Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too thank the member for Swan not only for his eloquent and moving speech in the House today but for his long-term advocacy on behalf of all Australians who suffered institutional child sex abuse. Having reviewed some of the member for Swan's contributions on this topic going right back to his maiden speech, I know that he has been a passionate, committed and effective champion for the cause of redress for many years. It is gratifying to see him have the opportunity to speak today as part of this landmark step forward for survivors. The member for Swan and I, and some other colleagues, just a couple of nights ago were reflecting that one of the advantages of being in this role is to be able to make meaningful change where it is needed.

I know that all of us were shocked and disturbed by the seemingly endless flood of terrible stories which emerged throughout the hearings of the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse. In fact, an ex-colleague of mine was involved in representing certain people at the royal commission. He was a gentleman who had spent many years as a detective and many years as a criminal barrister. He would tell me that sitting in and listening to what was going on in these hearings made him physically ill. For a man who had spent much of his life dealing with very unsavoury parts of today's society to have said that speaks volumes.

In total, the royal commission handled 42,000 phone calls and almost 26,000 letters and emails and held 57 public hearings all over Australia. In addition, it spoke to around 8,000 additional individuals as part of its private sessions. Along with my colleagues in the House, I'd like to express my sincere gratitude to the survivors who took part in this process and courageously told their stories describing the devastating impact of the abuse they have suffered.

As we rightly focus on the suffering of survivors today, I'd like to ask members of the House and anyone watching today's proceedings to spare a thought also for the commissioners—the Hon. Justice Peter McClellan, the Hon. Justice Jennifer Coate, Bob Atkinson, Robert Fitzgerald, Helen Milroy, Andrew Murray—and senior counsel assisting, Gail Furness SC, and all other support staff. I know from my past life as a barrister that to hear and review, in their case, so many thousands of harrowing stories and to relive those experiences face-to-face with so many thousands of survivors must've been exceptionally difficult for them and indeed their families. It will most definitely have taken a heavy toll on these men and women. We too often forget the psychological impact that working with survivors of trauma can have on our emergency services personnel, our counsellors and our legal officers. The commission and the staff did Australia and all survivors an important and exceedingly challenging service, and I hope and trust that they too are receiving the support that they need going into the future.

The royal commission identified a staggering 4,000 institutions where abuse took place—from schools to sporting clubs. To date, 2575 referrals, from a broad range of institutions, have been made to police. Of particular personal concern to me is the prominent place of the Catholic Church in these shocking statistics. On 6 February 2017, counsel assisting, Gail Furness SC, submitted a research report to the commission as an exhibit. The report resulted from research conducted by the royal commission supported by the Truth, Justice and Healing Council, which is the Catholic Church's body for coordinating the response to the royal commission, and Catholic Church authorities. It sought to estimate the number of priests and non-ordained religious members of the church authorities who were alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse in at least one claim reported between 1980 and 2010, with incidences stretching back to 1950.

The figures made for horrible reading, though we should remember that they relate to allegations of misconduct and not to proven findings of guilt. In that report, 1,880 alleged perpetrators involved in the Catholic Church were identified in claims of child sexual abuse. In total, 4,444 people alleged child sexual abuse incidents. Of the alleged perpetrators, 30 per cent, or 572, were priests, 693 were non-ordained religious brothers or sisters, and 543 were laypeople. This means that, in Australia, seven per cent of all priests are estimated to have been identified in a claim. Tragically, the average age of male victims was 11½ years old, while for girls it was just 10½.

The data likely underestimates the number of perpetrators. It includes only cases where the complainant came forward and actually made a complaint. As we know well, many do not. It also includes only claims where the claimant sought redress or where the complaints were accepted by the Catholic Church without redress being sought. Unfortunately, we know that, until recently, in too many cases the Catholic Church did not accept complaints and did not act to deal with alleged perpetrators. Gail Furness SC put it very succinctly and comprehensively when she said:

The accounts were depressingly similar. Children were ignored or worse, punished. Allegations were not investigated. Priests and religious were moved. The parishes or communities to which they were moved knew nothing of their past. Documents were not kept or they were destroyed. Secrecy prevailed as did cover ups. Priests and religious were not properly dealt with and outcomes were often not representative of their crimes. Many children suffered and continued as adults to suffer from their experiences in some Catholic institutions.

