imagine would be my life, or that it would be what I would have to do, but it was the result, in the culmination of a number of factors that had motivated and almost forced me to speak out. Which was, there wasn't any specific laws that dealt with the issue at the time. My name needed to be reclaimed, which, because of this misappropriation of my body, my name, my image that was being done by perpetrators, and I finally had to reclaim name by speaking out publicly and also fighting for justice. And also because there was so many people that were experiencing this that didn't know as much about it, and it wasn't really dominating the media cycle as it does today. So I was involved in speaking out, and I put that in the same sort of glove as being involved in law form because of those reasons. And so that's what I did in those jurisdictions.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

Thank you Noelle. Rachel could you?

Rachel Burgin:

I feel like Saxon stole half my answer. So yeah, so Saxon and I became friends on twitter really because we were both sort of tweeting about the New South Wales law reform review and I was doing that sort of at the end of and out of my PhD. And then we sort of got chucked on a couple of panels together. In fact, DV New South Wales panel. I guess the rest is history. We decided that we really were advocating the same goal. Had the same concerns, and that I guess we each had different strengths that we could really contribute to something meaningful together. And with our other colleague John, who Saxon mentioned before, we sort of worked together to do that. And we started RASARA, rape and sexual assault, research and advocacy to, I guess what really was, to become a bit more legit. And so it would be that this cluster of people has this name, and we, you know we're bringing this forward. And at the time we just thought it would be a way that we spoke about ourselves and each other. But particularly through that Law Reform Commission process we ended up with quite a bit, I’ll say succuss.

Sarah Ailwood:

So, when you have been involved in law reform commissions, do you feel like you have been listened to?

Noelle Martin:

Okay, so do I feel like I've been heard in this law reform context?  I think there's so many layers to this question, and so many parts to it. So this issues of was I talking about and finding the things that was in alignment with what the government or what was the agenda of the day? Was it, and so in that case I might have been heard. Was I challenging or criticizing what the policy agenda might have been? In that case your race and you're not heard, you know. So there's just, there's different layers to that question. And there’s been instances where, you know, I'll be involved in a parliamentary inquiry. So there was recently one on the Anti-Trolling Inquiry, and they were looking at proposed legislation to try and unmask people online who had been, I guess, trolling others and finding out who they are if they were under the mask of anonymity, and so I was on these panels and it's to my knowledge that I was the only person who the committee did not quote or do not site in their two hundred something page reports, and they had an entire section on image based sexual abuse and I was not included at all in this part, and I gave evidence and testimony in the inquiry about my experiences. And so, you know, they had gone and quoted every other survivor that gave evidence, but not me. And it seems like this that you have to experience that isn't going to spark like an outrage or a big media frenzy. So you just have to cop it because it's insignificant, and it really only impacts me. So am I heard? Depends on the context. And in other contexts I'm completely erased, despite the work I do. So that's what you're up against.

Sarah Ailwood:

Thank you.

Rachel Burgin:

I think, some interesting points there Noelle about the context and certainly how you are received depends on the goals of the people that you are meeting with. And those of use that are here today who heard some of the panels, we’ve talked about different conceptualisations about what we have been seeing. So is listening the potential to change an opinion? That is probably true. I think in our experience in at least New South Wales was certainly sometimes being heard, sometimes certainly not being heard, but I think it also, I think this is why we've decided to band together. It is a way for us to kind of…you know, barge through some of those blocades that we’re coming together as a collection of survivor experts and other experts that, I think that gets us passed a lot of doors and gets us to a point where perhaps some of those issues we don’t meet as much. But also, I think this is occurring in the context of these other practices that might not be related to the person or the people or the group you're talking or speaking to, but, for example, in New South Wales, cause, you know, we’re talking about that context. But you know, Mark Speakman, the Attorney General was, until recently, also the minister of the prevention of domestic and sexual violence, and then he dropped sexual violence from his, from the title of his portfolio, because it's still fell within the scope of his role. But again we're seeing this sort of language just about really being erased. So when that happens, that's frustrating for us. And if you don't have, like having these conversations, like has impact. And also, you know, promising after you've pretty much been called out right? Promising to reform these consent laws. But then this happens. And how does that fit in with your kind of broader approach that you’re taking?

