Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

NATIONAL REDRESS SCHEME FOR INSTITUTIONAL CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE BILL 2018

This Bill will establish legislation for a National Redress Scheme (the Scheme) for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.

Children placed in the trust of our institutions were some of the most vulnerable members in our community. That any were sexually abused by the very people charged with their care and protection is a disgrace. No child should ever experience what they did.

The establishment of the Scheme is an acknowledgement by the Australian Government and participating governments that sexual abuse suffered by children in institutional settings was wrong. It was a betrayal of trust. It should never have happened.

It recognises the suffering survivors have experienced and accepts that these events occurred and that institutions must take responsibility for this abuse.

The Government acknowledged the need to provide public recognition of the suffering experienced by survivors and investigate the inadequate responses provided by institutions through the establishment of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (the Royal Commission).

The Royal Commission's Redress and Civil Litigation Report recommended the establishment of a national redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. All governments and individual institutions were directed to make amends and take responsibility.

The Royal Commission estimates that almost 20,000 survivors were sexually abused in state and territory government institutions. The Royal Commission identified more than 4,000 institutions where sexual abuse took place.

The establishment of a National Redress Scheme acknowledges the abuse that occurred. It is the most significant step in addressing the wrongs of the past and providing a just response to survivors. It is also an important step towards healing. It ensures governments and institutions take steps to safeguard against these crimes being repeated in the future.

This Bill responds to the Royal Commission's redress recommendations and the Commonwealth Government's commitment to establish the foundation for a nationally consistent redress scheme.

Should the Bill pass, the participation of these governments will mean that, from 1 July 2018, the Scheme will be available for over 90 percent of survivors.

The establishment of a National Redress Bill will mean that these government and non-government institutions can be part of the scheme into the future.

The Scheme will provide survivors with three elements of redress, comprising:

1. a monetary payment of up to $150,000;

2. access to counselling or psychological services; and

3. a personal response from the responsible institutions.

The Scheme will adopt a survivor-focused and trauma-informed approach; access to redress will be simple, and support will be available throughout the application and acceptance processes.

The Scheme is not intended to replace legal avenues to seek justice. It is intended to provide a survivor with a means to access a sense of justice, through monetary redress and through restorative supports. It is intended to be faster, simpler and less distressing for survivors and to provide governments and institutions with the means to deliver justice to their survivors.

The Commonwealth consulted with, and listened to, a broad range of stakeholders in developing the Scheme and this Bill. The Bill aligns with the views of the Independent Advisory Council on Redress, which included many survivor groups, as well as the views of jurisdictions and non-government institutions.

Under this Bill, redress will be available for survivors of child sexual abuse that occurred in Commonwealth and any participating state or territory government or non-government institutions. For the Commonwealth, this includes situations where the minors were employed and where the Commonwealth delivered state functions in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory prior to self-government.

Should the Bill pass, the Scheme will commence accepting applications from survivors of institutional child sexual abuse for which the Commonwealth and other participating governments and institutions are responsible from 1 July 2018.

The Scheme will run for 10 years, with all applications to be finalised by 30 June 2028. The Scheme can be extended if there is a need to do so.

For a person to be eligible for redress they must have suffered sexual abuse where a participating institution is responsible and it occurred when the person was a child before the Scheme's commencement on 1 July 2018.A person must also be an Australian citizen or permanent resident at the time they apply for redress, although it will be possible to deem additional classes of people eligible for redress.

While a person must have suffered sexual abuse to be eligible, the Scheme will also acknowledge related non- sexual abuse, for example physical abuse. Sexual abuse rarely occurs in isolation and it is important to deal with the whole of the survivor's experience.

Applications for redress under the Scheme are limited to one application per survivor, whether or not that person suffered sexual abuse in more than one institution. This will ensure that survivors will only need to complete one form to cover all instances of child sexual abuse experienced in institutional contexts during their childhood, something the Royal Commission recommended to achieve equal or fair treatment between survivors. Survivors providing the story of their experience in full will ensure the Scheme can consider the totality of their experience.

In order to maintain integrity and public confidence in the Scheme, there will be some limitations for people who have committed the most serious of crimes, such as homicide. However, to ensure the Scheme retains flexibility and is able to meet prevailing community standards, there will be a special assessment of applicants with serious criminal convictions.

If a person is convicted of an offence which received a custodial sentence of five or more years, the Operator may determine that the person is entitled to redress if providing redress to the person would not bring the Scheme into disrepute or adversely affect public confidence in the scheme.

When making this determination, the Operator must take into account any relevant information such as advice given by relevant Attorneys-General and the nature of the offence. People will not be able to make an application for redress if they are in jail. However, the Operator will have power to provide exemptions. This restriction is necessary as the Scheme will not be able to deliver many aspects of the Scheme to incarcerated survivors.

People must be 18 years of age before the Scheme sunset day to make an application for redress under the Scheme. If a child who will turn 18 years of age before the Scheme sunset day makes an application for redress, there will be a special assessment process.

For those eligible survivors, the amount of the monetary payment will be determined by looking closely at the circumstances of each person and applying consistent criteria. The maximum amount of redress payment available under the scheme will be $150,000. The expected average payment will be around $76,000—$11,000 higher than that estimated by the Royal Commission. The payment will not reduce the income support payments of survivors, will not be divisible property for bankruptcy and will be exempt from Commonwealth debt recovery.

A legislative instrument that details the different tiers of payments and how they work together will be publicly available and declared as an instrument to the legislation.

Eligible survivors will be provided with access to counselling or psychological services in addition to the assistance already provided by the Commonwealth through Medicare.

Depending on the residence of a survivor, they will receive either a lump sum payment to access counselling and psychological services privately, or will be given access to state or territory based services. States and territories will elect for survivors residing in their jurisdiction to either receive the lump sum payment or whether they will deliver counselling and psychological services to those survivors. Survivors residing outside Australia will receive the lump sum payment.

Responsible participating institutions will be liable for the same amount to support the delivery of counselling and psychological services. This will either be paid directly to the survivor or to the applicable jurisdiction delivering services to survivors.

These services are in addition to the redress support services and legal support services that will be available to applicants to the scheme.

Survivors will also have the opportunity to receive a direct personal response from the participating institution or institutions responsible for the abuse. A direct personal response is a statement of acknowledgement, regret or apology and will be delivered to survivors by the relevant participating institution after the survivor has accepted the offer of redress.

The response may be delivered through a range of mechanisms including a face-to-face meeting with an appropriate representative of the institution or through written engagement with the survivor.

The direct personal response will give the survivor the chance to be acknowledged and tell their personal story of what they experienced and how it has impacted them.

The aim of the Redress Scheme is to provide an avenue for survivors of child sexual abuse who have not been able to pursue, or have not been successful in pursuing, their common-law rights in order to obtain compensation for the damage and loss they have suffered.

Many survivors cannot successfully pursue their common-law rights because they do not have access to the necessary evidence, or because going through litigation processes would be overly traumatic for them.

Before a survivor receives redress, the survivor must accept their offer by signing an acceptance document. Accepting an offer of redress has the effect of releasing the responsible participating institution or institutions, and their associates and officials, from any future liability for all instances of sexual abuse and related non-sexual abuse of the person within the scope of the scheme.

This means that the survivor cannot bring or continue any civil claim against the responsible participating institution or institutions, and their associates and officials, in relation to the specific abuse once they accept the offer of redress.

The release will not release the perpetrators of abuse themselves, provide release in relation to any other abuse outside the scope of the scheme, nor preclude any criminal liabilities of the institution or alleged perpetrator.

The release from civil liability is an important incentive for institutions as without it, institutions may be required to pay compensation through civil litigation in addition to providing redress under the Scheme. It will ensure greater coverage for survivors.

Any relevant prior payments made by participating institutions in relation to the abuse for which an institution is responsible will be adjusted to acknowledge inflation and then will be subtracted from the redress payment.

In essence, these survivors would receive a 'top-up' payment. If a survivor's monetary payment is reduced to nil as a result of past redress payments, they will still be entitled to access counselling and psychological services and the direct personal response under the Scheme.

The rules will also specify that where a court has previously ordered a participating institution to pay a person compensation or damages for abuse, then that person will not be eligible under the Scheme for that abuse.