We heard a stark reminder just two days ago of that attitude with the conviction of Philip Wilson, the Archbishop of Adelaide. The archbishop ignored the 15-year-old Peter Creigh in 1976 when he told the then assistant parish priest about his abuse at the hands of Father Jim Fletcher. I understand that the archbishop is now facing a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, which arguably demonstrates the seriousness with which we should, and do, treat the nature of his actions. Had Archbishop Wilson informed the police of the allegations against Jim Fletcher, it would perhaps have helped to convict the priest more than a decade earlier and prevented further abuse from taking place. It seems likely that Archbishop Wilson's conviction will prompt further prosecutions, and we can look forward with optimism to the hope that this will dissuade individuals in the future from failing to report abuse.

Though the Catholic Church's past record in this area is disgraceful and difficult for Catholics like me to understand, it is, of course, sadly not unique. Out-of-home care institutions, sports clubs, recreation and hobby groups, other religious groups, and even schools and youth detention centres have been implicated in failures to prevent or properly deal with incidents of child sexual abuse.

Since the royal commission's report, the attention of the government and of the Catholic Church has rightly turned to the question of redress for victims. Redress is not simply about financial compensation. After all, no amount of money can change what happened to survivors or take away its impacts. Redress should be founded on two key principles: on the one hand, recognising the suffering of survivors and, on the other, helping them both to assimilate the experiences of their past and to build a better life in the future.

As the royal commission rightly identified, to achieve this, redress should have three elements. Though money cannot change the past, it is appropriate, first, that redress include monetary compensation. These payments constitute only a material recognition by the institutions involved of their wrongdoing and their contrition but it also provides funds which can help survivors create new opportunities or improve the comfort of lives often blighted by abuse. The redress scheme in this bill meets this requirement by including awards of redress payments of up to a maximum of $150,000 for each survivor, dependent on the level of sexual abuse and related non-sexual abuse.

Second, redress should include counselling and psychological care to help support survivors with the mental health impacts of their experiences. Once again, the redress scheme in this bill meets that requirement by making survivors whose applications are accepted entitled to access counselling services where offered by their jurisdiction. Where their jurisdiction is not registered to provide these services, survivors will be entitled to a further payment of up to $5,000.

Third, the royal commission identified that a redress scheme must include a direct personal response from the institution to the survivor. This bill enables that by giving all survivors whose applications are accepted the right to a personal response. The survivor will be given the opportunity to tell the story of their abuse and describe its impact on them. They'll be entitled to receive, as appropriate, an apology, an acknowledgement of the impact of the abuse on the person, an opportunity to meet with an appropriately senior person from the relevant institution and an assurance as to the steps the institution now takes to protect children in their care against abuse.

Because of the comprehensive and appropriate design I've described, I support the redress scheme encapsulated in this bill and I support the principles that lie behind it. However, I must use this opportunity to remind the future national redress scheme operator and its delegates of its heavy responsibility. In most processes involving claims of compensation or redress, the initial decision is subject to further independent or judicial review where requested on reasonable grounds. This process in general ensures the integrity of the system and helps to prevent injustices. In this case, it is the operator, the secretary of the department and their designated delegates who will make the decision, while only an internal review conducted by an official with no involvement in the original decision will be available to applicants. In order to keep the scheme focused on the needs of survivors and avoid them being dragged into lengthy or adversarial court proceedings which risk further harm, merits review in the AAT or judicial review in the Federal Court or Federal Circuit Court will not be available to either survivors or participating institutions. For participating institutions, there is no process of review.

Those measures are part of this bill for the right reasons and are an important means of ensuring that the redress scheme is focused on the needs of survivors. We must continue to adhere to the principles of fairness and equity for all institutions and ensure as far as possible that accepted applications provide redress to bona fide survivors. Without this, not only will the scheme be at risk of perpetrating its own injustices and hurt the interests of people who continue to rely on many of these institutions today, but its credibility with the public would come into question. I would ask that the operators remember this weighty responsibility and bear it in mind in all of their deliberations.

To date, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, the ACT and the Commonwealth have all signed up to the redress scheme, and I understand from reports in The Australian newspaper that the Catholic Church, among other institutions, is working behind the scenes to join. If we can persuade all of the states and territories and institutions to opt in, this scheme would offer meaningful redress based on the right principles to the around 60,000 people estimated by the royal commission to have been abused in institutions. For that reason and for the sake of all of the survivors who's courageously testified before the royal commission, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context