Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 2013 this parliament amended the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to allow the chair of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to authorise a fellow commissioner to hold a private session to receive information from survivors and others affected by child sexual abuse. I introduced this change as former Prime Minister Julia Gillard's Attorney-General. As I said at the time, a traditional royal commission hearing setting will not generally serve as the best way to facilitate participation in a royal commission by survivors of abuse. For many survivors, telling their story is important to the work of the inquiry but is also deeply personal and potentially traumatic. The use of private sessions made it possible for as many as 8,000 survivors of child sexual abuse to tell their stories to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Such a regime is likely to also prove valuable to survivors of elder abuse and also to people with disabilities who have been subjected to abuse.

Labor is therefore pleased to support this bill, which will enable other royal commissions to hold private sessions where a regulation is made under the Royal Commissions Act authorising it to do so. In effect, this would extend the private sessions regime that applied to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to other royal commissions in appropriate circumstances, including the disability royal commission and the aged-care royal commission, both of which are now underway.

However, simply providing the legal mechanism to assist survivors to appear before a royal commission is not sufficient. For that reason, the Gillard government provided the funding necessary to establish a legal service called knowmore, which provided free legal advice and information to any member of the public who had suffered child sexual abuse in an institution and who wanted to tell their story to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. That legal service still exists today. We note that the government has followed Labor's policy lead in this regard and set aside funding in the budget to provide assistance to witnesses appearing before the disability and aged-care royal commissions. Labor welcomes this; however, we call on the government to regularly review those funding levels to ensure that no survivor of abuse or their relatives and carers are denied an opportunity to receive the support they need to tell their story to either of these two vitally important royal commissions.

I'd like to say a few words about the disability royal commission. Ensuring that survivors of abuse are properly supported so that they can tell their stories to the disability royal commission will be critical to the success of that royal commission. But all the well-intentioned legal mechanisms in the world and all of the funding under the sun will be for nothing if survivors of abuse still do not feel comfortable telling their stories. Regrettably, that is what the disability community has been telling us, and it is what they have been telling the government too. Specifically, the disability community has made it very clear that John Ryan and Barbara Bennett should never have been appointed as royal commissioners, not because they are anything other than committed public servants but because they have clear conflicts of interest. Both have held senior government roles overseeing some of the very programs that are likely to be examined by the Royal Commission. That is unacceptable. As my colleague the member for Maribyrnong said last week:

This commission is a chance to let sunlight in, expose historical wrongs and learn from them so we can provide better services to people with disability and eradicate abuse and neglect from their lives in the future.

But that will be impossible to achieve if we have two commissioners who could end up in charge of investigating themselves, their former colleagues or their former workplaces.

When the Prime Minister announced the disability royal commission he said:

This will provide the opportunity for Australians to truly understand how people with disabilities live in this country and what our obligations are to share the journey with them, to show them the respect that they deserve as a fellow Australian, as a fellow human being.

I ask the Prime Minister: how can we hope—to use his words—to truly understand how people with disabilities live in this country if we do not hear from them? Australians with disabilities are telling you that you made a mistake when you appointed John Ryan and Barbara Bennett as royal commissioners. Australians with disabilities are telling you that these two commissioners have to either step down or be removed. Australians with disabilities are telling you that, if that does not happen, many people, many victims and many survivors, will not give evidence to the royal commission at all. We all hate to make mistakes, and admitting them can be hard. But the integrity of this royal commission is more important than a Prime Minister's pride. It is more important than a Prime Minister's ego.

It is long past time for the Prime Minister to show people with disabilities the respect that they deserve, to use his words again, by acting on their clearly stated concerns about the commissioners the Prime Minister has appointed. This royal commission is not about the Prime Minister or this government; it's not about John Ryan or Barbara Bennett either. It is only about the far too many Australians with disabilities who have been subjected to violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. I implore the Prime Minister to do the right thing, set aside his pride and listen to the people who this royal commission is about. They are speaking loudly and clearly. They are telling the Prime Minister that John Ryan and Barbara Bennett should step down as commissioners and that, if they do not, the Prime Minister should remove them.

