Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers (House)) Share this | Hansard source

The 14th of December 2017 is a day that I will never forget. It was the final hearing of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses into Child Sexual Abuse. As I approached the building, I could see the unmistakable blue and yellow shirts of the Clannies standing out against the grey suits of downtown Sydney. The Clannies are, of course, the Care Leavers Australasia Network, a support group of survivors of child abuse. They were there with the irrepressible Leonie Sheedy—kind, determined and resilient. Leonie is one of the most remarkable people I've ever had the good fortune to meet.

There are so many people who've made an enormous contribution to the cause of justice for survivors of child sexual abuse, including Leonie and everyone at CLAN and Caroline, Carol and everyone from the Alliance for Forgotten Australians. I'll never forget Caroline telling me her story to help me understand the horror of what had been done to her and so many others. The late Anthony Foster and his wife, Chrissie. Chrissie and Anthony Foster discovered in the 1990s that two of their daughters, Emma and Katie, were raped by their local priest. Emma began harming herself after the trauma she experienced. In her teens, Katie was hit by a car, leaving her permanently disabled. In 2008, Emma died of an overdose. And so began Chrissie and Anthony's tireless fight for justice, taking on the Catholic Church and eventually suing the church, personally giving counsel and support to hundreds of survivors. To this day, Chrissie continues to be a powerful advocate for survivors, particularly on the issue of redress.

I remember Chrissie saying to me on that day that we must implement the recommendations of the royal commissioners. These commissioners, she said to me, were the people who had listened to the experiences of the survivors of child sexual abuse. The commissioners had spent five years considering their recommendations and they must not be ignored. The hearing room that day was packed, and as the commissioners very formally filed in there was a loud cheer. So many people had been heard. So many people had finally been believed. The people in the room that day and all the others who have been so badly abused are now relying on us to establish a national redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, and we must not fail them. As the Hon. Justice Peter McClellan, chair of the royal commission, stated in his final address that day last December:

…the primary responsibility for the sexual abuse of a child lies with the abuser and the institution of which they were part, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the problems faced by many people who have been abused are the responsibility of our entire society.

We, as lawmakers, must uphold our responsibilities to the survivors. We must not fail them as a society. We must not fail them again, and we must establish a national redress scheme, and this time we have to make sure we get it right. On the day that Prime Minister Gillard announced the establishment of the royal commission back in 2013, she said:

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

I believe in these circumstances that it's appropriate for there to be a national response through a Royal Commission.

And she was right. Over the five years of the commission, there have been 57 public hearings held over 444 days. The commission heard evidence from 1,300 witnesses. Commissioners held almost 8,000 private sessions to listen to the personal accounts of survivors. There have been more than 2½ thousand referrals to authorities, including the police. The royal commission estimates that around 20,000 survivors were sexually abused in state and territory government institutions. It found that there were more than 4,000 institutions where sexual abuse took place. Thousands of vulnerable children were subjected to truly horrific sexual abuse in institutions right across Australia. Think about it: 20,000 people in 4,000 institutions—so widespread, so devastating.

I want to thank the survivors who gave evidence to the commission. I want to say to the survivors directly: without your extraordinary courage in giving evidence, the realities and extent of child sexual abuse would not have been truly recognised—I'm looking at the member for Swan—nor would the failure of institutions to respond to that abuse be fully known. I want to say loud and clear that I believe you. We, all of us here, believe you. The parliament of Australia believes you. I say this so sharply but also so sadly because, for years, these survivors were not believed. Your personal stories greatly contributed to the royal commission's recommendations, and none of us, I think, can allow any of these recommendations to sit on a shelf and be ignored.

The national redress scheme was recommended in the royal commission's interim redress and civil litigation report released in June 2015. The royal commission's case studies and private sessions made clear that many people, while children, were subjected to terrible sexual abuse in institutions. As the royal commission said, many of the injuries were severe and long-lasting. Many people have been and continue to be affected by injuries for the rest of their lives. It is the case that many, many survivors have still not had the opportunity to seek compensation for their injuries. The royal commission acknowledged:

… it cannot now be made feasible for many of those who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse to seek common law damages, there is a clear need to provide avenues for survivors to obtain effective redress for this past abuse.

