Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023. This legislation proposes to amend certain aspects of the National Redress Scheme which was established under the former coalition government. As a preliminary matter, I thought it might be helpful to recall how the National Redress Scheme was legislated. It came about as a key recommendation from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The royal commission was chaired by the Hon. Justice Peter McClellan and was Australia's longest royal commission to date, having run for more than four years. During that period, the royal commission heard from thousands of survivors across Australia. Their stories opened Australians' eyes to the prevalence of child sexual abuse, the failures of institutions to respond and the lifelong impact it brings to bear for victims as well as their families.

As I was not in this place at that time, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the survivors of institutionalised sexual abuse, their families and the organisations that have represented and supported them over many years—often decades. In a former life, I did a little bit of work for some of these victims when I was at a firm, David Begg & Associates, and I just want to acknowledge the work that David and one of my colleagues there, John Ellis, did.

But, mostly, I commend the courage of the victims who came forward with their harrowing claims of grotesque abuse. I was present in this chamber when the honourable member for Moreton said in his speech, 'There are no words, there are no adjectives, to describe the testimony that was given.' I said 'grotesque'. I used the thesaurus, and there are other words: 'reprehensible', 'repugnant', 'sickening', 'loathsome'. This was abuse of our most vulnerable, our children, by those in institutions, ranging from religious to educational, whose role was to protect, nurture and support those victims. Instead, on too many occasions, over too many years—decades in many instances—the abuse was hushed up to protect the reputation of the abusers and the institutions. Victims were not believed.

I also commend the work carried out by all of those involved in the royal commission. At the time of handing down his report, Peter McClellan described the conjunction of events examined by the royal commission as a national tragedy. He concluded that, while the primary responsibility for the sexual abuse of a child lies with the abuser and the institution of which they were part, the problems faced by many of the victims are the responsibility of our entire society. One of the key recommendations which arose from that was the establishment of the National Redress Scheme. The chief commissioner described it as a national tragedy. That's why it was entirely appropriate that legislation was brought into this place on a bipartisan basis to address that national tragedy.

The Redress Scheme recognises the suffering that survivors have experienced and accepts that these events occurred and that institutions must take responsibility for this abuse. The scheme remains the most significant step in addressing the wrongs of the past, providing some justice to survivors and trying to ensure, as we go forward as a nation, that this abuse never happens again. This also represents a very important step in healing. It ensures that governments and institutions will take those safeguards into the future. It is intended to provide a survivor with the means to access a sense of justice through monetary redress, restorative supports and, where the victim wants it, a personal apology or statement from the institution. Its purpose is to be faster, simpler and less distressing for survivors and to provide governments and institutions with the means to deliver justice to their survivors.

It was very pleasing to see that the scheme operates on a cooperative basis between Commonwealth, state and territory governments, underpinned by referral legislation in each state and territory. Its main components are a monetary payment of up to $150,000, counselling and psychological care, as well as a direct apology, if sought by the victim. As at June of last year, the average redress payment was $88,524.

There are a number of criteria that applicants need to meet for redress. Those criteria are: there was a reasonable likelihood the applicant was a victim of sexual abuse; one or more participating institutions are responsible for the abuse; the applicant was a child and an Australian citizen or resident at the time of the abuse; and the abuse occurred prior to the scheme start date.

The stated purpose of the bill currently before this place is to respond to recommendations from the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme. Its stated intention is to improve accessibility to redress, enhance choice for survivors, increase transparency and hold the scheme accountable.

To recap, this scheme was implemented as an acknowledgement by Australian state and territory governments that sexual abuse suffered by children in institution settings was wrong and that it did occur. It was a betrayal of trust and should never have happened. It is appropriate, therefore, that governments continue to review the scheme to ensure it remains an appropriate, fair and tangible form of redress for victims. To that extent, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context