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

I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020. This bill makes a series of important technical amendments to the operation of the National Redress Scheme. The Greens are broadly supportive of this bill; however, we do have some concerns about the operation of these amendments, which we will monitor and on which I will make some comments now. First off, we have concerns around associate institutions. This bill changes the way associate institutions in a group are determined, listed and described for notices and offers of redress. Under these changes, survivors will no longer be provided with a full list of associates of participating institutions when they accept or reject an offer of redress.

During the inquiry of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee into this bill, stakeholders raised concerns that these changes could have unintended consequences for survivors. The national community legal service knowmore highlighted that it is important that survivors understand which institutions they will be releasing from civil liability if they accept an offer of redress. Stakeholders suggested alternative ways the full list of associate institutions could be provided to survivors—for example, the scheme operator could allow survivors to request this information in writing, associates of participating institutions could be identified on the Redress Scheme's website, or a full list could be provided to survivors earlier in the application process.

The Greens will be monitoring the implementation of these changes closely to ensure that survivors continue to be provided with information about associates of participating institutions and are able to make informed decisions about redress offers. I would note here that, if this isn't working, there will inevitably be more amendments to this bill once the independent assessor's report is provided to the government and the necessary amendments, which we all know will need to be made, are debated. We put the government on notice that, if this particular amendment is not working, we'll be seeking amendments to it again.

Under the current Redress Scheme, government institutions can become funders of last resort—for example, where non-government institutions no longer exist. The current Redress Scheme assumes that only one government institution will be involved as a funder of last resort. This bill makes changes to clarify that one or more participating government institutions can become funders of last resort. Some stakeholders expressed concerns that this change could lead to further delays for survivors seeking redress. The Australian Greens strongly echo these concerns and urge the scheme operator to ensure these changes do not result in further delays for survivors. I will have more to say on this issue shortly.

Engaging independent decision-makers is another area that this bill amends. At the moment, the appointment of each independent decision-maker must be approved by the Minister for Families and Social Services in consultation with state and territory ministers. This bill, instead, will allow the scheme operator to appoint decision-makers in consultation with states and territories. It is expected this change may reduce delays experienced by survivors on the decision of their application. Legal firm Ryan Carlisle Thomas noted that devolving responsibility to the scheme operator would not provide sufficient scrutiny for the appointment of decision-makers. Again, we will be monitoring the implications of the implementation of this new appointment process very closely.

The commencement of the National Redress Scheme in 2018 represented a milestone for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. However, this legislation was flawed from the beginning—make no mistake. The Greens sought to amend it at the time. If people recall, we were coming up to the deadline for when the legislation would come into effect. Unfortunately, if we'd delayed the legislation any longer then that would have delayed redress for survivors. So it was a catch-22 situation, where we knew the legislation was flawed but we didn't want to disappoint survivors. We are now dealing with the consequences. The proposed amendments, which were debated in this very chamber, would have avoided some of the issues we are dealing with right now. We'll certainly need changes in response to the independent assessor's two-yearly review of the scheme, and some of those changes will need to address the issues that were raised in 2018.

We all know that the Redress Scheme is not as good as it could be. There are many issues that need to be fixed urgently. As a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, I've been made aware, yet again, of many of these issues. The committee's first interim report found that the National Redress Scheme application process can retraumatise survivors. Preparing an application is often a stressful and traumatic experience for survivors. It can take months for survivors to finalise their application because they are retraumatised—their trauma is triggered—by actually filling out the form. The lack of published guidelines for decision-making limits the ability of survivors and their advocates to understand what should be included in their application. Survivors continue to experience long waiting times—although I do acknowledge that the department is working to get this under control, and it has improved for certain applications. It's just not good enough that survivors can have their civil claims resolved in a shorter time than it takes to get a redress application completed. We need to make urgent reforms to the application process to ensure that it does not further harm and traumatise survivors.

I continue to hold serious concerns about the government's $150,000 cap on redress payments. As we in this place all know, the royal commission actually recommended a $200,000 cap on redress payments, which the government rejected. The lower cap may be a reason for survivors to pursue civil actions instead of going through the Redress Scheme. Lawyers have suggested that civil actions result in awards of hundreds of thousands of dollars, compared with the average redress payment of around $80,000.

The practice of indexing payments is unfair and needs to be reformed. Over 449 payments have been adjusted due to prior payments, with the average value of the adjustment being $34,574. Some survivors have also had their redress payments reduced to zero because of indexation. The indexation of payments needs to be removed immediately.

There are also significant gaps in survivors getting access to counselling and psychological care services and supports. These include gaps around access in rural areas, access to culturally safe and sensitive healing programs and access to specialist financial counselling. The government has put time limits and monetary caps on access to counselling and psychological services, which goes against the royal commission's recommendations. All survivors and their families should be able to engage with high-quality, specialised counselling and psychological care services in order to address their trauma and to limit the retraumatisation, as I've just articulated, that is occurring through the process.

The funder-of-last-resort provisions continue to let survivors down, as they are too restrictive. This was articulated in this place during the debate on the primary legislation. These issues were addressed during that discussion. We sought to amend the legislation but, unfortunately, those amendments weren't supported. These provisions need to be amended. I'm sure that when we see the report of independent assessor's review we will need to come back and readdress the funder-of-last-resort issue. Under the current scheme, the government can become a funder of last resort for institutions that no longer exist, known as defunct institutions. But these provisions apply only when the government has supposedly equal responsibility for the abuse that occurred in the now defunct institution. The government should be a funder of last resort regardless of whether or not it was involved in the institution or had responsibility for the child when they were abused. Survivors shouldn't miss out on payments because of these narrow provisions.

As of October 2020 there were 88 applications for redress that named funder-of-last-resort institutions, but only 29 of these applications had been determined. Of these, only 20 payments had been made. It's clear that the funder-of-last-resort provisions are preventing significant numbers of survivors from accessing redress. The government needs to consider how we can expand the funder-of-last-resort provisions to ensure that all survivors have equal access to redress and don't experience unfair waiting times.

It is distressing that some institutions, including those named in the royal commission, have not yet joined the National Redress Scheme, even though they have been named. While these institutions have been publicly named and shamed, they continue to drag their feet. We need to consider the impact this is having on survivors who feel distress and feel like they have nowhere to go.

I appreciate that the minister is taking these issues seriously and that we are making progress on compelling institutions to join the scheme. But, as was just articulated, the Jehovah's Witnesses still have not joined. It is outrageous that they do not accept responsibility for the children who were abused in their care. We need to think about ways that we can work together to take all possible actions to ensure the institutions are held to account. It is imperative that the government takes every possible action against these institutions which fail to uphold their moral, social and ethical responsibilities by declining or unnecessarily delaying their participation in the scheme.

The second-anniversary review of the National Redress Scheme is, hopefully, just about complete. I am confident that this independent review will make clear recommendations on how we can improve the Redress Scheme. I'm confident of that because I'm sure that the survivors—in particular, those who have been giving their comments and evidence to the review—will be voicing their very strong concerns about the failings of the Redress Scheme. If they are listened to, there will need to be recommendations made about amendments. It's especially important that the review looks into publishing the assessment framework policy guidelines, streamlining applicant and decision-making processes and creating a direct complaint avenue for survivors. The Australian Greens will continue to closely monitor the outcomes of this review and push for change so that the Redress Scheme supports all survivors and holds all institutions to account.