Saxon Mullins:

Yeah, I think. Yeah, I think I agree with you both because it it's very much, yes, sometimes I am listened to. But it’s when it’s convenient to them but yeah I think we definitely found that there were times when the Attorney General was so attentive and so in turn with what we were saying that I was so genuinely shocked. Like there were times when we came to meetings where he read Rachel and John’s paper, that he had read these articles and came in with these newspaper clippings. And it was just like you know, what really engaging in listening. And the context of what we’re and the whole picture of it.  And then, you know, had other experiences like in Queensland, where they got a bunch of survivors in the room, traumatised them all for a day and said you know, there’s coffee outside. And not even mention it in the paper. So it's very, you know, wildly varying right.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

I think you've picked up on the next question that we’ve prepared. I think that you’ve raised some interesting points in that last question around the convenience. Now, what the three of you might reflect on the decisions you’ve made to engage with these senior actors. So like the Attorney General for example. So what was like the reasons for bypassing other processes and just go straight to the heart of the problem? So Rachel maybe you could start?

Rachel Burgin:

Rage (laughs). I mean I rage emailed the Federal Attorney General the other week and he’s agreed to meet us, so that worked. Yeah look, so Saxon kind of had a relationship with Mark Speakman because of the way that consent was referred to the Law Reform Commission. But it’s kind of the easiest person. It’s the person who is in charge of it. And if you can get there, I think go for it. And I think we’ve had some success there. I mean in terms of New South Wales, I think we’ve had a lot of success there in terms of consent law reform. We’ve had success in terms of Let Her Speak in Victoria and in the Northern Territory. I’m also involved in, mainly Let Her Speak, which is of course the campaign that supported and helped Grace Tame to claim back her right to her own identity, which would be a talk for another time. But I think it's just a important to reflect on the fact that hasn't always been successful for us, and you know, Let Us Speak in Victoria's actually a really good example of that, because we tried to just go to the then Attorney General Jill Hennessay and she just didn’t want a bar of it. So we were really just like we didn’t want to do a whole thing. But they are a lot of work, these these campaigns. So we just hoping we could just point it out and then that will fix it. And it just didn’t. So we had to whole rigmarole. So for us, the decision-making process of launching a campaign like that it is putting survivors through hell. Like, for everybody. Like the wake of all this news media. We know, I think it’s fair to call it the trial of Brittany Higgins. That’s traumatising to survivors. We know that is the case. So it’s not the first port of call. That’s why you go straight to the AGs. You know, if we don’t want to take survivors to this horrible media frenzy, that is the best approach. Just get it done without causing any harm. But unfortunately that’s not always, sometimes you need the power of the people and survivors even though it hurts. And that’s what we needed, at least in Victoria.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

Saxon, would you like to add anything to that?

Saxon Mullins:

Yeah, well I think what’s spurred us to reach out to the Attorney General, Rach mentioned that I had a relationship but we’d never had a meeting. It was just sort of a “thank you for your story, this is what we’re going to do” type of situation. But you know we had that initial connection. So the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, they ended up, their final report was that they didn’t recommend changing the consent laws. And basically they had said they had listened to the New South Wales Bar Association instead of…so they weren’t going to do it. We were just like, you know, after hearing all of these submissions, a record number of submissions, about this and having so much research based on why they should do this, and we were now out of options with the Law Reform Commission so we were like well we can’t make it any worse by going to the Attorney General. We may as well just meet with him. So we met with him. We met with the Shadow Attorney General of New South Wales. We met with anyone who picked up the phone and said yes. And yeah.

Rachel Burgin:

Most of them didn’t.

Saxon Mullins:

Yeah, yeah. But we when we met with Mark Speakman. He was genuinely interested in learning our point of view, and genuinely interested in listening to us, and being willing to have his mind changed.

Rachel Burgin:

At least in that meeting.

Saxon Mullins:

Yeah, yeah. I’m not a big fan. He’s fine. I don’t want to sit anywhere politically. I just wanna, that’s, yeah.

Rachel Burgin:

(Laughs) Yeah, certainly not…other meetings were not the same.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

Right. But at least in that moment he offered hospitality.

Rachel Burgin:

Yeah, especially he was really prepared in that meeting. He had this big folder that he opened up and it was very scary and it had every article I’ve ever written. But they were there. It wasn’t many then but anyway. With post-it notes and scribbled everywhere in the margine\s and we walked out and we were like were we just cross-examined. But then he like emailed us. I kind of don’t even remember what happened actually, I think, Bri Lee interviewed him and then she called us and she was like, “Oh, he loved you guys.” You were great, and you know. Yeah.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

Noelle, would you like to follow up on that?

