Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise this afternoon to make some comments in regard to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020. Of course, this bill deals with some technical amendments.

I think every senator is beholden—and Senator Siewert did mention this briefly—to acknowledge the work and the progress that is already happening in the National Redress Scheme. I think it's important to say this at the very, very, very beginning. I've heard comments made about the royal commission's report and recommendations, and I'll reflect on two observations about the royal commission's outcomes that have not actually been reflected in the experience of the scheme.

I want to reiterate that at 31 December 2020, just three months ago, 450 institutions, covering over 60,600 sites had in fact signed up. The scheme had received 9,117 applications. There had been 4,350 payments made to survivors, totalling $377 million, and a further 540 offers were awaiting a decision by the applicants themselves. So let's just put that in context: in the first year of the scheme, 47 institutions had joined; in the second year of the scheme, this number had grown by 176; and, in the third year of the scheme, it had grown by another 223 institutions.

I'm someone who believes publicly and privately that the National Redress Scheme is working, is growing and is making the necessary progress that many of us had hoped it would make. Is there an opportunity for continued improvement? Yes, there most definitely is. I'm someone who believes that the scheme will always be and should always be in a state of constant recalibration. If it is to be responsive to the needs, the interests and the concerns of survivors—as shared with government and parliamentarians via survivors themselves and survivor groups—then it must be, and we must recognise that it will be, in a constant state of recalibration and improvement.

There were two observations made by the royal commission that I do think need to be reflected upon. One is that the royal commission—and it's not an error or a fault of the royal commission; it couldn't see the future—overestimated the number of applications that the National Redress Scheme would get. It overestimated the number of applications the scheme would receive. What the royal commission didn't foresee was the complexity of those applications, and I see Senator Siewert, if I may, nodding in agreement with my observation. I think this is a very important point to be mentioned upfront, because, when we came to designing the scheme, it was designed with a variety of assumptions—and this is a reflection of the good work that the royal commission and senators in this place and other parliamentarians contributed to—but those early observations may not be the experience of the scheme thus far. On those two points, I think that's very true: the number of applications received has not been as great as the royal commission expected, but the complexity of those applications has been greater. That was not foreseen by the royal commission. This is a particularly important point when people come into the chamber and say, 'Well, the royal commission was expecting X but the scheme has only delivered Y, and therefore the scheme is unsuccessful.' Not true. The second point I would make is that, as the scheme develops and matures, different sorts of survivor groups and their needs come to the fore more sharply. I'll reflect on this a little bit later in my contribution. There are two particular groups that I think require much greater and urgent attention, and I'll come to those in a brief moment.

Labor is moving a variety of amendments. These amendments, as Senator Pratt alluded to, were moved in the House of Representatives. Let me be very clear about this: these are amendments that ignore a critical feature of the scheme, and that is that the scheme is actually not a Commonwealth scheme. It is in fact a scheme in which the Commonwealth is working in cooperation with the states and territories. So whatever our views in this parliament might be about what changes and improvements should be made to the scheme, they have to be agreed to by the relevant ministers in states and territories. I think that is a good design feature, but it does present some challenges where particular jurisdictions might have a view that other jurisdictions don't hold onto.

The other point I would make in regard to Labor's amendments, if I've understood them correctly, is that they actually don't make any real changes and many of these matters are already under active review by the independent reviewer Robyn Kruk and, as Senator Siewert alluded to, the committee which I chair, the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme. We are hoping to see that report ourselves very soon, to make our own judgements about how effective the independent review process has been on collecting and identifying further improvements to and recalibrations of the scheme.

Much of the credit, I believe, for getting so many institutions to join the scheme must go to the very clear commitment of the Morrison government and its forthrightness in following through on its justified threat to name and shame institutions and to strip them of their tax and charitable benefits. But now is the time to refocus our efforts on two specific survivor groups whose access to justice, in my view, has been blocked. Both of these groups, of course, have a strong Western Australian character.

In my view—and I think I probably speak for many on the parliamentary committee—redress must now be urgently delivered to those Fairbridge kids who were among the 3,580 British child migrants sent to the Kingsley Fairbridge Farm School near Pinjarra between 1913 and 1982. The original Fairbridge ceased operating in the early 1980s, when it was rolled into the Prince's Trust. That organisation has established Fairbridge Restored Ltd to act as the legal entity responsible for meeting the liabilities of Fairbridge farm schools. While Fairbridge Restored was publicly named last year for its failure to join the scheme, we now understand that its reluctance was due to legal barriers in the United Kingdom rather than a lack of willingness or good faith on its part. That is evidence that has been made available to the parliamentary committee, and again I see Senator Siewert nodding. But it's clear to me and to others in the Senate chamber that the unique and unforeseen circumstances surrounding Fairbridge kids warrant special attention. It is reassuring to know that this is a view that is also shared by the National Redress Scheme, with the secretary of the Department of Social Services having described the matter at a public hearing as having a 'sense of urgency' and noting that they are very committed to resolving this issue 'as quickly as we can', as the secretary said.

The second priority in 2021 must be to improve the level of awareness of and access to the scheme for Indigenous survivors. We know that there are factors, including poor understanding of the scheme in regional and remote areas, access to records and historical documentation, and even a reluctance to ask questions out of fear of being judged, that are preventing greater Indigenous participation and therefore access to justice. There can also be cultural unwillingness to detail accounts of historic childhood sexual abuse which is stopping many older Indigenous survivors from even starting an application.

Late last year, the committee heard from the CEO of the Kimberley Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation, who detailed for the committee key areas where the scheme could be improved to better address the needs of Indigenous Australians, including increased access to culturally appropriate support in remote communities. In evidence to a parliamentary committee, the Kimberley Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation noted:

Aboriginal people don't see counselling the same way non-Indigenous people do … That's not what works for them and it's not culturally appropriate for them either.

Of the 3,123 applications for redress received between July 2019 and June 2020, 1,052 were from Indigenous survivors, representing 34 per cent of all applications for that period. When I was in the Kimberley region just a few weeks ago, I had an opportunity to meet with the Kimberley Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation. They reiterated to me their very, very strong view that more could be done to provide better access, and therefore justice, for Indigenous Australians but that there was a plan and that they had some excellent ideas about how that could be done. People should not be denied access to the scheme because they live in remote areas of our country.

When I was reviewing the contributions of members of the House of Representatives over the weekend in preparation for some remarks today, I realised you could come to the wrong conclusion. That wrong conclusion is that nothing is happening in regard to national redress. Nothing could be further from the truth; a lot is happening. The timeliness has improved; indeed, the investment by the Australian government of an additional $104 million over the next four years is timely and is necessary. But we should not allow ourselves to fall asleep at this particular wheel. More must be done. More can be done. I would hasten to add that my considered sense is that across the parliament, in the Department of Social Services—who are responsible for the National Redress Scheme—and in the community there is a great willingness and a great sense of urgency to make sure that justice can be delivered in the most timely and effective way for survivors and for their families.

I will leave those brief remarks there. Finally, I extend the appreciation of not just the joint parliamentary committee but also all those people who have come into contact with the National Redress Scheme and have had a good experience to officers in the Department of Social Services and the National Redress Scheme for the important work they do on this very, very important matter.