Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I begin this story of support for the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018 by talking about the first person who came into my office—not about the tragedy of his life but of his journey of hope. Dr J Michael Davey told me his powerful and inspiring story. Fostered as a baby, Michael was placed with an abusive family and in four separate state-run institutions where he experienced physical, sexual and emotional abuse at the hands of his carers. Kidnapped by his father, Michael eventually returned home, only to discover that his mother was a violent and crazed schizophrenic who both hated him and blamed him for her illness. Devoid of love and care, Michael was mercilessly beaten by his mother. In the face of overwhelming odds, Michael overcame his past, finding success out of significant adversity. Michael's website reflects those words. He is a humble and beautiful soul, reaching out to others at all times with his extraordinary determination, courage and eternal optimism.

Children placed in the trust of our institutions were some of the most vulnerable members of our community. That they were sexually abused by the very people charged with their care and protection is a disgrace. No child should ever experience what they did. That is why it is time for all institutions and governments to take responsibility for what happened.

In the redress scheme we are looking for justice for victims. A process for this must provide equal access and equal treatment for survivors, regardless of their location, the organisation or the continued existence of assets of the institution in which they were abused. None of those are discriminatory. The scheme needs to recognise the suffering that survivors have experienced and accept that these events occurred and that institutions must take responsibility for the abuse. It's really important to note that this government is leading by example and establishing the redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, and, in addition, inviting state and territory governments and institutions to opt in to the scheme on the responsible-entity-pays basis recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Hopefully it is a fair and just plan moving towards positive outcomes.

The royal commission estimated 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 royal commission has clearly demonstrated that thousands of vulnerable children were subject to horrendous sexual abuse in institutions throughout our country. The psychological, physical and emotional injuries affect a survivor for the rest of their life. In spite of the severity of these injuries, many survivors have not sought or obtained any kind of acknowledgement or redress for this harm. At all times we should acknowledge the courage of these survivors who presented evidence to the royal commission, and we must remind ourselves that their past and continuing advocacy for redress is vital to the successful implementation of the redress scheme. In addition, we recognise that survivors of institutional child sexual abuse need and deserve equal access and treatment. They really do.

Some people may ask what the Commonwealth government's scheme is. To put it simply, it will provide support services to people who were sexually abused as children in Commonwealth institutional settings. It will offer a direct personal response for those survivors who seek it, psychological counselling and a monetary payment to acknowledge the wrongdoing inflicted upon survivors. Passage of these bills will enable the Commonwealth government to respond to the royal commission's redress recommendations by developing a best-practice redress scheme for survivors. That sounds somewhat clinical, but in some ways is probably the best way forward. The scheme will start on 1 July this year and run for 10 years. I know there are some who may say it's taken too long, and there are others who will criticise the scheme and the processes, but we really must have a nationally consistent approach to redress so that survivors across Australia get equal access and treatment. But the states and institutions need to be on board to achieve this. We're continuing those discussions with the states in the hope that this can deliver the best outcomes for survivors.

The scheme will recognise and alleviate the impact of past child sexual abuse—it is hoped—that has occurred in those institutional contexts by providing three components: firstly, a monetary payment of up to $150,000 with an expected average payment of around $76,000 as a tangible means of recognising the wrong survivors have suffered; secondly, access to counselling and psychological services either through a lump sum payment or a state and territory based service, depending on where the survivor lives at the time of the application; and thirdly, a direct personal response to those survivors from the organisation where they had such harm inflicted on them from those participating institutions—that's if they request one.

A person will be eligible for redress under the scheme if they were sexually abused as a child before the scheme start date, if the abuse occurred inside a participating state or territory or outside Australia, if one or more participating institutions are responsible for the abuse and if the person is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident. New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory governments have announced their participation. It is hoped they will act as role models to the other states, so they also refer their powers to the Commonwealth. The Australian Capital Territory is not expected to refer because they can just be covered by the scheme.

Money will never compensate for the abuse that victims received. It's important also to know that the psychological and ongoing support they need is probably just as important as the payment, if not more so. In designing the blueprint for the Commonwealth redress scheme, we have exercised every available method and have endeavoured to give practical and operational effect to the recommendations of the royal commission. The Commonwealth redress scheme will not just be about facilitating individual monetary redress payments but it will be equally important that these payments across the scheme also provide emotional, mental and other support mechanisms to people who are survivors.

So as well as these monetary payments which are designed to provide some tangible recognition of their hurt and the harm that they have suffered, the Commonwealth scheme is also going to provide access to trauma-informed and culturally-adapted counselling over the life of the scheme. The scheme will provide redress for a significant number of survivors—1,000 survivors in Commonwealth government institutions, 9,000 survivors in New South Wales government institutions, 5,000 in Victorian government institutions and 200 in the ACT. That's an enormous number of children whose lives have been permanently changed, not always for the better. But some have come through that experience, grown and become amazing people.

Further survivors will be able to seek redress under the scheme as additional states and territories and non-government institutions opt in. The government is continuing negotiations with the remaining jurisdictions and non-government institutions to encourage their participation in the scheme. If all states and institutions across Australia opt in, the scheme could provide redress to around 60,000 people, which is the estimate provided by the Royal Commission into Institutional Response to Child Sexual Abuse. It's an extraordinarily high number.

The Commonwealth continues to consult with states and non-government institutions on the development of the national bill in anticipation of state-referring powers under chapter 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution to allow survivors in state government institutions to be covered by the scheme from its commencement in July. The government will exercise every endeavour to make the reach of our scheme as broad as possible, with the ultimate point being to try and make the system that will operate across Australia as consistent as possible for each victim, each survivor, no matter where they were located.

Sadly, the abuse of children is not new and, even more tragically, child abuse hasn't disappeared overnight. My grandmother was born in 1899. She was fostered to a number of different homes. The only knowledge I have of this came from just two sources. She had a really nasty scar on her forehead and, as a curious child, I said, 'Grandma, what is that line on your forehead?' In her very deep and saddened response, she said one of her foster fathers had been very drunk one night and he threw a knife at her. The other source of her multiple family existence arrived after her death, by way of a bundle of photos handed over via my estranged uncle. Old, sepia, torn and tattered, but every family in the photograph was different. Some were clearly wealthy, some perhaps not so much. It's an intriguing past, I'm sure, but one I can't trace. The orphanage where my Gran was originally left, I'm told, was burnt down. I'm betting she wasn't the only child with a story to tell. Sexual abuse occurs today not just in institutions but in other social settings.

So I begin the end of this story by expressing my gratitude that institutional sexual abuse is being addressed by a redress scheme that will, in part, begin the healing process but also with sadness that the respect and care we should be demonstrating for all our children in any place, in any group and in any setting, seems to be fading from reality with political correctness and the retribution fear factor. We have a court system that is at best ineffective and at worst facilitating more abuse on more children. It has a lack of fortitude in punishing wrongdoers. Police fear to follow up, charge the offenders and pursue the right action because they believe the court system may not record a charge or it may not be successful.

I fear we're opening a Pandora's box of bad behaviour that is totally unacceptable. Surely it's not too much trouble to set the dignity and safety of a child above the inconvenience of bringing the issue to the attention of the court. I know of exactly such an incident. I am greatly concerned of the consequences that could evolve from the lack of action, or action that is not protective, or action that pushes the decision-making responsibility back onto the child. How can this be? Rape of a 12-year-old child is rape; whether inflicted by a physical instrument or biologically inflicted, it's wrong. Inside, I weep that, in this day and age, we still don't fully understand the term 'child sexual abuse'.

See this speech in context