Noelle Martin:

Well, following on that. I actually had a great meeting with Mark Speakman.

(Group Laughs)

Noelle Martin:

So I did a press conference with him outside of the Law Court in New South Wales. And it was actually the start of my healing journey the way he wanted to know what had happened to me. Without asking or without any prompt, he stood on the floor of the New South Wales Parliament mentioned me directly in the second read speech, and you know, thanked me for my advocacy, and it was like, “Oh, my goodness!” For the first time ever a person in a position of power had recognized the work, and also had, going out of the way to actually say that in Parliament, and it was I was not expecting it, and it was very emotional. I was sitting in the public gallery at a time, and it was the start. It was so powerful just to hear that acknowledgment from a person in power, because even though the law that we should use would not do absolutely anything for me, a lot of the abuse had happened prior to the laws being changed, but even still they wouldn't help me post that, because a lot of my, what's happened to me has happened, you know, all over. It's not necessarily happening in Australia. We don't know who the perpetrators are, there is the global nature, and I don't know who's responsible. So you're limited by those circumstances. But even though the laws weren’t actually going to help at all in practice, the very fact of the hospitality or the you know, just the willingness to see someone as human was very powerful. So I mean this, they've already said everything else on the question.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

Hmm, no, no that’s really important. That, is being able to recognise the other, to be able to recognize the humanity that needs the interests of the other and to be able to meet them as an equal and put aside the political legal subjectivity. Yeah.

Sarah Ailwood:

And I think my question is really carries on from that, and you each pre-empted it, in some respects. My question is about; how do you see and affective listener in the law reform process? You’ve mentioned preparation, that idea of hospitality, you’ve mentioned that openness to being persuaded. Is there anything else that you can you suggest, from your experience?

Rachel Burgin:

Okay. Just to clarify on the Mark Speakman. I think her gets a lot of credit because of current AGs, he's the one that we met with the most. But I don't think that, in the totality of him, is a good listener. There were elements of that meeting maybe had elements of good practice. But we also, during the parliamentary debate we emailed him and said, you know we urgently want to talk to you about this this thing, and he came really combative into that meeting with a bunch of hypotheticals that always magically fall on the side of the rapist. And you know we have to have this line. I always say, like “Name any case ever where that has happened, and that's been the result in how the law has been replied.” They have no answer for it. It's always like some kind of vague, “Oh, but it might happen.” It's just not the reality of the lived experience of sexual violence.

So, what makes a good listener? I don’t know. I don’t think we’ve experienced a good listener. We definitely experienced good practices of listening. I don't know.

Saxon Mullins:

Well, I think, part of what something that I think a lot of politicians don't think about is this idea of like trauma informed engagement, and now like that doesn't mean anything, but then it had a real meaning, and what that really looked like. And I think that is not often how politicians engage even with survivors and advocates. And I think that's a really important part of listening is being able to create that safe space to, you know, to receive that information from someone. So I think that's something that is really often overlooked. But yeah, like. There are aspects of meetings that we've had that that included it. But, you know good listening, what that might look like, but that the, you know, for most of our experiences it's been a moment where there has been, but not in the entire experience.

Noelle Martin:

Yeah. So on the point of what is effective listening and what make what makes a good listener, I think the previous session was a really really great framework and great thoughts about the politics of listening. I won’t…I just want to expand on that a little bit from my perspective of listening and effective listening which is really looking at the politics. I really do want to echo that, because there are so many layers to the general issue of where or not you'll heard, or how you're heard. I mean, there's issues to do with do you say the things that the government wants to hear? Do you say in a way that's nice and sweet and polite? Or are you angry? Are you, I guess, an ideal victim, kind of mould? Are you a white woman who's saying that, or are you like a brown woman? What clothes do you wear? That will impact on how you’re head, and if you’re heard at all. What do you do for a living? What's your educational background? And I think, particularly, I want to emphasize is, what are you saying because I've found that if I have gone against the grain and I've challenged anything, so if I was any other one dimensional, if I had a critical thinking, or if I wanted to say something that wasn't again what they wanted me to say, then I’ll get so much push back. So unless there is a real clarity on what it takes to be heard then we can't really get to the point of, and again I’m probably repeating a lot of stuff, of effective listening, because it's all of those elements. And there's you know, the racial elements and gender elements. And yeah. So all of those aspects.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

Some really interesting points about the kind of curation of the self when engaging in a process like this. To what extent do you present certain parts of yourself, you know. I think, too, we were talking about the different narratives that you might tell in the way that the law requires you to tell some things and not other things, and there is always going to be a process of experiment and visibility, and that also comes down to who you are as a person right, and to what it see that might impact the listening itself.

