Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

When in December 2012 the Gillard government announced the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, there was enormous hope for so many who had suffered in silence for so long that they would finally be heard and believed. There was also recognition of their suffering and trauma that came to the forefront. There was an acknowledgement for them of the impact on their lives that that abuse had. And there was also enormous hope for redress for the loss and hurt that had been caused to so many people. In addition to that, there was also the hope that there would be justice, that perpetrators would be exposed and held to account. Equally importantly, there was an expectation that as a result of the royal commission others may be spared, in the future, from similar types of abuses as a result of the changes that would be made following the royal commission.

At the end of the royal commission in 2017—and it was a lengthy royal commission—there was a huge number of recommendations, and again that added to the hope of those who had suffered in silence for so long. The Redress Scheme was put into effect. The National Redress Scheme, I have to say, has gone a long way to delivering on the aspirations that those victims held when the royal commission was announced, and it has done a lot to assist many of them. But the reality is that it has not been without fault. The reality is also that there have been a lot of shortfalls and imperfections in the delivery of the scheme that have caused additional angst and suffering and hurt to many of those victims.

The legislation responds to the second-year review. The first- and second-year reviews were carried out precisely for that purpose—to see whether the Redress Scheme was delivering the outcomes that everyone had hoped for. In particular, responding to the second-year review, certain changes will be made by this legislation. It will create a fairer review process with no-worse-off provisions and allow new information to be provided in the appeal process, which was one of the areas about which there was a fair amount of concern and angst and frustration by many of the victims. It allows people with certain types of criminal records to make redress claims more easily, and I might come back to that a bit later if time permits. It makes the whole process more transparent by disclosing more information. And it allows greater access to the scheme for survivors of child sexual abuse.

I'm a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme. I certainly don't want to go into the details of what the committee has been doing as there will be a report in due course at some stage down the track about the current work of the committee, and there will be plenty of time for me to talk about those details at that time, but the reality is that we have been hearing considerable evidence from across the board about how well the scheme has been operating or how well it hasn't been operating. Many concerns have been raised in the course of the evidence that has been presented to the committee. Some of those concerns have been picked up in this very legislation, and that is a good thing.

I also note that, as a result of legislation, what has now been put out there and people's understanding of the scheme, the number of redress claims has been steadily increasing each year. That is possibly a good thing. What it is doing is giving people confidence that the scheme is working and therefore they might come forward and talk about what happened to them and what redress is available to them.

But also notable in saying that there has been a steady increase in the number of people that have come forward is that there has been a very high number of Indigenous Australians, people with a disability and care leavers who are now, in my view, overrepresented as victims of child sexual exploitation. By saying 'overrepresented' I mean that that cohort of people seems to be amongst those that were the most abused in their childhood. Perhaps that doesn't come as a surprise to everyone, but the reality is that those people—whether it's Indigenous people or people with a disability or care leavers—are less likely to be able to manage their own affairs and more likely to need more help and more assistance in the process of going through the administrative details that they must go through when they apply for redress under the scheme.

In fact, it's a fairly complex and complicated process. I suspect some of the victims would probably say: 'I simply cannot do it. I won't do it, because, quite frankly, it's in the past. I find it too hard, and I don't want to relive some of the things that I went through, in any event.'

Having said all that, my understanding is that there have been some 30,600 redress applications received to date and, of those, not quite half have been finalised. That tells me—and this has been borne out by other evidence as well—that it has taken a long time in many cases to deal with the applications once they have come in. That in itself can be traumatic to those people who have lodged an application. It not only takes a long time; each step of the way, they have to relive the experience by filling out different forms or providing different kinds of evidence and so on. That can sometimes actually add to the trauma that people are experiencing.

But there have been other things identified that I think need to be addressed in the months and years ahead when it comes to ensuring that the scheme delivers in the way that people hoped it would. I spoke earlier on—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:21 to 11:34

Just before the bells rang for that division, I was about to touch on some of the areas where I think the scheme could actually do better and where I believe many of the people who are seeking redress feel that, to some extent, they are being let down. I'm not saying that's always the case, and I'm sure there's a lot of good work still being done for all of those people. Nevertheless, improvements could be made in some areas, and I will just touch briefly on that.

I mentioned Indigenous people earlier on. Often, they are people who do not have access to the right support. They're sometimes poorly educated. Sometimes these people are living remotely and therefore don't have access to the kinds of legal support or avenues that otherwise might assist them with lodging claims. We need to do a lot better for them. One of the things that concerns me with Indigenous people is sometimes their applications, I believe, are being treated in a way where it's, 'Well, let's try and get through them as quickly as we can,' without looking at how and whether the redress that is being provided is fair and adequate for what they've experienced.

The same applies for people with a disability. Again, they're people who sometimes cannot manage their own affairs and who rely on others, and sometimes those others might have limited understanding of the scheme themselves or are in a position where they find it's all too hard and simply want to get the process over and done with as quickly as possible—again, potentially denying full redress to those people who are otherwise entitled to it. Those are not easy issues to deal with, but they have been raised in the course of my discussions with people and certainly in the course of the hearings that the committee has had when listening to people who have made submissions.

The other cohort, of course, is people across the board who are generally poorly educated. Again, poor education often results in poorer outcomes in every aspect of life, and that applies equally to the issue of redress where, again, they don't know who to go to, what processes to use, who to take advice from and the like. So, we need to try and help them.

The issue of people with criminal records, which comes up as part of this legislation, is an important one because quite often the people who were abused, as we all know, ultimately end up being either drug addicts themselves because of their experiences in life or end up in an institution, whether it's a prison or another facility, and then, in turn, are denied all the support that they need to get redress as well. We need to do better in that regard and I believe this legislation makes a huge improvement as far as that goes. That is improvement, because we need to understand that sometimes it was the initial abuse that has resulted in the situation that the person finds themselves in today.

There are two other areas that deeply concern me. There are institutions out there who are using every legal loophole possible to avoid their responsibility. We need to identify those loopholes and close them. I'm aware of cases where people have been denied redress through what I call a loophole in the law that currently provides the redress. I won't go into the details right now—I might talk about that in a subsequent speech, perhaps when the committee hands down its report—but there are areas that deeply concern me about that. Those loopholes need to be closed and all institutions need to be held fully accountable for actions which I believe they have some responsibility for.

The final matter that I will touch on is the number of either advocates or legal firms who, in my view, are now jumping onto the scheme as a form of revenue for themselves. They're going out there, seeking cases of redress, getting their commission along the way, or charging their fees for doing so, but not necessarily always putting the interests of the victim at the forefront. Those victims are being dealt with. They are being paid redress, but not always the amount that they're entitled to. And when they perhaps realise that later on, in some cases it's too late. I do understand that there might be a better system now available for them to have a review of what happened, even if they have been paid a redress in the past. But the issue of what I would loosely call the exploitation of victims by people making money out of the system is also a concern to me. I think this legislation, as I said from the outset, improves the scheme greatly. But it's not the end of the process, and I would like to think that, if other changes are needed, they will be enacted in the future.

See this speech in context