Old versus New: first impressions.

The Victorian RMT Inquiry is a large document, and the final version has only been available for a short time.
However, one contributor has had the opportunity to do a rapid scan, comparing old versus new.
Bottom line: there don't appear to be major changes.
This is not a definitive summary, but some first impressions:

• The main change is the change of the definition 'false memory advocates' to 'critics of recovered memory therapy'. They also noted this group includes mental health professionals.
• There were a few minor concessions eg - instead of saying the review found 'no' research on clinical techniques used to recover memories of trauma it is now 'little'.
• Deletion of the line 'The media reports do not show reliably that RMT exists in Australia.'
• It no longer states that professional guidelines on recovered memories are 'reasonably consistent' - the report now just states that the guidelines exist.
• The section that recommended the government undertakes a review of the risks and examines any need for further regulation of unregistered providers of counselling and psychotherapy service has been deleted (presumably because the review happened at end of last year)
• Hypnotists were added to the list of unregulated providers who should become registered 'with a suitable body' (The question is asked -- What is an appropriate body? One major counselling organisation has no guidelines at all regarding recovered memories.)
• After the section on the places where mediation could be offered, it was added that complainants could use the courts.
• There appears to be only one new reference added:
  
Poole, D.A., Lindsay, D.S., Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1995). Psychotherapy and the recovery of memories of childhood sexual abuse: U.S. and British practitioners’ opinions, practices, and experiences. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 426-437.