I wonder if you could talk about listening beyond the institutional process that you've engaged with as well in terms of listening, you know, public listening. In terms of your listening beyond the law reform process? Could you speak about that? Rachel?

Rachel Burgin:

I think Saxon should go first. I meant that’s really the essence of why we teamed up. What you were experiencing. Sorry, Rach.

(Group laughs)

Saxon Mullins:

Well, yeah, I think my experience is quite rare, I think, in that I was quite soundly listened to, and it felt that way. I think it started with the Four Corners, when that came out.  fact that Four Corners even wanted to do an episode with me really speaks to kind of the part of my story that are palatable. And I think my story has a lot of really palatable aspects to it in the fact that you know most obviously I’m white and young, and, but the actual, you know assault I was, very young, I, you know, had not been out drinking much, and there was no, you know, nothing like that. I was a virgin, so you know there was nothing outside the kind of say “But what about this?” I truly embodied that ideal victim ideology. And so it was easy to do a story about, an assault like that. Um. So you know, that's why Four Corners even approached me for something like this. And then, that is why it becomes a palatable story. I did feel really heard but I think in being heard it also spoke to the silence and to why some other people aren’t. Or aren’t even chosen to tell their story.

Noelle Martin:

I have to acknowledge some of the privileges that I have, and I, too, have been very lucky in terms of the media where I have been heard. You know, I have been heard in a lot of news media, you know. Documentaries, podcasts. In that kind of sphere, I definitely have had a voice. How much of it has been one-dimensional in terms of having a survivor story only centered rather than what I do, after all or who I am, how much of it is, you know fully captured. Yeah, so again, fully capturing the essence of who I am. That's another question. So yeah. There is a lot of tokenism there, but I have to say, you know I have been privileged enough to have that opportunity to have that voice. I do know that there are many, many, many people who don't get that opportunity, who aren’t heard, who’s stories that we don't know about. So in that sense, I feel I feel like that's important to note. But I have to make a point where that experience is the news media and being heard in that has not translated necessarily to the law reform aspect. And it's not translated, because I think, with the elements that we talked about before, where I don't necessarily fit the mould of who they would listen to, usually and traditionally, and I found it particularly to be true in the online safety space. So we had a national regulator in this country, the Office of the E-Safety Commission, and coming from someone who was being probably the only person who was consistently and publicly advocated against image by sexual abuse with a lived experience, and was, you know, from in many ways the public face of that specific issue, I've never ever once, in the entire establishment of that office being included in anything. Been included in a conference, been included in a presentation in terms of being in a panel or something, you know, press conference or anything. And this is not, this is not because they don’t include survivors. Yes, they do. And who do they include? People who don’t look like me. Right? And not only that I have, I tried to reach out to them and say, can we have a survivor committee? Or can we have an advisory group of survivors, and that's fallen on deaf ears. And I've recently spoken, reached out to the Minister for Communications to ask for the establishment of a survivor group for an online safety task force so that our stories all be heard, because currently we're not being heard. And there's a lot of gatekeepers who are speaking for us about issues that directly impact us. And so we'll see what the result is from that. But that's just supposed to show the disparity between the the different contexts. So you know, just decision-making context or an institutional context. You know we have decisions about being made that's totally different to the other spheres of life.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

Yeah, yeah. Thank you very much. Rachel, is there anything you would like to add in like a research, advocacy?

Rachel Burgin:

Yeah. Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. I get to occupy a really different space than you two do in that, like, these little tags, like PhD attached to your name get you a automatic expert status. Like Saxon has to earn hers every time. People are always like “Rachel, do you want to explain the law bit” and I’m like, “Actually, this part is her bit.” That’s the thing. And also, as the kind of current lead of this organization like, I get to sort of take up my space between these two roles that offers me, it gets me a seat at the table. And to circle back, I actually think from a collective RASARA perspective, good listeners are people like DV New South Wales. Right? We get emails all the time. Let me check in. That’s good. Like it’s lending…You know that “you guys can talk about this.” Oh, you know what’s your perspective on this and let's have a conversation, and it might not be like let’s align. It's like, let's talk about this from different perspectives and different experiences. You know where we meet on these issues. So that's really good, and also some politicians in the office, so like Jenny Leong, she’s a legend, and certainly, you know, was messaging us during the debate, checking in on Saxon, as obviously it’s a lot. I don’t know if that answers your question. I think I’m lucky, I can be on Twitter and yeah sometimes I get a couple of trolls but not like some space. So for me that is a safe space, or so it’s a safer space, whatever that means, than for others.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

