Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I do understand what the minister is saying in terms of an application. I'm trying to get to the principle here, which is what Senator Pratt was just referring to. Under these provisions—because of the way the national bill has been reworded and because there's no participating government that is equally responsible if people were abused in an organisation that is defunct—there is a bottom line which means that there are potentially survivors who will not be able to access redress because there is no ultimate funder of last resort. That's what I'm trying to articulate, and to find out from government if that is a correct understanding, whether or not someone's applied. Surely, in drafting this bill, you had that concept in mind. What happens when there is a defunct organisation, so there are no corporate responsibilities? It has disappeared. And I admit that it is probably more likely to be non-religious institutions—there could be some religious institutions—where there is no equally responsible participating government. Is that a fact or not? It seems to me that this must have come up in your negotiations with the states and when you were considering this legislation.