Where a survivor has been successful in civil litigation, a court has already applied the higher legal liability test of the 'balance of probabilities' and found that the institution is liable to pay the survivor damages.

A survivor can still apply to the Scheme for any other abuse they have experienced.

The Scheme is based on the principle of 'responsible entity pays', a key recommendation of the Royal Commission. A participating responsible institution will be expected to pay for redress for their survivors, along with a proportionate share of the administration costs of the Scheme. This is the best way to ensure fairness and justice for survivors.

For a participating institution to be responsible, the abuse must have occurred in circumstances where the institution was primarily or equally responsible for the abuser having contact with the person.

The Scheme will have agreed categories of cases where responsible governments will share responsibility with an institution, as set out in the National Redress Scheme Rules.

If a case falls into an agreed category, the relevant government will automatically be determined to be equally responsible and therefore liable for redress.

Participating governments have agreed to be responsible where abuse occurs in connection with a non-government institution, the state or territory government had parental responsibility of the child or the child was a state ward, and was responsible for the placement of the child in that institution.

In cases where a government is determined to be equally responsible, they may be determined to be the funder of last resort. This will only occur when the other equally responsible institution is a defunct non-government institution.

Where a funder-of-last-resort arrangement exists, the government that shares responsibility will pay the full amount of redress. The purpose of the funder-of-last-resort policy is to pick up shortfalls in funding where an institution no longer exists. It is not intended to pick up liability for institutions that have the capacity to opt in and choose not to.

In cases where a person has suffered multiple cases of child sexual abuse which occurred across multiple institutions, the Scheme Operator will decide what was the responsible institution in each case. Each responsible institution will contribute a share of the redress for the survivor. The redress contribution will be apportioned in accordance with the severity and impact of each instance of abuse.

The Scheme will facilitate flexible arrangements to support the different structures of institutions opting in to the scheme. This is necessary as many institutions we think of as one institution can actually consist of different institutions and entities. It is in the interest of survivors for all of these institutions to opt in and participate as a single group. This will allow larger institutions to provide the funding for their lower level institutions that may not have their own financial sources to cover redress.

The Scheme will allow two or more institutions to form a participating group, who will be 'associates' of one another. To be able to form a participating group, associates must have a sufficient connection with each other, appoint a representative, and have that representative be jointly and severally liable with each associate for funding contributions.

The Bill includes provisions for the use and disclosure of information under the Scheme. Information-sharing protocols have been balanced against the need for the Scheme to have transparency and flexibility, with a survivor's rights to privacy and the need to protect children against future abuse. This will ensure all aspects of the Scheme's ability to share and gather information is underpinned by law.

Information received by the Scheme will be confidential and will not be able to be further disclosed or used for an unspecified purpose. Participating institutions will also be restricted in the ways that they can use protected information provided to them from the Scheme Operator. Misuse or unauthorised disclosure of Scheme information may constitute an offence under legislation, with appropriate jail time or fines.

To support the Scheme, the Government has committed $52.1 million over three years to establish redress support services to assist survivors. Redress support services will be available to all applicants, including specialised support for Indigenous people, people with disability, and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

Support services will be available nationally, and use face-to-face, telephone, online and outreach services to ensure coverage.

The Scheme will appoint experienced, independent assessors, known as independent decision-makers. Independent decision-makers will provide advice to the Scheme Operator on applications made to the Scheme, and will not report or be answerable to government.

Independent decision-makers will be supported in their decision-making by a dedicated redress recommendation team.

In line with feedback from institutions, survivors and the Independent Advisory Council on Redress following the Royal Commission's recommendation, the Scheme will provide survivors with access to independent and impartial internal review without subjecting them to potential retraumatisation.

The Scheme will be reviewed after the second and eighth anniversaries of the commencement of the Scheme to provide recommendations on all aspects of the future operation of the Scheme.

As a nation, we owe the survivors who fought so hard and so long for truth to pass this Bill and have the Scheme operational by 1 July this year.

NATIONAL REDRESS SCHEME FOR INSTITUTIONAL CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2018

This is a companion bill to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018 (the National Bill), which will establish a redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.

This companion bill provides consequential amendments to Commonwealth legislation in light of the Scheme. For example, amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 and Veteran's Entitlements Act 1986 will ensure the payments are not income tested and will not reduce the income support payments of survivors who receive payments under the Scheme.

Amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 will also ensure that the payments are quarantined from the divisible property of a bankrupt. This ensures that survivors can fully benefit from redress payments provided under the Scheme, regardless of their circumstances.

It also ensures that redress payments will be exempt from Commonwealth debt recovery and income tests relevant to other Government payments.

This companion Bill with also remove external review mechanisms under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. These amendments will ensure the Scheme remains survivor focused and trauma informed by being a non-legalistic process for survivors who have already suffered so much.

This companion Bill will also allow the Scheme to access to the social security system information for ease of administration, and make protected information exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 1982, ensuring the integrity of the Scheme and that the privacy of survivors and institutions is protected.

In addition, this companion Bill will exempt the National Bill from the Age Discrimination Act 2004, which will allow the Scheme to prevent children from applying if they do not turn 18 before the Scheme's closure. This is to address the risk of children signing away their future civil rights when they may have limited capacity to understand the implications, and to reduce the risk of monetary payments to minors being misused.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin by saying thank you and paying tribute to all of those people who've made a very significant contribution to this important step towards justice for survivors of institutionalised child sexual abuse. I want especially to acknowledge the work of individuals and organisations that have pushed to make the scheme as outlined in the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018 that we have before us in this place a reality—and they have pushed and pushed for decades. Thank you to people like Chrissie Foster and her late husband, Anthony; the Blue Knot Foundation; the Alliance for Forgotten Australians; and, of course, the irrepressible Care Leavers Australasia Network, otherwise known as CLAN. Your day, when this parliament will finally get this long overdue job done, has come.

The evidence presented to the royal commission was very deeply shocking. It exposed heinous crimes perpetrated against vulnerable children. The case studies and private sessions left absolutely no doubt that a great many people, while children, were injured by being subjected to sexual abuse in institutions or in connection with institutions. We can see from the evidence presented to the royal commission that their injuries have been severe and lifelong. The evidence that the effect of these injuries on people plays out for the rest of their lives has been made clear. Revealed in the pages of the royal commission's final report is a history of people who have had their childhoods taken from them and their trust in people broken.

It is now time to show that we believe those who, for so long, were ignored. We believe the truths that they have told us. We believe those who, for so long, have had justice denied to them. If this place, this chamber, has any important purpose at all, it should be primarily to make sure that we listen to people who have been forgotten in our nation. That's why Labor are supporting this bill today. While this bill is imperfect—and I'll speak about some of our concerns—it is a very significant step forward and will mean real justice, recognition and redress for many thousands of Australians. We in Labor have been long-time advocates for a national redress scheme for survivors of child institutional sex abuse. We've been calling for a national scheme since 2015. So, today, to get a scheme like this up and running is an example of what this parliament can achieve when we work together. Overwhelmingly, survivors have said they want to see this scheme in place as soon as possible—from 1 July—and so do Labor.

I have paid close attention to and reviewed all of the royal commissioners' recommendations, and they did not make their recommendations lightly. They listened to the evidence from victims and had a clear mandate to recommend to this place:

… what institutions and governments should do to address, or alleviate the impact of, past and future child sexual abuse and related matters in institutional contexts, including, in particular, in ensuring justice for victims through the provision of redress by institutions, processes for referral for investigation and prosecution and support services.

This is what the royal commission were asked to do, this is what they've done and this is what we are responding to here today. We believe that their recommendations should be implemented faithfully and that the task for us all now in this parliament is to deliver a national redress scheme for survivors and, indeed, to also follow faithfully the other recommendations the commissioners have made to protect our nation's children.

It has been a key concern to me that, while the royal commission got its job done very quickly and in a timely manner, making recommendations about redress back in 2015, it has taken three years to get legislation set to pass this place.