It's interesting to think about the privileges and hierarchies of knowledge as well. You know, just by virtue of having a PhD you have better access to those in positions of power as opposed to those with lived experience. So I just want to bring us back to our final question for our panellists, and it’s picking up on some of the questions on the chat. And it is, so what strategies would you suggest for you know, survivors and people who want to get involved in law reform? And also how can we ensure that all survivors are being heard? So Noelle, maybe you can start given the last point you were raising?

Noelle Martin:

So I have some very strong views about this. I don't know you know how to, because they might be controversial. In terms of I guess of what survivors might do if they want to get into the law reform process, I think we just have to have a lot of truth telling about what of what the cost is to survivors, because it is so easy to use those buzzwords like speak out. And like, let’s reach out to survivors. Let’s include them. And oftentimes, when that happens they are really sent to the wolves. They aren't supported. They don't get the outrage if something goes wrong. They don’t get the help that they need. They really just effectively use and exploit them a lot of the time by many people and many institutions, by society at large. And then, once they're done, we just we don't really hear for them after that times passed, and they just, I guess, fuse into nothingness. Sometimes it feels like that. And so I think there just needs to be more truth telling about what really might happen if you do.

And on the other side of that, and a bit of a hopeful note, it can also be very, very rewarding and really fulfilling. And really, that brings you purpose in life, and you can make a real change if you want to go down that route. So I hope that answers the question.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

Yes, yes absolutely it does. So Rachel, would you like to add anymore around reflections on moving forward, what kind of work needs to be done.

Rachel Burgin:

So lots needs to be done. Of course we’re talking about law reform today but this tiny part of this huge response to sexual violence. So it doesn’t mark the start and end to sexual violence, it just happens to be the moment that we can have these conversations. A large part because people like Saxon and Noelle are bringing these issues to the floor.

I think, one of the problems, is survivor hood is actually invisible unless we talk about it. So we’re really talking about public survivors. There’s a lot of survivors who work in this space, who advocate who aren’t public survivors. So when we talk about how to engage with survivors, we’re really talking about how to engage with more publicly known, willing to be put on camera and talk about it, survivors. And that’s what the media will tell you. They don’t want people to be anonymous. They want to be like “Ok we’ll do a photoshoot of you and we’ll put that up.” If you just want to be anonymous, they’re not interested in your story. That's a big part of it. So we work with the media, but we have the benefit of being an organisation, well we’re an official charity, right? We’re legit now. But, you know, we get to sort of count within that. But journalists will, you know, and I don’t want to speak for Sax, but, like you know, you work with a journalist on your story. Lots of journalists reach out survivors and make them known to your platforms but then, as you're saying like, where do you go? You have to realise that we're in the survivors, it is work, then you owe them something and that's one of the big learning, it’s not just like this is Let Us Speak Victoria, see yuh, no these are like lifelong relationships that we tend to, and are very important. And I think when you work with survivors, it's not an end date. It’s not like a project end date. And that’s really important. We’re not done yet.

And that's a positive thing, too, because I’ve forged really strong bonds. We’re great friends and great colleagues. So that's really good. But there's a responsibility we owe to survivors, particularly if we work with them or use their story. Because that is what journalists do. I’m not trying to drag journalists.

Sarah Ailwood:

They take up quite a lot of space in this area.

Rachel Burgin:

Yes, yeah. And some of that is legitimate but we also need to account for the responsibility that journalists then have. Do the journalists owe you something? Maybe. I don’t know. It’s up to you.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

Saxon, would you like to have the last word before we open up for questions?

Saxon Mullins:

Yeah, I think, and you know, going forward for people who want to get involved in this kind of thing, you know there are a million and one kind of on the ground collective organizations, of people especially, you know, for young people here at university or something like that. There's a lot of organizations or, I would suggest like joining collective of people, I think that's where the rea power is. You know it's every so often there'll be a flash moment where one person is

able to create such a change, and that's not always the case. Most of the time it is just a lot of forces kind of raising this one issue up rather than the other way around. So I think yeah, power is in numbers definitely. Which is we are seeing. So yeah, I think there's a lot of collective power going on at the moment.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

We’re getting a lot of acclamation online. Thank you. And I think there were a few questions about moving forward, but I think the panel has answered. So we’ll go to questions?

