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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all senators who have made a contribution to the debate on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020 and acknowledge the multipartisan way in which everybody in this chamber has approached this very, very serious issue and the response that we, as a parliament, want to provide. This bill seeks to amend the primary legislation for the scheme. The bill proposes to increase the efficiency of the scheme for its remaining eight years of operation and to make sure that we assist in finalising outstanding applications. The amendments address minor and technical issues with the current operation of the act and will address unintended consequences or oversights in the initial drafting of the primary legislation underpinning this scheme. Consistent with the survivor focus of the scheme, survivor groups support the passage of this bill, as does the Standing Committee on Community Affairs. In accordance with the scheme's governance arrangements, all jurisdictions have supported the progression of the bill, and they are required to be consulted on and approve all future changes to the redress act, due to the cooperative basis under which this scheme continues to operate.

Regardless of the amendments that are being brought forward to this bill, I do acknowledge a very, very strong shared desire to continue to improve this scheme. The bill adds to the strong improvements that have already been put in place for the scheme, and the government remains committed to improving the scheme and encouraging all institutions that have been named to join the scheme. Pleasingly, the government has already been at work, and 191 institutions have joined the scheme in its third year of operation. The number has grown through the use of the naming and shaming of recalcitrant institutions. The government has already implemented measures to name and shame institutions that fail to sign up to the scheme and financial penalties for those that fail to join the scheme. These two levers come into force six months after the first meaningful contact with the institution, once it has been named.

The Morrison government has also commenced the legislated two-year review, which is currently being undertaken by Robyn Kruk AO. The report has a focus on all aspects raised in the shadow minister's amendments and incorporates extensive consultation with survivors. This report will be made public. Changes of this nature would need to be endorsed by the redress board, which comprises state and territory ministers, meaning the amendments would be unlikely to be implemented, regardless of their passage through this place. As such, the government do not support these amendments, and we remain committed to the continuous improvement of this scheme and making sure that survivors continue to inform the decisions around any changes to the scheme.

In response specifically to the amendments that have been put forward, I would say that, in relation to the naming and shaming amendment, clearly we have done everything that we said we would do. We named and shamed the institutions on 1 July last year, and, pleasingly, on 1 January this year we didn't have to name or shame any other institutions. If in the future we find institutions that have a responsibility or a moral obligation under this scheme to join the scheme, we will name and shame those organisations if they do not do the right thing by survivors. As I said, we have taken real and tangible action against those organisations by making sure that, through consultation, we have in process—and, hopefully, it will be gazetted very soon—the revoking of the charitable status of all organisations that refuse to join the scheme. As the federal government, we have also said that we will not allow any institution that has not joined the scheme but should join the scheme to ever be eligible for any government grants. I'm pleased to say that many of the states and territories are currently in the process of making sure that that is also the case for the grants that are issued through state and territory grant processes.

The two-year review is currently underway, and I want to make sure that we are seeking the advice of survivors so that any response that we make to the review is absolutely informed by survivors themselves. We do not want to pre-empt the review, despite the genuineness of the amendments that are before us today. In principle, the government has no issue with the sentiment of the amendments put forward by the opposition today. But we want to make sure that the two-year review that's currently being undertaken is allowed to take its course. It is due to report at the end of this month, only a few weeks from now. As I said, we will make this report publicly available for everybody to see. Through the appropriate process of the national redress board, I will then take this to the redress board, a cross-government initiative made up of the ministers of all the states and territories and the federal government, to make sure we are deliver the redress that Australian survivors of institutional child sex abuse so rightfully deserve.

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

It being 2 pm, we will move to questions without notice.