Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Due to the want of a quorum, the Federation Chamber will suspend until we have a quorum.

(Quorum formed) Particularly to institutions we say: do the right thing and, if you're named in an application for redress, sign up. We are also arguing very strongly that the cap should be $200,000, as recommended by the royal commission, not the $150,000 that the states and the Commonwealth have agreed to. It really does defeat the purpose of the scheme if survivors are not part of the scheme. The scheme was designed to make things easier for survivors. It says a lot about the current state of the scheme that people are actually taking the civil path. The redress matrix is absolutely unworkable. It has been widely criticised and needs redesigning. This was a noted departure from the original recommendations of the royal commission.

I want to take this opportunity to also briefly note what we learned at last night's senate estimates: 52 survivors passed away before payments were made; the average processing time for an application was between 12 and 13 months; 61 institutions that have been subject to an application for redress were now defunct; 10 breaches of privacy of survivors have occurred since the scheme began. It's a difficult, painful and complex process—we understand that—but we mustn't forget that our paramount duty to survivors is to get it right. Many of the deficiencies of this scheme arise from the fact that the scheme does not reflect the original recommendations of the royal commission. We should also ensure that governments act as funders of last resort for institutions which are now defunct or have no present-day entities.

We are arguing for an advanced payment scheme for people that are old and unwell, much like the scheme in Scotland. We are, as I said, arguing to lift the cap on redress payments. And we can assure that prior payments are not indexed when calculating redress payments. Prior payments which do not relate to institutional child sexual abuse, such as payments to the members of the stolen generations, should not be deducted from redress payments. That's just an outrage. The regress assessment framework must be also reformed to properly recognise the impact of abuse when calculating payments. Survivors should be able to rest assured that, should they ever seek a review of their payment, the end result won't be a reduction in their payment. The National Redress Scheme was the result of hard work and advocacy and courage and bravery of so many, and it is an important scheme. We owe it to survivors to get it right.

On the second anniversary of the national apology, let us renew our commitment to the Redress Scheme, let us renew our commitment to survivors and let us remind ourselves that there are many people out there who deserve redress and are not getting the redress that they deserve, and that goes very much to the heart of the matrix and the way in which the application process is designed. It should be designed so that—and people should get support to fill out that application—they get the maximum payment they are due. The pain is very real, and we must get this right.

See this speech in context