Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the actions this Government has taken to establish the Commonwealth Redress Scheme (CRS) for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse;

(2) congratulates this Government for leading by example by establishing the CRS for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse and for inviting other governments and institutions to 'opt in' to the scheme on the responsible 'entity pays basis' recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse;

(3) acknowledges the courage of the survivors who presented evidence to the Royal Commission and that their past and continuing advocacy for redress is vital to the successful implementation of the CRS; and

(4) recognises that this Government acknowledges that survivors of institutional child sexual abuse need and deserve equal access and treatment.

The Turnbull government announced on 4 November this year a Commonwealth Redress Scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse and, on that day, invited states, territories and non-government institutions to join in the Commonwealth scheme to deliver redress to the survivors of these wrongs. It was a privilege for me to be there on the day that the Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, made the announcement in my home town of Perth. Much of the information that I will relay today will be information that Mr Porter included in his speech and also in documents about the redress scheme. Mr Porter said at the announcement:

Today's announcement is delivering on the Coalition's commitment to strive to ensure redress is provided for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse across Australia by the responsible institutions

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you are aware that, in the time that I have been in parliament, on many occasions I have called for redress from those institutions, the churches, charities and non-government institutions who sexually abused children during that period of time, and for them to stump up, return the money that was paid to them by governments and give some redress to these people who were wronged.

The government acknowledges that survivors of institutional child sexual abuse were abandoned and betrayed by many institutions, including governments, churches and charities. Some people may ask what the Commonwealth government Redress Scheme is. To put it simply, this scheme will provide support services to people who were sexually abused as children in Commonwealth institutional settings. It will offer a direct personal response for those survivors who seek it, psychological counselling and a monetary payment to acknowledge the wrongdoing inflicted upon survivors.

Along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the chamber, I think this has been a welcome announcement. I know there are some who may say it has taken too long, and there are others who will criticise the scheme and the processes. There will be others who also say that the scheme should be compulsory, but we cannot forget that this is about getting the best outcome for victims of sexual abuse. I know that some people have said, 'Can't the Commonwealth just establish a scheme for all survivors?'

The fact is that we cannot force the states to be a part of this national scheme. Our desire is to achieve the best option as soon as we can, and that is for a nationally consistent approach to redress so survivors across Australia get equal access and treatment. But the states and the institutions need to be on board to achieve this. We will continue discussions with the states in the hope that we can get the best outcome for survivors.

As I said earlier, while the Commonwealth is unable to force participation in a national scheme, the government will be working closely with states, territories and other non-government institutions to work towards maximising national consistency. A truly national scheme requires the support of the states and the territories. I would also look to those on the other side of the House to assist the states that are led by people in their party to get on board with this Redress Scheme, as I will be encouraging the Western Australian government to get on board with the scheme as well.

The Commonwealth scheme is expected to be established by 2018 and will offer a direct personal response for those survivors who seek it, options to receive psychological counselling and a monetary payment, comprising a maximum payment of $150,000, to acknowledge the wrongdoing inflicted upon them. As I have said many times, the money will never compensate for the abuse that they received, and the psychological and ongoing support that they need is probably just as important as the payment.

The government will also establish an independent advisory council as soon as possible, bringing together a broad group of specialists, including survivor groups, legal and psychological experts, to provide advice on the implementation of the scheme. Hopefully, there will be people from both sides of this chamber—at least one representative from each side of this chamber—on that independent board. Importantly, the government is taking strong action to prevent child sexual abuse in the future, working with state and territory governments, law enforcement agencies, the community sector and researchers to keep children safe. I just happened to see the member for Bowman make a stirring speech here before, in this same chamber, about child abuse and child sexual abuse. In particular, through establishing the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children and funding a range of early intervention and prevention services such as the children and parenting support program, Communities for Children and the Intensive Family Support Service, the central thing that we are trying to avoid in all of this is re-traumatising the victims, who have already been through an enormous amount.