I want to place on record Labor's concerns, which are well known, about the compensation amount. The royal commission recommended that the maximum payment be $200,000. However, this bill unfortunately places an upper limit of $150,000 on the amount of redress that would be payable to any one survivor. We know that accepting an offer of redress will also mean signing away any rights that a survivor may have to pursue their claim for compensation through litigation and through the courts. That's why Labor believe that the amount of redress offered under this scheme is important. While we are aiming to put forward a simple scheme to access, if people feel that their claim is worth more, if they get legal advice that shows that their claim is worth more, they will be in the difficult position of needing to potentially relive their trauma through the courts or to accept a lower redress amount through this scheme. We've very strongly shared our concerns in the public arena. We recognise the concerns of legal professionals who have indicated that some people may be eligible for much greater amounts of redress. However, I note that the purpose of this scheme is to ensure that all those who have been subjected to these criminal acts can seek redress, and many will not have the capacity to seek claims in a court of law and would prefer this process.

We have some other concerns with respect to the bill. Importantly—and this point has been made very strongly—the way past payments are indexed is naturally a very important issue for survivors, who have fought long and hard for this compensation. But this bill sets an unreasonable rate of adjustment. An early amount received as compensation would be indexed by 1.9 per cent for each year since the receipt of the original amount. Care Leavers Australia Network has been campaigning for indexation to be taken out of the scheme because past compensation amounts have been small and a significant proportion of what people received was eaten up in legal fees, so it is unfair for past amounts of redress to be indexed. It is possible that some survivors who are eligible for redress may end up with nothing after the indexation is applied, because of previous compensation amounts. Payments that were manifestly inadequate to begin with were eaten up by professional fees. We therefore strongly believe that past redress amounts should not be indexed.

We also believe that it's important to make sure that anyone who's eligible because of the nature of the abuse they suffered should be able to access this scheme. In that context, we on this side of the chamber are very concerned that the way that funder-of-last-resort provisions are drafted means that some survivors who would otherwise be eligible may miss out on redress entirely. For example, persons whose abuse was not deemed to be the responsibility of government, and for whom there is no remaining institution that is responsible, could be left with no avenue for justice. Where there is no joint responsibility with government and where there are no corporate bodies remaining and no individuals to pursue in court, under the scheme before us there is no possibility of justice.

We acknowledge that the scheme will cover the vast majority of survivors of child sex abuse in institutions, with the minister indicating that 93 per cent of survivors are already covered by the scheme, given the number of institutions that have already signed up. But this is no reason to leave individuals, no matter how few, without this avenue for compensation and justice. In addition, we're concerned that this legislation limits eligibility for redress to people who are Australian citizens or permanent residents. But as we know—indeed through the many stories told in this place—Australia has been responsible for many thousands of child migrants, and these people will not be able to access redress if they've returned to their countries of birth and are not Australian citizens.

Labor believes in the position on this issue that was put by the Australian Human Rights Commission. They say that eligibility for redress should be determined by whether or not the abuse occurred in Australia, not by the citizenship or the residency of the victim. The royal commission has made it clear that horrific abuse occurred in institutions in our country that were responsible for child migrants and that abuse of children has also occurred in our immigration detention centres.

I'm sure that all members of this place would agree that counselling for survivors is a top priority. We also know, each and every one of us, that no amount of money can make up for the pain and suffering that has been endured. That said, access to counselling that is of high quality is absolutely vital. However, we are very concerned that the counselling provided to survivors through the Redress Scheme is going to be manifestly inadequate. The royal commission recommended—and this is extremely important—that recipients of redress be able to access counselling for the rest of their lives—for the rest of their lives. Not all survivors will want or need counselling. But, for those who do, we must ensure that the services available are adequate and that they're sufficient for their needs. This bill only provides state-funded services for the length of the scheme or for a payment of up to $5,000 to go towards meeting the costs of counselling. For state-provided counselling, we understand the minimum requirement will be just 20 hours. These arrangements are manifestly inadequate. We call on the government to give assurances that this issue will be addressed.

Survivors often consider that governments, particularly state governments, are responsible for their abuse, so they do not necessarily want to use state- or institution-run services. Victims of child sexual abuse in institutions need agency over their own care and support so that they're not retraumatised in the services they access. This needs to be taken into account when consideration is given to who delivers these critical services. Labor is also concerned that survivors who are granted redress late in the life of the scheme could very much be disadvantaged if they're not able to access services such as counselling for the same length of time as those survivors who are granted redress early in the life of the scheme. It's really important that this is taken into account in further reviews. It's critical, also, that these issues are addressed urgently.

Significantly, there are restrictions on survivors accessing the Redress Scheme who themselves have a criminal history or are currently in jail. Labor believes this is very unfair. The bill requires that those who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more must have special permission from the scheme operator to access the scheme. This rule is completely unnecessary and ignores the strong evidence that shows that people with a history of childhood abuse and trauma are more likely to be incarcerated themselves later in life. The first Senate inquiry into these issues was inundated with evidence from states, individuals and community organisations that this rule could be counterproductive and, indeed, increase recidivism. We very strongly believe that this policy, contained in this legislation, should be changed.

Next, it is imperative that those institutions responsible for the abuse of children continue to sign up to the scheme and pay the redress that people deserve. No institution should back out of its responsibility for the abuse of children that took place when it had the responsibility to care for and nurture those children. There can be no more excuses. The time has come for every relevant institution to become part of the scheme. Indeed, that includes my own home state of Western Australia. I'm hopeful that the government will fix the issues that need to be addressed, such as the child migrant issue and who is liable for that, in order for Western Australia to join the scheme.

I want to acknowledge that establishing this National Redress Scheme has indeed been a very complex task and that the bill is moving forward today with bipartisan support and support across the parliament. However, this bill is different to the one that a Labor government would have put forward, and I've highlighted our concerns today in relation to those issues that we believe are important. I note the risk of amending the bill, as it would result in the states needing to amend it. We are aware of the urgency with which this scheme is needed. Survivors have in some instances waited all their lives for justice, and they should not have to wait a minute longer. So, Labor is indeed supporting this bill. A Labor government would seek to work with the states towards addressing the areas of concern that I've outlined as well as those outlined by the Hon. Jenny Macklin in the other place.

I want to thank the royal commissioners and all the staff who've supported the survivors to tell their accounts over many years of hearings. This was no small task. I want to thank Julia Gillard for establishing the royal commission. This was an important decision and a step that our nation really needed to take. I want to thank Jenny Macklin and Nicola Roxon for their work to get this started. Most of all, I want to thank all those brave people who've shared their own stories of abuse at the royal commission. Their evidence has enabled Australia to begin to comprehend and recognise in some way the extent of the suffering caused.

Revealed in the pages of the royal commission's final report is a history of the betrayal and the violation of the bodies, hearts and wellbeing of thousands of our fellow Australians—Australians who were children at the time this abuse occurred. It seems that it should be unimaginable that our institutions or individuals could have participated in, perpetuated, tolerated, covered up and condoned the abuse and exploitation of our most vulnerable. However, as a nation we need to face up to every aspect of exactly what has happened, to provide meaningful redress, to say sorry and to mean it. It is critical that we take the human rights of children in Australia seriously and uphold them. I commend the bill to the Senate.

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

I rise today to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018 and the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018. The first of these bills, which I'll refer to as the national bill, will establish legislation for the National Redress Scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse—a process that has been far too long in coming. The passage of this legislation and the establishment of the scheme is rightful acknowledgement of the wrongs that were committed by institutions responsible for protecting and caring for young members of our communities.

The acts of sexual abuse committed in institutions around the country are a disgrace to our nation. It is time for the survivors of this abuse to have their abuse and its ongoing toll throughout their lives acknowledged by federal, state and territory governments around the country and the institutions who were responsible for the care of these young people, many of whom were sent to our shores as child migrants only to end up condemned in these institutions to this form of abuse. Thousands and thousands of acts of abuse occurred throughout this country, and the institutions responsible need to be held accountable. We must also ensure that safeguards are put in place to protect against such abuse occurring into the future. I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the people and organisations who have fought so hard for so long to get the royal commission established and who have fought for redress. I particularly acknowledge the survivors who have so long been ignored, called liars, not believed and told to 'get over it', many of whom are suffering lifelong consequences. I know these redress bills will not make up for that abuse, but at very least we can make sure you are supported through your lives, to make them just that little bit better.