Sarah Ailwood:

Any questions?

Attendee Question:

So I'm thinking through my question as I'm talking, which is never a good idea for me. But I was starting to think as you were talking about journalists of, I suppose the integrity and the duty that they owe to survivors in telling their story, but also the way that public then consume that. And as you were talking, I was very much thinking about this idea of, it's almost like survivor stories become public consumption and public entertainment with this weird space that we have between or this overlap with this current kind of moment in time, but also the popularity of true crime and things like that. Can you speak a little bit to that? Or is that duty that is owed by, not just for journalists, but the general public in the way that we morally consume survivor stories?

Rachel Burgin:

It’s not just journalists, but it’s academics too. We all write about survivor stories and I don’t know it that’s always good or fair or valid. We also have the move forward. And I appreciate that question, like yes where are we going and having that conversation, but it's hard to navigate. It's really hard to navigate, because we don't have a right to someone's stories, their lived experience. But then also, these people want us to use that to advocate for change. So that's why I think working together, the collective is best. It’s about permission. Asking. It’s about consent.

Saxon Mullins:

I think, the true crimes a really interesting point, because I don't know if it has desensitised people or like, I don't know what the kind of idea behind it is, but I think people do forget that there’s real people that are involved with these stories. They can't see it, and you know I think we’ve spoken very strongly to the Amber Herd and Johnny Depp case and like that was a fact finding mission. It was a fun group activity that we could all do on the Internet. It wasn't a court case. It was like a DIY book. It was a fun thing for us to do. And I think true crime really has to answer some hard questions about how it discusses real people's real life and that is, you know, usually centred around you know, murderers or serial killers, very sensational things. But there's only so much content in the world and that has to trickle down somewhere. And so it's beginning to trickle down into “Oh, I’ll find out the real story because I’m an Internet sleuth” or whatever. And I think you know the way that a journalist treats the story goes some of the way to addressing that. So I think you can tell when a story is told with care. It's given back to with care.

Noelle Martin:

So the other week I just did a an interview, and I won't say with who be ecause it's coming out soon. But the journalist reached out to me, I think you two days later, a day later, to call me to check in to see how I was doing, and I said to her, “That was the first time in, however, many years, of however many articles or interviews are done, that someone had reached out and actually just checked in, and to see how I was,” and I was like “Oh, my goodness was so lovely!” And we just had a moment when she couldn't…she was so shocked, but that was the first time. But that's this…that's the nature of it, you know. It is very transactional thing, and it's almost like. Sometimes I feel, get frustrated at this phenomenon where, I don't think journalists sometimes realize that we don't seek to gain off it, but we don't think to gain in doing it. But a lot of what I do is unpaid. A lot of what public survivors do is unpaid. We don't get paid to do the work that we do or the labor that we do. We do a lot of what we do and cop a lot of online hate in response, and backlash, and we have to deal with the emotional trauma and the pushback and that is undervalued. And you know, in a case of my situation, you know, this adversely affects my employability. It's not something that I get, I don’t aspire for this huge profile. It's like it only seeks to hurt me emotionally, and it sometimes this notion of they're doing us a favor by giving us the voice, but it's like no, I’m trying to do good. That's really what it is. It's like, it's not about you're giving me a favor. Like I think there's a whole just lack of understanding of why it is that survivors do the work they do, and I think in terms of the horrible treatment that, and I guess the dehumanization of public survivors in particular. We see that obviously in a lot of the memes that were created, like horrific online culture. But I think it also goes back to it goes back to public survivors and the fact that what we do you can't really sometimes quantify, or you don't have to quantify what we do. But if you were to try and measure, I don't know. Maybe if you were to measure how much this helps lives or help to reduce hospital costs or the mental health implications of what are the actual measurable benefits to the work of public survivors. If we fully were to appreciate that then I think people wouldn't be so quick to dehumanize us. I mean, there is such an undervalue that's placed on us, and undervalue of the impact that we do. And that's just the reality. And I think until we can kind of reckon with that we're gonna continue to see that horrific dehumanization of public survivors.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

We do have a question um from someone online, and I think that you all kind of alluded to this in some way across the evening, and the question is, is the use of survivors selective, for example, who they know so only certain high, profile ones get heard. And also this is a question, this is in the same question, about gatekeepers. That's, you know, peak bodies, policy measures. Yeah. So yeah, The first question is, there a kind of a selective practice around which survivors might be the go to people, and also to just a clarification around what we mean by the gatekeepers.

