House debates

Wednesday, 3 February 2021

Bills

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020; Second Reading

6:20 pm

Photo of Rob MitchellRob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

There are days when there aren't many times when you can be too happy about what goes on in this place. The performance and the farce of politics can make Australians feel very distrustful at the way our parliamentary system works. It can make them feel like nothing meaningful gets done here. But there are good moments in this place. One of the proudest moments of my life was when the Gillard government established a royal commission into the institutional responses to child sexual abuse. For so many Australians that piece of legislation was a lifeline. It was an acknowledgment that the heinous abuse, which had fallen on deaf ears, was worth investigating.

My god, it was worth investigating: 15,249 individuals contacted the royal commission to report child sexual abuse. And, of those, 7,382 reported sexual abuse in religious institutions. That is probably the tip of the iceberg. A single case is too many, but the ripple effect of such widespread abuse is too much to comprehend, if you think about the impact on a child and the life not lived, the mental health struggles, the drug dependency and the breakdown in trust between child, parents and those they're meant to trust. The royal commission found that the appalling response of institutions to allegations of child abuse often led to a continuation of that sexual abuse by the perpetrators, and all the while institutions turned a blind eye.

I remember being in this building when those opposite, led by the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, were decrying Labor's attempt to establish a royal commission. In fact he called it a witch-hunt against the Catholic Church. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only a witch-hunt if the allegations are unfounded. Instead, the royal commission found that these religious institutions were a hotbed of vile predatory behaviour that went unchecked for too long.

I know there's absolutely nothing that can make up for the abuse that children faced. But that doesn't mean we can't try to right some of the monumental wrongs that were committed against these children. Among the recommendations of the Labor-established royal commission was a national redress scheme. It was a great initiative, so that survivors of child abuse could receive financial compensation from the institutions which had completely failed in their duty. The legislation for this scheme passed in 2018 with Labor support.

But, as with all great Labor ideas, this scheme has been left to wither by neglect and inaction on the part of the Prime Minister, a prime minister who talks the talk but refuses to walk the walk. He made a big and heartfelt speech in this place on the anniversary of the national apology to sexual abuse survivors, but beyond that the Prime Minister has shown no real interest in the substance of assisting survivors. His inaction after the announcement, the press conference, the photo op, all indicate that one should be concerned about the level of care properly funding this scheme. He's too busy running for cover, for people like the member for Hughes, when we should be facing up to this problem.

The royal commission estimated that 60,000 survivors would need access to the redress scheme over a 10-year life, but as of January 2021 the scheme had only received 9,232 applications and made 5,487 decisions. At this rate it is going to take over 30 years for the 60,000 payments to be made. Why has there been so little interest in the scheme, you may ask? The answer is, as it always is, mismanagement and pathetic, weak enforcement by this government. In 19 months since the commencement of the scheme a mere fraction of the projected numbers of survivors have received redress. Too many are waiting. Many are ill or dying and many have missed out altogether.

Make no mistake: this redress scheme is another step in addressing the reluctance of institutions to weed out paedophiles. Making sure the scheme works effectively isn't just a matter of administration. It's a moral obligation, one that the government is not upholding. The slow rate of application tells us a couple of things. First, the scheme is difficult to navigate, inadequate and too hard. At estimates in October the Department of Social Services said the average processing time was between 12 and 13 months. In some cases these individuals have waited decades for recognition and for justice, only to find that their efforts have been stymied at the final turn. The second reason for the slow rate of application is that some institutions are simply not signing up to the scheme, despite being named in applications for redress by survivors. I find it reprehensible that the same institutions which have completely failed to protect children now have the hide to deny victims compensation at the final frontier. It's disgusting. Giving access to compensation is the least they could do for people whose lives were impacted in their care. Therefore, Labor supports several amendments to this legislation. We supported the changes the government made to the charity laws last year to prevent organisations getting government grants and to remove charitable status if organisations refused to join the scheme within six months of an application being received. Those changes were a good move, but they don't go far enough. They do nothing to guarantee that people will get access to compensation if an institution simply refuses to join the scheme or if it restructures its assets to avoid paying out survivors.

Labor is calling on the government to place financial pressure on these non-compliant organisations in the form of rare but, to be fair, targeted levies. The levies would cover the cost of redress to individual survivors, who must not miss out on redress simply because an organisation feels it shouldn't have to pay redress or doesn't want to pay it. Too many refuse to admit what was going on. Too many are refusing to make amends for the harms they caused. So my challenge to the Prime Minister is: it's up to you to show survivors whether you're on their side in this fight or you back the institutions dragging their feet. The victims know Labor is on their side. We've always been on their side.

