Dave Sharma (Wentworth, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021. I expect members here would recall when the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was established in 2013 by the Gillard government, and members could not fail to remember quite vividly some of the thousands of people who came forward to that royal commission to talk about the abuse they had experienced as children, the abuse they had experienced in orphanages, in children's homes, in schools, in churches, in other religious organisations, in sports clubs, in hospitals, in foster care and in many other institutions—institutions where you would expect, and we should all expect, children to be treated with care, love, courtesy and respect, not to be subject to the sorts of horrific tales and stories of abuse we heard at the royal commission.

The stories we heard through that process were shocking, they were appalling, and they were heartbreaking. Since that time, we've come some way towards national healing, but there is still a very long way to go. There was of course an apology to the survivors of that institutional child sexual abuse, and there is also now the National Redress Scheme, which was set up as one of the recommendations of the royal commission partly as a means of providing recognition for the survivors but also as a means of providing, however imperfectly, a form of restitution. I believe that the National Redress Scheme, whilst it has its imperfections and needs improvements, has fulfilled an important healing role in addressing this at a national scale.

The bill before us today consists of amendments to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018, the enabling act, and forms part of the government's further response to recommendations from the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme undertaken by Ms Robyn Kruk AO. I also sit on the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, and I've heard some of these stories and been involved in some of the debates and discussions about how the scheme can be improved. I believe that some of the measures in this bill go some way towards addressing those concerns.

This bill amends the act to make a major change to the scheme to allow more survivor applications to be progressed, through expanding the funder of last resort provisions. That has been a consistent theme from those who have appeared before the joint standing committee. The bill will increase survivor access by, in part, enabling the government to be a funder of last resort for applications that name institutions that no longer exist and where there is no overarching organisation to take responsibility for the institution. It's also for institutions that are unable to meet the legislative requirements to participate in the scheme as they don't have the financial capacity to pay their redress liability. This will allow more survivors to access more funder of last resort provisions. Where an institution is still operating but is unable to join the scheme, they will have the option to partly participate in the scheme, and although unable to fund their redress liability they will be able to provide a direct personal response—one of the components of redress—such as in the form of an apology.

Importantly, the expanded funder of last resort arrangements contained in this bill will not cover institutions that can join the scheme but choose not to. These institutions would not only continue to be strongly encouraged to join the scheme; they will also continue to be subject to financial consequences applicable to those institutions that refuse to join. Importantly as part of those naming and shaming provisions, the bill confirms that institutions named in applications to the scheme or institutions that the scheme operator has a reasonable belief have a connection with the abuse of a person can be publicly named. The public naming of institutions already occurs, but what this change does is put this practice specifically in the legislation for the avoidance of any doubt. Public naming provides survivors who have applied for redress and those considering applying for redress with information on the institutions participating in the scheme. Public naming has also proved successful in encouraging otherwise reluctant institutions to join the scheme.

The government recognises that people who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse have waited too long for redress, and, in particular, those survivors of institutions that are now defunct or have been unable to join the scheme. This is part of a response to that. The government has committed to prioritising initial action on 25 of the 38 review recommendations in the second-year review undertaken by Robyn Kruk either in full or in part and is committing over $80 million over four years in the 2021-22 budget to support the implementation of these recommendations. Until this legislation is passed there will remain a substantial number of survivors who cannot access redress. Particularly given the vulnerable cohort of survivors, including elderly and terminally ill applicants, it's important that we pass this legislation soon.

This bill components the government's continuing efforts to improve the scheme. We are committed to doing so. It's the third piece of legislation this year aimed at improving the scheme, and it's the second bill making amendments to the act in direct response to the recommendations made as part of the review. This bill, along with the previous bill, is not the full extent of the government's actions in response to the review. The government has released its interim response to the review, which provides further detail on action that will be taken in response to recommendations and notes that a staged and considered approach is needed.

One important element of the review's recommendations was for substantial scheme design changes, but the way the scheme has been set up means that such changes require that there be agreement from participating state and territory governments and that the government undertake further development work in consultation with these state and territory governments and with survivors, institutions and other stakeholders. The government will continue to consider and consult on these issues over coming months.

Survivor input and the often traumatic sharing of survivor experience have been critical not only to the establishment of this scheme but also to the improvements we've made to the scheme. I want to thank those many survivors who have not only participated in the royal commission but also remained engaged in the process since and who continue to share their wisdom and their own experiences. These are critically important to undertaking busier abuse and to improving the scheme.

In the second review, which has just been undertaken, we had survivors contribute more than 250 submissions and participate in surveys and consultations to inform the outcomes of the review. In accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement on the National Redress Scheme, which governs the operation of this scheme, all state and territory governments are being consulted on the bill and have provided their agreement to the amendments. I commend this legislation to the House.

See this speech in context