Rachel Burgin:

I think it's definitely, those probably relate to each other, really, because there's definitely some people are heard, some people are not. There’s a few people responsible for that. I think academics are responsible for that, journalists are responsible for that, the public is responsible for that. The Let Us Speak for example, the Let Us Speak campaign or the Let Her Speak has supported seventeen survivors, one of whom is Grace Tame. I doubt anybody knows anything else, about the other survivors, and it wouldn't be your fault, but they didn’t win Australian of the Year. Some of them look different, right? So they're not all white, they’re not all able-bodied, and those things really played into some of the reaction’s of the public to their stories, and it's like a story when it comes out might get great hits, everybody reads it, and everyone knows it, they talk about for a week, and then that's it. We're still talking about Grace Tame. Rightly so. When is that? A long time later. A couple years later. But we’re not about others.

And in terms of gatekeepers, I think lots of people. Right? Technically I gatekeep you (gestures toward Saxon). Like people email RASARA admin and then I see it and then I forward it on to her. I think it depends. Like lots of people gatekeep. But yeah.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

It’s the power of the gatekeeper, isn’t it?

Rachel Burgin:

Yes, yeah, yeah. And people come to me, “Will you and Saxon do this?” I don’t know, I’ve cc’d her in. But in that sense we can all be the gatekeeper. But you two might have a different perspective.

Saxon Mullins:

I think definitely. Yes, but I think you know, if a journalist has a roll of survivor’s numbers they're in their order of preference. I see this all the time. I get a call when Grace Tame didn’t answer. But yeah, like I think it goes in order of like what I was talking about before, of the easiest story to tell to the hardest. When the milkshake ads came out they wanted to hear from someone and so they’re like “oh who’s is the easiest story to tell?” So they don’t have to do a “Oh, this is what happened to them.” And with them we work, so it's about, again, it's a transactional relationship with the journalist. Who's story can I tell the easiest and the quickest to get quote in here so I can get this out.

Noelle Martin:

Yeah, pretty much what I think has been said. Yeah, there definitely is, you know, go to survivors and high profile survivors. You know, maybe in this way online sexual abuse, or deep fake in Australia, or wherever you know, I might in some small way reserve that part because I’m already well known in that space. And and so I have to acknowledge that privilege. And I  definitely think and try and do what I can to make sure that other voices are heard as well. And but what I would say is that, specifically in the context of the media. In other contexts, maybe panels like this, or advisory committees it is always I’m filling in for someone like you know that example. I'm filling in for someone or I’m having to fight to be that survivor representation to make sure that there is representation, not because I was invited, or I was given the opportunity. I had to fight for a seat at the table that wasn't built for people like me. So this idea of there might be a high presence of survivors, there could be another element to it, which is, you know, at least in my case, I have to fight because I’m not given that opportunity, and I have to, and I have to ask and go out of my way, and just receive the bread crumbs until I reach a point where, you know, voices like mine, or voices like others that are like me are just heard in every kind of aspect, rather than we have to do extra work that other people who might do less, don't have to do or other people who embody certain other bodies don't have to do. So yeah,

Attendee Question:

So I’ll ask a controversial question that, and thank you to everyone on the panel, yeah, and it is an honor to hear you all speaking. So I want to preface this by saying that I, you know am also someone who has been involved in the reform processes and will probably continue to do so just to make it clear that I’m asking that perspective. But, you know, I guess. I'm also increasingly sceptical of the willingness and capacity of the law to change. And I actually think that our criminal legal system has shown us repeatedly that it's unwilling to change in the face of, at times it's very progressive, reforms, you know. We know that this system continues to be a site of harm to survivors, and it continues to be a site of colonial violence and racist violence, and the question I ask myself, and then I’m going to put to you is, why do we keep coming back to the system and expect that it's going to change? Why do you? What's your investment in law reform?

Saxon Mullins:

I think if all you focus on is law reform, your whole, everything you do is on law reform and the scope goes no further than I think you are wasting your time. You may change certain things. You may change some aspects. But I’ve said this before, if all you do is change in law reform we are continuing to play violins while the Titanic sinks, so it cannot just be a single approach. We need to keep everything, all at once. So we strive for law reform, because the law still exists, and we still have to work within that system and survivors, whether or not we change, certain survivors will still go to the police, certain survivors will still go through that system, so we have to try and make that as good as we can make it, while understanding that it is problematic in every sense of the word, in every aspect of it. And so we have to work on the other things like education and the community response and building those other things so when this inevitably fails there is somewhere else to go.

