Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having listened to the previous speaker, I will record three brief thoughts in response—it was an interesting mix of fact and fiction. Firstly, I am a big fan of Geelong. In fact, I used to be the senior executive running all of the regional development staff in Geelong and spent a long time there traversing—

Ms Henderson interjecting—

No, public servants did not deal with federal politicians. That would have been improper. I served under the previous Liberal government and had a lot to do with the planning of Armstrong Creek and fully support what you said about the need to get that duplication happening. It is a critical growth area, both for housing affordability and to spread the urban pattern of Geelong. But, if the member was serious about infrastructure, she would join with Labor in asking this Commonwealth government to give Victoria more than eight per cent of the national infrastructure budget.

Ms Henderson interjecting—

We have 25 per cent of the population and probably a little more of the economy and we get about eight per cent of the national infrastructure budget. Have a look in the forward estimates. I am confident in those numbers. The final point is about the East West Link. As you said, the western section had the biggest BCR. So why did you fund the eastern section first? The project was abandoned for good reason. But that is a matter for another day.

Ms Henderson interjecting—

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

Order! I will have order in here. I remind the member for Corangamite that I asked the member for Bruce to let her speak in silence and I remind the member for Bruce to speak through the chair when he is referring to people.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. On another matter, I call on the government to have the decency to admit it got it wrong on the national redress scheme for the survivors of institutional child sex abuse. It is over a year since the royal commission recommended a national redress scheme and the government responded, eventually, with a half-baked model that fails to compel responsible institutions to account for the extraordinary harm they inflicted. The government itself acknowledges that only a national redress scheme can provide just outcomes, but it says it will 'invite other governments and institutions to opt in'. It is weak and it is pathetic. 'Opt in' is a phrase we might expect in relation to a mailing list, not for reparations for the sexual abuse of thousands of children. It is one year on, and how many states have joined? None—not one state. The Prime Minister's waffle says:

A truly national scheme requires the support of the states and territories.

Yet the government has spent over a year failing to win any support.

The conversations I have had in my local community with affected local residents, most recently Alan of Glen Waverley, are truly heartbreaking. The courage demonstrated by survivors, over years and years—in some cases by children who were abused in multiple state institutions and religious institutions—should be recognised. These institutions responsible have failed utterly to account for these most grievous wrongs and the federal government, in its shame, is failing survivors too. Institutions will not be forced to recognise the harm inflicted, individually or systemically, in their names and within their walls. They will not be compelled to provide appropriate financial compensation to those lives which have been irreparably damaged as a result. The recommendations of the royal commission were clear. They continue to call for a national redress scheme, not a year ago but on 7 March, and this week, as it enters its final session of hearings, the royal commissioner again said the government needs to look at this. This is important.

Survivors have waited decades for redress and, sadly, some will not live to see it realised. The government must acknowledge the flaws inherent in the scheme as proposed and commit to an effective national redress scheme as recommended by the royal commission. The opportunity to do so, to put this right and to do the right thing by survivors of child sexual abuse is in this budget. For some survivors, it is about acknowledgement; it is about recognition; it is about the apology. For some, it is about the money and the possibilities provided by compensation. But, for every single survivor, it is about justice. Labor calls on the government to do the right thing.

It is indicative, in my view, of the wrong priorities we see from the government—and we saw it again in question time today. The pattern is clear. In Liberal government land, the effort is put into protecting the wealthy and prosecuting a tax cut for the top end. For every million dollar earner, they get $16,000 in tax, yet they defend wage cuts to the lowest income workers. We will not stand for it. We say they are the wrong priorities. A good way to show that they really care, they have listened and they have heard the message is to do the right thing by properly funding a national redress scheme in the budget.

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

I thank the member for Bruce for his grievance debate speech on the national redress scheme. As he would probably aware, I have been working on it since 2009 and had a heavy involvement in getting the Prime Minister to announce it in the first place in October last year.

The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30