The Australian Greens strongly support the establishment of the National Redress Scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse as recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. We want it to be based on fairness, equity and justice, and to be survivor focused, trauma informed and culturally informed. Bearing in mind that the scheme is due to start on 1 July this year, in a couple of weeks, the Greens do not intend to hold up the passage of the bills before us today. We understand that the establishment of the scheme is a significant step in the progress towards addressing the wrongs committed and providing survivors with a just response; however, we remain concerned with elements of the proposed scheme and some of the provisions in the bills before us. Many of the concerns I will mention today are also held by survivors, survivor groups and other stakeholders, many of whom made submissions to the two Senate inquiries.

Just today I've received a letter—and I know many of us have—from some survivors who are saying they have concerns. I will articulate those concerns and our concerns in a minute. We are faced with a Hobson's choice: if we amend the national bills, they have to go through all the state and territory parliaments again, and there would be no Commonwealth bills, so either we support these imperfect bills—and they are imperfect—or we hold them up and have nothing, because there is nothing to replace it. Many survivors have said to me, 'Please support the bills; don't hold up redress any longer.' We have come down on the side of supporting these imperfect bills and committing to improve them. We are committed to improving these imperfect pieces of legislation, but we think we need to get this started. Survivors have waited for far too long.

While the government has made some progress on some of the issues raised during the first Senate inquiry into the Commonwealth bills, including extending the period for accepting an offer of redress and the period for providing additional information, many of the issues the Australian Greens and many others raised with the committee, which we canvassed through our additional comments in the committee's report, still remain unresolved. The proposed scheme will provide three elements of redress to survivors, specifically: a redress payment—as opposed to a compensation payment; it's important to remember that—access to counselling and psychological services, and a direct personal response from the responsible institution or institutions, where that is the will of the survivor.

With regard to the redress payment, the maximum amount has been set at $150,000. This does not align with the recommendation of the royal commission that the maximum redress payment be $200,000 for the most severe cases. The Australian Greens support the recommendations of the royal commission and know that this is an issue survivors are very passionate about, as are we. We will continue to advocate for the government to increase the maximum redress payment to $200,000. We are concerned that there is no minimum redress payment amount in the scheme. The royal commission recommended a minimum redress payment of $10,000. We want a minimum redress payment to be introduced to ensure that survivors don't find themselves in a situation where their redress payment is nil. The inclusion of a minimum redress payment is particularly important in light of the provisions in the national bills that will see prior relevant payments indexed and then subtracted from the redress payment. The Tuart Place submission to the Senate inquiry into the national bills goes into some detail on how the absence of a minimum payment and the proposed indexation of a prior relevant payment create a perfect storm for potential retraumatisation of applicants. Specifically, as there is no minimum redress payment amount for the scheme, and, where an individual has received a previous relevant payment, that is indexed under the scheme, Tuart Place is concerned that applicants would receive inappropriately low offers: either nil, for example, or a couple of dollars. Such a situation is unacceptable in our eyes.

The indexation of prior relevant payments is an area of deep concern for the Greens and one that we know many survivors and survivor groups and organisations care very deeply about. We do not want to see prior relevant payments indexed under the scheme. The provisions for counselling and psychological services in the national bill are also really important. Survivors will either be provided counselling and psychological services under the scheme—if they live in a jurisdiction that is declared a provider of these services—or they will receive a tiered lump payment of $1,250, $2,500 or $5,000, depending on the severity of the sexual abuse they experienced.

The national bill is not clear on the length of the entitlement of those who will receive services under the scheme. The Australian Greens are concerned that survivors will not have access to these services for the duration of their life and that survivors who receive redress late in the life of the scheme may only be able to access these services for a short period of time compared with those survivors who are granted redress early in the life of the scheme. We know how important counselling and psychological services are to survivors.

The services to be provided by the different jurisdictions are likely to vary. Survivors may be unable to choose the service they attend and may be unable to continue existing therapeutic relationships, which is in contradiction to the royal commission's recommendations. There is also no clarity about what will happen if a survivor moves from one jurisdiction that is a declared provider to a jurisdiction that is not a declared provider. There is also concern about the adequacy of the lump sum payments for counselling and psychological services for those survivors who will receive this. Five thousand dollars is an insufficient sum to enable survivors to obtain the necessary counselling and psychological supports throughout their lives. Two thousand five hundred dollars and $1,250 are even less sufficient. The Australian Greens support the recommendation of the royal commission that there should be no fixed limits in this regard.

The scheme is for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse only. Survivors of institutional non-sexual abuse will not be eligible unless they were also sexually abused. Limiting the scope of the scheme to sexual abuse is particularly problematic for care leavers who had no way to escape the abuse or their abusers while in institutional care. While the Australian Greens acknowledge that the royal commission's scope was limited to institutional child sexual abuse, we believe that those who suffered institutional non-sexual abuse should be eligible for redress under the scheme, particularly where a survivor is a care leaver. I note here that I will be moving a second reading amendment on this issue. In fact, our second reading amendment reads:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate:

(a) is of the opinion that relevant prior payments should not be indexed under the Scheme; and

(b) calls on the Government to commence the development of a redress scheme for survivors of institutional child non-sexual abuse."

I've spoken to many care leavers who are very, very upset that their physical and mental abuse continues to go unrecognised and that they still can't seek redress for that abuse. Bear in mind that Western Australia has the highest number of child migrants. This is an issue that is deeply felt around Australia but particularly in my home state of Western Australia.

The scheme is also limited to survivors who are Australian citizens or permanent residents at the time they apply for the scheme. This is incredibly inequitable, and we want to see all survivors of institutional child sexual abuse connected to Australia eligible for the scheme. This includes former child migrants and those no longer living in Australia, whether a citizen or a permanent resident at the time of the abuse or not, and those who are still living here but are not citizens or permanent residents. It should also include survivors who experienced their abuse in detention centres established by Australia even where the survivor has not entered Australia. Under the national bill, a survivor cannot make an application where they have already made an application, a security notice is in force, the survivor is a child who will not turn 18 before the scheme sunsets, the person is in jail or the application is being made in the period of 12 months before the scheme sunsets.

Allowing survivors to make only a single application to the scheme means that they need to cover all the instances of institutional child sexual abuse in their application. One of the problems related to this is the time frame for institutions to opt into the scheme being set at two years. This means some survivors will need to wait two years to see whether an institution responsible—whether primarily responsible or equally responsible—is going to opt in. Where there is more than one institution responsible, and at least one of the institutions has opted into the scheme, they will have to make the difficult choice to either submit their application outlining only the abuse for which the participating institution is responsible, or wait until such a time as the other institution or institutions decide to opt in, or the two-year time period lapses. One of the problems with this is that there are a lot of survivors who are now elderly. Some have financial issues and ill health, and putting them in a situation where they have to make such a decision is, we believe, incredibly unfair.

The other problem is traumatic memory and survivors not necessarily remembering, at the time that they apply for the scheme, all the details of what happened to them. What happens if a survivor remembers an additional and potentially critical detail after they have submitted their application? The scheme needs to meet the needs of survivors and be as flexible as possible for them. Consequently, we do not support the requirement for survivors to complete a statutory declaration to verify the information contained in their application. We also have concerns about the need for survivors to specify in their application where they live, as there will be survivors who find themselves homeless. Where a survivor does not have a fixed address, they should not be excluded from applying and should be able to nominate merely the state or territory where they live, for the purpose of receiving counselling and psychological services under the scheme.

We are also concerned that children who are currently younger than eight years old will not be able to make an application to the scheme and that there is no operator discretion with regards to this provision. This provision is not in line with the view of the royal commission and differs from the provisions in the Commonwealth bill. Having a blanket exclusion for children does not align with the requirement to ensure the best interests of the child, as there will be instances where it will be in the best interests of the child to apply for redress under the scheme. There is also concern over the requirement, which will be set out in the rules, for the operator to wait until a child who applies to the scheme while underage is 18 before making a determination to approve or not approve the application. Children in this situation should not have to wait until they are 18 years old to receive redress.

The national bill precludes survivors in jail from making an application for the scheme, unless the operator determines there are exceptional circumstances justifying the application being made. The rationale for this appears to be that the scheme will be unable to deliver redress support service to those incarcerated and that institutions may be unable to provide appropriate direct personal responses to these survivors while they are in jail. It is unclear why a direct personal response could not be provided by the relevant institution or institutions in jail, and why survivors would not be able to access the necessary services while they are in jail. In any event, survivors should not be barred from applying altogether, particularly where they will not be released prior to the scheme's sunset date. The direct personal response could be delivered once the survivor is released, if there is no other alternative. This provision will discriminate particularly against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander survivors, who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. More clarity is needed around the exceptional circumstances justifying an application and what those circumstances might be.

