Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the Prime Minister, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. It is the case that I did have the opportunity to fund and administer the redress scheme in Western Australia. Also, as a Crown prosecutor, I prosecuted many trials where I saw firsthand the anguish of victims of sexual offences, and I am very well aware of the need not to revictimise people through a process such as this.

Leader of the Opposition, you make the point that there were two models that were considered by the royal commission. The first was a national scheme, which is of course fully administered by the Commonwealth. The second, at page 27, was described like this: 'We accept that state and territory schemes involving government and nongovernment institutions are the next best option and are significantly preferable to schemes operated by individual institutions or groups of institutions.' The Prime Minister has described the fact that we have commenced negotiation around schemes which are of that type, which is a national approach; the idea being that in each state-based scheme there would be a federated option and consistency of outcome so that anyone who applied through a scheme in a starting jurisdiction like South Australia, Victoria or Western Australia would be treated in the same way.

I do not think anyone in this House should underestimate the intense difficulty that will be occasioned in trying to negotiate either a national scheme or a national approach—and we favour the latter. This will of course revolve around issues of funding. After careful consideration, one of the reasons that we determined to follow the second of the two options that the royal commission noted is that it will necessarily involve cooperation and agreement from each and every jurisdiction. There is a difficulty that I think that we face up-front, and I will read some comments from the South Australian Premier. He said:

If the commonwealth want to establish their own scheme and fund it, well and good.

I know for many it might seem like the payment of money is the most important thing, but the truth is it can often not be the salve that many people think.

We note that a national scheme is being proposed. We do not think it properly takes into account the steps we have already taken here in South Australia.

The difficulty is that we have already had one state effectively say no to the approach that the royal commission recommended first and that those opposite have adopted. We are trying the second way and I do believe we can be successful.

See this speech in context