In designing the blueprint for the Commonwealth Redress Scheme, we have exercised every available method and have endeavoured to give practical and operational effect to the recommendations of the royal commission. The design of the redress scheme operated by the Commonwealth is based on four principles. The first principle is that the Commonwealth Redress Scheme will not just be about facilitating individual monetary redress payments. Of equal importance to the individualised monetary redress payments is ensuring that the scheme develops and provides emotional, mental and other support mechanisms to people who are survivors of institutional abuse. So, as well as the monetary payments designed to provide some tangible recognition of the hurt and the harm that have been suffered by so many Australians, the Commonwealth scheme will also provide access for survivors to trauma-informed and culturally adapted counselling over the entire life of the scheme.

It will, thirdly, also allow for something that many redress schemes have not allowed for, and that is personal and direct contact being available, if sought by survivors, with responsible institutions. To put that in more detail, it will be open for any survivor, if they wish, to be able to tell directly and in person a very senior and appropriate individual located in the appropriate organisation their story, and what actually occurred to them. That will be totally at their wish, but that will be available to them as well. So part of all this is going to be a structured and available forum for the victims of sexual abuse to direct and give their stories in a meaningful, individualised way.

The second principle of the Commonwealth Redress Scheme will be that the Commonwealth will continue to do absolutely everything within its power to institute a Commonwealth scheme that has maximum reach to Australians, no matter where they suffered the abuse. The government will exercise every endeavour to make the reach of our scheme as broad as possible, with the ultimate point being to try and make the system that will operate across Australia as consistent as possible for each victim, each survivor, no matter where they were located.

Now to give life to this principle, and to use the direct language of the royal commission report, the Commonwealth will be the operator of a best practice redress scheme, which is open nationally for any state, any territory or any non-government institution to opt into the scheme. The government will be—and this is the second principle—the operator of an opt-in scheme. Any state, any territory, any church or any charity who has responsibility in this area will be able to opt into the scheme that the government has announced.

Consistent with the royal commission recommendations, where an entity opts into the scheme—whether they be a state, territory or non-government institution—they opt in on an opt-in basis. Using again the words of the royal commission, they would opt in on a basis that they fund the cost of their own eligible redress claims in accordance with the requirements of the redress scheme operator. The description of that second principle is this is an opt-in scheme that is operated on a responsible entity-pays basis, consistent with the recommendations of the royal commission.

The third principle on which the scheme will be based is that the Commonwealth, of course, as the operator of this scheme, will require opting in entities, whether they are churches, charities, state governments or territory governments, to abide by the process and design rules that we, the Commonwealth, will institute. The opt-in scheme that we establish will represent the absolute best practice scheme in Australia.

Central to being the best practice scheme, it will be as non-legal and as informal as all the circumstances will allow. Redress payments will be exempted from any potential Commonwealth debt recoveries that may be going on, or could in the future go on, with respect to the individual. Payments will be exempt from any income tests that are relevant to other government payments; so, if there is an income test that is relevant to a government welfare payment, the redress amount will be exempt from that assessment. The application process will be supportive, it will be simple, it will be flexible, and as much will be done as is reasonably possible to avoid the process of re-traumatisation. The scheme—and this is very important—will last for 10 years, and it will be flexible. At the end of that 10 years, there will be a review. If there is a requirement to extend the scheme, it will be extended.

I have run out of time, but I really do want to speak to all the survivors who have given their stories to the royal commission and congratulate them on their valiant efforts to bring to light the sexual abuse they suffered while they were in institutions. I wish them all the best for the future, and I am proud to have been part of the process that has brought this issue to this conclusion.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his heartfelt contribution. Is the motion seconded?

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion is seconded.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I thank the member for Swan for putting this motion on our agenda, and I also thank him for his engagement with this issue, which is so close to him. I cannot say I agree with everything he has said, but I do want to point to the recommendations in the royal commission. There were five key findings: firstly, that a national redress scheme should be established to process compensation claims for about 60,000 child abuse survivors; secondly, survivors with a reasonable likelihood of having been abused should receive at least $10,000 and up to $200,000 in the most severe cases; thirdly, that federal, state and territory governments should pay shortfall funding for institutions, which would be about $613 million or about 15 per cent of the total redress funding; fourthly, religious organisations and residential facilities for children should be liable for child sexual abuse in civil lawsuits—I think that is problematic; and, fifthly, unlimited counselling and psychological care should be available episodically through the survivors' lives.

