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

I'm very pleased to rise to make a contribution to this debate this evening on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021 and to support the amendment moved by the member for Barton earlier. As always, it is an honour to stand in this parliament and try to give voice to survivors of child sexual abuse in institutions. As members of parliament, it is our job to ensure that the processes and systems for seeking justice, like the National Redress Scheme, are implemented and operating in the way which they were intended.

Labor welcome this legislation tonight because we believe that the reforms to the National Redress Scheme that are part of this legislation are absolutely essential to bring focus back to a survivor centred scheme. The process for seeking redress is, however, not at all timely, and I put this government on warning: if you think for one moment that 5,000-odd payments after three years of operating this scheme is a job well done, then you need to rethink. The process for seeking redress, as I said, has been far from timely. I will have more to say about this tomorrow, because the joint standing committee will be releasing our committee report, where we looked at a number of these matters. I put it to this government that it has been said again and again that the National Redress Scheme is not doing what it was intended to do.

This bill makes two changes. They are important changes. That is why Labor is supporting making these two changes to the National Redress Scheme for institutional child sexual abuse. The first bit is that it is extending the funder-of-last-resort provisions so that the states and territories or the Commonwealth government can agree to funding equally redress payments when an institution no longer exists. We now have many examples of this exact scenario, where the institution itself is defunct and there is no existing linked institution and there is no-one else you can turn to. Equally, there is an issue when an institution does exist but, even should it wish to, it is prevented from joining the National Redress Scheme because it doesn't meet the financial viability requirements. That is a statutory requirement. We do have institutions that, in all good faith, it would seem, have sought to try to join the scheme but have been unable to. These changes are important to deal with both those situations.

Institutions, also, might be able to partially participate in the scheme if they don't meet the current financial viability requirement, and that's a good thing too. They can still issue a direct personal response. They can still contribute to ongoing counselling and psychological support services, perhaps. But those partly participating institutions will need to agree to a reassessment of their financial position at least annually, and that's a good thing. That is the government making sure. They might well be able to become fully participating institutions down the track should they have that financial capacity to do so. Governments can agree to equally fund redress payments for those partially participating institutions in the meantime.

Secondly, this bill goes to further extensions of the public naming of institutions that refuse to join the scheme, and that is by allowing the public naming of an institution that hasn't joined the scheme but has an application before it. It would equally allow for the public naming of an institution that has not joined the scheme and is reasonably believed to be associated with abuse. These are good things in this bill. That's why Labor will be supporting this bill.

But do these things go far enough? Is this the best we can do for survivors? No. There are many shortcomings in this scheme. Indeed, the government failed to bring forward legislation in a timely manner to deal with what have been known shortcomings not for one year, not for two years, but for the entire three-year operation of this scheme. I have lost count of the number of times I have reported to this parliament on these shortcomings. I will again tomorrow.

But let's deal with the legislation before us now. There was a joint standing committee in the previous parliament that shone a big light on a number of these shortcomings. There is a joint committee that exists for this parliament. We have delivered two interim reports. We will be delivering the second one tomorrow. There will also be a final report. We had a statutory independent review conducted on the second anniversary. Do you know what? Each and every one of those reports has had pretty much the same thing to say. So there is a real question for this government. Why didn't you listen in 2019? Why didn't you listen in 2020? Are you going to listen in 2021? There are many people, many survivors of child sexual abuse, who currently don't have access to the National Redress Scheme. This is a matter that I will come back to in a moment.

There have been many occasions when I have stood in this House to argue that the National Redress Scheme must be unswervingly focused on ensuring that every decision we make as legislators is in the best interests of survivors. It must be trauma-informed in its approach and in its practice. That is the job for us as legislators here. This parliament made a national apology and we committed ourselves to delivering justice. That is the responsibility of all of us who stand in this parliament today. There are survivors of child sexual abuse in institutions who have consistently told us about their concerns about the National Address Scheme, and its many inadequacies, since day one. So don't be telling me now that we're going to do a co-design and sit with survivors. Survivors have sat in good faith for three years now talking to this government, giving evidence in joint standing committees and public hearings, and talking to the independent statutory review. The question is: is this government prepared to listen? That is the real question at stake here.

Robyn Kruk, in her second-year review of the National Redress Scheme, canvassed many of these inadequacies. On the ones that were already made and put before this parliament, she's added further weight to those inadequacies. Her report reinforced many of the issues we had already known, issues that this government had been put on notice about since 2019. There have been many reports since the royal commission and the commencement of the Redress Scheme, and many reports since the introduction of the scheme have highlighted that the scheme isn't working as planned. That's a golden opportunity to find out what is not working and to find a remedy. You don't hide things under the rug, you don't run away from those problems; you front them squarely and you find a way to deliver a just outcome for survivors.

It's incumbent on all of us to acknowledge that the changes represented in this bill are good, but they should have been implemented years ago. We should not have waited until nearly the end of 2021 for this to happen. Let's remind the House that the royal commission's recommendation on the issue of funder of last resort was very clear. The royal commission said in its conclusions that there is a broader social responsibility that goes to caring for and delivering justice to institutional child sexual abuse survivors. The royal commission report says:

Although 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. The broad social failure to protect children across a number of generations makes clear the pressing need to provide avenues through which survivors can obtain appropriate redress for past abuse. In addition to this broader social responsibility—

And this is the part I want this house to listen to—

governments may also have responsibilities as regulators and as guardians of children.

Damn straight there are responsibilities for this parliament! For some time now, Labor has called on all governments to act as funders of last resort, to ensure that there are not inequities baked into this scheme for survivors. I noted at the beginning of my speech that there are many survivors today who have absolutely no access to the Redress Scheme. That is a gross inequity. If this government isn't prepared to look hard at ways in which we can deliver justice for all survivors, that will be a gross failing. It will be marked down in history as having failed to deliver and honour that apology, that commitment, that we as a parliament gave to survivors.

While this bill aligns with Labor's position, it does not provide certainty for all survivors by any stretch of the imagination. Not everyone can, as I said, access this scheme as it is currently framed. Indeed, the joint standing committee heard horrific evidence from survivors of Kenja Communication, a cult-like organisation that has to date flatly refused to join the scheme and denies there is any legitimacy to the survivors' allegations of child sexual abuse. Sadly, there are currently no levers on the table that have been effective in bringing Kenja Communication into the scheme. They are not a registered charity, so that lever doesn't work for the Commonwealth. They are not receiving government funding, so you can't threaten not to deliver that funding.

There is some serious thinking to be done by this government as to how to deliver justice for those brave people like Michelle Ring, who gave evidence despite all the possible ramifications that that might have had for her as an individual on her job and her life. It is a traumatic thing for survivors to repeat their stories. But to then be told by the abusing institution, 'We don't believe you, we are not joining this scheme and you will never get justice'—just imagine for one moment how that feels. It is gut wrenching and it should not be beyond this parliament to consider mechanisms with which we can deliver genuine justice for all survivors. That is the test that I put to this government today; I put them on notice.

I don't hear anything yet that is going to deal and deliver justice for people like Michelle Ring and all those survivors of institutions that flatly refuse to accept responsibility for gross violations and abuses. Kenja Communication is not alone; I don't want the parliament to think it is the only one in this bracket. The CYMS Basketball Association in Victoria, Devonport Community Church in Tasmania and the Forrest Tennis Club in the ACT are all refusing to join the scheme. It is essential that this parliament consider ways in which we deliver justice to all survivors. It cannot be beyond us to do that.

See this speech in context