Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

Of course, when public pressure could no longer be resisted and the Liberals faced the prospect of a backbench revolt over the cover-up scheme it was running for the big banks, the government, finally, grudgingly, agreed to hold a royal commission into the financial services industry. And, as the horror stories of industrial-scale rip-offs and rapacious behaviour by unethical banks unfolded before Commissioner Hayne, the crocodile tears started flowing. 'Oh, how could we have known?' cried the Liberals! And after Commissioner Hayne delivered his report in February 2019, the Morrison government received it with furrowed brows, promising to act on the deeply concerning findings and recommendations for reform that it contained. Yet, now, almost two years after the Prime Minister committed to implementing all 76 recommendations of the banking royal commission, the government has still only implemented barely a third of them while it delays and waters down others.

Yet again, Australians can see a prime minister who loves to stand before the cameras to make grand announcements concocted by his marketing team but who afterwards quietly slides away from taking the action he promised and, as we saw just this morning, shutting down any criticism or any debate of their failure to implement the excellent recommendations of the Hayne royal commission—which brings me back to the current bill and the scheme it seeks to amend, the National Redress Scheme.

In September 2015, the royal commission released its report on Redress and Civil Litigation. This redress report was an interim report, but it set out the commission's concluded view on the question of redress. It was an unusual device, but it should have worked. Regrettably, it didn't. The commission issued that interim report more than two years ahead of its final report because, as it said in the report:

By reporting as early as possible on these issues, we are seeking to give survivors and institutions more certainty on these issues and enable governments and institutions to implement our recommendations to improve civil justice for survivors as soon as possible.

In keeping with this sense of urgency, one of the recommendations in the redress report was:

The Australian Government should determine and announce by the end of 2015 that it is willing to establish a single national redress scheme.

The report also said that the national scheme should be:

… ready to begin inviting and accepting applications from survivors by no later than 1 July 2017.

It is deeply regrettable that this Liberal government showed no real interest in doing the work required to establish a national redress scheme. This is demonstrated by the fact that it did not fulfil the royal commission's recommendations and deadlines. There was total silence from the government. Meanwhile, the survivors of child sexual abuse waited anxiously for justice to be done at last. Some of them have now died waiting. This is a tragic demonstration of the adage that justice delayed is justice denied.

Finally, on 1 July 2018, a year after the deadline set by the royal commission, a redress scheme was at last established, in response, once again, to growing public pressure. While we supported that scheme at the time it was established, we also expressed a number of very serious concerns about its design. Sadly, those concerns have been borne out, and, while it makes a number of technical and minor amendments to improve the scheme, this bill clearly does not go far enough. The very first recommendation of the royal commission's redress report is titled 'Justice for victims'. It is important that we do not lose sight of this fundamental point. The redress scheme must be about delivering justice to survivors of the heinous crimes committed against them. That first recommendation states:

A process for redress must provide equal access and equal treatment for survivors—regardless of the location, operator, type, continued existence or assets of the institution in which they were abused—if it is to be regarded by survivors as being capable of delivering justice.

Recommendation 2 sets out three foundations by which the proposed redress scheme would provide justice. It states:

Appropriate redress for survivors should include the elements of:

a. direct personal response

b. counselling and psychological care

c. monetary payments.

The primary concerns we in Labor have about the Redress Scheme the Morrison government has set up relate to the failure of the scheme to properly provide for the second and third elements of the scheme recommended by the royal commission. There is not enough time today for me to discuss all of the significant failings of the Redress Scheme this government administers and what needs to be done to improve it, but I want to make it clear that we are moving amendments to encourage the Morrison government to provide a better response to survivors of childhood sexual abuse by making a number of significant changes to the scheme. I'll briefly outline some of the changes that we are calling for.

First, we are calling for the maximum payment to survivors to be increased to $200,000, as recommended by the royal commission. The royal commission made this recommendation after careful deliberation and extensive evidence regarding the appropriate monetary payment that would provide tangible recognition of the seriousness of the hurt and injury suffered by a survivor. While payments under the Redress Scheme are not meant to be compensatory in the same way in which damages from a civil claim against an abuser would be, I note that survivors of the most heinous forms of child sexual abuse in institutional contexts have been recovering in excess of a million dollars in civil actions against their abusers. These are, of course, in civil actions. The Redress Scheme is designed to serve a different purpose. In this context, the decision of this government to reduce the maximum amount of redress payable to survivors of the most serious forms of child sexual abuse to $150,000 reflects not only a failure to adhere to the recommendations of the royal commissioners but also a deep meanness of spirit. How is it that this government had no problem finding over $80 billion to give to big businesses in tax cuts and could pay $30 million to a donor for land at the new Sydney airport site worth $3 million but says it has no choice but to short-change the survivors of childhood sexual abuse?

We're also calling for the Redress Scheme to be amended so that it provides necessary ongoing psychological counselling and support for survivors of abuse. Recommendation 9 of the redress report of the royal commission stated that: 'Counselling and psychological care should be available'—and this was the commission's phrase—'throughout a survivor's life.' Recommendation 11 deals with the need for ongoing care by explicitly stating:

Redress should fund counselling and psychological care as needed by survivors rather than providing a lump sum payment to survivors for their future counselling and psychological care needs.

The Redress Scheme established by this government directly contradicts those explicit recommendations of the royal commission and instead provides for a lump sum payment for counselling and psychological services. This is cause enough for concern, but of even greater concern to us is that the maximum amount of the lump sum payment that will be available is $5,000. To put this amount in perspective, the Australian Psychological Society's current recommended schedule of fees sets the standard fee for a 45- to 60-minute consultation at $260. That means that a survivor who received the maximum redress payment for counselling and psychological services and who paid a standard fee to a psychologist for individual sessions would be able to pay for 19 sessions with a registered psychologist.

The royal commission consulted extensively with survivors, their families and mental health experts in making its recommendations, and—given that it has recommended the need to provide for psychological care on an ongoing basis, when it is required, for the rest of a survivor's life—it is very concerning that a decision has been made to instead provide a lump sum payment of only $5,000 for a lifetime of psychological care. That is 19 sessions only, even for survivors of the worst kinds of child sexual abuse, to support their mental health for the rest of their lives. Of course it's true that some survivors may not seek psychological support at all, but some survivors who will make claims for redress will need far more than the $5,000 on offer under this scheme. Some may still be teenagers, with many years of psychological struggle ahead of them. In ignoring the explicit recommendations of the royal commission for lifetime care in this context, the government was obviously not informed by any kind of medical evidence or concerns for the mental health of survivors. It's my sincere hope that this government recognises the many failings of the redress scheme it administers and makes further amendments beyond those contained in this bill, to ensure that the scheme delivers justice for survivors.

In conclusion, I reiterate that, while holding a royal commission can provide a powerful means to inquire into an injustice or other matter of great public importance that would otherwise remain hidden, just as important as holding that inquiry is how the government responds to its report and recommendations. This is clearly demonstrated in the case of the banking royal commission, many of the recommendations of which the Morrison government is doing all it can to delay, undermine and ignore, and it's also true with this royal commission's report. (Time expired)

See this speech in context