Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the amendment. The government will not be supporting this amendment. The provisions in this bill have been carefully considered and have been negotiated and agreed to by all state and territory governments, along with the Commonwealth. It was done in consultation with victims-survivors and, of course, stems from the consultation done of the second-year review.

The effect of removing schedule 1, part 2, of the bill and retaining the current provisions in the act is that this group of survivors with a criminal conviction, or in jail, will be required to undergo a special assessment process or seek exemption where it may not be necessary. As the data shows, 91 per cent of applicants requiring a special assessment have not been prevented from being able to apply for redress. Likewise, 92 per cent of applicants applying from jail have been granted exceptional circumstances. In particular, I note that the restrictions on applying from jail disproportionately impact First Nations survivors in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and are not trauma informed, as they restrict a survivor's ability to choose when they apply for redress.

I will turn to the second-year review and the specific portions of the bill. The review recommended the eligibility of the scheme be extended to all applicants with a criminal conviction, including those with the most serious convictions, without safeguards. This government, and all states or territories, did not accept this proposal in full. Previously, all applicants with any conviction over five years were required to go through the special assessment process to ensure that applicants could not bring the scheme into disrepute or affect public confidence in the scheme. However, there are not any changes to the process currently in place for those with serious offences. The government has decided to maintain the current special assessment processes for serious offences—namely, homicide, terrorism and sexual offences. These applicants will have to apply through the special assessment and receive approval from the scheme's operation.

Going directly to the member for Deakin's comments: to suggest that this scheme should just be 'set and forget' from the outset is incorrect. That is why the previous government embarked on a second-year review and why we have considered these changes very carefully.

In terms of the special assessment process for people with a serious criminal conviction, it was of course implemented. The scheme has passed the halfway mark, and the experience to date has been that the vast majority, 91 per cent, of people who go through the process are not prevented from accessing redress. This suggests that the policy settings can be improved so as not to unnecessarily delay survivors' outcomes. The bill does not remove the special assessment process. It simply refines the process based on the years of practical experience to date. The Australian government and all states and territories have agreed to these changes. The bill streamlines the process to only require people with the most serious offences to undergo the special assessment process, as committed in the final response to the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme. Those applicants who have been prevented from accessing redress to date under the existing provisions will still be prevented from doing so.

Critically, the bill also includes the ability for the operator to require a person to undergo a special assessment process where there are exceptional circumstances of those listed offences if the operator believes providing redress may affect the integrity of the scheme. This is an important safeguard and it means that, where there is a criminal conviction of five years or more, the operator can require the person to undergo a special assessment process, even if the person's offence is not in the prescribed list. The current special assessment process itself will not change. The operator will still need to determine whether providing redress to the person with a serious criminal conviction for a single offence would negatively affect public confidence in the scheme. This process involves the operator asking for written advice from the Attorney-General or special adviser of the jurisdiction where the abuse occurred and where the person was sentenced. Ultimately, this change will see people who have committed the most serious offences continue to be prevented from accessing redress, where the reputation of the scheme is at risk. But it will not delay access to the scheme for most others, as they will no longer be required to undergo the special assessment process. These changes will not provide swifter access compared to other survivors. They will mean less delay for people who are not and should not be required to go through the special assessment process.

I'll sit down and rise again later. I believe my time has finished.

See this speech in context