In my view, the government has opted for the next best option with the 'opt in' proposal. There is real concern in the broader community about this element of an opt in. There will be a 10-year scheme, as the member said, which will commence in 2018 and could be extended past 2028 if that is required. The royal commission estimated the total cost of redress—at $200,000 for 60,000 abuse survivors—including administration costs, at about $4.3 billion, which is a significant sum of money. It is very clear that there are many, many Australians who have suffered as a result of the perversity and horrendous victimisation of child sexual abuse and suffered the depravity of those who have perpetrated that abuse on them.

I want to concentrate on evidence which the royal commission took from the Retta Dixon home in Darwin—one of a number of institutions for the stolen generations in the Northern Territory. There were seven institutions in the Northern Territory, where over 1,000 children were placed in homes. They were run by the church and funded by the Commonwealth government. These institutions were open at various times:

1. Croker Island Mission was a ‘half-caste’ mission located on the coast of Arnhem Land approximately 150kms by air from Darwin and run by the Methodist Overseas Missions …

2. Garden Point Mission on Melville Island, run by the Catholic Church and is about 60klms north of Darwin.

3. Kahlin Compound was on the same sight of the old Darwin Hospital over looking Cullen Bay on Myly Point—

It was administered by the federal government—

4. Retta Dixon Home on Bagot Road, Darwin run by the Aboriginal Inland Missions

5. Emerald Mission on Groote Eylandt near Angurugu community in the Gulf of Carpentaria.

6. St Mary’s near the Alice Springs Race Course run by Australian Board of Missions.

7. The Bungalow the Old Telegraph Station, Alice Springs.

I am indebted to Maurie Ryan and Tania Gaston for that information from their submission into the inquiry into the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008.

I am raising this because over the period we have done a really good thing. We have focused on the need to provide redress to those who have been harmed while in care. What concerns me though is that we, as a federal government—on both sides of the parliament—have failed to stump up to redress arrangements for members of the stolen generation. What that meant needs to be understood.

The Aboriginals Ordinance 1911 gave the Commonwealth the power, and gave to the protector of the native affairs, at that time—this was in 1913—the power to commit any Aboriginal half-caste to an institution in the Northern Territory until they reached the age of 18 years. That happened to so many wonderful people in the Northern Territory.

It is notable that the forcible removal of children was included in the definition of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crime of the Crime of Genocide. The Bringing Them Home report concluded that the forcible removal policies were a denial of common law rights and a serious breach of human rights. However, there have been no reparations for the stolen generations. They have not been forthcoming—save through the possibility of payments under this redress scheme, which we are talking about here this morning. Apart from the severe suffering and trauma of the children of the stolen generation who suffered sexual abuse while in the care of the state, they also suffered in the short- and long-term the affects of being simply members of the stolen generation.

As Sue Roman has so eloquently written, 'The nature of loss and harm experienced by a member of the stolen generation includes the loss of identity, family bonds, relationships and difficulties with parenting skills; the loss of cultural knowledge including language and traditional inherited rights; the loss of opportunity to be recognised as a traditional owner and member of a land trust under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the Native Title Act 1993; the lack of opportunity to own land, unlike non-Aboriginal Australians priding themselves in providing inheritance to their children; the lack of opportunity to gain formal and informal life skills from their families.' And they have suffered generational cycles of homelessness, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, poor health and shorter life expectancy.

These people have never had redress. I think now is the time. No government of any political persuasion has accepted the need to provide reparations or a redress scheme to members of the stolen generation. They have been forced to go to the courts and, sadly, have been unsuccessful. But in this context it seems clear that the Commonwealth cannot abrogate itself of the responsibility that it has had for the welfare of children of the stolen generation. The Commonwealth was responsible for the administration of the Northern Territory and of these ordinances. They gave the power to people to steal these children from their parents. It seems to me that as a mature nation it is now time for us to stump up and do the right thing by these people.

There is no doubt that many suffered from sexual abuse whilst in care. Of that there is no doubt. I relate just one submission from the Bringing them home report:

Q: Did any girls get pregnant at Garden Point when you were there?

I remember one and they actually took her off the Island. And when I ask everyone, like even now when I ask people about her, they don't know what happened to her …

Q: Who was the Father?

The Priest. The same bastards who …

Q: How do people know that?