Rachel Burgin:

It's a good question there. And like, I think I’m just going to build a lot of what Saxon said. You know, we also advocate for comprehensive relationships and sexuality education, from cradle to grave. That is less spicy. We just call that consent now with the bar on the floor. This is a moment. We are having a moment around consent gives us an opportunity to try and advocate, well we’re trying to advocate for affirmative consent. And so there’s a time for that, and I think you know we have this conversation I'm going to say once a week that you know it is, banging your head against a brick wall sometimes, but as long as there's survivors reporting, which there are, and there increasingly are, we owe it to survivors to try and make a system that won't harm them, that won't hurt so much. Now I agree. We're probably never going to get ahead. We actually need, like a suite of responses and pathways to the idea of justice. Sort of drawing on some of the conversations that we had today. But law reform is certainly not the only thing we’re advocating for. We’re also asking for a change of system, but also innovative justice that sits outside out system. Hopefully we get to a stage where that happens but at the moment there is a time for consent to shift. You know my work, I'm very skeptical of affirmative consent. It's slightly better than what we have. But it's certainly not the end. We want to prevent, we want less cases going to court. We want to retire by forty, you know? Gonna go home. We don’t need to be here. You know? That’s the dream.

Noelle Martin:

Yeah. Well, I think it's. I feel like I get into the pits of despair all the time, and I, I get so angry and so frustrated at the performative nature of politics. The apathy, you know the hypocrisy. Who’s listened to, who’s not. The work you have to do versus other people. So I feel I feel that deeply. But there's something that Clementine Ford had actually talked about in one of the posts that she made, and I thought it was really really powerful, and resonated with me in terms of why I try and do, and continue on with the advocacy and the law reform, which is, which is that I’m paraphrasing here that she talks about this idea of not, we might never see the fruits of our labor in this lifetime. We might never sit under that tree and enjoy it. But people who come after us will, and those, I guess changes will come on the backs of the work. So we have to keep trying, even if we don't see it, because we have to do it the next generation. So I just thought that really resonated with me where if I'm feeling that way I just have to keep going.

Audience Question:

I have one last question, and Noelle, I want to ask you a question about race, because you've all spoken about this pressure to turn up as an archetype for victim. And Noelle, what it sounds like, even excluded from the space because you don't fit. But I want to ask you, are you ever forced to turn up as a woman of color survivor when he just wants to turn up, as you and I suppose I asked the question, because passing on responsibilities, we went, you know, AGs, journalists, academics, true crime makers. And then I also think there's an accountability for women of color groups when we want people to speak for us when they may just not want to speak with that identity in that moment. So has that been an experience?

Noelle Martin:

Yeah. The one thing that I think of is something that I do feel ashamed of in terms of how I went about the activism that I've done so one of the biggest questions or primary questions that a lot of journalists ask me or people ask me about my experiences is why did they target you.? Why do the perpetrators target you? And it's something that it's like, oh, my goodness, you have to sit there and justify why anonymous sexual predators had gone and doctored images of me into pornography, and created like fake pronographic videos of me. So I have to feel in that moment, in order to allow other people to understand or digest why something like that could happen to me I have to almost fetishize my body type, or even my ethnicity, in order for other people to like have the light bulb go off to understand why something like this can happen to me. Because I don't fit the mould of what of that happening to someone, you know. And I have to always reduce myself into a fetish and say that word in order for people and the broader community to understand so, and that degrades me. And also degrade people who look like, maybe, and I have to figure out a better language to use. But I do that because it just is easier. So I don’t have to deal with people's judgments, and perception of trying to figure out why something like this would happen to me. And so that's just one way I thought of. It's not really the perfect response that question. But it's something that I have to feel that I have to fix as being a woman of color, who doesn't see the ideal victim mould. And I wonder whether that's a question that other people would have to get if they weren't women of colour. You constantly asked why you were sexually assaulted. You know other people can't really figure it out on their own. Like I have to literally explain to them.

Rachel Loney-Howes:

Well, I think that that from that to the end of the panel. Thank you all so much for sharing your experiences, your reflection, and your knowledge. So thank you so much for sharing and thank you to those of you who are online.