Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Dean Smith, for your ongoing strong advocacy on behalf of survivors. In my first speech in this parliament and several times since then I have indicated that my father was sent to Australia. He was in a home for children in Birmingham in the United Kingdom. He ended up at Fairbridge, as Senator Smith knows. He came out at the age of 12.

He wasn't one of the children who didn't know who his family was. Indeed, he came from a very large family. His mother had taken up with a new man who didn't want the existing children that were in the family, so my father and his brother, my uncle Arthur, were put in the Birmingham children's home, despite the fact that they grew up in Coventry. My father has passed away now but, thankfully, because of the British government's actions in saying sorry, he was able to go back to the UK and meet with his family. They, of course, always knew that he was missing. He met for the first time a sister who hadn't been born when he left, but she knew all about her brother Bill and her brother Arthur, who had been sent to Fairbridge.

There's no doubt that my father's life at Fairbridge was very harsh. There's no doubt about that. Uncle Arthur's life at Fairbridge was harsh as well. My father was spared the reported abuse that did occur at Fairbridge, but he knew other children from Fairbridge who gave evidence to the royal commission of the abuse that they had suffered. So I've got a personal stake in this matter.

It is rather ironic today that we've just had the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition give their comments around Sorry Day. We heard from Minister Ken Wyatt and our shadow minister Ms Linda Burney. The flavour of all of those speeches was that we are sorry for what happened to the stolen generations in this country—horrific times. Yet comments were also made that it had taken too long. Often on matters we are poles apart, but on this matter we are not. I think for the survivors of sexual abuse, despite the best intentions, it is still taking too long. Sadly, as the time goes by, survivors start to pass away. That's the case for my father and Uncle Arthur.

Uncle Arthur, sadly, never got the chance to go back and meet his UK family, who clearly loved both Uncle Arthur and my family. To see the resemblance, to see where my dad grew up, to see the schools he went to and to see the pub that my grandparents drank at—all those sorts of things that are part of everyday life—were denied to him. That was really important. I'm still sad that Uncle Arthur never got that chance.

The royal commission estimated that some 60,000 survivors would be eligible for redress. Certainly we don't want to see survivors waiting any longer than necessary. Other contributors have gone through that we have received less than that, but of course there's great shame about being sexually abused. Not every person who has been abused is going to come forward. That's the shame of it. We need to be making a scheme that makes it easier for people, not harder. We need to create a framework that's robust and transparent and where moneys are accountable, but one that is not onerous for people to come forward, put their hand up and claim the redress that they are so justly and fairly entitled to.

The scheme has received nearly 10,000 applications. It has made about 5½ thousand decisions. It's finalised 4,600-odd applications, and the moneys to date are just under $4 million. But we know there are 512 applications on hold, waiting on institutions to join the scheme. This is unacceptable, and we've heard from contributors to this debate this morning that it is unacceptable. There's no doubt that the laws and our society and our culture at the time enabled this sexual abuse to happen, and we do need to not allow institutions to remain outside of the scheme. If they're a named institution and sexual abuse has occurred, they must be part of the redress.

Certainly one of the amendments that Labor will seek to move later today is a requirement that the minister does name and shame these institutions who refuse to join the scheme. I know that the minister's been very strong on naming and shaming, but we do want it to be a requirement, because, as time goes on, ministers change and so on and so forth. It is shameful that we've had to get to the point where we've had to threaten institutions who clearly have not done the right thing that they'll be named and shamed and that their tax allowances and so on will be under question. It is shameful that we've had to really go in hard like that, but, nevertheless, let's put the victims before the institutions and be very clear that we want to see that it is a requirement, because, really, we don't want survivors, who've suffered enough, to be waiting any longer than absolutely necessary before they get what they are so justly entitled to. There's no doubt that there's the action of the abuse itself and then, of course, there's that ongoing impact, where you still see people in their 60s and 70s breaking down and feeling ashamed about what happened to them when they were young children. That's an amendment that Labor's keen to pursue. These aren't new amendments that have suddenly arisen today; they have been the view of Labor for a very long time.

We also want to see the cap increase. Our view has been, right from when we heard the evidence, that the cap ought to be increased from the current amount of $150,000 up to $200,000, because what we believe is happening is that survivors are being pushed into civil processes, and that undermines the scheme in and of itself—if the scheme is seen by some to be inadequate because the cap is too low. You want to have the redress to civil processes there but being the exception, in rare circumstances. We don't want it to be used increasingly because people are not satisfied that receiving the full cap amount, currently of $150,000, is inadequate. We think it ought to be up to $200,000, and this is an opportunity, with Labor's amendment, for the government to actually do the right thing.

We do have an amendment that looks at the indexation of prior payments. It is heartbreaking to hear the stories of people who get barely any redress once a tiny payment from years ago is indexed. It's fair to say state governments, and institutions themselves, have had a number of goes at this trying to get it right. Now we're at the point where we've got amendments that we say will make it right, and we really do want to see them taken up.

The issue of funders of last resort has certainly been around for a while. There are some institutions—Fairbridge doesn't neatly fit the issue. Senator Smith went into its various iterations, but we do need governments in whatever form, whether it's the Commonwealth or the states, to be funders of last resort. We can't have survivors left high and dry because their institution no longer operates, through no fault of their own, when clearly redress is needed. We do believe that that should be something that happens as a matter of course. Our amendment, if it gets up, will seek to ensure that governments act as funders of last resort when people would have otherwise missed out. I don't think it's the intention of the government or anyone in this place that people miss out. That's not the intention behind this amendment. It's just us saying we really do need it to be shored up.

We also want—again, this is not new—the government to consider the establishment of an advanced payment scheme. As I said earlier—and, no doubt, other senators have said—we have people ageing out. We see that all the time. With claims that go back a generation or 20 or 30 years, lawyers can play fancy games in civil proceedings to time matters out, and a person then dies. We are saying that, with an advance payment, you would get the bulk of the moneys upfront, so they are of use to the person, who finally gets some money and a public acknowledgment of the hurt and suffering that they endured. They would get the bulk of those moneys upfront, which they can use in whatever way they see fit.

There's a similar scheme currently being used in Scotland, and that's been well received by survivors over there. Given the decades and years that many survivors have waited for a chance at redress and justice, it's vital that people don't die waiting. Again, as I said, that's certainly not the government's intention. I don't want anyone to be under the misapprehension that that's what Labor's saying. We just think it's an additional measure—that we can give a person an advance payment. So that's what we're seeking with that amendment.

Our amendments, as I said, are nothing new. They have been around a good while, and we really do want the government to consider them in a serious manner and to be able to agree to them. And there is that issue of the indexation.

The redress assessment matrix has also been widely criticised. Again, we start with an idea. If it doesn't work properly, then let's look at it and review it and get something that does. We know that many survivors need counselling and psychological care from time to time throughout their lives. Certainly we heard this in evidence. The evidence that I heard at one of the Senate inquiries—and Senator Smith mentioned First Nations people, too—is to make that counselling available through a survivor's life. As a victim, as you go through the various stages of grief, of anger and of coming to terms with issues, new issues will come up. All of us who have experienced trauma know that there will be a moment, when you're really doing nothing, and suddenly it all comes and hits you. That could be five years after the whole affair, or it could be 20 years or 30 years. There's no doubt, if we accept there's long-term impact and damage, then we've got to accept that counselling ought be available throughout a victim's life. I think it's one of the least things that we can do. We need to establish a benchmark—a safety net, if you like—that really does capture, protect and enhance the rights of survivors in whatever way we can. I want to be part of a parliament that does that—that we honour and we continue to honour survivors of sexual abuse by institutions.