Under the national bill, survivors who have been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for five years or more will be excluded from the scheme unless a determination is made by the operator that the provision of redress would not bring the scheme into disrepute or adversely affect public confidence in or support for the scheme. Again, this provision will disproportionately affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander survivors. The Australian Greens do not support this exclusion. We believe that redress should be available to all survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. Allowing a category of survivors to be excluded from the scheme will see their experiences go unrecognised and, arguably, will see the relevant institutions not held to account for that abuse. Excluding these survivors from the scheme particularly ignores the link between the abuse they experienced as a child and their interactions with the criminal justice system.

It was also pointed out in the course of the national bill inquiry that the special assessment model in the national scheme is more opaque than the model under the Commonwealth bill. Survivors who fall into this category will not know whether or not they are eligible, creating considerable uncertainty and causing further distress. While the operator can override the blanket exclusion for individual cases, we are concerned that the starting point is one of exclusion. We believe that where the government is adamant that there needs to be an ability to exclude some survivors who fall into this category the starting point should be one of eligibility. The operator could then determine on a case by case basis whether an individual should be excluded. Exclusion should be considered only where granting redress to a person could bring the scheme into disrepute or adversely affect public confidence in or support for the scheme.

Under the national bill there is a revised funder-of-last-resort model. In order for the government institution to be the funder of last resort for a defunct institution, the institution must be equally responsible with the defunct institution for the abuse of the survivor. This is higher test than was contained in the Commonwealth bill and many submitters raised concerns about that. It is not clear who, if anyone, will be the funder of last resort where the responsible non-government institution is now defunct and there was no government institution involved in the abuse.

The Australian Greens want to see the scheme operating from the nominated date. At the same time, we are very concerned that this is not the best it can be. This scheme is not the best it can be and that is what it should be for the survivors of institutional sexual abuse.

As you can see, we have a number of concerns. I have a number of questions I wish to put to the government. I will therefore be asking that we go into Committee of the Whole so that we can ask these questions and get some responses on the record that, for those implementing the scheme, will help guide them on the intent of how the scheme will operate. As I articulated earlier, we will not be moving amendments, even though we would dearly like to, because we want to see the scheme start on 1 July. I now move our second reading amendment:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate:

(a) is of the opinion that relevant prior payments should not be indexed under the Scheme; and

(b) calls on the Government to commence the development of a redress scheme for survivors of institutional child non-sexual abuse."

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to contribute to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018 and the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018. The sexual abuse of a child is one of the most horrific and despicable crimes a person can commit. For many survivors the effects of this crime can be devastating and will usually last for a lifetime. These effects can include feelings of guilt, shame and self-blame, even though it is the perpetrator who should be held accountable. Child sexual abuse can also affect an adult survivor's ability to be intimate with others and can lead to difficulty forming close relationships. Some survivors will experience flashbacks and painful memories during their lives and even during sexual activity, even if it's consensual and on their own terms. Survivors can also struggle with self-esteem, which in turn impacts on other aspects of life, such as their relationships, career and health. A 2013 study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that the other effects of child sexual abuse include adverse mental and physical health consequences, substance abuse and risky behaviour. Even though some survivors, with support and treatment, go on to lead happy and fulfilling lives, they may still bear the psychological and emotional scars of the abuse they have suffered.

When I was first elected to this place, I brought with me a strong passion for and commitment to protecting children from harm. This was born in my days as an early educator, where I often worked with abused children. This is why I also helped to re-establish the parliamentary friendship group Parliamentarians Against Child Abuse and Neglect, PACAN. I would like to thank my current co-convenor, Mr Ken Wyatt, for his hard work and advocacy in this area. PACAN has done a lot of excellent work over the years with various organisations, bringing issues about preventing child abuse and neglect to the attention of members and senators.

In 2010, through PACAN, I organised an exhibition in a public area of parliament of artwork authored by survivors of childhood trauma. This artwork was part of the Cunningham Dax Collection, named after psychiatrist Dr Eric Cunningham Dax, who was a pioneer in the treatment of people with mental illness. I just have to declare that my very first full-time job was actually working with Dr Dax as a research assistant, and I learned a great deal from him. One of his innovations was the use of art as a therapeutic device, and the collection features artwork from his patients as well as other patients with mental health issues.

The exhibition we held here, entitled Healing Childhood Trauma, featured the work of adults who had experienced childhood trauma, many of whom are survivors of sexual abuse. Anyone who visited the exhibition would agree—and, even though the artworks were very confronting, I must tell people that they weren't actually the most confronting we had to choose from to use—that they revealed the hurt and suffering of survivors and also the feelings of helplessness and vulnerability, detachment and isolation. Some survivors expressed themselves through words as well as images. One artwork featured the words: 'Black hole inside me. Go inside. Don't want to see. Don't want to feel.' Another featured the words: 'Broken. Separate. Alone.' The images are pretty hard to describe.

While exhibitions like this can offer some insight into the traumatic experience of survivors of childhood trauma, it's still difficult for most people to comprehend. One of the reasons why the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was necessary is that it has given survivors a chance to tell their stories. It has given them a chance to explain how the crimes and, in so many cases, not even being believed or the mishandling of the reporting of those crimes have affected them. I would like to thank everybody who gave evidence to the commission. I would like to thank them for being so, so brave, because I know that quite often people were not believed.

Another key reason why the royal commission has been necessary is that, over many decades, not only have people in authority not believed sometimes when a child has reported this, or even when an adult has reported that these things happened to them as a child, but people in authority have failed—absolutely failed—in their responsibility to protect children. They've failed to protect them at the time in their lives when they are most vulnerable and most in need of protection. They've failed often to acknowledge and uncover the wrongdoing. They've failed to deal with perpetrators, and they've failed to support the survivors. These failures are widespread across a range of institutions: residential care facilities, youth development organisations, churches, schools and many others. Not only have these institutions failed our children but, sadly, I have to admit, so have governments, state, territory and federal, across Australia, by failing to put in place the legislative measures to ensure that abuse is prevented or, where it happens, is uncovered, investigated and acted upon.

Our laws are now catching up with best practice, but there still remains so much room for improvement. This has been a systemic failure over the course of decades throughout Australia, and children have suffered immensely because of it. It's bad enough that some institutions failed even to act on reports of child sexual abuse, but even worse are the people in positions of authority within some of those institutions who actively sought to cover it up. Let me remind you of what former Prime Minister Julia Gillard said at the press conference when she announced the formation of the royal commission—and can I personally thank former Prime Minister Gillard for being brave enough to form the royal commission. I did speak to her a number of times about the formation of the commission, and she was always very happy to listen to me and to take issues on board. This is a quote from former Prime Minister Julia Gillard:

The allegations that have come to light recently about child sexual abuse have been heartbreaking. These are insidious, evil acts to which no child should be subject.

She said that Australians know that too many children have suffered child abuse but have also seen other adults let them down. She went on to say:

Not only have they had their trust betrayed by the abuser, but other adults who could have acted to assist them have failed to do so.

…   …   …

There have been too many revelations of adults who have averted their eyes from this evil.

As I said, I commend Prime Minister Gillard for the leadership she showed in calling the royal commission.

The royal commission has been a very important process to bring light to abuse and the extent to which it was covered up, to figure out how best to prevent it happening in the future and to consider how best to compensate survivors. I use the word 'compensate' quite broadly, because obviously some issues, some hurts and some psychological damages cannot ever be compensated enough. The royal commission has played another vital role, which is to send a message to the survivors—and this is a really important message—that we acknowledge that their abuse occurred and that we are committed to doing something about it. Of course, without the participation of survivors it would have been far more difficult for the royal commission to expose the systemic failures and the cover-ups and to come up with effective recommendations.