Well, the reason they know is, Sister A, poor thing, who's dead—I know she was upset because that priest had that young girl living in his place.

This was systematic exploitation of young, defenceless people stolen from their families. Whilst these particular individuals suffered from sexual abuse and from the privations of sexual abuse, importantly, others also suffered from psychological abuse by being taken away from their family—which I think is a form of cultural genocide.

It is about time we, as a nation, understood our responsibilities and took them to heart in relation to the stolen generation. I do not think it is beyond our wit and wisdom to do that. But, sadly, we force people to go to the courts. But I now understand the Retta Dixon children are class action litigants suing the Commonwealth government for lack of duty of care. Previous actions in the Federal Court have failed in Cubillo and Gunner v Commonwealth [2000] FCA 1084 and Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1.

Now we have a capacity to do something about this. The Commonwealth did have a duty of care to these children. Never mind the reparations that should have gone to their parents for the fact that these kids were stolen in the first place, but the suffering these people have endured over generations now is something that I understand because I know members of the stolen generation and have done for many years. But they have, for whatever reason, been sidelined. Yes, they have been given Link-Up services. Yes, they have been given counselling support. Yes, they have been given other assistance. But at no point has the Commonwealth—and I am now talking of Labor as well as Liberal—accepted the principle that these members of the stolen generation, of whom there are very few left, should be entitled to reparations of the type we are seeing here today. Why not, I ask. It is a very simple question, and I think it remains an open wound on the soul of this country.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is depressingly obvious that so many young and vulnerable people have been failed by Australian institutions, both public and private, over a very long period of time. Institutions that have often worked to the net benefit of Australia and of those who are placed in their care have, nevertheless, failed thousands of individuals who have been wronged by the system, by society's collective neglect and by those institutions' dereliction of duty to the individual.

Sadly, the sensational stories that we read about in the press—and certainly there have been plenty emanating from my home state of South Australia concerning the operations of Families SA—are telling us that even today our systems are not perfect. Monsters are either harboured or at least allowed to operate within organisations that are charged with protecting children.

However, there is at least some good news. The Turnbull government has announced its intention to form a national redress system to provide support to those who have suffered sexual abuse in Commonwealth facilities. The government is determined that this should become a truly national scheme. Because it is important to have conformity across Australia, we are urging the individual states and private and religious based organisations to make this vehicle a one-stop shop for those who have suffered. Inevitably, all of the individual organisations must meet the cost of addressing the problems of those that they have failed. But I think it is very important that they come under one umbrella so at least those who have been violated know where to go to and will be getting the same type and level of attention that they would had they reported it in any state in Australia.

The scheme will allow for compensation of up to $150,000 per person, bringing it in line with the schemes that now operate in Victoria and New South Wales and that some of the major non-government institutions have adopted. It remains important that the rest of the states and organisations come on board so that people know they will receive the same attention from one end of Australia to the other. An independent advisory committee will be appointed as soon as possible—and I look forward to that so that we can get on with the job. The scheme will run for 10 years. Hopefully, by that time, the backlog of issues will have been addressed. If they have not, one would assume that the government of the day will come back to the table and reassess that position. But 10 years is a very suitable period of time and I thank the government for making that commitment.

This is not only important so that people can now receive the services and compensation that they need to try and ameliorate the damage that was done to them; it is a very important public recognition of the systems Australia-wide to deliver to individuals the care and protection that they should have. It is planned that the scheme will be operating by 2018. I look forward to that day. For the last 12 months, the government has tried repeatedly to bring all the parties on board. But we have not reached the level of cooperation that we had hoped for. That is why we have chosen to just get on with the job—to fulfil our obligations, to lead by example and to perhaps shame the stragglers to come on board. Well done to the government and the ministers responsible.

We apply ourselves to the errors of the past, but as legislators in this place it is important that we remain attuned to the needs of the children of today. There are not so many children held in institutions anymore, but some are living in unsafe environments. Some are removed from their home. Some homes are plainly terrible. Sometimes I think our institutions have lost the gumption to do they what they have to do—that is, removal. Whether the children are removed and put into foster care, or however they are cared for, we must make sure it is a safe and caring environment. I commend the motion to the House.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The abuse of children in the care of institutions in our country has been one of the most appalling chapters of Australia's recent history. No country should stand by and let this horrifying sexual abuse and shocking violence happen, and no country should stand by and let perpetrators get away with these crimes. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse delivered its second interim report in September 2015. This report sets out the royal commission's recommendations for the establishment of a national redress scheme. Such a redress scheme, the commission found, can provide a critical part of the healing process for victims and survivors of this abuse.

