House debates

Wednesday, 3 February 2021

Bills

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

6:47 pm

Photo of Warren SnowdonWarren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to be able to participate in this debate. I commend those who have made a contribution. I thank our shadow minister for her fine words earlier on this afternoon. Labor is supporting this legislation, although we are moving a set of amendments. Clearly, survivors have waited for so long and have been through so much. We need to fix this legislation. We made a commitment to deliver redress that was timely, redress that does not retraumatise and redress that does not leave survivors missing out.

In the 19 months since the scheme's commencement, only a mere fraction of the projected number of survivors have received redress. I note that many have used the available figures. It's now time for us to get this redress scheme back on track and delivering on its promises for survivors, and that's why we're introducing our amendments. As we know and as you've heard already, the scheme that was ultimately rolled out has not fully realised the recommendations of the royal commission. It has failed to deliver on the promise of redress.

Labor's amendments will better reflect the reality of survivors and the spirit of the original recommendations. We want to work constructively with the government, as evidenced by the contributions made this afternoon. We want to get this scheme working and delivering for survivors. I'm not going to repeat all of the amendments, but I will commend them because they make significant proposals and changes that will have a dramatically positive impact upon the delivery of justice to the survivors and will address the recommendations of the royal commission.

I want to refer to one institution in particular that is not part of the Redress Scheme. I refer to the Retta Dixon Home, a home that was run by the Australian Indigenous Ministries, AIM. In January this year AIM was barred from participating in this scheme by the federal government. It says that the church group does not have the money to pay its potential clients. This institution housed members of the stolen generation, Aboriginal children, from 1946 till 1980. The royal commission in 2014 through its inquiries laid bare allegations of horrific sexual, physical and mental abuse at the home. I will go through a couple of them to remind us of the dastardly nature of the abuse that occurred in this institution, and I know in many others.

A child at Retta Dixon who suffered seizures was allegedly tied up like a dog to a bed and fed on the ground with an enamel plate. One girl allegedly had faeces rubbed in her face, was tied to a clothes line and was deliberately burnt with hot water. Residents testified to seeing a male house parent force-feed a baby until the child choked. The inquiry heard that some children were raped so badly that they were taken to hospital for treatment but were watched by their abuser to make sure that they didn't alert authorities. One man told of having as a boy to wear nappies to school to stop the bleeding after being sexually assaulted. Other children were allegedly flogged with a belt until they bled. One woman said she had persistent hearing problems from repeated beatings around the head.

No funder of last resort has been identified for Retta Dixon Home survivors. That means that no state, territory or federal government has stepped up to guarantee any compensation payments ordered through the scheme are fulfilled. How can this be justice? I want to pause for a moment to acknowledge the work of many people who did get a private settlement in 2017 from an action that was taken in 2014 in relation to abuse that occurred at Retta Dixon. But not all the residents were party to this legal action. It was a private settlement. It had nothing to do with this government, although the government was a party. It was done in spite of this government's inaction and dithering. In the case of Retta Dixon it is also clear that some more claimants want to be done and some other support that was recommended and promised has not been done. Again, Retta Dixon is just one example of the failures to get the National Redress Scheme working sufficiently and in a timely manner.

I said earlier that Retta Dixon has been excluded from the scheme. One of the appalling aspects of the current Retta Dixon saga is that it appears that the effective operating group of Retta Dixon, which is the AIM, which I referred to earlier, may indeed have funds within its group so that it could join the NRS. Yet this operator has currently been allowed to claim it doesn't have the funds to join the scheme and thereby allow the claimants to be compensated. We know that there are at least 13 applications for redress that are now stuck in administrative limbo, with no funder of last resort identified.

What is key, though, is that a major law firm has now been engaged in some individual civil matters regarding Retta Dixon, and they are underway at present. One of these matters is an application being heard in the Supreme Court in Darwin this Friday, 5 February. The question the court is being asked to determine is whether the incorporated entity, AIM, Australian Indigenous Ministries Pty Ltd, is a related entity of the unincorporated AIM, Aborigines Inland Mission, that ran the Retta Dixon Home over the several decades during which the abuse occurred. That has severe implications for the way in which this organisation may have dealt with these victims of child abuse. It is also worth noting that, overall, Retta Dixon Home's operating group is in fact a thriving organisation across Australia, yet in January 2021 the operator could offer nothing more than a verbal apology for the abuse that occurred. If the outcome of the court application is favourable, it could well mean the incorporated AIM entity is held legally liable for the failings of the unincorporated AIM. This case is being seen as determining which of these entities should ultimately be held financially responsible for responding to civil claims for historical abuse.

Now, this is a Christian organisation. I go to church. And here we have an organisation which could well be hiding in another entity funds which should be available to pay compensation to victims of that institution's abuse. This would be laughable if it weren't so shocking. Sadly, unless the government supports the amendments which we are proposing, it will by its inaction demonstrate that it appears to be on the side of operators protecting organisations that could well have funds to pay the claimants. Even if we assume this is not the case, the government clearly has no ability to organise any other way to provide a settlement for the claimants. That is why the amendments which have been proposed by us should be supported by the government.

While the government dithers or avoids any action, claimants are dying. Yesterday my office spoke to another legal firm that has Retta Dixon claimants who have died while waiting for their just recompense. How can any reasonable person deny the rights that these people have and should have had—haven't had, sadly—to just compensation? This is a significant failure of the NRS. I personally know many of the people who were in Retta Dixon and I know many who have passed. It is so sad. We are left sitting in this parliament, trying to implore the government to do the right thing and support the amendments that we are putting up as a positive and constructive way of dealing with this outstanding issue, yet the government won't support us. What can their reason be? What is it that prevents them from seeing the justice in these proposals and accepting the propositions within them to make sure people who are denied justice get their justice and get the compensation which they so richly deserve?

I was, as an adjunct to this contribution, going to refer to the stolen generation. What we know is that there were over 2,000 Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory who were stolen over a period. I won't go through the reason, but what we do know is that many who were stolen were like those at Retta Dixon, physically, emotionally or sexually abused, and yet there is no Commonwealth compensation for members of the stolen generation. Why not? We, Labor, are committed to compensation for the stolen generation, a compensation scheme for survivors of the stolen generation in Commonwealth jurisdictions—the Northern Territory and Jervis Bay.

At the last election we undertook to address this issue of providing compensation and came up with a positive scheme to address it. We also said we would establish a national healing fund to support healing for the stolen generation and their families, and we said, because we need to address the current malaise, the current problem of high rates of Indigenous children currently in out-of-home care, that we would convene a national summit on First Nations children in our first 100 days. Why can't the government do it? Why is it? They can't address the issues of compensation, and they won't fix the NRS. That's a sad indictment on this government and something they should be ashamed of.

Comments

No comments