I recall my time before coming to this place, when an apology was given in the Victorian parliament. I remember meeting a gentleman when I was out on the back balcony of the Victorian Parliament House. I went outside to have a cigarette after listening to some powerful stories. This man was sitting there—tattooed, with earrings. You could see he'd done it pretty tough. He was clutching with both hands the letter he had received. I said to him: 'Bit of a tough day, mate?' He said, 'Yeah,' but this certificate, this acknowledgement by Premier Bracks and Minister Garbutt was recognition that what he had said was true. Finally, after decades, someone had listened to him and believed him, and it was showing that what he'd said was right. I'll never forget that fellow's face, and I'll never forget talking to him about the pain and the suffering he went through. It is after doing those things that you sit there and think: 'We have to commit, as a nation, to doing better. We must stamp out these heinous crimes.' We must fight to ensure that the victims who have had these horrible things done to them are given the support, the recognition, the help and the compensation that they deserve.

The government needs to step up and provide a guarantee that it will act as funder of last resort. This is not letting institutions off the hook by any means, but it's acknowledging that through unavoidable circumstances some institutions don't exist or don't have money to pay these survivors. Labor's reasoned amendments will protect the rights of survivors so they can claim the compensation they so justly deserve. If the government has decency and compassion, it will support and endorse these amendments. In line with this, the government needs to establish an early-payment scheme like the one used in Scotland. This would ensure that many survivors who are ill or elderly don't die waiting for redress.

This is a matter of our moral compass—what is fair, what is just. People deserve to see these institutions who have done them so much harm held to account, and they need to know that we see them. They need to know we hear them and they need to know that we believe them. An early-payment scheme would assist in this healing process. Survivors in Scotland have received it well.

The inadequate payments the scheme gives to survivors is another cause of concern. There is a $150,000 cap on payments, pushing people towards civil suits because they can get potentially more compensation for what they have suffered. Obviously, it undermines the fundamental purpose of the scheme, making it easier for survivors to achieve redress, to avoid complex litigation. Unbelievably, the scheme is using prior payments such as those given to members of our stolen generation to justify lowering out payments of redress. That is a completely separate and distinct issue. People can be abused by more than one institution in different respects. To this, Labor's amendments would lift the cap on redress payments from $150,000 to $200,000. That was recommended by the royal commission. The amendments would also ensure that prior payments that do not relate to institutional child sexual abuse are not deducted from the redress scheme. It is common sense and it is a matter of decency. What seems to be the never-ending issue with the government's distraction from this scheme is there are strong calls for the redress assessment matrix to be remade.

The Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme found that the existing assessment matrix fails to recognise the life-long harm to victims, limiting exceptional payments to penetrative abuse only. This is a major difference from the recommendation of the royal commission, which found grave harms can be caused by other forms of sexual abuse too. It can only be read as a callous cost-cutting exercise by the government to limit the amount that needs to be paid out. Labor's amendments will require the minister to remake the matrix to properly recognise the impact of abuse when calculating redress payments.

Finally, the limited one-off payment for psychological counselling support goes against the recommendations of the royal commission. In many cases, people have been provided with as little as $1,250 to cover future counselling and psychological support. That is paltry, it is insulting and it goes against the very spirit of the apology to survivors. The royal commission recommended ongoing support be provided, not one-off payments. I have met plenty of survivors during my time in this place, and I am very much aware of the trauma they face—$1,250 doesn't cut it. Counselling should be available through a survivor's life, not capped to save institutions some money. If a hypothetical company neglectfully exposed its workers to harmful chemicals, it would be required to cover the cost of the physical treatment that the workers incurred. The same principle should be applied to these institutions. They perpetrated the harm on these children who, in many cases, bear physiological scars for the rest of their lives. The institutions should be responsible for providing the psychological support to these survivors.

There is no reason the government should not support these amendments. There should be a two-year review so we can see that the improvements are actually being made. This is a government that can be held to account. This is what happens in a democracy. We need leadership on this issue, leadership like that shown by Prime Minister Gillard. It is sorely lacking at the moment. This needs to be addressed now and quickly, so I am urging the government members: look at your moral compass. Is this the right thing to do, not supporting Labor's amendments? No, it is not. You shouldn't be doing it for any other reason than to support the victims who have paid such a high price—the ones who are still here, the ones who bear the psychological and physical harms from years of abuse from people they trusted. Support these amendments because it is the right thing to do. At a time like this, these people who have suffered, these children, these victims, should be our focus. Our focus should be on doing what is right for this nation and what is right for those people. So I urge the government again, please, look at your moral compass, support Labor's reasoned amendments and do this as quickly as possible.

Comments

No comments