Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to contribute also to this important debate on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018 and the associated National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018. Together these bills establish a national redress scheme which, to a very large extent, mirrors the recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, an inquiry that was established by the former Gillard Labor government back in 2012 to investigate decades of the most appalling sexual abuse and terrible violence in institutions across Australia.

I want to acknowledge at the outset that, if it were not for the courage, tenacity and persistence of survivors, this royal commission would not have happened and we would not be standing here debating the creation of a national redress scheme in the Australian parliament today. To the survivors, I want to say: while we took far too long to respond to your pain and suffering, to expose the nature and extent of the systemic violence, abuse and cover-ups, and to ensure that your voices were heard and believed, the establishment of a national redress scheme is a critical part of the healing process for both you and, indeed, our nation. The scheme before the parliament today will give victims and survivors of child sexual abuse access to three elements of redress, including a monetary payment, access to counselling and psychological services, and the opportunity to have a direct personal apology from the institution responsible for the abuse.

The life and work of the Royal Commission is deeply embedded in the Newcastle and Hunter region. In communities that I and my neighbouring Labor colleagues live in and represent, there are few who don't know somebody who bears the scars of this appalling abuse, perpetrated by the very organisations that should have protected them as children. Indeed, a lot of the reporting that helped build the case for the royal commission was printed over many years in the pages of my local newspaper, the Newcastle Herald. Much of that was written by the Herald journalist Joanne McCarthy, who pursued one of the most formidable investigations of abuse on behalf of local victims and survivors. Over many hundreds of articles, Ms McCarthy documented terrible cases of both abhorrent abuse and callous, cynical cover-ups by many of the most respected people in some of the most trusted institutions in our community. This truly was journalism at its finest, and in today's era of fake news we must never forget the critically important role that a free press has in shining a light in the darkest corners of our society and calling wrongdoers to account.

The shocking cases that were uncovered by Ms McCarthy, along with revelations from a local detective inspector, Peter Fox, contributed significantly to the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard's decision to launch the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in November 2012. This was a marathon campaign, and I again pay my tributes to all of those people who found the courage to speak out at a time when their voices were at best questioned and, indeed, many times rebuked.

In launching the royal commission, Prime Minister Gillard gave a voice to the tens of thousands of survivors of abuse, who not only had their childhoods ripped away from them but who had been repeatedly accused of malice or deceit when they dared to speak out. The royal commission allowed survivors to tell their stories, without judgement, for the first time. In doing so, it lifted the veil of secrecy and revealed shameful systemic abuse, enabled by an insidious culture of cover-ups that lay deep at the heart of so many religious institutions, not-for-profit bodies and state care providers and agencies.

Since 2012, more than 16,000 people have made contact with the commission and it heard more than 8,000 personal stories face to face. It is a dangerous path to single out any voice in that royal commission but I do want to pay a special tribute to former Anglican bishop Greg Thompson, who, in the course of his duty of trying to take care of a diocese reeling from the trauma that was being spoken of on a daily basis in front of the royal commission and in our media, revealed that he too was a victim of child sexual abuse—had been groomed through the Anglican Church and abused by the very people in the diocese he later came to govern as bishop. I raise that case because Bishop Greg Thompson knows full well the impact of people who questioned your motives for talking about that abuse. He was dealt great resistance from the diocese he represented. It is to my great sorrow and regret that we, as a community, were clearly unable to provide him with enough support to remain in that role. He has now retired and I have no doubt he will go on to ensure that justice and redress are sought, and he'll continue that work in many ways. It is one example of just how difficult cultural change comes in these institutions, that we were unable to lend the support required for him to retain his role when he dared speak up, when he drew a line saying zero tolerance to sexual abuse in the diocese of Newcastle. When he insisted that the culture of the Anglican diocese had to change, the resistance and pushback he felt were astonishing.

My community is now under the leadership of a new bishop, who, thankfully, shares many of those concerns. I know he will be working tirelessly to ensure that the diocese of Newcastle is reformed so that the culture that enabled that abuse to take place, that enabled that silence to be normalised in some way, is intolerable. The community will not stand for it any more and the church must change. They know that and I know they are making serious attempts to do that. But everybody is on notice that the entire community is watching very carefully the institutional cultural changes that must happen.