Labor is very proud to support a national redress scheme that will relieve some of the pain of the survivors of these horrendous crimes and Labor is ready to work with the government to ensure that the sufferers of this abuse get the redress that they deserve.

Labor believes that the costs of redress must be met by the institutions responsible for the perpetrators of the abuse. These institutions damaged the lives of thousands of Australians, and they should pay appropriate compensation. The royal commission recommended that a national redress scheme should include a direct personal response from the responsible institution if desired, including but not limited to an apology; counselling and psychological care services; and monetary payment of between $10,000 and $200,000 per victim to recognise the wrong suffered. The size of each payment would be determined by criteria that assessed the severity of the abuse.

Labor is very proud to have established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. I am very proud of the small role that I played as Attorney-General in the establishment of the commission. This royal commission has given an opportunity to thousands of people who are the survivors of these sickening crimes to be heard. For many, it was the first opportunity they had to speak in public about their ordeals. I acknowledge the extraordinary men and women who have spoken of their horrific abuse at the hands of institutions at the public hearings of the royal commission and at the private sessions that it has been possible to arrange under the legislation that we passed to establish this particular royal commission.

Labor understands the devastating toll that this abuse has had on thousands of Australians, including many who are no longer alive to see this royal commission's recommendations. Labor understands that thousands of survivors of institutionalised abuse are seeking an apology from their abusers. These apologies must acknowledge the wrongs that were committed and accept responsibility for the harm and suffering that the institutions have caused. Many of the thousands of Australians affected by institutional abuse have a need for ongoing professional counselling. The institutions responsible for the abuse must be held accountable and meet the cost of this counselling. Survivors whose lives have been changed by the malicious and criminal acts of their abusers should be entitled to appropriate monetary consultation. The compensation, for some, will help them to sustain their lives. For others, a monetary payment will reflect a small recompense for the mistreatment and abuse that they suffered.

Labor is pleased to see that the Turnbull government has recently and at long last committed to a redress scheme, although we have serious concerns about several aspects of the Turnbull government's scheme. Under the proposed scheme, states and institutions responsible for perpetrating child sexual abuse can opt into the scheme. This means that, if the institutions that perpetrated the abuse do not want to pay, they will not have to. We are very concerned that the government appears not to have made sufficient effort to enlist the support of the states before making the announcement of the proposed scheme. This is too important for survivors. They should not have to face this extra uncertainty. This government has had over a year to do this important work, and it appears that it has not done enough. Survivors of child sexual abuse have been waiting their whole lives for redress for the crimes perpetrated against them as children. They should not have to worry about whether states or institutions are eventually going to decide to opt into the redress scheme. Redress needs to be provided to all survivors regardless of which state or territory they were abused in or now reside in, regardless of whether the institution was a government or non-government institution, and regardless of whether the abuse occurred in more than one institution, whether the institution still exists or, indeed, the assets available to the institution. (Time expired)

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too strongly support this move for redress and compensation for those who were involved in institutional sexual assault in these settings and the terrible wrongdoing inflicted on survivors that has been recognised here today. I will refer briefly to what has been a bipartisan effort, starting with the royal commission under the previous administration and then the redress scheme that was announced earlier this month.

But I also want to note that, in many cases, apologising on behalf of our predecessors is a privilege that we earn by ensuring that no such injustice occurs under our own watch. While it would be quite easy to remove the words 'institutional abuse' and substitute other forms of abuse that are occupying this building even as we speak this morning, we must be absolutely certain that the precursors and antecedents of this kind of abuse do not simply lead, generations later, to large redress schemes because we did not act on what was right in front of our eyes.