As I said, the decisions of thousands of survivors to participate in this process took incredible courage—courage that I don't think the rest of us can really fathom. For the five years that the royal commission has been running, it's been a very extensive inquiry. The commission held 57 public hearings over 445 days and heard evidence from more than 1,300 witnesses. In addition to this, commissioners heard the personal accounts of almost 8,000 survivors through private sessions. One of the key recommendations of the royal commission was the implementation of a National Redress Scheme, delivering financial compensation to survivors and an apology on behalf of the institutions.

As I said, we've got to acknowledge that no amount of money can compensate for the pain and the hurt that's been caused by this abuse or the failure of the institutions to respond appropriately. No amount of money can make up for the abuse or undo the damage that it has caused, but financial compensation does serve several important purposes. First of all, it makes a statement on the part of the government or institution that it failed in its duty of care and accepts responsibility for the consequences. It also serves as an acknowledgment of the hurt and pain the survivor went through. And it recognises that, while consequences of abuse cannot be undone, financial compensation can assist in ways such as with medical expenses or treatment for psychological or mental health conditions and for loss of earnings.

However, redress is about more than just compensating survivors financially. That's why the third element of this scheme—an apology from the representatives of the institution—is so very, very important. Redress is an admission of responsibility on the part of the organisation, an acknowledgment that the hurt of the survivor was caused in large part by its failure to protect them. For survivors, this acknowledgment is an important part of the healing process. These bills establish a redress scheme, which will be managed by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. To be eligible to receive redress, applicants must have suffered sexual abuse as a child that is within the scope of the scheme before the scheme's start date. Applicants to the scheme will be able to select from some or all of three elements of redress under the scheme. These elements are a monetary payment, access to counselling and psychological services, and the opportunity to receive an apology from a representative of the institution responsible for the abuse. Applicants who accept an offer will be required to sign a deed of release that waives their civil rights against the responsible institution. Throughout the process, applicants will be provided with access to support and legal services as well as financial advice.

The redress scheme was recommended by the royal commission to be in operation from 1 July 2017, and I think it's a terrible shame that its establishment has been delayed by a year. While Labor committed to the scheme in 2015, after it was recommended by the royal commission, the government didn't commit until 2016, so the delay in the government's decision to commit to the scheme certainly hasn't helped to get the scheme delivered in a timely manner. It's led to the scheme being seriously overdue, adding to the frustration for survivors of child sexual abuse, who have been holding out hope that they might receive some reasonable compensation for their suffering. And, of course, some survivors are unfortunately no longer with us to see the implementation of the scheme.

We now have the bills before us in the Senate, and a number of concerns that Labor held when the government announced the design of its proposed redress scheme remain with the bills as they are currently drafted. Some of the elements of the scheme are not in accordance with the recommendations of the royal commission. The scheme gives survivors six months to make a decision whether or not to accept an offer of redress, whereas the royal commission recommended a year. The process will be a very, very difficult one for many survivors and I believe it's unreasonable to rush them. The scheme also places a cap of $150,000 on the amount of redress payable to any one survivor. The royal commission recommended that the maximum payment be $200,000, that the minimum payment be $10,000 and that the average payment be $65,000. The reason for both the maximum payment and the time allowed for accepting an offer requiring such important consideration is that, by accepting an offer of redress, a survivor will have to waive any rights they have to compensation through litigation.

On this side, we are also concerned the scheme limits eligibility for the Redress Scheme to people living in Australia or Australian citizens. This could exclude from the scheme some child migrants and children who were abused in immigration detention who have now returned to their country of birth. That these survivors aren't Australian citizens or living in Australia doesn't change the fact—not one iota—that they were abused in Australian institutions. Those institutions and our state, territory and federal governments have a responsibility to them.

Yet another concern we've got on this side is the $5,000 cap put on the payment towards counselling services. The royal commission recommended that counselling and psychological services be provided for life, and $5,000 is, in most cases, completely inadequate for this purpose.

The final concern is with the decision for survivors who have been sentenced to a prison term of five years or more to require special permission to access the scheme. This is deeply unfair. It completely ignores evidence that people who have a history of childhood abuse and trauma are more likely to be in jail later in life. It also ignores the consideration that giving survivors with criminal history access to the Redress Scheme could greatly improve their chances of rehabilitation.

These bills were referred to a Senate inquiry which delivered its report last Friday. A number of the concerns I just mentioned were reiterated by Labor senators in their additional comments in the inquiry report. The comments cited a number of submissions in relation to the reduction of the maximum payment from the royal commission's recommendation of $200,000 to $150,000. The Alliance for Forgotten Australians referred to the decision as 'arbitrary' and Shine Lawyers said that 'no adequate explanation' had been offered for not following the royal commission's recommendations. The Australian Human Rights Commission and Australian Lawyers Alliance said that the reduced cap undermined the effectiveness of the scheme.

In relation to the $5,000 cap on counselling and psychological services, the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Psychological Association, Shine Lawyers, the Alliance for Forgotten Australians and the knowmore legal service all said that the cap was inadequate to cover these services and fell short of the commission's recommendation, which was accepted by the government, that these services should be available to survivors across their lifetime.

The Australian Human Rights Commissioner opposed the citizenship and residency requirements, contending that:

In the Commission's view it is the occurrence of abuse in Australia, rather than the citizenship or residency status of the person affected, that should determine eligibility.

Many submissions that were received by the inquiry opposed the exclusion of survivors from the scheme on the basis of their criminal history. The knowmore legal service, Shine Lawyers, Maurice Blackburn, the Australian Psychological Society and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists all cited in their submissions the causal relationship between childhood abuse and future criminal behaviour. Victorian Aboriginal Legal Services and the Law Council of Australia mentioned the 'disproportionate effect' this exclusion has on Indigenous survivors.

The Blue Knot Foundation talked about the unfairness of the exclusion, and said:

… whether a person is in gaol or not is irrelevant to whether they were sexually abused as a child within an institution. As a crime was committed against them they should have equal access to redress, as any other survivor.

This point was also made by the Sexual Assault Support Service, who noted that there are discrepancies, also, in state laws. This means that a person convicted in one state for an offence might be treated differently to a person convicted in another state for the same or similar offences.

With regard to the time allowed for survivors to make a decision on whether or not to accept an offer of redress, the Law Council of Australia stated:

In the Law Council’s experience, it does not consider that it will always be feasible for this to occur in six months, especially given the volume of survivors predicted to come forward to make an application for compensation under the Scheme.

Labor recognises that there are some difficulties in putting forward amendments to address these concerns, given that the changes to these bills may not align with the schedules included in some state referral acts, and that this could render the referral ineffective. Notwithstanding our serious concerns with the bills, there is an absolute need for the timely implementation of this scheme and we are not going to stand in the way of that. However, a Shorten Labor government would seek to continue to negotiate with the states and territories in good faith, with a view to strengthening the Redress Scheme.

To conclude, I'd like to acknowledge and thank shadow ministers Jenny Macklin and Mark Dreyfus for the hard work they've put into trying to improve this scheme and bring it into line with the commission's recommendations. I think it's also appropriate to thank the commissioners: the chair, Justice Peter McClellan, AM; Mr Bob Atkinson, AO, APM; Justice Jennifer Coate; Mr Robert Fitzgerald, AM; Professor Helen Milroy; and Mr Andrew Murray. They were given an extraordinarily difficult task and they executed it with distinction. It should be recognised that the Redress Scheme represents just some of the more than 400 recommendations in the commission's final report, and I do look forward to seeing those other recommendations implemented.

Most of all, as I said earlier, I would like to thank the thousands of brave survivors who participated in the royal commission and shared their stories, either publicly or privately. It was due to their participation that the commission was able to come up with recommendations that took into account their needs. While we have concerns with the scheme as it's currently designed, I appreciate that this has been a difficult and very complex task. As such, the work of Minister Tehan and his state and territory counterparts is to be commended. I welcome the participation— (Time expired)

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me say from the outset that I am honoured and proud that Prime Minister Turnbull and opposition leader Shorten agreed that, even as a modest, small party crossbencher, I should be appointed chair of the joint parliamentary committee overseeing the long overdue introduction of a National Redress Scheme to provide compensation and counselling for victims of institutionalised sexual abuse, including some of the most vulnerable young Australians. There have been decades of abuse, as so heartbreakingly revealed by the royal commission that was announced by former Prime Minister Gillard; a national investigation for which she and her government must be rightly acknowledged. There will not only be compensation and counselling but, finally, official recognition of the cover-ups and lies and the obstruction of justice by some truly venal, cruel and hypocritical people in authority who abused Australia's trust, as other members of their churches—hiding piously behind their clerical raiments—plus government entities and others, abused the bodies and minds of innocent children entrusted into their care.