The establishment of a national redress scheme will acknowledge the abuse that occurred. Labor understands—and I think everybody understands—that no amount of money can make up for the pain and trauma experienced. However, redress is a vital step along the path to healing—a vital step that we all have an obligation to put in place.

It's also important that, under this legislation, survivors will 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. We did announce support for a national redress scheme back in October 2015 and, unfortunately, it has taken too long to get to this point. Nevertheless, we do welcome the recent significant progress that has seen the majority of states and territories sign up to the redress scheme and we strongly urge the remaining states and institutions that are yet to sign up to do as soon as possible. Access to redress must not depend on where you live.

The royal commission recommended that the Australian government announce a willingness to establish a single national redress scheme by the end of 2015 and that the scheme should be accepting applications by no later than 1 July last year, so it is very, very disappointing that this legislation is nearly a year late. But, that said, it is now time to get on with it.

The two bills that we're debating here today supersede the Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Sexual Abuse 2017, otherwise known as the Commonwealth bill. The original 2017 bill would have created a redress scheme only for the few survivors whose abuse occurred in the territories and in Commonwealth institutions. Following the announcement that New South Wales and Victoria would join the scheme, the national bills that we're debating here today were drafted. On 17 May the New South Wales parliament passed redress legislation, and earlier this month legislation was also introduced into the Victorian parliament that will refer powers to the Commonwealth. On 30 April the Queensland government announced that they would opt in. The ACT and the Northern Territory have indicated their support, as has the Tasmanian government. That is very good news, and we certainly hope the remaining states will follow very quickly.

We have referred these bills to a short Senate inquiry to make sure that survivors of child sexual abuse get a redress scheme that they think—that they think, that the survivors think—is appropriate and fair. That inquiry will report by 15 June.

We of course want to see a national redress scheme established without further delay, so, as a gesture of good faith in our ongoing discussions with the government to resolve Labor's concerns, we will support this bill in the House today. I do, however, want to outline some of the continuing issues that Labor has with respect to the proposed redress scheme in the bill that we're debating. First, we do want to make sure that there are enough support services for all survivors of child sexual abuse and that they're accessible no matter where the survivor lives. Second, we want to make sure that survivors have sufficient time to decide whether or not to accept an offer of redress. The bill gives applicants at least six months to make this decision, while the royal commission recommended a year. It's very important that survivors have sufficient time to consider this decision, as only one application to the scheme is permitted. For many people, this will be a very emotional and overwhelming process. We must do what we can to make sure that people have a reasonable amount of time to work through their claims.

The next concern we have is the compensation amount. The bill places an upper limit of $150,000 on the amount of redress that would be payable to any one survivor. The royal commission recommended that the maximum payment be $200,000. Accepting an offer will also mean signing away any rights that any survivor may have to pursue their claim for compensation through litigation. That's why it's so important that the amount of redress available under the scheme is adequate.

We also want to make sure that anyone who is eligible for the scheme is able to get the redress that they deserve. We are very concerned that it could be possible, for a person whose abuse was not deemed the responsibility of government and for whom there is no remaining institution responsible, that they could be left with no avenue for redress. This outcome is unacceptable. We've sought urgent clarification from the minister and a guarantee that no-one will be left without any avenue to seek redress, either through the redress scheme or through civil litigation. This is an absolutely critical issue.

The indexation of past payments is a matter particularly close to the heart of many survivors who fought long and hard for compensation. The national bill sets the rate of this adjustment, specifying that an earlier amount received as compensation would be multiplied by 1.019 for each full year since the receipt of the original amount. The Care Leavers Australia Network has been campaigning for indexation to be dropped from the scheme. For many people, past compensation amounts were small. Legal fees often ate up a significant proportion of what people received. As a result, CLAN argue that it's unfair for the past redress amount to be indexed. I fear, as the survivors do, that some survivors who are eligible for redress will end up with nothing after indexation is applied because of previous compensation payments. Survivors have been waiting for many, many years for this redress scheme. We know that. In the event that someone gets no redress because of indexation, that would really be a devastating result. We know, of course, that redress is about more than money. It is a tangible recognition of the suffering experienced by survivors. We do not believe that past redress amounts should be indexed.

