Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

This afternoon we are here to debate the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020. In referring to this bill, whilst the government have put forward technical amendments, we should not in any way step away from the weight of the issues that victims of childhood sexual abuse within institutions have experienced and the profound nature and importance of this scheme and its effective operation in providing redress to those victims. The effective operation of this redress scheme has been left wanting to a considerable degree. And, sadly, the government's technical amendments to this scheme do not add a great deal of weight to addressing the problems in the functioning of the scheme and its ability to support victims.

In rising to give this speech, I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:

At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate:

(a) notes the deficiencies in the Bill as drafted; and

(b) urges the Government to respond to calls from survivors to improve the National Redress Scheme and deliver quicker, fairer and better outcomes for recipients, as recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse".

Survivors of institutional child sexual abuse in our nation have already waited too long for redress. It's been two years since the national apology to survivors. We also know that the royal commission was launched nearly a decade ago, and that royal commission did substantial work towards the arrangements for the redress scheme. In looking at my participation in this legislation, both before I left the Senate in 2014 and when I resumed service in 2016, you can see that this issue has long been before the Senate.

When the royal commission was launched almost a decade ago, in 2012, Prime Minister Gillard said to victims of this abuse, 'We hear you; we believe you.' But the government and, indeed, this parliament also made a commitment that our words would be backed with action and a willingness to commit ourselves to action to deliver redress to victims of this abuse. Survivors have waited too long and have already been through so much. We made a commitment to deliver redress that was timely, redress that does not retraumatise and redress that does not leave survivors missing out. We have seen, in the 31 months since the commencement of this scheme, that a mere fraction of the projected number of survivors have received redress; indeed, a mere fraction have actually applied for redress. We can see that too many are waiting, many are ill, many are aged, some are dying and some have missed out altogether because the institutions that they were subjected to abuse within are not yet part of the scheme. They have been unable to join the scheme for legal reasons, which we will debate later, or have simply been unwilling to.

In my home state of Western Australia, one such example is Fairbridge. Child migrants were sent to Australia from the UK and Malta when they were small children, children who were told they were orphans—many of them were not orphans—children who were used and abused at this institution and who have no redress, as yet, within this scheme. These people, who were children at the time they suffered this abuse, were children hurt by the British programs of child migration. These were programs that stretched across a number of countries and in which children were sent away to unsafe and, indeed, unprotected and uncaring places around the globe.

There are other examples of victims who are unable to access redress because of the refusal of the Jehovah's Witnesses church to join the National Redress Scheme. I call on those within the Jehovah's Witnesses church to acknowledge that it would be right and just for them to join this scheme. I know the church has a strong doctrine where it seeks to put itself outside the law and simply operate according to the principles of its own faith, but I ask them: as a Christian institution, please step up and do the right thing. There are hundreds and thousands of followers of the Jehovah's Witnesses Church. We see their Kingdom Hall and their assets right around the country. I would call on you to make sure that justice is done for the victims of sexual abuse within your institutions.

It is time for us to get redress delivering on its promise for survivors. This is why Labor will be moving a series of amendments to address the longstanding structural and emerging issues within the National Redress Scheme. It's been a privilege for me to serve as a committee member of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—I've only been serving in that role for a short time—because it takes brave victims to continue to tell their stories not only about the abuse that they suffered but also about how their experiences now intersect with the institutional and justice arrangements of the Redress Scheme. It is not easy for them, as the examples of victims within the Jehovah's Witness church, those from Fairbridge and others have shown. It is a scheme that has been rolled out by the government but, unfortunately, has not fully realised the recommendations of the royal commission. Frankly, it has failed to deliver on the redress that it promised victims.

Labor's amendments today seek to better reflect the experience of survivors and the spirit of the original recommendations that came out of the royal commission. I have to note that some of these issues were raised by Labor at the outset, in our original critique of the bill when it was first passed. Many of these issues were, indeed, foreseen and remained unaddressed at that time. But, of course, Labor did not want to get in the way. We supported the passing of the bill because we wanted to see the system get up and running so that it could serve victims' needs. Now we again have an opportunity to raise these issues. We hope that the government will support these amendments and respond accordingly and we call on it to do so. Our amendments today are essentially the same amendments that we moved to this legislation in the House. They are modest amendments that give the government the flexibility to negotiate with the states and territories and the latitude to fix the issues within the scheme in the most effective and efficient way.

These amendments also give the government the ability to take into account relevant findings from the review of the scheme. Mostly, it's simply a case of the government getting up and showing leadership and the conviction to back the needs of victims who deserve a functioning and accountable redress scheme. We call on the government to clearly say to survivors, to the public and, indeed, to this parliament what you will do to fix the substantial issues with the scheme or, at least, to explain why you won't fix it. This shouldn't be put into the too-hard basket. As I'll outline now, the changes that we have put forward don't jeopardise any aspect of the scheme. The opposition wants to say to the government, 'We want to work with you constructively to get the scheme actually delivering for survivors.'

It's important that the opposition acknowledge our position on the purpose of the bill, as the government has outlined in its technical amendments. We acknowledge that the bill puts forward administrative amendments. I won't go through those, because I have insufficient time. The royal commission said that an estimated 60,000 survivors would be eligible for redress. But as at January 2021 there were 9,232 applications, just under 5½ thousand decisions, 4,660 applications and 4,620 payments. These statistics represent just a fraction of those victims that should have access to the scheme. Many of the reasons that there aren't more applications come down to the onerous nature of making an application. It would take over 30 years for the estimated 60,000 victims to get redress if the current pace of making findings and giving out money were to be maintained. These delays are a form of further trauma. I look forward to being able to discuss our amendments further. (Time expired)