When it was reported that Hinch would chair the committee, Neil Mitchell, on Melbourne's 3AW, told the Prime Minister that it was like putting a fox in charge of the chicken coop, and that he may regret it. But, as chairman of that watchdog committee, my job will be to protect the chickens. And if anyone is to regret the appointment, to be honest, it may well be me.

Last week Prime Minister Turnbull announced that a national apology will be made here in Canberra on 22 October. He proudly said that his government had accepted nearly 100 of the royal commission's recommendations, and more would follow. He also said they had rejected none. Sadly, that's not quite true. The royal commission recommended a maximum payout, as you've heard, of $200,000. By the time the government's Commonwealth bills, the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018 and the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018, became public—after the state governments of New South Wales and Victoria had passed their own legislation—it had been reduced to $150,000, which—surprise, surprise!—was the Catholic Church's preferred position all along. What a coincidence! The average payout, I'm told, will be around $76,000, and some people may only get $10,000, but that's not the point today.

I am chair of this bloody committee and, in recent months, I've been unable to find out not only who suggested the 150K but also who lobbied for it and who signed off on it. I presume it was the cabinet. They've done it in such a sneaky way that, even though I've promised at public hearings to fight hard for the restoration of the $200,000 maximum, I'm now being wedged and my committee is being trapped by what I call the James Hardie defence. The company's defence was over asbestosis and mesothelioma. Their strategy was to stall as long as they could. In the James Hardie scandal, they even took their company overseas. They used the old Canberra three d's: delay, delay and delete. In the James Hardie case, a lot of those victims died before their much vaunted day in court, and that's what will happen if I now try to amend the Commonwealth legislation. That's what the government are telling me. They are saying it'll have to go back to the states, and that could push everything back into next year—maybe longer. Ageing Australians owed redress may die before they get it. To me, that's really dirty pool.

I'll tell you another reason why I am angry about this and why I feel my committee has been doublecrossed. To do that, I want to mention two amazing Australians: Anthony and Chrissie Foster. Two of their daughters, Emma and Katie, were victims of a paedophile priest at a Catholic primary school. Anthony and Chrissie campaigned relentlessly for victims of child abuse. They diligently appeared at commission hearings all over the country, even though the raw evidence brought back all the pain that saw one precious daughter die and the other confined for life to a wheelchair.

Sadly, tragically and unexpectedly, Anthony Foster died a year ago last month. He was a Wikipedia for me on redress. Ten days before he died, Anthony and Chrissie were in my Melbourne office talking about victim strategy and realistic compensation for those victims. I will admit I have in the past gently pointed out to Anthony that a union would describe his original target of $500,000 as an ambit claim. He came down to $300,000 but later told me personally that around that roundtable discussion with Commissioner McClellan and the churches and other interested parties—as they say—the commission convinced disparate and desperate people at that table to accept $200,000 as the maximum because, 'The Catholic Church has indicated it could wear that; it could accept that.' That was the figure that, reluctantly, people like Anthony Foster agreed to. And what happened? Well, the undercutting $150,000 suddenly popped up from somewhere. At a public hearing in Melbourne earlier this year, I got the Catholic Church witness Francis Sullivan to agree that, if my committee got the number back up to $200,000, his church would agree to it and sign off on it. It didn't happen. I do intend to move a second reading amendment, which is being co-sponsored by Senators Pratt, Griff, Siewert and Storer.

Next, before I finish, I want to tell you about another massive group of victims who I know will feel dudded come the October apology, no matter how sincere the words are. To do them justice, before I wrap up, I want to go back to March this year, when the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee had a public hearing in Melbourne. We were hearing evidence about the Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill, and at that public hearing I had an epiphany. I will concede it was forced on me by one of the stalwarts of CLAN, the Care Leavers Australasia Network. Frank Golding was the CLAN man. He was a passionate, eloquent vice-president of CLAN, but he appeared before us in a private capacity. He really jolted me. In fact, he more than jolted me; he extracted a confession and an apology, because Golding and CLAN CEO Leonie Sheedy graphically pointed out that for years all the headlines and all the attention had been on sex abuse victims in institutions when, in fact, about 500,000 Aussie kids had been in state and church care and thousands of them had been emotionally and physically abused. They'd been used as child labour. They'd been used as child slaves cleaning the orphanages and working in the veggie gardens.

In a later meeting with Golding and Sheedy, I was told about three sisters brought up by nuns in a Catholic orphanage. Their education was curtailed at a primary school level—they didn't get to high school—because they were given the job of looking after disabled kids, but they were kids themselves. They also deserve redress—financial and counselling.

Recently I saw a photo on the web of the distorted, gnarled toes of an older Australian woman. It looked like she'd had her childhood feet bound in China. She hadn't. She had been in care and was forced to wear the shoes marked for seven-year-olds, even though she was a big girl who had the feet of a nine-year-old. She was crippled for life. She gets no redress.

These Dickensian horror stories remind me again of the 2010 movie Oranges and Sunshine after the devastating book about British 'orphans' being sent to 'idyllic Australia' after World War II. A lot of them weren't orphans and they were used and abused, sexually and otherwise, when they got here, especially in WA. Frank Golding argued:

I think it is not just the fact that the royal commission has focused for the last five years on sexual abuse only and has ruled out hundreds of people who want to talk to them about other forms of abuse; it is also that the media has been fixated on this. Headline after headline after headline, radio reports, television reports, hammered home the message of sexual abuse …

I interjected:

Because those stories are so shocking; that's why.

Frank replied:

They absolutely are. Please don't get me wrong, they are the worst of all possible crimes against children. Nevertheless, there are lots of people who've suffered other forms of abuse of the sort that we've talked about, who … had to sit in the background and hope that when the national redress scheme came out that the parliament would have the wit to say, 'We had a royal commission, which looked at sexual abuse but we've had these other Senate reports and so on that looked at other forms of abuse. We can roll this national scheme into a comprehensive redress scheme'. That is why, I think, the bill that you're looking at needs to be scrapped and we need to start again. I know that is not the message you want.

It wasn't, but I did pledge then at that hearing to campaign to get them redress in another form. I even raised the prospect of a new non-specific royal commission. Today I want to take that further. It's not enough for the October apology to recognise these victims—and they were victims. I know that the politicians and vested interests call quickly and easily for royal commissions and they are expensive, but I truly believe that this case is unique. So today I'm calling for a royal commission into the suffering, slave labour and cruel deprivation of the people called the Clannies.

If you think I'm exaggerating, I'll leave you with the story of a 14-year-old boy who was in a Salvation Army institution. He doesn't qualify for redress under the current scheme because he wasn't technically sexually assaulted. When you hear this story you may disagree. Don't you think there's a sexual sadomasochistic issue when an adult is caning the naked buttocks of a young boy? This is the case of a boy from England. I will call him Brian. He was sent to a Salvation Army institution in Queensland. The manager was Captain Victor Bennett, who administered the corporal punishment, who gave him the thrashings. After many beatings Brian stole a bike and ran away. The police caught him and took him back home. He was punished. How? Six of the best, as they used to say about the cane. He was lashed on the hands and his naked backside.

Then Captain Bennett ordered further punishment. He ordered him to spend the next week naked. With welts on his buttocks from the flogging he was to work, line up for meals and sleep on an empty potato sack naked in front of everybody. How perverse is that? Brian still remembers how humiliated and embarrassed he was when one of the female laundry staff saw him without his clothes on. But he doesn't qualify for redress. That is not right and it is not fair.