The bill also limits eligibility for the redress scheme to people who are living in Australia and who are Australian citizens. We know that horrific abuse occurred in institutions that cared for child migrants and that abuse of children has occurred in immigration detention. We're concerned that these people will not be able to access redress if they have returned to their country of birth. We also want to see the minister take the steps that are available under the proposed legislation to include former child migrants and immigration detainees who no longer live in Australia. This is an important issue of justice, and we're seeking a clear commitment from the government that these people will have access to the scheme.

I'm sure that all members agree that providing counselling to 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 endured. That said, access to good-quality counselling is vital. We are concerned that the counselling provided to survivors through the redress scheme will not be adequate. The royal commission recommended—and this is very important—that recipients of redress be able to access counselling for the rest of their lives. This bill only provides access to state provided services for the length of the scheme or a payment of up to $5,000 to be put towards counselling. Frankly, these arrangements are woefully inadequate. We, therefore, call on the government to give assurances that this will be addressed. Survivors often consider that government, particularly the state governments, are responsible for their abuse, so they do not necessarily want to use state- or institution-run services. So this needs to be taken into account when consideration is given to who delivers the services. Labor also holds concerns that survivors who are granted redress late in the life of the scheme could be disadvantaged if they're not able to access services for the same length of time as those survivors who are granted redress early in the life of the scheme. It's very important that this be taken into account in future reviews. For survivors who receive the $5,000 payment for counselling, this amount of money is highly unlikely to provide adequate access to support. It is critical that these issues are addressed urgently.

The government has sought to place restrictions on survivors from accessing the redress scheme who themselves have a criminal history. We also believe this is unfair. The bill requires that those who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more have special permission from the scheme operator to access the scheme. This rule ignores strong evidence that shows that people with a history of childhood abuse and trauma are more likely to be incarcerated later in life. The first Senate inquiry into these issues was inundated with evidence from a variety of witnesses and submitters that this rule is cruel and likely to increase recidivism. So we do believe that this policy should be changed.

That said, for all of these concerns, I do want to acknowledge that establishing this national redress scheme is a very, very complex task. I acknowledge the Minister for Social Services, Dan Tehan, for his diligence in getting the outcome that is before us today. It is, as I said earlier, very encouraging that most of the jurisdictions have already agreed to sign on, and I understand the other two are working closely with the government.

It is, next, imperative that those institutions responsible for the abuse of children sign up and pay redress. No institution should back out of its responsibility for the abuse of children that took place where it had responsibility to care for those children. There is still time to get this right, so I call on the government to consider the issues that I've raised today. I do want to make it clear that, if we are successful at the next election, a Labor government would seek to work with the states towards addressing the areas of concern that I've identified here in these remarks.

I want to finish by, once again, thanking the courageous survivors who shared their own personal stories of abuse at the royal commission. It was their evidence that enabled the royal commissioners and the Australian people to understand in some way the extent of their suffering. It's also why we're here today, debating this very important piece of legislation. I want to thank the royal commissioners—what an extraordinary group of people—and all the staff who supported the survivors to tell their accounts of abuse over many years of hearings. I want to thank Julia Gillard for establishing the royal commission. It was a very big decision. Nicola Roxon, who was the Attorney-General at the time, and I worked with Prime Minister Gillard to get this started.

The evidence presented to the royal commission shocked and appalled all Australians. It exposed heinous crimes. Listen to the forgotten. Believe those who had been for so long ignored. We understand the royal commissioners did not make their recommendations lightly. We do believe that all of their recommendations should be implemented faithfully, and the task for us all now in this parliament is to deliver a national redress scheme for survivors. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context