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

  (a) the use of private sessions made it possible for as many as 8,000 survivors of child sexual abuse to tell their stories to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse;

  (b) a private sessions regime is likely to prove equally valuable to survivors of elder abuse and people with disabilities who wish to tell their stories to the Disability and Aged Care Royal Commissions; and

  (c) the Government has set aside funding in the budget to provide financial and legal assistance to witnesses appearing before Disability and Aged Care Royal Commissions; and

(2) is of the view that:

  (a) the Government should regularly review the amount of funding it has set aside for financial and legal assistance to ensure that no survivor of abuse is denied an opportunity to tell their story to either the Disability or Aged Care Royal Commission; and

  (b) there is more that the Government can and should do in order to ensure the integrity of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability".

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment. I rise to speak on the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019, and I commend the member for Isaacs for his amendment and his words. The work of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has certainly been extraordinary, and I am going to take some time to touch on that before returning to the amendment legislation before the House and the member for Isaacs's amendment.

I'm very proud to have been a member of parliament in November 2012 when Prime Minister Gillard announced that she would recommend to the Governor-General that a royal commission be appointed to inquire into institutional responses to child abuse. What a legacy that has been for Prime Minister Gillard; something that has changed so many lives and brought so much hope in an area often associated with despair. It did not make past wrongs right but for many people it certainly made them more bearable.

Her Excellency Quentin Bryce, the then Governor-General, announced in January 2013 the six commissioners who would undertake the onerous task of conducting the inquiry, to be led by Justice Peter McClellan, AM. I commend all of the commissioners for the wonderful work they did under the direction of Justice Peter McClellan. I'd particularly like to mention former Queensland police commissioner Bob Atkinson who, after a long, distinguished career fighting crime in Queensland and helping communities in Queensland, then took on that role as a commissioner in a very difficult job.

The royal commission handed down its final report in December 2017 and the commissioners made a total of 409 recommendations, showing that the workload of that royal commission was phenomenal. So I thank all of the commissioners and their staff for their work over those five years, work that will no doubt leave a lasting imprint on their lives as well those who they listened to. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse received 42,041 telephone calls; they received 25,964 letters and emails; they held 8,013 private sessions—yes, that's the correct number—where they would have heard horrific information; and they made, most importantly, 2,575 referrals to the authorities, including the police.

The success of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse relied on victims being prepared and supported to tell their stories, often stories that had never ever been told before. I know that, and I'll come back to that in a second. In order to ensure that success, the Gillard Labor government made an amendment to the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to allow the chair of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to authorise a fellow commissioner to hold a private session to receive information from victims and others affected by child sexual abuse. That amendment allowed, as I said, the more than 8,000 victims to tell their deeply personal and often incredibly traumatic stories.

It was also essential that victims attending private sessions to give information about abuse to the royal commission were supported and were represented. The then Attorney-General and now shadow Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, launched knowmore legal service, which was a free national legal advice line for people interested in providing information to the commission. knowmore was accompanied, most importantly, by funding of $18 million over four years. That funding was later extended to match the extended reporting date for the royal commission, and in fact continues to this day. The service offered advice on issues like witness and informant protections, compensation and the implications of existing confidentiality agreements. knowmore is now dealing with the redress scheme, so it has continued some of that work it started.

I speak to those in the chamber, particularly the minister who will have carriage of this—and I know we have chatted about this—about the importance of those private sessions and the support and representation that went to them. It was provided for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and I think the value of it is shown in this—is summed up by—a note from a survivor who was actually sent to the royal commission. This is a direct quote: 'Thank you for the opportunity to tell my story. You cannot know what it meant to be listened to with such respect and made to feel that what happened to me really mattered. I hope my experience will help to promote the change needed to prevent this ever happening to another child.'

I should declare an interest in this particular law firm, knowmore, because my wife, my partner of nearly 30 years, was the managing lawyer for the Queensland and Northern Territory office. She no longer works there, but I say to Lea and all those who worked there under the direction of the executive officer, Warren Strange: thank you for the great work that you did. I know how difficult it was; I used to hear stories of providing legal support and all sorts of support to those giving testimony. Thank you to all those who worked at knowmore and to the people who supported victims who gave evidence to the royal commission.