As a politician paid to talk,    I must confess many in the community are getting sick of talk. While money is a small proxy and substitute for talk, we would actually like to see these things addressed in real time and prevented. We can talk about institutional abuse, which was the issue over the last century. Right now we have complete separation of Indigenous Australia from economic and employment opportunities, leading to what we marched on today. And finally, in Queensland, we have a complete outbreak of child violence, injury and unexplained death due to an increasing use of ice and, most importantly, child protection cases not being adequately investigated at the time. It is so simple to apologise a generation later, isn't it? We do not have to look anyone in the eye who was actually there at the time except those who come and tell us a generation later. But we have exactly the same thing happening now.

So I am absolutely delighted that, in our term, we can do our best to draw a line under what happened in these institutions; invite other governments to be part of that; and actually identify and talk about, as a number of the previous speakers have done, the institutions that were involved. We are acknowledging openly the suffering of survivors, and of course the $550 million to $750 million compensation scheme with a per capita cap on that is an early start. But many will still have questions about how the scheme will work and whether there will be other conversations that could have come through other channels that will be denied them because of the Commonwealth Redress Scheme.

In Queensland we are talking about protection of children and an explosion in domestic violence. We are talking about cases that are not adequately investigated. If you go to North Queensland, where there has been some talk already, in North Queensland we have 826 substantiated cases of abuse but 2,631 unsubstantiated cases and, extraordinarily, 209 cases closed with no outcome at all. Where public notifications require an investigation of a tragic circumstance like this, 79 per cent of the cases are not seen within the required 10-day period. Where it is deemed to be incredibly urgent—and this notification requires a five-day investigation—fully 74 per cent of them are not investigated in the appropriate time. At the same moment as we apologise for our predecessors, we are seeing an explosion in the prevalence of family risk factors in these substantiated households. We are seeing family risk factors like, obviously, being abused as a child, criminal history in the household and domestic and family violence. But we are seeing drug and alcohol abuse increase by 12 per cent, not over a generation but since 2011, as a cause for child suffering, neglect, injury and death. Of course, we have mental health issues going from 37 to 49 per cent. I can see that greater recognition and identification of mental health may be a good thing even though, in a quantifiable sense, the number is increasing.

In causes of death in my state of Queensland—the one that I can speak of with some authority—we had 50 deaths of children at June 15 last year. It is 51 this year. Despite all of our work in accidents, halving the rate of suicide in Queensland over those two small samples, and getting control of SIDS and other unrelated conditions, we have seen a doubling of unknown or yet to be determined causes from 10 to 18 children this last 12 months. These need to be addressed as much as the redress scheme is required for the generations that came before. (Time expired)

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be speaking on this motion moved today by my friend the member for Swan. He and I have done a lot of work together on these issues, and I commend him for all that he has done. As the motion indicates, the Turnbull government announced in early November that it would implement a national redress scheme. Of course, we understand that no amount of money can make up for the pain and trauma experienced by the survivors of child sexual abuse, but we believe that redress can be a very important step along the road to healing for survivors of child sexual abuse. That is why Labor announced back in October 2015 that we would establish a national redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.

Of course, it was a Labor Prime Minister who, some seven years ago now, apologised to the forgotten generations. The member for Swan was very helpful in making that a very important occasion. It was Labor under Prime Minister Gillard that established, more than three years ago, the royal commission into institutional child sexual abuse.

We do acknowledge the decision by the current government to fund trauma counselling and other supports. It is a very important decision they have made. We also acknowledge the decision to appoint an advisory committee made up of survivors and their supporters. We believe that these are important developments and we welcome them. However, federal Labor does have concerns about the Commonwealth government's proposed opt-in redress scheme for survivors of child sexual abuse. Under the proposed scheme, states and institutions responsible for perpetrating child sexual abuse can opt-in to the scheme. Labor is concerned that this means that, if institutions that perpetrated the abuse do not want to pay, they will not have to. Many survivors of institutional child sexual abuse have been waiting their whole lives to redress and they should not have to worry about whether or not states or institutions decide to opt-in to the redress scheme.