There are thousands of stories like that one among care leavers. That's why I stress today that they too deserve redress—financial and counselling. I've had to break it to them gently that it won't and can't happen under the current terms of reference of my committee and that calls to scrap the current scheme and start again would be cruel to other victims who've waited so long. But I believe it is our duty and our responsibility to find a way. They can't do it, but they deserve it. They deserve their own royal commission. They are entitled to their own royal commission. They must not remain the ignored Australians, the forgotten Australians. The Gillard, Rudd, Abbott and Turnbull governments have shown that they could find a way to recompense one group of victims from a disgusting and shameful time in our history. It's time to do it again for the Clannies.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but, while the Senate:

(a) welcomes the establishment of a National Redress Scheme and the announcement of a National Apology; and

(b) appreciates that survivors have been waiting a long time for a National Redress Scheme, and that the implementation of such a scheme is urgent and overdue;

the Senate notes its concerns that:

(c) the Scheme does not fulfil all of the recommendations of the Royal Commission; which were the product of extensive consultation with victims and survivors; and

(d) critical issues, such as the adequacy of the maximum payments and the counselling available to survivors under the Scheme remain of concern to survivors and their representatives."

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was really excited about the opportunity to take part in this debate today on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018, because, when I looked at the original process that we were following, it was going to be the first test of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. We know that this commission was set up in November 2012. There was great anticipation and interest in the royal commission, and the then Prime Minister made it clear that it was our government's, our parliament's response to the horrific stories of people across our country of all ages and all backgrounds who were the victims of horrific sexual assault, innocent people who were betrayed by people who were often there in positions of authority that were going to care for them but did not so much care as attack, not so much care as hurt and not so much care as damage, which they live with to this day. This is the first test.

It is not surprising that the Redress Scheme is the first test of the institutional response, because, as early as 2013 and 2014, when the commission was putting together the papers that they had committed to doing—they were going to look at the research with their extraordinary capacity to have an ear to the voices of so many people across our country who were wanting to be involved, who were wanting to express their concerns, who were wanting to be part of our government's response to their needs. As early as the first two years, it was identified that the issue of redress was going to be a core element of the whole process. We know we started the original process in 2013. In 2015, an original consultation paper was put out because of all the research that had been done and because of the experiences that people had shared. This particular research paper was looking at redress and civil litigation, and that was put out for the same people who had been involved in the process for many years to consider what the royal commission had done up to this stage, to reconsult with them and to allow them to put information back that would focus specifically on the issue of redress.

That was in 2015, and now here we are in June 2018 with a bill that's been placed before us—in fact, two bills have been placed before us—and each person who has spoken on this legislation so far has brought forward that these are not the bills we would like to see. We celebrate and we acknowledge that the government has made a response, and I particularly want to acknowledge the people from the department who have lived and breathed this process for the last years and who know better than most people in this nation the needs and concerns of the people who were so severely damaged. They know the client group with which they're working. They are responding already, ensuring that every single person knows that their particular issues are considered and knows that they will get as much support as they possibly can.

But the bill we have before us does not provide the full range of support that was recommended through the whole process of consultation through the royal commission and through the series of discussions that were had over and over again over the last five years. It comes close, and the reason I'm so concerned is that I wanted to speak positively about this first test of the royal commission. I want to acknowledge the work of the royal commission, an acknowledgement which we all share. We know the commitment, the professionalism and the personal involvement that every single member of that royal commission invested in the work that they committed to for a period of five years. We know how deeply they understood the pain. By the work that they presented in their public papers and their public hearings, we know that they were taking that very special advice from Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor. When asked about how you learnt about the Holocaust and how you should handle the survivors of the Holocaust, he said the famous statement, 'Listen, listen very carefully.' Indeed, that is what the royal commission did.

They had an extraordinarily special process in place that gave them access to research that no other group has ever had in our nation's history. During their five years they had the opportunity to listen to over 16,953 people who contacted them to talk about the issues of sexual abuse in our nation. In individual sessions, members of the commission sat down and listened to people who had had personal experience of sexual abuse and listened to people who were family members or carers of people who had sexual abuse through their lives in our country. Through personal conversations people had the chance to talk, to listen, to cry and, in some cases, to hold hands and hug each other as they were in these personal consultations. There were 8,013 private sessions with people. There were 1,344 written accounts. There were a number of cases that were sent directly to the police, because the evidence was so real that there could be action taken immediately.

In that process, the issue of redress was mentioned considerably, because people understood that this is a particularly vulnerable group of Australians. They have been living their stories their whole lives. Many of them had been connected to the networks which had been set up to provide the necessary support to them. I know that people who have been involved in this process and, in this debate today, have mentioned so many extraordinary people who've come together to provide support, and also professional help, to people who have been the victims of sexual assault through institutions. Through schools, local groups and orphanages people who have been betrayed by people who should have been caring for them.

The government came to having an opportunity to get the final report—after a series of reports that were written during the process of the five years—with a range of recommendations. We only heard this week that the government has now put forward its response to all the recommendations, and most of those recommendations have been accepted. On the issue of redress, which has been in the public discussion almost from the start of the commission—and certainly from 2015—there have been a number of gaps. With all that evidence, which I've enunciated, all that special access and all the knowledge and reality of lived experience there are several areas where the bill before us does not meet the genuine expectations of people who trusted the government to hear what they said, to hear what they needed and to come up with a response.

I'm not going to go over all the issues that other speakers have raised but there are a couple of key areas that I do want to mention. One of those is the issue around counselling. How often in this place do we have tension around acknowledging the appropriate role of counselling for people who have been damaged in our community? Here again we have evidence that has come forward throughout the whole of the process of the royal commission that talks about the core elements of redress, and among the core elements of redress is a direct personal response.

No. 2 in the list of the core elements and principles of redress is 'counselling and psychological care'. So there's no dispute, there's no doubt, about the importance of effective counselling for people who have been traumatised. If people take the opportunity to have a look at the evidence that's now been made publicly available through the royal commission, there is consistent talk about the need to have appropriate professional counselling, acknowledging that every person is different. So you just can't say, 'This is the form of counselling which will be available, and this is how it will happen, and this is how much people will be able to spend on their process.' It's much more sensitive than that. Certainly, when you read the reports of the royal commission, they go into a lot of detail around the need to have appropriately trained, supportive people who will be able to work with the most vulnerable, to respond immediately and to understand the specific needs across a range of people who have one thing in common: they have been sexually abused by people who should have had their care foremost in their minds.

Consistently through the process, there has been the recommendation that this form of counselling should be made available. There's information in the royal commission report about the form, the type, and they respond to the Australian Psychological Society, which is a professional group for psychologists in Australia. This group has a lot of experience. We've talked about it many times here. But the adjective that goes before 'counselling' is 'lifelong'. There is an acknowledgement that the need is not something that will end after you have a couple of sessions. There is an acknowledgement that there'll be a wide range of needs. Some people—and we've had it quoted in our evidence—will not seek counselling. Their own lives have been such that they've been able to come up with alternate mechanisms of how to cope. But, for the people who have been identified as having quite specialised needs, the royal commission has been consistent from 2012 in saying that the form of counselling provided to people who have had this abuse should be lifelong.

This debate has been out there. It's not new. As I've said, in 2015 there was a paper that put all the information about how a redress scheme could operate. In 2018, we will be required to vote, probably sometime later today, to put this bill in place—because we have been told that if we put up any amendments, if we in any way delay or cause further discussion on this issue, the whole process will be deferred; we'll have to go back through the necessary consultations with state governments; and people again will be feeling betrayed. They will not be able to get what they have been told would be available to them, which is a redress scheme which became effective from 1 July 2018. So the onus is put back on us to accept something which does not reflect what the professional processes of the royal commission have put before us.

That was one of the areas I wanted to address. I totally accept all the evidence that's been given by previous speakers about a range of areas where the recommendations from the royal commission have not been picked up by the government in the redress legislation that's before us today. That has been itemised in two separate Senate inquiries which have looked at the legislation before us and have recommended amendments.

But the other area I particularly want to mention in my contribution is the limitation for people who have had criminal convictions. Again, here is the situation where, through years of discussion and listening to the people who are most impacted by this issue, the royal commission did not recommend in any way, at any time, any limitation about who was going to be eligible for their payment. Having a criminal conviction or having a criminal sentence was never considered to be a way to lose access to an acknowledgement payment that was not about your criminal history. It was not about the deeds that you had done; it was about the deeds that had been done to you. Again, we have a piece of legislation that does not reflect the professional, caring, open access of the royal commission that has been going for five years. Mr President, I cede. I will take it up later.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Moore. We are almost at 2 pm.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could go for 15 seconds if you like!

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're welcome to 10 seconds, Senator Cameron! It being 2 pm, we turn to questions without notice.