Labor supports the bill currently before the House, obviously with the amendment from the member for Isaacs, because it will enable other royal commissions to hold private sessions where a regulation is made under the Royal Commissions Act authorising it to do so. It extends the private sessions regime that applied to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and to other royal commissions. As I said, there were 8,000 victims who told their deeply personal and traumatic stories to a commissioner.

Two more royal commissions have been established: the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which has already commenced hearings; and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, which is now open for submissions. Some witnesses who may wish to give evidence to both of these royal commissions may prefer to tell their stories in a private session. Whilst public evidence is very compelling, those private sessions are still of incredible value to people. But, I stress, supporting getting people in front of a commissioner is crucial. Some of the victims in the aged-care community, and, likewise, people with disability and their families, will be some of our most vulnerable in society.

I would just reiterate that it is very important that any witnesses wishing to make use of private sessions be given support and representation. That means that the government will have to dip into its pockets to support the legal services or other advocacy services that do so. There is already a mechanism set up with knowmore, so it would not be a huge leap. As I said, I used to have a conflict of interest with knowmore but I no longer do; they do great work. I'd ask the minister to make contact with the executive officer, Warren Strange, to advance that. It's a low-cost support service—relatively low cost to the government. They already have the processes there. I'd reiterate that it's very important that any witnesses wishing to make use of these private sessions be given support and representation, and I'm sure the minister and those responsible for the carriage of this will ensure services such as knowmore are given the appropriate funding to support those witnesses. Obviously these communities—the aged community, people with disability, their families, their support people—are best served if they are given the opportunity to tell their stories.

I will finish with, sadly, one concern, which is about commissioners Barbara Bennett and John Ryan having conflicts of interest as mentioned by the member for Isaacs and the shadow minister with responsibility for this, the member for Maribyrnong. We can't have a royal commission starting with baggage, especially in such vulnerable areas. I'm sure that these well respected public servants will understand that they can't start with that conflict of interest, and I'm sure that, with their long careers, they don't want to be accused of investigating themselves. That would not be an honourable way for them to finish up their careers. I'm sure they will do the right thing. If not, I'm sure the minister will step forward to make sure that these commissions have the best chance of doing the right thing by the Australian community. I look forward to the aged community, the disability community and their families stepping towards justice and to making sure that we get the best outcomes possible.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I and my Centre Alliance colleagues strongly support this bill, the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019. The conduct of the intensely important Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has overwhelmingly demonstrated the great value in being able to hold private sessions. Where there are deeply sensitive matters at hand, private sessions are critical not only in allowing for full participation of individuals and their families in a royal commission process but also in allowing for personal trauma to be given the privacy and confidentiality that it indeed deserves.

This bill also presents the opportunity for the parliament to remedy a series of antiquated provisions that remain from the original drafting of the 1902 Royal Commissions Act. Most of them are administrative in nature, aiming at improving the general efficacy of the act and bringing it into modern practice, and draw heavily from the recommendations and good work of the Australian Law Reform Commission—specifically, their 2009 report, Making inquiries: a new statutory framework.

Centre Alliance will be circulating a series of amendments in the other place rather than in this House, but I will briefly summarise some of the issues that we will be seeking to address in that chamber. One of them is to require royal commission reports to be tabled in parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving the final report of an inquiry or, if a part of that report is not being tabled, a statement of reasons why the whole report is not being tabled. Another is to require that inquiries that may have a significant effect on Indigenous peoples consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals, groups and organisations to inform the development of procedures for an inquiry. Another is to require the government to publish non-binding guidance akin to an inquiry's handbook related to the administrative conduct of the royal commission as to human resources, communications, finance, information technology and records management, including archiving. Another would require the government to publish an update on the implementation of recommendations of an inquiry that it accepts one year after the tabling of the final report of a royal commission, and each year until the fifth anniversary thereafter, to reflect any ongoing implementation activity and to require the publication of an expenditure statement for each royal commission within at least 18 months after the inquiry has concluded.