I was at the AGM of the Care Leavers Australia Network, otherwise known as CLAN, a couple of weeks ago and I heard yet again firsthand their view that the opt-in nature of the scheme is a very big worry for survivors. The idea that some institutions responsible for these crimes might decide not to opt-in to the redress schemes offends their sense of justice and, I would have to say, mine. As I told the 'CLANies' that day, Labor will continue to fight for them. We will fight for a fair and consistent redress scheme so that people get the compensation they deserve. We will, of course, continue to work closely with all of those involved to scrutinise the details of the scheme when it is fully release. We will do all that we can to make sure that survivors have access to one national scheme, as recommended by the royal commission.

We are also very concerned that not a single state or territory has agreed to be part of the scheme. Until these negotiations are finalised and survivors have certainty that they will get what they deserve, I am sorry to say that this announcement will be of very little comfort. That is why I urge the Turnbull government to immediately secure the agreement of each state and territory government and the institutions responsible for abuse to make this a truly national redress scheme. Redress can be achieved only if perpetrators of child sexual abuse are required to pay redress to survivors.

I want to finish by acknowledging the extraordinary courage of survivors as they have come forward to the royal commission. The evidence given at the royal commission has shocked many Australians. I want to take this opportunity here today to acknowledge the way in which people have come forward and told their stories. For years they were not believed. I want to say to them today that you are believed. We believe you and it is time for justice. (Time expired)

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start by also acknowledging my good friend the member for Swan, Steve Irons, and the work he has done as a co-patron with me of Care Leavers Australia Network, CLAN, and in raising this issue in the parliament today. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Jagajaga, who, as shadow minister responsible for Labor's response to these issues right now, but also as minister, has been absolutely critical in seeing the apology to the forgotten Australians take place, as it did just over seven years ago today. Indeed, the member for Jagajaga, as minister, was instrumental in seeing the royal commission established. In absentia, I acknowledge Jason Clare, the Member for Blaxland, who is a patron of Care Leavers Australia Network and has been very active in this space. I am a proud patron of CLAN. The work I do in this space is as important as anything I do in this building—as anything I have done in parliamentary life.

I would like to acknowledge Leonie Sheedy and Joanna Penglase, who founded CLAN and, between the two of them, have been amazing in raising this issue. Their determination and their relentlessness, which we are all very familiar with, has taken this from an issue which I did not know about to one which is now very much on the national stage. It was principally their energies which led to the apology to the forgotten Australians back in 2009, and it was principally their energies which led to the former Labor government establishing the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

It is important to say at the outset that the story of those who grew up in orphanages is not all about sexual abuse. There are wider dimensions to that story, but there is no doubt that the sexual abuse that occurred to them as children is a very significant part of the story, as a very significant proportion of people who grew up in orphanages suffered that fate. Like the Member for Jagajaga, I would also like to acknowledge the bravery shown by those people who were prepared to tell their stories to the royal commission. Having met a lot of 'CLANies', as I know the members for Swan and Jagajaga have both done, you realise the extent to which what occurred to them as children now impacts their lives on a daily basis. There is courage involved in being prepared to stand up and tell your story with a degree of publicity—and the fear of not being believed. But, like the member for Jagajaga, I want to make it very clear that what came from the national apology and what came from the royal commission was a statement by this country that we absolutely do believe what they have said and the veracity of it.

But for them telling their stories, we would not now have this as part of the national story and we would not have the responses which we are now debating in this chamber today. In that respect, I would like to acknowledge Vlad Selakovic, who is a constituent of mine and a 'CLANie' who has done fantastic work, and also Anthony Sheedy—Leonie's brother—who passed away a few years ago. He was a constituent of mine and he was incredibly brave in the way he dealt with the lot that he had been given in his life.

Back in January 2015 the royal commission recommended a national redress scheme. That was no surprise because almost from the day I met Leonie she was making it clear how important a national redress scheme was—in part, the compensation that comes from that but, most of all, the acknowledgement that comes with it of what actually did occur. I was really proud that in October last year, through the member for Jagajaga, it was Labor's position to support a national redress scheme and whilst acknowledging the government's announcement, which forms part of this resolution earlier this month, I share the member for Jagajaga's concerns about the fact that what is being proposed is an opt-in scheme. The reality is that for those who experienced this, there was no opt-in. For anyone who has been a victim of child sexual abuse, it is critical that they get the recognition that comes from a redress scheme. Everybody deserves that. This needs to be a genuine national redress scheme, without the opt-in as part of it.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting day.