As a result of the royal commission, more than 2,500 individuals were reported to authorities and it's estimated there are some 60,000 victims and survivors of abuse that occurred in as many as 4,000 institutions across the country. Those figures are just staggering. The extent and the scale of that systemic abuse is truly shocking. This was reiterated in the final report, which stretches to tens of thousands of pages across 17 volumes and contains more than 400 recommendations. Eighty-two of the final recommendations related directly to the establishment of a National Redress Scheme as a fundamental right of survivors and a critical part of the healing process.

As I mentioned earlier, the courage of survivors who shared their stories cannot be overstated. Their contribution to calling out and putting an end to appalling systemic abuse will never be forgotten. Now, it is time for justice to be delivered. While no-one suggests that the redress scheme can make up for the pain and trauma of the past, it will lay foundations; it is the start of our making amends. In establishing this scheme, we must be unswervingly focused on ensuring that every decision we make is in the best interests of the victims and survivors of this abuse. That is the prism through which we must consider this bill and all of the work we do in this space. I understand that the bill before us today is the outcome of negotiated agreements with the New South Wales and Victorian governments. It will supersede the earlier Commonwealth legislation. Every state, aside from Western Australia, has now signed up to the scheme, which is excellent news. The scheme, of course, only works if it is truly national. I again welcome the calls this morning from some of the Anglican churches and others who are urging all of their groups across the nation to sign up to this scheme.

Labor was first to announce support for a national redress scheme when it was recommended by the royal commission's interim report back in 2015. We know that the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in institutions waited decades for that royal commission, and we know that they should not be waiting any longer than necessary for an adequate and just scheme to be put in place. As previous speakers have said before me, whilst Labor will be supporting the bills before us, it is not without concern and there are some very real areas that need further investigation, on behalf of government, to make this redress scheme the very best it can be. One of those areas is the issue around the maximum redress value. We know the royal commission recommended that be set at $200,000. This bill only allows for a monetary value of $150,000. I remain unconvinced by the government's argument that this can't be revisited, and I would strongly urge some rethinking in this area.

Likewise, the issue of indexation is proving to be extremely problematic for survivors. Certainly, under this bill, any payment offered under the redress scheme would take into account any payments received for institutional child sexual abuse. Whilst that component is fair, the notion that we would somehow be indexing those payments over time has very real implications for survivors, where we may in fact end up in a situation where there is virtually nothing left in the redress scheme for those people. A payment indexed annually for decades-old payments could see survivors ending up with a pittance, and that would be an unjust outcome. I don't think anybody in this chamber thinks that's a fair outcome. That needs some rethinking from the government. On the time frames for acceptance, I'd also like to see the government reconsider the period of time that survivors are given to decide whether to accept a redress offer or not. While the royal commission recommended a year, this bill only allows for six months.

The other area of concern for Labor is the decision that survivors who have been given a custodial sentence of five years or more must apply for special permission in order to access the scheme. We believe this is unfair. I know that there are some very difficult cases that the redress scheme will have to deal with; I've no doubt about that. As much of the evidence made clear in the royal commission, people weren't offenders when they were children; they were just children who were sexually abused and they went on to lead lives of great trauma. For many, many reasons, there is an incredibly disproportionate group of survivors of child sexual abuse who now find themselves in the criminal justice system. The idea of somehow excluding those people from the redress scheme is unfair and problematic, and I think that the government would do well to revisit that decision

The final issue I now raise relates to the provision of counselling. Under the royal commission's recommendations, survivors would have access to counselling and psychological services for as long as they need. I cannot stress enough the importance of that. People need lifetime access, because we have no idea whether people are going to need access in six months time or 10 years time. That should be available to people in the same way as we don't ask veterans to put a time limit on post-traumatic stress; we enable free and lifelong access. The same privilege should be afforded to victims of child sexual abuse. I trust the government will work with Labor on all these matters and also the issue of the funder of last resort. We will support this bill but will continue to work tirelessly with the government for a fairer and more just outcome for victims of child sexual abuse.

See this speech in context