Centre Alliance believes that it's important to require compliance with the Archives Act 1983 when dealing with royal commission records and to require an explanation from the minister if those records have not been transferred to the National Archives of Australia after five years from the end of each record. It's important that we allow that the minister may, upon application by a person summoned to appear before a commission, authorise payment for all of any part of their legal costs, with the minister being required to have regard to a range of practical factors in making their determination. Finally, there is an amendment to allow for royal commissions to be able, on their own initiative, to refer a question of law to the Federal Court for decision and not to give a decision to which the question is relevant while the reference is pending, or proceed in a manner or make a decision that is inconsistent with the opinion of the Federal Court.

I thank the parliament in advance for their consideration of these amendments of Centre Alliance. We will be sharing them more broadly across both chambers. I look forward to working constructively with all parties in the process. I very much commend this bill to the House.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019, which provides for a royal commission to be able to hold private sessions if a commissioner believes it is appropriate. I certainly want to speak about this bill in the context of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Many people from the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury in my electorate of Macquarie—whether they be carers or family members of residents or residents themselves of aged-care or supported accommodation services, care workers, or aged-care and disability service operators—have raised with me issues that I hope are going to be well explored by each of these royal commissions.

What has struck me is the sensitivity of their observations and experiences. This is especially the case if they are currently living within a facility or have a family member living within a facility or are receiving care from that same provider as to whom they have concerns. I think that, when we're asking people to speak about really sensitive matters, including some that may affect and be about their own family members, there is a fear in doing that. People do feel vulnerable, and the fear of speaking out silences too many people.

When the Gillard Labor government amended the Royal Commissions Act in 2013 to allow the chair of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to authorise another commissioner to hold a private session so that they could receive information from victims and others affected by child sexual abuse, it really was a pivotal moment, because it acknowledged that a traditional royal commission hearing setting will not generally be the best way to encourage participation in the process by people who've been affected by child sexual abuse.

Hearings are held in quite sterile, formal environments much of the time—quite intimidating environments. Even when we hold our own regular committee hearings, we as parliamentarians see some evidence of that. Recognising that and taking steps to change it and make the process more accessible was really key. It recognised that telling their story would be a deeply personal and traumatic process for victims, and it understood that it was in the best interests of the royal commission that every effort be made to understand the impacts of the crimes against those children.

Extending private sessions made it possible for as many as 8,000 victims of child sexual abuse to tell their stories. I note the member for Moreton quoted the comment from someone about what it meant to them to be able to tell their story, and men and women around the country have had similar sentiments about the difference it has made in their lives, as a first step, to be able to tell that story. I'm pleased that a Labor initiative is being continued by this Liberal government, recognising its value to victims of elder abuse, to people with disabilities who've been abused and neglected and to others who may not feel comfortable speaking publicly.

I suppose some people might be wondering why private hearings might make a difference and what difference they make. Even if you don't compare it to what we saw in the previous royal commission, I can think of multiple conversations I've had about this with carers, with people with disabilities, with staff who work in facilities. Friends, in my experience, often look on in despair as an ageing partner cares for their wife or husband, determined to do it on their own and refusing to admit that they need physical or emotional support to do it. They need a safe place to explain why that 12- to 18-month wait for high care as part of an in-home package is too long to wait. They barely admit it to themselves, let alone want to admit it to a wider audience.

Parents who care for a child or adult with a disability often talk to me about the need for respite but also their guilt in having to admit they need help. They need to be able to explain what difference that week of respite care makes, not just to themselves as carers but to the rest of the family. What's more, they need a private place to explain how it feels to learn that, during that respite, an abuse or neglect of their loved one has occurred. These are hard things to admit and heartbreaking to witness, but they are the stories that we need to hear.

For someone who has a loved one in aged care, I know there's also that fear of speaking out about what consequences there might be for making any criticism. People do feel vulnerable. I see that even in the hesitation that people have in making a formal complaint to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. This is just a bit of insight into why these private sessions are so important in this royal commission process. People need to be able to talk about these issues in privacy, in a supported environment.

