Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Institutional child sex abuse has lifelong impacts that compound over time. It derails life, sending people down passages lined with shame, grief and isolation. I remember a survivor who I met in the hospital ward during my rounds. Geoff was in his 50s undergoing chemotherapy for leukemia. He was a little rough around the edges, missing a few teeth, but chatty as he packed his belongings into various plastic bags. As I got to know him at his bedside, he disclosed that he had been a victim of child sexual abuse in Ballarat. I pondered the cruelty of life that would pile leukemia onto his already overloaded plate. We did our best to support him—a team of health professionals trying to scorch his leukemia but trying and probably failing to meet his psychosocial needs. How do you repair a life birthed in trauma?

One meaningful step in the process of healing is reparation. The Australian government is committed to improving the accessibility, transparency and cultural safety of the National Redress Scheme for the benefit of victims-survivors. The National Redress Scheme was established in 2018 for 10 years, following the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. These crimes—and they were crimes—occurred in polite society, right under our noses: in residential care, foster care, schools, community centres, churches and places of worship, and the juvenile justice system. The testimonies are horrifying.

A second-year review of the scheme was finalised in 2021, and some interim amendments followed. The purpose of the current amendment bill is to implement the key recommendations of the second-year review of the scheme. As at December of last year, there were over 34,000 applications to the scheme, of which around 15,000 have been finalised. Over 13,400 payments, totalling approximately $1.2 billion, have been paid out to survivors to date. As of December of last year, 506 non-government institutions are participating in the scheme, including churches, sporting clubs and organisations, schools, kindergartens, and community and charity groups. This means that the scheme now covers approximately 70,000 sites across Australia. Around 109 institutions have been declared under the funder of last resort arrangements, meaning that they are now defunct and the Australian government and/or the relevant state or territory government are underwriting them. The scale is staggering, but it's still not all of them.

There is a personal story behind each application that deserves to be heard. Martin's story is available on the scheme's website and it's worth watching. As a child, Martin, an Indigenous man, was arrested for stealing an $8 pair of jeans and was sent to a boys home. While there, he was sexually abused by people who were responsible for his protection. Martin did not talk about it for more than 50 years. After applying through the National Redress Scheme, Martin received an apology and a payment. He could not change what had happened but he did find a way to move forward that was right for him. The personal stories available on the royal commission's website are harrowing, but worth reading to understand what these people went through and how an entire system imprisoned their childhood with silence, gaslighting and fear.

Several themes were identified from the qualitative analysis that was done: the abuse reported was multidimensional, involving physical, sexual and emotional aspects; there was a pervasive culture of fear that allowed sexual abuse to flourish and that silenced victims, who were often shuffled between places; the abuse had long-term impacts to mental health, physical health, and career and education prospects, and this in turn led to ripple effects in damaging children, siblings and partners of survivors; repeated abuse and multiple perpetrators were common; abuse was preceded by a period of grooming; and the lack of training by authority figures, like health professionals, led to signs being missed or survivors not being believed.

Despite the horror of these events and the complete failure of adults—who are basically authority figures—to end these crimes, survivors were noted to display strength and courage, to have shown resilience. And many have gone on to form stable relationships in the face of adversity.

At the heart of this bill, the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023, is the wellbeing of survivors, which is why survivor input was key to the review process. Survivors contributed more than 450 submissions, surveys or consultations to inform the review. Additionally, all state and territory governments have been consulted and have agreed to these amendments. Note that the previous government took no active steps to engage with the relevant jurisdictions after receiving the final report in March 2021.

The Albanese government moved swiftly to organise a meeting of redress ministers in October 2022 and released the final government response in May of last year. Importantly, the government continues to encourage institutions to join the scheme, and there are consequences for those institutions that choose not to. These include public naming, restrictions on Commonwealth grant funding, and possible loss of their charitable status and associated tax concessions. The main amendments cover the following areas. The bill introduces a new reassessment process, making it fairer for survivors who may have been disadvantaged where an institution was not participating at the time their application was progressed. Where an institution identified in an application later joins the scheme, or where the government later agrees to be the funder of last resort, applicants will now have the option of having their application reassessed. The new process allows an applicant who proceeds with an application, where institutions are not participants in the scheme, to reapply and be reassessed when institutions later join. Currently, the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act does not allow applicants to submit further information when requesting a review of a decision. The second-year review found this position limits procedural fairness and risks the redress offered being reduced, thereby deterring survivors from requesting a review, contrary to the spirit of the scheme. We will allow applicants to provide additional information when requesting a review. The changes will also introduce a 'no worse off' provision so that redress offers are not reduced on review.

Currently, applicants who are sentenced to imprisonment for five years or longer for a single offence are not entitled to redress unless the operator is satisfied that providing redress to the applicant will not bring the scheme into disrepute. Applicants with a serious criminal conviction are required to now undergo a special reassessment process, and this is quite rigorous. The process includes seeking advice from the attorneys-general of the relevant jurisdiction; it might be the state where the offence or offences occurred and where the child abuse occurred. The special reassessment process has resulted in delays for this group of applicants. This bill limits the special reassessment process to specific classes of serious offences. These include people being imprisoned for five years or more for unlawful killing, sexual offences or terrorism offences, or where a risk to the integrity of the scheme exists. This will mean that these people will have to undergo special reassessment. This will remove a significant barrier for incarcerated survivors in applying for redress and will provide greater accessibility to the scheme for a cohort of survivors where there is an acknowledged impact of institutional child sexual abuse. Criminality is recognised as a downstream impact of child sexual abuse, with a litany of other problems that I've described.

The review identified some measures to improve the information protection framework. The changes will enable the scheme operator to disclose information to an applicant that an institution is not participating in the scheme—that is, their onboarding status. The amendment is designed to improve transparency with survivors on the steps taken by the institution they named in their application to join the scheme. This will allow survivors to make more informed decisions about their application. The need for this was highlighted by recent media concerning the status of Gymnastics Australia and the frustration by applicants who could not be advised of their status.

There are people who walk among us whose lives have been impacted by institutional child sexual abuse. It is important to amend this vital scheme to ensure it provides a continually improving model of redress. I encourage all institutions named in the applications to fulfil their moral obligation and join the scheme. As Martin says, 'I think a lot of survivors are ashamed to talk about what happened. What I'd say to people who feel ashamed and scared is: come forward and talk and go through the scheme. Get actual recognition about what happened to you. There is nothing to be ashamed about; just come forward and talk.' We acknowledge you, we believe you and we stand beside you. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context