One of the really important things that we did as Labor, when enabling victims to appear at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, was to recognise that they would need support in just getting to that point. We provided the funding to establish a legal service giving free legal advice and information to any member of the public who wanted to tell their story. That legal service still exists today, and I note that the government has set aside funding in the budget to provide financial assistance to witnesses before they appear at the disability and aged care royal commissions. I'm very pleased to see that. We would ask the government to review that regularly and review the funding levels to ensure that no victim is denied an opportunity to share their experiences.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to reinforce our view that two senior public servants who were key decision-makers in areas that will be examined by the disability royal commission should be removed from it because of the inherent conflict of interest that they bring to the process. We can't have the integrity of the royal commission undermined from the start; it isn't a good way to start.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to encourage people in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury to make a submission to these royal commissions. It isn't a time for silence; it is a time to share your experiences so that we can learn from those experiences. If you have experienced neglect or abuse, or know of someone with a disability who has experienced neglect or abuse, please tell that story. If you are involved with somebody who is in an aged-care facility or who receives in-home aged care and who is a victim of elder abuse, we also need to hear those stories. So, please make a submission. If you need support in making that submission, my office will be very pleased to assist. It doesn't have to be a daunting process, but it is really important to take part in the process. I commend this legislation.

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all members for their contribution to this debate on the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019. I particularly acknowledge the contribution from the member for Moreton and make a commitment that I will follow up on the issues that he has raised in good faith.

The member for Mayo has also flagged a number of amendments that her colleagues intend to make in the other place. The government will consider these amendments in good faith. However, the government will be noting that this bill specifically relates to issues relating to private sessions of royal commissions, and the amendments that have been flagged are much wider ranging. While we'll look at these issues in good faith, we do note that the bill in front of the House today is a request of the two royal commissions that are currently active and I would be reluctant to do anything to delay the passing of this legislation that would inhibit, in any way, the functioning of those two commissions.

The private sessions framework made an important contribution to the work of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The primary purpose of this bill is to enable the private sessions framework to be used in other royal commissions via regulation. Subject to the passage of this bill, the government proposes to recommend to the Governor-General that private sessions be made available for both the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability.

As I said in my second reading speech, private sessions are designed so that individuals can tell their story to a commission. Depending on the subject matter under inquiry, stories could be of a deeply personal and traumatic nature and it might take courage for individuals to come forward. For this reason, private sessions have less formality and are not public. The bill adopts the limits on the use and disclosure of private session information that applied to the royal commission into child sexual abuse. This includes the approach to rights of public access under the Freedom of Information Act and the Archives Act.

When a royal commission is completed, the records of the commission are deemed to be Commonwealth records. This bill will exclude private session information from a right of access under the Freedom of Information Act. The bill also treats private session information in the same way that a census record is treated under the Archives Act. That means that these records won't become publicly available until 99 years after the year that the record was created.

Under the Archives Act, even when a record is in the open access period exemptions can be applied. This includes an exemption covering the unreasonable disclosure of information relating to the personal affairs of any person, including a deceased person. As a result of lessons learned from the child sexual abuse royal commission, the bill extends the limits on the use and disclosure to also cover information given outside of a private session—that is, to address an operational reality.

In order to deal with matters such as eligibility and scheduling, a royal commission will gather information about a person's experiences outside the private session itself. In the bill, there is a presumption in favour of the commissioner-held private sessions. For flexibility, the bill also proposes that appropriately qualified and senior staff of a royal commission can hold a private session. These individuals will be called assistant commissioners in recognition of their special skills and qualifications. It is envisaged that this power could be particularly useful for commissions where there are one or two commissioners. It is also a discretionary power: it is excisable if the chair or a sole commissioner considers that there are circumstances that justify a private session being held by an authorised staff member. Private sessions are a valuable tool for obtaining personal and sensitive stories from individuals. This bill will help authorise royal commissions to gather the information that they require for their inquiries. I commend the bill to the House.